Should Legislators Have to Disclose Harmful Consequences of Legislation?
This week, I have some questions about the consequences of legislation from Navy Veteran Howard M. He says:
“Proposed legislation tells us who will benefit from it but not who will be harmed by it. When things go wrong because of bad legislation, politicians tend to pass it off as unintended consequences, but when we know what those consequences are likely to be, and if they are not good for one or more groups of people, and since we cannot read minds, who can be sure if they are unintended or deliberate?
Putting together Bastiat's essay, That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Unseen and Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson, my question is, could better laws be made if every proposed piece of legislation required an explanation of foreseeable harmful consequences?”
Howard asks a couple of good questions here—first about the intentions of lawmakers and second about a policy intended to highlight the downsides of policies. I’ll begin by discussing the economics of politics.
One way to think about government and the politicians who populate it is that the government is an all-knowing, all-powerful, benevolent organization which seeks to further the welfare of society first and foremost.
It’s probably obvious to you that this would be a silly way to think about politics. Nonetheless, this sort of thinking is exactly what is assumed when researchers talk about finding the “optimal...
Tehran – Saba: The Iranian Foreign Ministry condemned the subversive actions taken by the rulers of Abu Dhabi against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Last night, Tasnim News Agency reported that the...