Does that suggest that we should give up? I hope not. However, it is always smart to go in with our eyes wide open and ideally with some good data backing up our presumption that this good thing is in fact a good idea.
Take that desire to "do good" and apply it to a governmental agency and the opportunity for unintended consequences magnifies exponentially.
Example: banning drilling for oil in many domestic sources is good (we assume) for the environment. And yet, how many ways will $4.19 per gallon gas and $140 per barrel oil impact our national economy, our trade deficit, our personal budgets, our ability to donate money to charities or save for the future, and yes, ultimately, even our ability to invest in environmental initiatives?
Today I saw an article (hat tip to Byron York at The Corner) that exposes yet another example of governmental policies and initiatives whose results are diametrically oposed to the original intent. The article, in TheAtlantic.com, is extraordinarily well researched and well written. I won't try to synopsize it here except to quote these two paragraphs. Read the entire article for yourself and then comment away.
Falling crime rates have been one of the great American success stories of the past 15 years. New York and Los Angeles, once the twin capitals of violent crime, have calmed down significantly, as have most other big cities. Criminologists still debate why: the crack war petered out, new policing tactics worked, the economy improved for a long spell. Whatever the alchemy, crime in New York, for instance, is now so low that local prison guards are worried about unemployment.
Lately, though, a new and unexpected pattern has emerged, taking criminologists by surprise. While crime rates in large cities stayed flat, homicide rates in many midsize cities (with populations of between 500,000 and 1 million) began increasing, sometimes by as much as 20percent a year. In 2006, the Police Executive Research Forum, a national police group surveying cities from coast to coast, concluded in a report called “A Gathering Storm” that this might represent “the front end … of an epidemic of violence not seen for years.” The leaders of the group, which is made up of police chiefs and sheriffs, theorized about what might be spurring the latest crime wave: the spread of gangs, the masses of offenders coming out of prison, methamphetamines. But mostly they puzzled over the bleak new landscape. According to FBI data, America’s most dangerous spots are now places where Martin Scorsese would never think of staging a shoot-out—Florence, South Carolina; Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina; Kansas City, Missouri; Reading, Pennsylvania; Orlando, Florida; Memphis, Tennessee.
3 comments:
Missouri has concealed-carry. The voters voted it down three or four elections in a row, and then the state legislature approved it and the governor signed it into law. So much for the will of the people. The expected increase in gangs and violence hasn't come to the KCMO area yet, although there was a running gun-fight in one of the wealthier areas of the city just two months ago. I suspect that if there is an increase in violence, it will be met by an increase in defense by the citizens. There are a lot of concealed carry permits out there. As for gas prices, our 110 mpg scooter that the Boss drives to work saves us huge $$ in gas. We spend less, and have for over a year now.
Interesting. The murder rate in the Indy metro area has been at record levels the past few years.
Wow - that is very interesting. I didn't have time to spare this morning, but the article was so fascinating, I couldn't stop reading.
What would the world be like today if we followed the Bible's recommendation that if you don't work, then you don't eat? What if this were our welfare program? Creating jobs rather than creating dependency.
Thanks for the brain exercise!
Post a Comment