It looks obvious

Recently I wrote about the circular logic used by those who embrace greater government involvement in many aspects of our life. I argued that when you allow government involvement for causes you agree with you open the door for all other set of government activities, most of them against your will.  

Example to such unwelcome government involvement can be found in Jeff Jarvis’s critic on the FCC latest decision to take enforcement measures against 50 TV programs.

When government regulates speech, it falls onto a slick slope. This is a particularly perilous course these days, when mere cartoons can spawn deadly riots. Now, more than ever, shouldn’t we be demonstrating the power of free speech, the courage to hear anything? Instead, in America, our government is washing our collective mouths out with soap.

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission just issued a slew of penalties against American broadcasters for saying bad words or almost showing pixelated, simulated sex. It levied a record $3.6 million fine for a sex scene in a single show, “Without a Trace,” and confirmed a $550,000 fine against CBS over Janet Jackson airing her breast. The commissioners cite the American public’s “growing concern” with TV programming (though I reported on my blog that the supposed outcry is manufactured almost completely by the so-called Parents Television Council and other right-wing religious pressure groups). They say that broadcasters don’t know where to stop. But it’s government that doesn’t know where to stop

One might wonder how come such measures limiting the freedom of speech are being taken in the US, a country that is proud at its constitution and the first amendment. The sad answer is that, as always, this is just another step in a process that started with the best intentions.

Will Wilkinson describe in his blog this process, arguing about the domino effect of government involvement in wealth redistribution; this domino effect isn’t limited to wealth distribution but to any activity that involve increasing government power.

Suppose in round 1 the government is seen as having no power to redistribute income. So very few people devote resources to controlling the government, since government has so little to give. Suppose, though, that a bunch of altruistic social democrats who would like the government to do more downward redistribution take over (so little opposition!). In round 2 the social democrats increase taxes and redistribute the money downward. Social Justice! Yay! But in round 3, people who had their money confiscated will surely notice, and many will be motivated to populate the government with people who will give them their money back. So, suppose in round 4 the government is now populated by tax cutters, and they cut taxes, and cut the redistributive programs. Now, all the people who were benefitting from redistribution, who have come to depend upon it, will say, hey! But, lo and behold, the people with the most money find it easier to control the political process in each subsequent round. Any round that decreases the resources the wealthy have to spend on voice will only increase their motivation to spend their remaining resources on voice in the next round. They may, for a round or two, have a smaller relative advantage, but they will be more motivated to use it to full effect. The key point is: the social democrats’ egalitarian motivation kicked off the process that led to the consolidation of advantages by the powerful.

But using the same circular logic we are repeating the same mistake and handing more areas to the political system to govern. How amazingly sad…