I don’t like bloated government. It undermines economic performance by diverting resources from the productive sector of the economy and often leads to destructive tax policy.
But when trying to build support for good fiscal policy, it often helps to cite specific examples of wasteful and foolish government. That’s one of the reasons I’ve been comparing examples of government stupidity and political correctness in the United States and the United Kingdom.
After all, how many people would want to pay more taxes after reviewing these bizarre episodes of government in action?
From the United Kingdom
- A job-placement center got in trouble for discriminating against incompetent people by seeking “reliable” and “hard-working” candidates.
- A women who was being threatened by thugs got in trouble with the police for brandishing a knife in her own home.
- There was a serious proposal to prevent children from watching Olympic shooting events.
- A man got arrested for finding a gun in his yard and turning it over to the police.
- The government wanted to require “competency tests” for pet owners.
- An ID requirement to buy teaspoons.
- The most useless sign in the history of the world.
- A proposal to ban skinny models.
- A prohibition on the use of starting pistols at races lest children get frightened by the noise.
- Denying children a home because the foster family didn’t believe in unlimited immigration.
From the United States
- A Rhode Island boy offended the PC nanny-staters by bringing toy soldiers to school.
- A student in San Diego got in trouble for making a motion detector for a science project, simply because someone decided it resembled a bomb.
- The EEOC hindering trucking companies from weeding out drunk drivers.
- A Florida student was expelled for having a toy gun on school property.
- And how can we omit the politicians in San Francisco, who decided that banning happy meal toys was an appropriate use of government coercion.
- We also have regulations in Maryland governing the application of sunscreen at summer camps.
- A local politician in Maryland wanting a licensing process to be a bum.
- And proposals in Seattle to require life vests on swimmers who are more than five feet from shore.
I’ve even shared some instances of moronic behavior from the private sector, and I have another story that may belong in that category.
In this instance, we’re talking about the critical need to protect people from pudding. I’m not joking. Here are some of the details of a very odd report in the Daily Mail.
If you’re lucky enough to look about 18, there’s a good chance you’ll be asked to provide ID at the supermarket to buy alcohol, knives or glue. Now an addition has been made to that list of potentially hazardous items – chocolate pudding. Robert Nemeti was amazed when he was asked for ID while buying a microwaveable pudding at Tesco. Mr Nemeti, 24, was going through the self-service checkout when an on-screen warning announced that his purchase had to be ‘approved’. …‘The woman who was monitoring the self-service checkouts came over and asked me for identification showing I was 18. I asked her why and was stunned when she told me: “It gets hot when you cook it – and you may burn yourself”. Surely the same can be said of many of the products they sell in any supermarket? Health and safety has gone crazy if you now have to prove you can be trusted with a chocolate pudding.’ He added: ‘I explained that I didn’t have any ID. Thankfully she agreed that I looked over 18 and she scanned her staff pass to approve the sale.’ Mr Nemeti managed to cook and eat the dessert that evening without injury.
Gee, I’m glad that Mr. Nemeti managed to eat the pudding without causing a fire or suffering burns.
There’s not much I can add to this story. Is this an example of crazy government over-protectiveness, sort of nanny state run amok? Perhaps somewhat similar to Nurse Bloomberg’s attempt to ban large sodas? I don’t know. There aren’t enough details.
Or maybe it’s the fault of the private sector, with some corporate bureaucrat justifying his job by coming up with idiotic rules? Though, to be fair, that’s less destructive than American corporate bureaucrats who have special skills when it comes to getting bailout money.
Could it be because the English are learning about America’s lawsuit culture and businesses are having to defend themselves from preposterous legal claims by imposing equally preposterous rules? That would be the indirect fault of government.
But whatever the cause, it’s a sorry sign for civilization. I’ve previously explained that I’m very pessimistic about the United Kingdom’s fiscal outlook. Based on this story, I also should worry about the nation’s mental outlook.
But I’m not throwing stones blindly. I’m fully aware that the United States is a glass house, whether the metric is reckless fiscal policy or a dearth of common sense.
[…] few years ago, I put together an amusing collection of stories comparing truly bizarre examples of political correctness and bureaucratic idiocy in the United […]
[…] they bust a girl for benignly quoting a bad word. Or they bust homeowners for harming robbers. Or harass employers who commit discrimination by advertising for […]
[…] Maybe it’s time to resuscitate my “U.S. vs U.K. inane-government-policy contest“. […]
And we have to pay taxes for these..
[…] ZEROHEDGE– A few years ago, I put together an amusing collection of stories comparing truly bizarre examples of political correctness and bureaucratic idiocy in the […]
[…] few years ago, I put together an amusing collection of stories comparing truly bizarre examples of political correctness and bureaucratic idiocy in the United […]
[…] few years ago, I put together an amusing collection of stories comparing truly bizarre examples of political correctness and bureaucratic idiocy in the United […]
[…] few years ago, I put together an amusing collection of stories comparing truly bizarre examples of political correctness …read […]
[…] few years ago, I put together an amusing collection of stories comparing truly bizarre examples of political correctness and bureaucratic idiocy in the United […]
[…] few years ago, I put together an amusing collection of stories comparing truly bizarre examples of political correctness and bureaucratic idiocy in the United […]
[…] few years ago, I put together an amusing collection of stories comparing truly bizarre examples of political correctness and bureaucratic idiocy in the United […]
[…] few years ago, I put together an amusing collection of stories comparing truly bizarre examples of political correctness and bureaucratic idiocy in the United […]
[…] few years ago, I put together an amusing collection of stories comparing truly bizarre examples of political correctness and bureaucratic idiocy in the United […]
[…] few years ago, I put together an amusing collection of stories comparing truly bizarre examples of political correctness and bureaucratic idiocy in the United […]
[…] few years ago, I put together an amusing collection of stories comparing truly bizarre examples of political correctness and bureaucratic idiocy in the United […]
[…] few years ago, I put together an amusing collection of stories comparing truly bizarre examples of political correctness and bureaucratic idiocy in the United […]
[…] few years ago, I put together an amusing collection of stories comparing truly bizarre examples of political correctness and bureaucratic idiocy in the United […]
[…] few years ago, I put together an amusing collection of stories comparing truly bizarre examples of political correctness and bureaucratic idiocy in the United […]
[…] start with the United Kingdom, which already is a very strong competitor in the government-stupidity […]
[…] maybe I need to update the U.S. vs. U.K. government stupidity contest to reflect the fact that both nations are so masochistic that they give handouts to their […]
[…] maybe I need to update the U.S. vs. U.K. government stupidity contest to reflect the fact that both nations are so masochistic that they give handouts to their […]
This is what happens when Idealogues and “Saviors” get into Government. Fortunately, most of them can be removed, one way or another.
[…] It’s time for an updated version of the U.S. vs U.K. government stupidity contest. […]
[…] It’s time for an updated version of the U.S. vs U.K. government stupidity contest. […]
[…] It’s time for an updated version of the U.S. vs U.K. government stupidity contest. […]
[…] P.S. I wrote that this was the “latest example” of the Cameron government’s intellectual bankruptcy. For previous examples, see here, here, here, here, and here. […]
[…] if this story – and the others – are enough to qualify Canada to participate in the US-vs-UK government stupidity contest, but surely this merits an honorable mention […]
[…] are all example from my series comparing brainless policies in the United States and United Kingdom. Though I’m ashamed to say that this latest story […]
[…] are all example from my series comparing brainless policies in the United States and United Kingdom. Though I’m ashamed to say that this latest story puts the United States in the lead in this […]
[…] recurring feature on this blog is the US vs UK government stupidity contest, which features examples of idiotic behavior by politicians and bureaucrats on both sides of the […]
[…] recurring feature on this blog is the US vs UK government stupidity contest, which features examples of idiotic behavior by politicians and bureaucrats on both sides of the […]
[…] recurring feature on this blog is the US vs UK government stupidity contest, which features examples of idiotic behavior by politicians and bureaucrats on both sides of the […]
[…] periodically compare the actions of brainless politicians and bureaucrats in both the United States and the United […]
[…] Mindless political correctness is not limited to the United States. There are also unbelievable examples from the United […]
[…] had fun documenting and comparing examples of government stupidity in both the United States and United Kingdom, and today’s story clearly belongs on those […]
[…] had fun documenting and comparing examples of government stupidity in both the United States and United Kingdom, and today’s story clearly belongs on those […]
[…] appears that my contest between the United States and United Kingdom for the most inane government policy how has to be augmented by a new contest between Maryland and […]
[…] appears that my contest between the United States and United Kingdom for the most inane government policy how has to be augmented by a new contest between Maryland and […]
[…] had fun documenting and comparing examples of government stupidity in both the United States and United Kingdom, and today’s story clearly belongs on those […]
[…] had fun documenting and comparing examples of government stupidity in both the United States and United Kingdom, and today’s story clearly belongs on those […]
[…] shared several horror stories of government incompetence and bureaucratic nonsense as part of my series comparing stupid policies in the United States and United Kingdom. This has been a neck-and-neck battle, with the United Kingdom recently throwing down the gauntlet […]
[…] I’ve shared several horror stories of government incompetence and bureaucratic nonsense as part of my series comparing stupid policies in the United States and United Kingdom. […]
[…] I’ve shared several horror stories of government incompetence and bureaucratic nonsense as part of my series comparing stupid policies in the United States and United Kingdom. […]
[…] I’ve shared several horror stories of government incompetence and bureaucratic nonsense as part of my series comparing stupid policies in the United States and United Kingdom. […]
Jason, from where did the central government seated in the DC obtain the constitional authority you allege? Like slavery in the colonies, that government was not established with consent, and still to this day it lacks consent. These facts can’t be wished away with, for example, populist appeals such as “We the People” or with Publius’ clever imperialist essays. Further, how would any given republican government be set up without having first presupposed the existence of a government to stipulate the terms and conditions of a plebiscite that asks whether or not a proposed constitution should be adopted for the territory claimed? The plebiscite itself would be carried out by a government de facto, albeit one desperate to increase quickly its power before too many people learn that it lacks authority.
There are other problems with the alleged authority of the government in DC. For example, read carefully Article VII of the Constitution. Its clause purports to state the law about “Establishment”. Well, when was that clause established so that it would be legitimate to put it to its intended use? The correct answer, I believe, is never. For that clause to state the law it must have acquired authority independently of and prior to the other six articles having done so. Apologists, however, have neglected for more than 220 years to give a clear explanation of when and how A7’s clause was estabslished. I think it appropriate to conclude that the Constitution is a hoax.
Let’s assume for a moment, however, that the Constitution is not the tool of a hoax but instead has the authority claimed for it by its authors and apologists. When and how did the government it sanctions acquire the authority to propose an amendment, the 13th, that would outlaw private slavery but sanctify enslavement by the government? It is no good response to say that justice permits enslavement. It doesn’t follow that government has or should have authority to enslave. Still worse, it’s a simple matter to pass statutes that contradict the exercise of even basic rights such as the right to ward off pirates, plunderers, and thieves such as those who, about 210 yrs ago, claimed to have purchased the Lousiana territory from the French. You know, or should know, that the Constitution itself was intended to empower those who wanted to supress this basic right, yet, like Dan Mitchell, you are a tax ideologue who rationalizes the organization of brigandry under the color of law. And why the rationalizations? Because you see in government a means to coerce other people to provide you with the militarism that you love more than justice, truth, and civility. And you seen in militarism the means to maintain your enjoyment of luxuries and other material things that came or will come into your possession through dubious means.
You need not worry, however, much about the possible demise of your beloved govenment. It has a lot of intertia, an enormous arsenal of fearsome weapons, and widespread support from at least a hundred million people who see it as a tool to coerce others to provide them with a living. And now comes an army of angry collectivists, mostly centrist and leftwing, who want to place in that government a monopoly upon the possesion of small firearms. That community of compassionate fools would be happy to enslave you in situ for the crime of resisting, but if that doesn’t work they’ll use the 13th alleged amendment as a license to put you and Dan in your place.
It’s by the way that the foreign aggressors you mention are basically like you and Dan in terms of their eagerness to perpetuate a particular type of organized crime. If they come, welcome them in with open arms. If they are thirsty, give them something to drink. If hungry, give them something to eat. Through so doing you will begin the process of heaping hot coals on their heads.
Dan,
You may wish to take a look at this correction by the British Daily Mail newspaper. It’s billed as the “Best Correction Ever”…
http://www.jumbojoke.com/best_correction_ever.html
Paul – doesn’t the government, at a minimum, have the Constitutional authority to protect us from invasion of foreign invaders? Would that not be defined as an amount of government protection?
I agree with the first part of your statement regarding the popular prejudice in favor of governmental protectiveness. However, do you really believe that Daniel “pretends to oppose” it?
“government over-protectiveness”?
Could it be that there is no such thing as a correct amount of government protectiveness? And no such thing as authority to establish a government of the type in question?
Could it be that a popular prejudice in favor of governmental protectiveness is itself a deep root of a problem that you’re still just pretending to oppose, like a person who craves the reconciliation of contradictories that will never cohere?Could it be that you suffer from a “fatal conceit” that is “an especially common affliction in Washington”?