David Ignatius has a thoroughly boring and utterly predictable establishment left-wing column in the Washington post, but it is a perfect illustration of my maxim that “Bad government policy begets bad government policy.” In this case, Ignatius wants to expand gun control in the United States in response to the foolhardy drug war in Mexico. Neither effort will succeed, at least if either society wants even a smidgen of individual liberty, but statists never seen to worry about such niceties. If one of their policies leads to a mess, that’s just an excuse for more bad policy.
Mexico is reeling from a drug-cartel insurgency that is armed mainly with weapons acquired in the United States… Naming a new ATF chief to lead the fight against illegal weapons would be a small symbolic step. But it would signal to Mexicans and Arizonans alike that the administration is mobilizing to deal with these problems — and is willing to take some political heat in the process. …”The absence of a chief has hamstrung ATF’s ability to aggressively target gun trafficking rings or corrupt firearms dealers and has demoralized its agents,” Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, wrote in a June 10 letter to Obama. …The prevailing political wisdom in America, to which the Obama administration evidently subscribes, is that it’s folly to challenge the gun lobby. When Mexico’s President Felipe Calderón addressed a joint session of Congress in May, he all but pleaded with lawmakers to help stop the flow of assault weapons. His call to action produced little more than a shrug of the shoulders in Washington.
By the way, several of you have been ribbing me for calling this phenomenon Mitchell’s Law when great economists like Mises have written about this pattern. But I’m not saying that I invented the concept. I’m just trying to popularize it, much as I gave the name “Rahn Curve” to the theory about a growth-maximizing level of government. In effect, I’m trying to mimic Art Laffer. Art will freely tell anyone he meets that the concept behind the Laffer Curve existed for centuries. But he turned in into a curve and brought it to the attention of the world.
[…] and over and over and over […]
[…] and over and over and over […]
[…] will enact a policy that distorts the economy and causes damage (with regards to trade, bailouts, guns, health, whatever). And they’ll then point to the damage and assert that even more […]
[…] see it when government drug-war failures are used as an excuse to push for gun […]
[…] for the ostensible purpose of eradicating use. When that impractical goal wasn’t achieved, they exacerbated the harm to civil liberties with onerous money laundering laws and abusive asset forfeiture […]
[…] the ostensible purpose of eradicating use. When that impractical goal wasn’t achieved, they exacerbated the harm to civil liberties with onerous money laundering laws and abusive asset forfeiture […]
And your website trashed my comment. I wrote: Just LOVE how you edit other people’s responses, to suit your own agenda. If you’re going to print a reply, print the WHOLE response. Don’t cherry-pick other people’s writing. It’s called ‘censorship’ I think… Now let’s see if this one makes it through.
Just >lovewhole< response. Don't cherry-pick other people's writing. It's called 'censorship' I think…
[…] P.S. Drugs do impose costs, but they’re mostly incurred by moronic users. Though there sometimes are collateral victims, such as kids whose parents allow their lives to get messed up. That’s why it would be nice if drugs somehow didn’t exist. Heck, the same things could be said about booze. Or tobacco. But they do exist. The libertarian position isn’t that these things are good. Instead, our position is that prohibition does more harm than good. […]
[…] are lots of examples of this phenomenon, such as a misguided War on Drugs being a precursor to intrusive, costly, and ineffectual income laundering […]
[…] are lots of examples of this phenomenon, such as the misguided War on Drugs being a precursor to intrusive, costly, and ineffective money laundering […]
[…] are lots of examples of this phenomenon, such as the misguided War on Drugs being a precursor to intrusive, costly, and ineffective money laundering […]
[…] are lots of examples of this phenomenon, such as the misguided War on Drugs being a precursor to intrusive, costly, and ineffective money laundering […]
[…] are lots of examples of this phenomenon, such as the misguided War on Drugs being a precursor to intrusive, costly, and ineffective money laundering […]
[…] second key takeaway is that Europe’s corrupt political elite is engaging in a classic case of Mitchell’s Law, which is when one bad government policy is used to justify another bad government policy. In this […]
[…] second key takeaway is that Europe’s corrupt political elite is engaging in a classic case of Mitchell’s Law, which is when one bad government policy is used to justify another bad government policy. In this […]
[…] regular readers know about my narcissistic attempt to publicize “Mitchell’s Law” as a way of illustrating how politicians create problems and then use those problems to […]
[…] Obviously, they are not familiar with Mitchell’s Law. […]
Later, we see the gunwalker thing, but w/out tracking of guns nor comm. w/ the Mexi authorities. Not much has been commented (certainly not the LMSM) about the intentions — to create situations for more gun control — the crisis strategy.
[…] class have made a big mess. So what’s going to happen? Allister clearly is a believer in Mitchell’s Law, so he expects the politicians and bureaucrats to use the crisis they created as an excuse to […]
[…] has been around forever, but I’m quite envious of Art Laffer for the Laffer Curve, so I’m trying to give myself a small measure of notoriety by being the lead proponent of the concept). The government passes drug laws that create huge […]
[…] been around forever, but I’m quite envious of Art Laffer for the Laffer Curve, so I’m trying to give myself a small measure of notoriety by being the lead proponent of the concept). The government passes drug laws that create huge […]
[…] they better figure out an approach that doesn’t lead to an especially destructive version of “Mitchell’s Law,” which is when one bad government policy (such as a mandate to cover pre-existing conditions) […]
Don’t forget to point out that Ignatius is repeating the “cooked” numbers about how many guns seized in Mexico are from the U.S. (factcheck.org says it may be as low as 17% and can’t be higher than 34%).
Or that he is (deliberately, I’m sure) conflating “assault rifles” bought/stolen/smuggled from notoriously-corrupt military and police agencies in Mexico and other Central American nations farther south with semi-automatic “assault rifles” purchased legally in U.S. border states.
Exercise for the alert reader: Why would the narcotraficantes buy semi-automatic AK clones in Arizona when they can get the real thing south of the border? And which gun stores in Alabama, exactly, are selling the narcotraficantes light anti-tank weapons, mines, grenades and body armor marked “POLICIA”?