no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

Of Passports & Broken Windows

January 23rd, 2007
Today’s Broken Window Fallacy – as reported in WSJ:

“Passport Rules to Help Destinations”

To recap: the new passport legislation requires valid passports for all travel between the United States, Mexico, Canada, and a host of other formerly free-to-travel countries like the Bahamas. This ham-fisted rule, according to idiots everywhere, will spur growth and profits in U.S. destinations like Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands – because tourists don’t need passports to visit those island locales.

And while it is true that these places might receive more tourism than they otherwise would have, it is not necessarily true that this makes anyone better off, and it is almost a certainty that the tourists are worse-off for it. When no passport was required to visit the Bahamas or the USVI, the revealed preference of some tourists was to visit the Bahamas. Effective immediately, this option is more expensive. Of course, most of these tourists probably already have valid passports – but that’s not the only burden. Additional scrutiny at airports (coming and going), lines at customs, and so on. Someone, somewhere, on the margin, is deciding to go to Puerto Rico, even though his first preference was the Bahamas, or Cancun.

The passport rule amounts to a tax on tourism – and like any other tax, it begets either less tourism, more consumption of near-but-not-so-good substitutes, or a combination of the two. And like any tax, the policy is plagued with cronyism manifested through exemptions (like P.R., who receives federal welfare dollars, but pays no taxes).


Here in Detroit – probably the only place in the country where one must travel South to get to Canada, border-crossing is habitual. Our teenagers go there to take advantage of their drinking age (19), our gamers go there for the casino (not so much, since Detroit built a few of her own), our outdoorsmen go there to hunt, fish, snowmobile, camp &c. And of course, the Canadians come here to buy cheap(er) cigarettes and enjoy our luxurious fashion malls. Not to mention the thousands of Michiganders and Canucks who commute daily across the border for work. All of these people who previously had no need for a passport, will need a passport today in order to maintain the same standard of living.

The money (and time) spent on the passport and its procedures are no different than the francs spent on repairing Mr. Bonhomme’s broken window. It’s money and time that we’d prefer not to spend, an expense that in no way improves our standard of living. Instead, it just gives us back the window that shouldn’t have been broken to begin with.

The glaziers are happy. But nobody else is.

Dumbest thing I’ve read today

January 23rd, 2007

Regarding proper disposal of medicine, in today’s Personal Journal (WSJ $$$ — Maybe?):

“…Unless the directions say otherwise, don’t flush medications down the drain or toilet because they chemicals can taint the water supply.”

For a little bit of the lowbrow in all of us, I can’t pass up a good quotation that uses the word “taint,” especially in conjunction with “toilet.” But in all seriousnes: are you serious? Flushing vicodin or ambien down the toilet might poison the well? Now, I’m no chemical biologist, but we put millions of pounds of turds and god-knows-what-else into those same toilets and drains, every day. Are we really susceptible to poisoning because a few people tossed a few milligrams of vicodin or ambien?

If so, we’re in for a world of hurt.

Protectionism

January 19th, 2007

I’ve been accused of “over-the-top,” “hyperventilating” hyperbole, for chastising the protectionist position, which in my words, “Ultimately ends in my death,” and “[Protectionists] are so concerned with the person from whom I acquire my [goods] that [they] would have me shot” because I don’t mimic their actions and values. The unfortunate truth of the matter is that this is not hyperbole (i.e., this car can stop on a dime) – it’s the logical extension and only possible conclusion that follows from consistent application of laws based on personal preferences and fancies.

First, they will send you a letter notifying you of your “crime,” and stipulating a penalty. If you pay it, you have conceded wrongdoing when you know in your heart that nothing of the sort has occurred.

If you don’t pay it, they might send you a few more letters. Eventually, they will order that you appear in front of their tribunal. If you do not go, they will send men with guns to take you against your will. If you resist them, they will kill you. In the even that they do not kill you, they will imprison you. If you try to escape, they will send men with guns and hounds to hunt you like the fox. If you resist, they will most likely kill you – but if they do not kill you, lather, rinse, repeat.

Moreover, as I replied at CafeHayek: “To try and debate the logic of a position which depends not on logic, but on force, is silly. What I want to do is demonstrate that they haven’t used logic yet – and a good way to do this is to show them what they have used in its stead: a gun.

If they want to start using logic, I welcome the opportunity. Until then, pardon me for pointing out the gun in the room.”

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics