What exactly is a deputy assistant secretary anyway? Couldn't a deputy be defined as an assistant to one in authority? And isn't secretary another way of saying "office assistant"? Does that make a deputy assistant secretary an assistant assistant assistant?
Anyway, Rand Paul tore into the Assistant Assistant Assistant of the Energy Department because he feels that in its effort to protect the environment it restricts consumers' choices. He complained that he now had a toilet that he had to flush repeatedly because it doesn't work right. His old toilets worked, but the new ones don't. Now, I too laughed to myself and silently suggested to Rand that if he eat less meat, drink fruit juice, and try to regulate his bowel movements instead of holding it in until the last minute he would find that his toilet works better. But Rand is really on to something. His somewhat comical rant shed light on the unintended consequences of the elitist "ruling class".
Now before you call me anti-intellectual or think that I'm opposed to smart people in the government, let's get something straight. "Elitism", in my intended use of the word here, is the notion that a specific group or class of people is somehow superior to the general population and therefore should make the decisions for everybody else. I'm not exactly in favor of failed "hookt on fonix" students running our country. But then again, maybe that's why congressmen won't read the bills that are presented to them.
Back to my point. Rand is upset really because he is a full-blooded libertarian. And, as a libertarian, he feels that he should have absolute freedom of choice. He feels it is his right as a human being to be free to do whatever he wants as long as his actions do not harm or infringe on the rights of others. While I might not be as strong a libertarian as Rand is, I also have quite the libertarian streak. Honestly, where does the executive branch of our government get the right to tell us how many gallons of water are in our toilets, what kind of lights to use, how much water comes out of our shower heads, what kind of washing machines we buy, or how much corn is in our gas?
Now, I honestly believe that the EPA, Energy Department, and other regulatory bodies mean well when they regulate the world to death, but just because they mean well doesn't mean that all ends well. I already mentioned earlier that in their attempt to save mother earth, these regulatory bodies restrict our choices and, consequently, our freedoms - one unintended consequence that irks many (myself included) - but are there other unintended consequences as well?
I would have forgotten about the Rand Paul potty rant if not for something I found in my hotel room tonight.
That's right, Rand Paul sneaked a sign into my hotel room just so I'd blog about poop disposal machines. Crap!
The saddest part of all of this is that the toilet really required one of those "courtesy flushes" when I said goodbye to yesterday's pizza. (I really do say goodbye sometimes)
And that got me to to thinking. As the sign alludes, my low consumption toilet was created to save the environment. Yet I wonder how flushing my 1.6 gallon toilet twice, instead of flushing my 3.5 gallon toilet once really does anything to save the environment. Was saving a cup and a half of water when I use the toilet really worth the time, effort, and money involved in the making of and compliance to this regulation?
Are there other counter-productive, albeit well-intended regulations out there?
In a previous blog entry, I went into great detail about how in its effort to "clean up coal", the EPA suspended one of the most effective CO2 reduction and waste recycling programs in existence (the Coal Combustion Products Partnership). Is this not another example of the unintended consequences that come with over-regulation?
And don't forget ethanol:
I imagine that there's quite an exhaustive list of counter-productive government programs and regulations. It's probably a lot longer than the list of productive ones.
No comments:
Post a Comment