So, somebody I know on facebook (and happen to be related to) posted this comic:

I barley noticed it, until another person I know on facebook (who is also a family member) wrote a comment to the effect that they hope that firemen, the disabled, and sick kids get candy too (I won’t reprint the comment here, because I don’t have permission.)

Continuing with the candy theme, I wrote this response.

Ah, but have you considered the unintended consequences of candy redistribution.

The first year candy redistribution is implemented works well enough. Except for some very angry trick-or-treaters (who worked hard for their candy) the kids that didn’t or couldn’t get out are happy, and the parents feel proud of themselves that finally their good intentions actually produced good consequences.

But the next year something has changed. There are far less trick-or-treaters then usual. Many kids simply didn’t come out; there is no reason to, after all, why go outside when you can get candy by staying in your own home? Others, who enjoy trick-or-treating more, went to other neighborhoods that don’t punish trick-or-treat ambitions or success.

The year after that, the houses start buying less candy, responding to the decrease in trick-or-treaters. This year there are even less kids on the street; even so, many households run out of candy.

Responding to the decrease in households buying candy, stores stop stocking as much.

Companies that produce candy suddenly start losing profits, or going out of business all together (Halloween is a big time for them, after all.) Less investment in the candy industry follows. Not only is there less candy stocked in stores, but there is also less candy-variety and candy-innovation.

The next year is even worse. There are barely any kids on the street, as they now have even less incentive to go out since the only things parents can buy are the same old brands, which they have become bored with.

Naturally, this trend will only get worse with time.

Now, everybody has less candy; the kids that go out to get it, those who don’t or can’t, and even the households.

In an attempt to give candy to those who don’t have it, all you’ve accomplished is to spread candy-poverty. “Equality” has been accomplished the way it has always been accomplished, by lowering everybody.

The morale of the story: you can’t engineer ends without perverting means, and unintended consequences are a bitch.

This is, of course, more then a little silly; but it was fun to write.

My family member (the commenter, not the post-er) wrote another response. This one mentioned that they have read Atlas shrugged too (which I had not mentioned), insinuating that unintended consequences are a matter of fiction and fantasy, and that they would rather “err on the side of social conscience” (also mentioning that their time as a social worker gave them a predisposition to such errors.)

I wrote the response below, but didn’t post it. Facebook had become a war-zone in other places (which I observed, but wasn’t involved in), and people seemed to be getting overly sensitive.

So, I chickened out for the sake of not rocking the boat. I’m a wuss, big deal.

Read my response anyway:

Imagine if a person, let’s call him ‘Bob’, came up to you and said that he has discovered a surefire way to improve a baby’s nutrition.

What do you have to do? Just give your baby a bottle filled with liquid arsenic three times a day, with just a pinch of honey, to make the arsenic taste better (and also, the bottle is made out of pure lead.)

“Well, I think that’s silly”, you say, “arsenic is not healthy; and in fact, I think it is quite bad for people, babies included.”

“Why would you say such a thing?” Bob answers back. “Clearly, you hate babies, or at the very least, don’t care about them. I care a lot about babies, that’s the difference between you and me.”

“No, no, no…” you explain, “of course not, my comment didn’t even imply that, it’s just that….” At which point the conversation is ended by Bob’s cell phone, which he answers, and begins talking to a state representative about making the arsenic baby formula publically funded and compulsory for all parents with newborns.

You see, the point of this little bit of silliness is that I don’t think intentions amount to much when consequences get involved. It doesn’t matter what Bob ‘feels’ or what he ‘thinks’ he’s doing, it only matters what happens because of that.

I would also like to mention that when you “err on the side of social conscience” you “err” big; and I mean BIG. Just consider the evidence.

Many countries in the last century have made ‘social conscience’ a matter of national pride and policy. The USSR, Mao’s China, Cambodia, North Korea, Laos, East-Germany, and a host of other “people’s” governments in Africa and South America; just to name a few.

The human cost of these ‘socially conscience’ countries is often calculated in the tens of millions, many put them around or slightly over 100-million human lives. The greatest death toll attributed to a single movement in mankind’s history.

Now consider instead, those countries that made principled liberty a matter of policy, where people’s rights were upheld. Not always consistency (in fact, never consistently), but still as a goal. The US, Canada, the UK, West-Germany, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, post-war Japan, and Australia; just to name a few.

With all this on the table, what is the truly ‘socially conscience’ person to do? What does that person support?

To “err on the side of social conscience” seems to me an accidental (and somewhat innocent) euphemism for erring on the side of ‘totalitarianism.’ You are ‘erring’ with other people dreams, with other people’s property, with other people’s lives.

Which is always, ALWAYS, an arsenic-filled baby bottle.