Great Moments in Unintended Consequences: Subsidized Trees, Day Care Late Fees, New York Alcohol Ban (Vol. 11)
Good intentions, bad results.
HD DownloadGreat moments in unintended consequences—when something that sounds like a great idea goes horribly wrong. Watch the whole series.
Part One: Tree Decree
The year: 2019
The problem: Mexico needs trees!
The solution: the Sowing Life project, a $3.4 billion program that pays farmers to plant fruit and timber trees on barren land. Not only will this help spruce up the environment, but it will fight poverty and inequality by paying the farmers to maintain the new trees.
Sounds like a great idea, with the best of intentions. What could possibly go wrong?
It turns out poor farmers need money. And since standing trees didn't qualify for the program, the system incentivized farmers to cut down mature trees to make way for new ones.
In one village, two-thirds of the program's participants cut down forests to get that cash.
One study found the program caused the deforestation of more than 280 square miles.
But, you know what they say about best-laid plan…ts.
Part Two: Pay Care
The year: 1998
The problem: Private day care centers in Israel are tired of parents arriving late.
The solution: Fine tardy parents a small fee for every late pickup.
Sounds like a great idea, with the best of intentions. What could possibly go wrong?
It turns out money isn't the only incentive, and a fine is just a price. To the surprise of the researchers, late arrivals more than doubled! The penalty, it seemed, allowed parents to ease their conscience. The shameful apology that once burdened them shifted to a simpler, legitimate cash transaction—one they were happy to pay.
Because honestly, ask any new parent what they would pay for an extra 10 minutes of free time.
Part Three: Loophole Lunch
The Year: 1896
The Problem: Alcohol is ruining the moral fiber of New York!
The Solution: the Raines Law! It created a bevy of rules that made it harder to open or operate drinking establishments, including a ban on the sale of alcohol on Sundays, except for hotels and lodging houses that served drinks with complimentary meals. I mean, wealthy New Yorkers tend to dine out at ritzy hotel restaurants when their servants have the day off. No need to ruffle their rich, upstanding, virtuous feathers. It's those poor people who are ruining everything! So yeah, stick it to them.
Sounds like a great terrible idea, with the best of puritanical intentions. What could possibly go wrong?
It turns out, people like drinking—even on Sundays! The ban was wildly unpopular.
Almost immediately, "Raines Law Hotels" were born. Basements and attics were converted into barely-furnished "rooms" and proprietors made deals with neighboring lodging houses. In Brooklyn, the number of registered hotels went from 13 to 800 after six months. Prostitutes and unmarried couples found the new rooms especially convenient.
To fulfill the law's food requirement, bar staff invented the "Raines Sandwich"—an easy, simple meal that would be served with a patron's drink but not consumed. The frequently inedible sandwich would be whisked away in seconds and quickly paired with the next order. It was not uncommon for the same sandwich to be reused for weeks. Yum.
Food for naught.
Great moments in unintended consequences: good intentions, bad results.
Do you know a great moment in unintended consequences? Email us at comedy@reason.com. We might steal it! I mean, borrow it. I mean, you know what I mean.
Written and produced by Austin Bragg, Meredith Bragg, and John Carter; narrated by Austin Bragg
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Email bounced…
But here’s a good rundown:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive
And see Lord Vetinari's "tax the rat farms"
I’ve made $1250 so far this week working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’AM made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Here’s what I do, .for more information simply.
Open this link thank you……>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com
Great Moments in Unintended Consequences: The n-Volume Set
The Year: 2013
The Problem: Politics is stodgy and boring and conveying libertarian ideas is boring.
The Solution: A relatively talented and relatively libertarian-minded group of comedians team up with a libertarian magazine to gain access to resources and a broader, like-minded audience.
Sounds like a great idea, with the best of intentions. What could possibly go wrong?
It turns out, the libertarian magazine is actually a humorless, globalist, totalitarian, progressive front minimally balanced out by one middling benefactor who’s now dead.
the "what could possibly go wrong?" line is funny every time.
★I am making a real GOOD MONEY (123$ / hr ) online from my laptop. Last month I GOT chek of nearly $30k, this online work is simple and straightforward, don't have to go OFFICE, Its home online job. You become independent after joining this JOB. I really thanks to my FRIEND who refer me this SITE. I hope you also got what I...go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart.
Click the link—————————————>>> http://WWW.Pay.JioSalary.COM
Great moments in unintended consequences: good intentions
I will always take issue with the "good intentions" formulation, especially from a libertarian(!) viewpoint or publication. Trying to control how others live is a bad intention.
A college history professor of mine -- a socialist, btw -- once told me "if there's anything we can agree upon, it's that you should really watch out when someone says they're doing something for your own good."
His favorite example was prostitution in Victorian england, but he had dozens of great historical examples of "good" intentions that really just screwed people over. Hard.
FWIW this is one reason why traditional conservative thinkers like Oakeshott and others counselled against, and were sceptical off, ideologies, because they invariably claimed good intentions while seldom if ever considering what could go wrong in reality, or at best, being unable to account for unintended consequences from a previously untried and untested idea.
(What is of course worse is for the idea to have been tried and tested and its advocates ignore these adverse outcomes. Communism in general, for example.)
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)
Regarding the Raine's Law Sandwich, did we not very recently, like in the past 3 years, have a very similar requirement in the same city/state with the same claim of good intentions and with the exact same effect (none)?
The local golf course near my place in Upstate NY almost immediately began serving a mini fruit a cheese plate free, so that patrons could "legally" use the bar. Since veery place else did that too, Emperor Andy doubled down on his flawed orders.
000000000000000000000000
"When he got those executive powers, his brain fried and he became like a king," said DiPietro.
When it comes to wings, there's one monarch in Western New York: the Wing King, Drew Cerza, who was willing to give the governor the benefit of the doubt.
"I don't think he meant what we think he may have said. Because, as you know, the governor knows, and the lieutenant governor knows, wings are called Buffalo wings all across the country because they're our main food and they're not an hors d'oeuvres. To call them an hors d'oeuvres is an insult. They're a center of the plate, they're main course,” said Cerza.
So what did the governor really say? In response the uproar on social media, a spokesperson took to Twitter to tell thousands of angry Western New Yorkers they were mistaken.
Here's what the governor said when asked to further clarify a controversial executive order that prevents bars and restaurants from serving alcohol unless paired with "substantive" food.
"To be a bar, you had to have food available — soups, sandwiches, etc. More than just hors d’oeuvres, chicken wings. You had to have some substantive food — the lowest level of substantive food were sandwiches,” said Cuomo.
Any wings place in existence will tell you that plenty of people order just wings for a meal. When my wife and kids get pizza, I get wings, because I don't want to order a separate pie for me, and they have lousy taste in toppings.
The underlying reason for this sort of thing is that politicans are lazy, and have never learned how to reason a thhing out to its logical end, nor to wegh out all the alternatives. Thus they are too stupid to think of an easy smack-my-head work-round for any condition imposed by da gummit as a precondition to doing X. So the "Brill Yunt" Poohbahs dream up their madjackal solutions to imagined "problems" and enact them into law. Of course, everyone will KNOW my intention and just.. comply? Whyever not? (because your new law is insane and will fix nothing).
Thus Problem One will not only not go away it will bring in problems Two Three, and if he's lucky that will be the end of it,but could easily go on to a dozen or more new problems.
I am now making $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making cash online by
Follow instruction on website Here…………….>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
The question rarely asked is if the consequences are actually unintended, or just unacknowledged.
In many cases, I suspect the "unintended" consequences are actually the goal.
Trudat!
Unintended consequences can arise when a policy, action or decision has unexpected outcomes that were not originally foreseen or intended. Here are some examples of great moments in unintended consequences:
Prohibition in the United States: The prohibition of alcohol in the United States from 1920-1933 was intended to reduce crime and improve public health. However, it had the unintended consequence of creating a huge black market for alcohol, which led to an increase in organized crime.
The War on Drugs: The War on Drugs, which began in the 1970s in the United States, was intended to reduce drug use and drug-related crime. However, it had the unintended consequence of fueling mass incarceration, disproportionately affecting people of color and low-income individuals, and creating a violent black market for drugs.
China's One-Child Policy: China's One-Child Policy, which was implemented in 1979, was intended to control population growth and reduce poverty. However, it had the unintended consequence of creating a gender imbalance, with many families preferring male children and often resorting to sex-selective abortions or abandoning female infants.
Seatbelt Laws: Seatbelt laws, which require drivers and passengers to wear seatbelts while driving, were intended to improve road safety and reduce fatalities. However, they had the unintended consequence of encouraging reckless driving, as drivers felt safer and more invulnerable while wearing seatbelts.
These are just a few examples of how unintended consequences can arise when policies or actions are not fully thought out or carefully considered. It's important for decision-makers to consider all potential outcomes before implementing policies or actions to avoid unintended consequences.
Can you provide a link to wherever you got "The War on Drugs ... began in the 1970s in the United States"? Because no one should ever trust that source for facts.
Banning drugs (at the federal level-some states were earlier and more fascist) began with the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. Marijuana was banned at the federal level by the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 - a penal tax with long jail terms for "nonpayment" that was never intended to be collected (when someone rich enough to pay $200 for each bud, leaf, or stem tried to pay it, the government wouldn't take the money). And the penalties just became heavier (whenever the government could find a judge willing to hand out disproportionate sentence.) There were plenty of beatniks jailed in the 1950's for heroine or cocaine, and plenty of hippies jailed in the 1960's for marijuana.
So what changed in the 1970's? The government finally commissioned a scientific study of marijuana (about 35 years late), it found that marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol and ought to be treated similarly, and Nixon threw it out because he relied on voters who hated hippies. So no change there. And _maybe_ some halfwit started using a war metaphor for persecuting users as well as dealers, although I don't recall hearing it before the Reagan administration. So no real change, just different rhetoric than the raw racism and outright lies used to persuade Congress in 1937.
"that served drinks with complimentary meals."
Jesus, how fucking dumb are you? Reason used to be a real magazine, now it's a bunch of idiots selling out the rep on treason.com.
Just want to say that regardless of what anyone else is saying (some of the comments in this very thread are quite belligerent -- yipes!), I thoroughly enjoy the clever messaging consistently being conveyed via your varied comedic means, whether it be this particular bit or any of the others in the recent years that you two and a few others have been sharing with we web-consuming polloi.
S'a shame some folks seem to forget that it's okay to share a few dumb-intelligent laughs at life without each laugh needing to somehow simultaneously be inexorably tied to any particular (over)zealous (s)creed of any kind.
Between you Braggs, Andrew H, and that sing-songy Remy fellah, I have gleaned considerably more intriguing insight into the overall goings-on south of the 49th through your wink-wink satire than I might ever have via any other traditional form of media or outlet (including validating how we are not so different/better up North as we sometimes smugly seem to try to portray...)
So thanks for the bring-us-back-down-to-earth laughs and the little dollops of learnin' here and there that I know I can take "just seriously enough" to know not to be too serious about all.
It certain makes this one ole' Acadian happy, for what little that may be worth.
I earn $100 per hour while taking risks and travelling to remote parts of the world. I worked remotely last week while in Rome, Monte Carlo, and eventually Paris. I’m back in the USA this week. I only perform simple activities from this one excellent website.
view it, copy it here….>>>> http://Www.Smartjob1.com