Wednesday, April 11, 2001

I'm an engineer. When people want to do something I often get the task of finding a way to do it. There are times when the implementation of the fix will be obviously more costly than the "problem" it is to solve.

Sometimes there really isn't a definable "problem," just a desire to "do something."

Most times the idea is dropped right there. Other times we press on to a costly end, a case of self-inflicted abuse. Some people can't logically deduce what the real problem is or, as importantly, what it will cost to affect the "needed change."

Take this desire to "do something" coupled with this blindness to the cost of doing it and apply it to law making and you will see that we are frequently our own worst enemy.

I'm not going to discuss the frequently misplaced desire to "do something." That would get into people's sense of right and wrong, their morals and idealism, and not earn me any points. Besides I think it is admirable to want to change things for the better. But I do expect people to ask questions about what their "do something" will cost, not just in dollars but in the loss of freedoms and in the increase in stress fixing the problem will bring. And as we all know "increased stress" is the real killer in these modern times.

Let us suppose that despite the liberal Democrats' best efforts the population of the U.S. over the next 20 years turns increasingly conservative, not an unlikely possibility. Also suppose that the mainstream media becomes hesitant to endorse liberal Democratic candidates for public office (they don't want to lose ratings points, after all).

What effect would the currently proposed campaign finance laws have on these candidates ability to get their message to the voters? (This assumes that these candidates will be law abiding with respect to the campaign finance laws, something that recent history shows that liberal Democrats have a problem doing.) And how would this be enforced?

What records would have to be kept and who would have access to those records? How much privacy would a donor have, if any? I mean, if people are concerned about the privacy of their web surfing, how will they feel about having their support for candidates made public? Will they even be a donor under those conditions?

Another group wants to ban guns. But no one talks about how this will be done. Will it be done like the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s or like the current anti-drug programs of today, neither of which can be called successful?

Manufacturing guns is a 400-year-old technology. Even the most sophisticated handgun is less difficult to produce than many car parts. With computer aided design (CAD) and computer aided manufacturing (CAM) available to anyone with a few thousand dollars (not that CAD-CAM is needed in the first place), experienced (drug) smugglers and over 200 million guns already in existence, how will we enforce a ban on guns? How draconian will we allow our police to become in enforcing such a law?

We already have a constant call to repeal the current drug laws because the damage done by incarceration is deemed worse than the use of the drugs. It is easy to imagine that arresting an otherwise law abiding and productive member of the community for gun ownership (a perfect example of a victimless crime if ever there was one) will be an entirely different thing than grabbing some drugged-out kid. Besides, will banning guns keep criminals from having guns? That is, after all, what this is all about in the first place.

Still other groups want to ban pornography, or violent videos, or violent video games, or the depiction of some stereotype, or just certain words from everyday use. How will they effect such a ban?

Put aside the hard goods sent by mail or UPS and focus on the electronic medium. Will every video and digital camera be licensed? Will every Internet connection be monitored? Will every e-mail be read, every download examined? People's concerns about their privacy on the Internet will be moot; there won't be any privacy. Or will the Internet just be shut down?

How realistic is it to think that we can merely pass a law and "poof!" instant control of campaign contributions, no more guns, no more pornography, no more whatever? You have to have enforcement. And enforcement brings with it a price, and we should know what that price is before we enact a law, because it may turn out the price is too steep.

All we hear about is "what" these "do-something" people want to do and "why" (endlessly) it "must" be done. But never do we hear about "how," and it is the "how" that busts heads, ruins lives and restricts our freedom.

But perhaps this doesn't matter to you if your favorite political party is in power, but what if it isn't? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Whatever goes around, comes around. You reap what you sow. Be careful what you wish for, it may come true. Have a nice day.

David Constans

Peachtree City

Back to Opinion Home Page | Back to the top of the page