Sunday, 2 March 2008

Who Is Investigating The Effects of Government Intervention?

Fabian Tassano is a trenchant critic of increasing Government intervention with the stated intention of reducing economic inequality, and he makes an interesting point in his latest post at Inversions & Deceptions:

"While there is plenty of research purporting to show the stressful effects of inequality, I doubt there is much (if any) looking into the stressful effects of intervention, restrictions, red tape, or deselection on ideological grounds..." - Fabian Tassano
I suppose the first response to this must be "is it true?". Not being a social scientist I don't have a firm answer to this, only the inclination to believe that this is probably the case.

Oliver James' unscientific but undoubtedly 'ideologically correct'* 'Affluenza' has been lauded and has become part of the popular consciousness (full post on this here). Aside from 'Mediocracy', opposing points of view tend to be expressed by writers and commentators such as Christopher Booker, Michael Bywater and Simon Hills, rather than academics.

Either this is because the deleterious effects of big Government aren't being studied (as Tassano suggests), or because those who are doing so aren't getting published and marketed as James has been. Which is it?

*Ideologically incorrect: A more wide-ranging adaptation of 'politically incorrect'. Incompatible with the prevailing big-state, pseudo-egalitarian, 'left-wing' ideology. e.g."It should be obvious by now, to anyone who cares, that the principle of free speech is being gradually eroded in the West. Either by straightforward ditching, or — more subtly — by redefining it in ways designed to legitimise the prohibition of ideologically incorrect viewpoints."(Link)

No comments: