Education, Not Regulation

May 13, 2009

Education, Not Regulation

Last night I had the pleasure of offering my thoughts about Clayton’s proposed ban on smoking in “public” places. I prepared written testimony for the Board of Aldermen, but when my turn came to speak I departed significantly from what I had written because the previous speakers (mostly in favor of the ban, ironically) had really made my point.

Many of those calling for smoke-free businesses in Clayton went out of their way to show that a large number of St. Louis–area businesses (including several in Clayton) have already made the transition and are doing very well. As I pointed out to the board, this is proof that the market is already at work! Businesses are realizing that, if given a choice, large numbers of people would prefer to dine in smoke-free environments, giving smoke-free restaurants a competitive advantage among that group of consumers. In the meantime, other businesses believe that demand will also rise for places that cater to smokers, as their competitors jump onto the smoke-free bandwagon. Each set of establishments has a niche they can cater to, and each enjoys a competitive advantage against the other in regard to the consumers in that niche. Under the current situation, everyone — business owners, customers, and workers — is free to choose the path that suits them best, maximizing overall satisfaction.

Under the proposed ordinance, however, that freedom would be obliterated. Because all businesses would be forced to adopt smoke-free environments, the competitive advantages that both sides currently enjoy would be destroyed. Nonsmokers would likely experience only a very slight rise in their satisfaction, but this restriction of liberty would greatly inconvenience those who prefer to smoke.

The main point I tried to make last night (which is, unfortunately, curtailed at the :45 mark in this KSDK news clip) is that I appreciate the concerns and the passion of those who want to see more smoke-free environments — but their energy should be focused on educating their fellow citizens and lobbying business owners to voluntarily go smoke-free. While it might be easier to persuade lawmakers to eliminate freedoms that you don’t like, that sort of authoritarian approach runs directly contrary to America’s greatest strength: our freedom to make decisions for ourselves.

« Read Previous Entry Read Next Entry »

9 Comments »

Lots of people don’t like smoke, and ably avoid it even without a ban. It seems like those who call for regulation are implying that smoke is so pleasant to be around that only the full force of law will keep nonsmokers away.

Comment by Sarah Brodsky — May 13, 2009 @ 1:01 p.m.
Another example of how consumer preferences produce more efficient outcomes than legislation.

I also find it funny that they made all your points for you.

Comment by Ryan — May 13, 2009 @ 3:04 p.m.
All of any of your points are nothing but paid propaganda. I wonder if any of you have the capacity to think at a somewhat higher level?

Comment by Joseph Gnatek — May 27, 2009 @ 12:02 a.m.
“If you can’t answer a man’s argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.” –Elbert Hubbard

Joseph, we’re careful to keep our arguments focused on issues rather than on people. We are genuinely *not* interested in advancing propaganda. We pursue free-market solutions because the evidence tends to show that they work well in promoting widespread economic growth, and when we conduct research, we publish our results whatever those findings might be.

If you’ve found flaws in the things we’ve published, we’d love to hear substantive criticisms. Name-calling, however, smacks of desperation.

Comment by Eric D. Dixon — May 27, 2009 @ 12:43 p.m.
Call it what you want, Eric D Dixon, paid propagandist. But which should we believe, the Eric D Dixon who claims he has his own opinion, or the one who is paid to think and speak a certain way? I know this much, sir. I never called you a name. I only stated the facts about who you are and why you spew your ‘opinion’.
One can only reasonably infer that your lack of ethical base in your chosen profession has you befuddled into believing that when someone speaks the truth about your agenda that they are vicitimizing you. Perhaps you actually do fool some people with your manipulations of the truth. Perhaps, though, there will continue to be people who will set the record straight about your slimey ulterior motives.

Comment by Joseph Gnatek — May 28, 2009 @ 12:10 a.m.
The quote about “vile names” is applicable to a wider range of impolite discourse than simply the use of personal epithets. Your comments here are replete with loaded terms that you wield with the apparent intention of trying to injure our reputations, and I can only guess that you behave this way because you can’t refute our arguments. In the absence of data supporting your views, you resort to ad hominem attacks.

I’m sure there are people in this world who are willing to compromise their principles in order to earn a paycheck. I’m also certain that I’m not one of those people. Your allegations to the contrary are laughable. I pursued a position with the Show-Me Institute because I believe that spreading economic literacy can help change the world for the better.

Again, I ask: Do you have any substantive critiques of our policy arguments? Please, advance them. We are genuinely willing to listen and consider them.

Comment by Eric D. Dixon — May 28, 2009 @ 1:53 a.m.
You still haven’t answered a very basic question. Which Eric D Dixon are we to believe? As you are well aware, there are far more actual data that show charter schools do the same or worse than public schools: Are we to listen to the Eric D Dixon who actually knows there are many more studies that prove this is a fact, or the one who is paid to report potentially bogus statistics that were provided and arrived at by the organization you are endorsing(KIPP).
You would much rather, of course, we buy into your trunkload of starched-white-shirt purchased taint. The tobacco companies employed very similar techniques for years and ended up compensating our citizens many billions of dollars. It is unfortunate that shams such as the “Show-me Institute” and its paid propagandists aren’t held responsible in such a way.

Comment by Joseph Gnatek — May 28, 2009 @ 4:44 p.m.
Joseph, you’re the one who continues to evade the point. You don’t know me, and you have no direct experience with my personal integrity — so it’s natural to be skeptical about my motives, however sincere and rigorous I know they are.

But you make continual assertions, both wild and vague, about our organization without citing any data to support your claims. In contrast, we present real data researched and analyzed by leading economists in academic positions at widely respected universities throughout the nation. This work is not suspect by any academic standard, but it’s always possible that their method is flawed. If you have a critique of the data or method of analysis that we present, please let us know.

Comment by Eric D. Dixon — May 28, 2009 @ 5:20 p.m.
Joseph, I think you’ll be very interested in our upcoming study on charter schools – it includes a literature review of a broad array of research. We should be publishing it in the next couple of months. Stay tuned.

Comment by Dave Roland — May 28, 2009 @ 6:40 p.m.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Categories

Lots of people don’t like smoke, and ably avoid it even without a ban. It seems like those who call for regulation are implying that smoke is so pleasant to be around that only the full force of law will keep nonsmokers away.

Comment by Sarah Brodsky — May 13, 2009 @ 1:01 p.m.

Another example of how consumer preferences produce more efficient outcomes than legislation.

I also find it funny that they made all your points for you.

Comment by Ryan — May 13, 2009 @ 3:04 p.m.

All of any of your points are nothing but paid propaganda. I wonder if any of you have the capacity to think at a somewhat higher level?

Comment by Joseph Gnatek — May 27, 2009 @ 12:02 a.m.

“If you can’t answer a man’s argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.” –Elbert Hubbard

Joseph, we’re careful to keep our arguments focused on issues rather than on people. We are genuinely *not* interested in advancing propaganda. We pursue free-market solutions because the evidence tends to show that they work well in promoting widespread economic growth, and when we conduct research, we publish our results whatever those findings might be.

If you’ve found flaws in the things we’ve published, we’d love to hear substantive criticisms. Name-calling, however, smacks of desperation.

Comment by Eric D. Dixon — May 27, 2009 @ 12:43 p.m.

Call it what you want, Eric D Dixon, paid propagandist. But which should we believe, the Eric D Dixon who claims he has his own opinion, or the one who is paid to think and speak a certain way? I know this much, sir. I never called you a name. I only stated the facts about who you are and why you spew your ‘opinion’.
One can only reasonably infer that your lack of ethical base in your chosen profession has you befuddled into believing that when someone speaks the truth about your agenda that they are vicitimizing you. Perhaps you actually do fool some people with your manipulations of the truth. Perhaps, though, there will continue to be people who will set the record straight about your slimey ulterior motives.

Comment by Joseph Gnatek — May 28, 2009 @ 12:10 a.m.

The quote about “vile names” is applicable to a wider range of impolite discourse than simply the use of personal epithets. Your comments here are replete with loaded terms that you wield with the apparent intention of trying to injure our reputations, and I can only guess that you behave this way because you can’t refute our arguments. In the absence of data supporting your views, you resort to ad hominem attacks.

I’m sure there are people in this world who are willing to compromise their principles in order to earn a paycheck. I’m also certain that I’m not one of those people. Your allegations to the contrary are laughable. I pursued a position with the Show-Me Institute because I believe that spreading economic literacy can help change the world for the better.

Again, I ask: Do you have any substantive critiques of our policy arguments? Please, advance them. We are genuinely willing to listen and consider them.

Comment by Eric D. Dixon — May 28, 2009 @ 1:53 a.m.

You still haven’t answered a very basic question. Which Eric D Dixon are we to believe? As you are well aware, there are far more actual data that show charter schools do the same or worse than public schools: Are we to listen to the Eric D Dixon who actually knows there are many more studies that prove this is a fact, or the one who is paid to report potentially bogus statistics that were provided and arrived at by the organization you are endorsing(KIPP).
You would much rather, of course, we buy into your trunkload of starched-white-shirt purchased taint. The tobacco companies employed very similar techniques for years and ended up compensating our citizens many billions of dollars. It is unfortunate that shams such as the “Show-me Institute” and its paid propagandists aren’t held responsible in such a way.

Comment by Joseph Gnatek — May 28, 2009 @ 4:44 p.m.

Joseph, you’re the one who continues to evade the point. You don’t know me, and you have no direct experience with my personal integrity — so it’s natural to be skeptical about my motives, however sincere and rigorous I know they are.

But you make continual assertions, both wild and vague, about our organization without citing any data to support your claims. In contrast, we present real data researched and analyzed by leading economists in academic positions at widely respected universities throughout the nation. This work is not suspect by any academic standard, but it’s always possible that their method is flawed. If you have a critique of the data or method of analysis that we present, please let us know.

Comment by Eric D. Dixon — May 28, 2009 @ 5:20 p.m.

Joseph, I think you’ll be very interested in our upcoming study on charter schools – it includes a literature review of a broad array of research. We should be publishing it in the next couple of months. Stay tuned.

Comment by Dave Roland — May 28, 2009 @ 6:40 p.m.

May 13, 2009