Yaicha

The Law of Unintended Consequences is a concept that has fascinated me since I learned about it as a child. The irony of good intentions producing disastrous results opened my eyes and showed me that “it’s the thought that counts” was a rather foolish claim to make.

This NYT article, “Unintended Consequences,” by Freakonomics authors Steven Levitt and Stephan Dubner, uses three widely different examples to illustrate this concept in a refreshing way.

But before charging ahead with such plans, the new president might do well to first ask him- or herself the following question: What do a deaf woman in Los Angeles, a first-century Jewish sandal maker and a red-cockaded woodpecker have in common?

Each turns out to be an example, of course, of unintended consequences. Here’s the conclusion:

So does this mean that every law designed to help endangered animals, poor people and the disabled is bound to fail? Of course not. But with a government that is regularly begged for relief — these days, from mortgage woes, health-care costs and tax burdens — and with every presidential hopeful making daily promises to address these woes, it might be worth encouraging the winning candidate to think twice (or even 8 or 10 times) before rushing off to do good. Because if there is any law more powerful than the ones constructed in a place like Washington, it is the law of unintended consequences.