Only in the event of war should government extend any greater control over the citizens. At other times unnecessary government spending dampens the creativity and happiness of the The grand lie is that “great good can come from government spending” programs. That lie is a bald-face statement that “there is a free lunch; that citizens can receive something for nothing. Increasing the size and scope of government, or let it read, “increasing the size and scope of government interference” is considered beneficial and sometimes compassionate and always “of ultimate good for society.” But as always the liberal forgets the “invisible men.”

The invisible men are the people the tax and spend folk don’t want you ever to see.   The most frequent sucker, er’ invisible man that liberal tax and spenders ripoff ares the individual taxpayers known as  Peter who are robbed (he gives his taxes because of the ultimate force the government can levy against him, not by choice) so that some favored group called Pauls over there can benefit . . . there is no compassion or benefit in this robbing. Governments produce nothing, they only divert and waste productive ends and sacrifice the productive parts of society to the non-productive over and over and over again.

Often though, other invisible men enter the equation.   Whole libraries could be written about “unintended consequences” of government interference . . . .

The 18^th Amendment sometimes called the Volstead Act established “Prohibition” in the country: a ban on manufacturing, transporting, and selling alcoholic beverages except for those used for religious purposes.  It created a whole societal disdain for law enforcement and made criminal mobs a whole lot of money. It was the only Amendment ever repealed (by the 21^st Amendment).

In 1977 and later in 1998 mortgage-guarantee laws were passed so that poorer people could own their own their own homes.  The effect of the combination of the two laws forced banks to okay loans to people they knew could not possibly repay their mortgages. This law had two unintended consequences: 

a. At first the country had a huge surplus of domestic rental units causing a lot of financial problems for landlords 

b. But the real stink from this one became evident in 2005 and by 2007 the bottom had dropped out of the real estate market and banks across the country were devastated.

In Spain, the best economy in Europe decided to create “green tech jobs” in order to prevent pollution and “global warming” and to inspire alternative energy technology and use. Spain now has twice the unemployment rate of the overall European Union. Why? Each green tech job costs the loss of 2.2 jobs in taxes from the wider economy to subsidize it; only one in ten green tech jobs created proved to be permanent so the ratio was 22 permanent jobs lost for every single green tech job created . . . that’s what presumably brought on the horrific Spanish recession.

With the intention of protecting children from dangerous toys, clothing and other products, a law has been passed that requires safety testing of all re-sale items in the country. Unfortunately, that law makes it virtually impossible for consignment stores, second-hand stores, recycle-stores etc. to operate at a profit . . . and just exactly who gets hurt by such laws? 

Who are these invisible people hurt by a law designed to protect children? Proprietors, employees and especially the people who need second-hand goods to help themselves and their families to survive. Why couldn’t there just be a brand new loose-leaf catalog of dangerous goods issued to people who own such stores . . . that they can add to a big binder? And perhaps a standard listing say of dangerous flammable clothing? Are you beginning to see the huge problems that lie with government intervention in every day life?