A cure worse than the disease

Why is it that whenever the government bureaucrats try to "fix"something, their solution is often clumsy, burdensome, and illogical? Take the airport security, for example: after the Lockerbie bombing the airline personnel receiving luggage from passengers was required to ask every passenger 3 inane questions: "Did anyone unknown to you give you any items to carry on board this aircraft? Did you pack these bags yourselves? Have these bags been in your possession at all times since you packed them?" This went on for years and I haven't heard of any bombing or hijacking attempts that had been thwarted by that dumb procedure. Luckily for the government and the airlines, the passengers played along and did not bother to answer these questions truthfully, as this would have wrecked havoc. ("To be honest, since I packed these bags yesterday I left them unattended several times to go to the bathroom and to run errands." "Full check, please!")

Immediately after 9/11 security screeners confiscated, among other things, nail clippers, although it must have been self-evident to anybody with half a brain that after the events of that day no hijackers would be able to take over an airplane, even with box cutters, let alone nail clippers! The formerly operative advice, "Stay calm and do what the hijackers tell you to do" has gone out the window, even before any government official declared it invalid. After the most recent bombing plot discovered in the UK, people not only had their shampoo and toothpaste confiscated (this was, at least, somewhat reasonable given the nature of the threat, apparently involving liquid chemicals smuggled on board and then combined to make explosives), but laptops were also banned from carry-on luggage for no discernible reason whatsoever. This latter directive was recently rescinded, but it is still bewildering why it was issued in the first place. It is still somewhat of a miracle that the government did not make us fly barefoot, given the scare with the "shoe bomber" Richard Reid.

Of course, this could be dismissed as a mere nuisance that makes otherwise comfortable lives a little bit less comfortable, but with minimal societal costs. It's a very different story with legislations such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which, in reaction to the Enron debacle, imposed a lot of onerous requirements on businesses, stiffling American competitiveness and hobbling the stock market. As the Opinion Journal's John Fund writes: "Increasingly, Hong Kong and London are the places where companies are finding it easier and cheaper to list their shares and raise capital. Last year, of the 25 largest initial public offerings in the world, only one took place in America. This year, Hong Kong is likely to end up as the No. 1 market for stock offerings world-wide." This sort of governmental overreaction can have consequences far more costly and damaging than a silly ban on nail clippers.