Bureaucrats Keep Us Safe?
Not in this world.
One of the Holy Writs of Progressivism is that government rules and regulations keep us safe. Thanks to government orders, claim Progressives, we have safer cars, safer food, and safer homes. Were it not for the bureaucracies, they argue, our lives would be fraught with danger.
The favorite tool of the bureaucracies is what economists call “command and control,” the point of which is that certain procedures or devices ordered by the government ensure safety; anyone who argues against the command must be against safety. For example, when some people called for relatively small changes in the Clean Water Act, New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis wrote that they wanted feces to wash up on the nation’s beaches.
Granted, that is an extreme example, but it certainly reflects the Progressive mentality. We see the same thinking at work in a recent move by Houston authorities to stop a Christian husband and wife from feeding homeless people:
Bobby and Amanda Herring spent more than a year providing food to homeless people in downtown Houston every day. They fed them, left behind no trash and doled out warm meals peacefully without a single crime being committed, Bobby Herring said.
That ended two weeks ago when the city shut down their “Feed a Friend” effort for lack of a permit. And city officials say the couple most likely will not be able to obtain one.
Why did the city do it? The explanation is pure Progressive bureaucratese:
Anyone serving food for public consumption, whether for the homeless or for sale, must have a permit, said Kathy Barton, a spokeswoman for the Health and Human Services Department. To get that permit, the food must be prepared in a certified kitchen with a certified food manager.
The regulations are all the more essential in the case of the homeless, Barton said, because “poor people are the most vulnerable to foodborne illness and also are the least likely to have access to health care.”
One has to step back and absorb what this bureaucrat said and properly interpret it: It is better that people have more difficult access to food than to have food that in theory might pose a health problem. Now, there is no evidence the food, which was prepared by local businesses and donated to the couple, had any problems. Could government food pass the same safety test? We’re all are aware of the high quality of government-produced goods and services. That would include public schools, prisons — and especially prison food and medical care – and many public hospitals. Enough said.
Even the homeless “establishment” agreed with the city:
Connie Boyd, president and CEO of the Coalition for the Homeless of Houston/Harris County, applauded the Herrings’ efforts but defended the city’s stance.
“We absolutely need more people like them who care about this vulnerable population,” Boyd said. “Even though their intentions are good, they ran into ordinances that are designed to protect the public. There are good reasons why they’re in place.”
Understand what the authorities are regulating. The Herrings were not running a restaurant. They were distributing food prepared in restaurants that had passed regulatory inspections. (If the authorities believe that food can become tainted after it leaves the restaurants, then it follows logically that all take-outs should be banned.)
As I see it, this is not overzealous regulation; it is the natural extension of bureaucratic thinking. Once people believe that government agents protect us, there can be no end to the avenues of “protection” bureaucrats will offer.
The homeless people fed by the Herrings are not made safer by the ruling, nor are they suddenly less susceptible to food-borne illness. But it will be more difficult for them to find a meal, and when they do, most likely the food will be inferior to what they had. All in the name of safety.
Comment by Libertarian jerry on 19 January 2011:
An old saying: “God forgive those that do things in the name of evil and God protect us from those who do things in the name of good.” In this case,the people who are doing things in the name of “good” are the bureaucrats and the vested interests that make a living as poverty pimps.
Comment by russell on 19 January 2011:
and remember, those government authorities are the ones engaged in “public service.”
Comment by R Middleton on 19 January 2011:
Any example that we, the people, might conceivably get things done without government intervention and regulation must be stopped at all costs. The socialists live in fear that one day enough of us will realize how surplus to requirements they all are that we will demand the ultimate in economy. And fear being one of the poorer reasons for doing much exacerbates the problems.
Comment by Dorothy on 19 January 2011:
This, and other stories along this same line, demonstrate how selfish society, in particular advocates of leftist ideology, is today. People think it is “good” to help people, but don’t want a hands-on involvement; they want/expect government to do everything.
Not many years ago a large hotel in the area began giving leftovers to a homeless shelter. The leftovers were NOT from plates served, but were food, including breads and fruit, that was available but unused. The state (Massachusetts) stopped them, for the same “health” reasons cited in this story. It is sick; better to dispose of all that food, rather than give it to the needy and risk a potential health problem.
I ask those bureaucrats: What about the REAL health issues caused by malnourishment suffered by the needy???
To give a homeless shelter eggs, breads and fruit is a GOOD thing, but somehow the bureaucrats feel that it can not be allowed.
At the rate that “progressive” liberals are forcing regulation upon the people of America, it shall not be long before we will not be allowed to mow our own yards without a [costly] permit. Nor shall we be allowed to grow vegetables in our own gardens, because it *might* pose a health risk.
BS!
The real issue is power and greed. Mark my words; under ObamaCare, we will be forced to pay a premium if/when we purchase “bad” foods. You know all those “bonus cards” that the large grocery chains use? Well, the data all goes into a date warehouse, sold to insurance corporations. Soon, everybody will be required to have one, or something equivalent. Then, if you buy tobacco products (regardless of for whom), you get a surcharge. If you buy “fattening” foods, you get hit with a surcharge. It won’t matter if you’re buying as a favor to help a sick neighbor or family member – the purchase will be recorded in YOUR registered ID.
This is only the beginning.
Comment by Dennis on 19 January 2011:
In the county where I live, there were some restaurants in the rural areas that were not inspected by city inspectors. Of course, the county decided they needed to inspect this handful of restaurants. They also decided that the county inspectors should be paid $58,000 per year and therefore each restaurant in the county is now assessed a fee of $300 to pay for the inspectors.
What amazes me is how passive the restaurant owners have been toward this regulatory stupidity. Milton Friedman once said that the reward for acquiescing to regulation is more regulation.
Comment by Mike on 19 January 2011:
Let them eat certificates!
Comment by Michael Price on 21 January 2011:
Note that you can still feed yourself from your own kitchen. Appearantly your own life is not worth protecting otherwise officials would make you get certification before you made yourself a sandwich.