Negative Consequence #6: Dishonesty and Disrespect for the Law

Governments are imperfect at detecting and punishing violations of their laws and regulations.  Much avoidance and evasion therefore occurs, and people who obey the law lose out relative to people who do not.  That is, the honest suffer relative to the dishonest, and everyone learns that laws are for suckers.

The most obvious policies with this feature are prohibitions against vice, but many others exhibit it as well: speed limits and other traffic rules, safety and health regulation, affirmative action, complicated tax codes, campaign finance regulation, environmental policies, and so on.  So government interventions foster the attitude that rules are “made to be broken.”

In some instances, of course, government “rules” make sense even though violations will occur and some violators will never be caught or punished; laws against violence or theft are the classic illustrations.  But these are the exceptions, and they differ from the cases discussed above.  For murder or theft, everyone agrees the actions harm innocent third parties, and everyone wants the rules obeyed.  This does not apply to a large fraction of  government policies, most of which prevent mutually beneficial exchange.  When people violate such rules, most people recognize that this is beneficial for the violators and does not necessarily harm anyone.   Thus, skepticism and non-compliance are likely.

Comments

[Steve]

Hi Jeffery,

This argument is extremely weak. While it's true people realize criminals benefit rather directly from breaking the law, they don't conclude that "laws are for suckers", and hence disrespect for the law is not necessarily fostered. Repeat offenders will elicit a social response that will tend to dissuade them from cheating. Psychological studies have shown that this effect is quite strong, with people even sacrificing their own utility just to punish cheaters. So the peer group seems to respect the law, at least at the level of being willing to enforce punishment.

[caveatBettor]

I said the same thing last week:

See, if the government doesn't take its laws seriously, it sends a confusing signal to its citizens: You are electing and paying us to make and enforce laws on your behalf, but its really just a boondoggle.

I was talking about the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act. Please check out the whole thing.

[Chris]

Steve - that may be the case in some circumstances, but certainly not all, or perhaps even most. No one obeys speed limits. Drug prohibition is a joke. Tax evasion was routine when you didn't have to prove you had children.

There are enough "anonymous" violations for Miron's point to be completely valid.

[James]

The argument is fine so far as it goes, but it seems to assume that while the lawmakers are making too many rules, the law enforcers are doing the best the can to enforce them. In practice, when the lawmakers create more rules than can be consistently enforced, the result isn't inconsistent but random enforcement. It's selective enforcement.

[Malvolio]

While it's true people realize criminals benefit rather directly from breaking the law, they don't conclude that "laws are for suckers", and hence disrespect for the law is not necessarily fostered. Repeat offenders will elicit a social response that will tend to dissuade them from cheating.

That's for offenders who actually face social opprobrium. For many laws, the lawbreaker really isn't viewed negatively.

Suppose you learned your next-door neighbor used to smoke marijuana, one a week for five years. 250 separate felonies. Would you ostracize him? Gather petitions to have him evicted? Picket his house? Didn't think so.

Now suppose that OJ Simpson -- a man acquitted in a court of law -- moved in on the other side.