By Noah Dawson

In his grand treatise on economic theory, Human Action, Ludwig von Mises wrote the following about the nature of the study of economics:

“It takes the ultimate ends chosen by acting man as data, it is entirely neutral with regard to them, and it refrains from passing any value judgments. The only standard which it applies is whether or not the means chosen are fit for the attainment of the ends aimed at.”

In Human Action, Mises largely focuses on the fallacies of various economic policies of governments to demonstrate the fact that the ends achieved by the policies are contrary to the ends aimed at. However, the same yardstick applies to other fields of government policies, though many in government fail to recognize this fact.

Let us take the issue of mask wearing for instance. For the sake of this piece, I will not argue the merits of mask wearing. All I will assume for the moment on that issue is that the government wants people to wear masks. From here, it is pertinent to examine if policies put into place will achieve this goal.

The most popular policy put into place has been a simple mandate, requiring people wear masks or else suffer punishment, typically by fine. This is an absurdly ineffective measure. In areas where people are prone to accept mask wearing, people have generally been observed to wear masks on account of it being advised to do so, with the mandate mechanism changing little if any of the situation. For areas where people are not prone to accept mask wearing, the very fact that the government is mandating mask wearing incentivises many to not wear a mask. This is especially true in a nation like ours where some basic libertarian distrust in government runs deep in the fabric of our culture.

Let us now broaden the scope of the argument. Let us assume that the goal of the government is to decrease the spread of disease in order to better analyze another common policy, one which fines business owners who do not enforce mask wearing. This problem can even be viewed from an economic framework. Let us say that a business engaging in activity that promotes the spread of disease is creating a negative externality where the cost of dealing with the spread is inflicted on others than the business itself. The purpose of a fine against business owners who do not enforce mask wearing is an attempt to inflict the cost directly on the business owners. But, does this minimize the externality? No. It might lessen it, but it is far from the best solution. This is due to the fact that a lack of enforced mask wearing is not the whole part of the picture when it comes to engaging in activities that spread disease. In fact, defining mask wearing as being enough to stop the spread of disease fails to incentivize other methods. The real solution to minimizing the externality is therefore to not totally equate mask wearing with minimizing disease spreading. Instead, direct civil action against those actually negligently spreading disease on the part of the groups actually incurring the costs are needed. No other mechanism other than the threat of direct formal dispute between the party causing harm and the party harmed can be an effective means of achieving the goal.

So, why do those in power aim for these bad solutions? Mises had the answer when he wrote that “things became different as soon as people began to ascribe to the state not only the best intentions but also omniscience.” There is a popular belief that, when a government has a goal, their policies will be the best ones to achieve that goal. Governments, after all, are notorious for long meetings and multitudes of layers of bureaucrats. Somewhere in that mass of time and human thought labor must be some wisdom, right? And, because no other force of society is so organized, that wisdom must be ultimate, right? Well, the analysis speaks for itself.