In any case, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find places to sled in Monroe County anymore. This is rather startling since the county is brimming with terrific public parks and its geology is perfect for the kinds of sledding that folks love to do. Almost every country park here has wide and vast slopes that just scream out for kids to spend entire days there sledding and tubing and messing around.

Until now of course. We were hiking at Mendon last week, and at Ellison park a few weeks ago and also walking around some of the local high schools that also have great sledding hills on them, and posted on hills in every location for all to see is, “Warning: Absolutely No Sledding is Permitted Here.” And the notice is from Monroe County Parks. I don’t have pictures but I’ll take my camera the next time I go out there and post the images for your enjoyment.

That’s simply incredible, it really is. Of all of the things Monroe County is spending its time on, telling us not to sled on spectacularly great hills is, needless to say, totally absurd. It’s at this point that I’d normally launch into a tirade on the ridiculous nanny-state paternalists all around us and perhaps bring up points like this. Not today. Today, I want to go on a tirade on you. That’s right. You. Not the government.

You are the reason for this suckage. Now, I imagine I can find a way to tie this all into government somehow, but that is not the point. Why are you the reason for this suckage? Because too many people can’t handle individual responsibility. Too many people cannot handle their own freedom. And you suck because of that.

Here we are, after two feet of fresh snow has blanketed the pastoral landscape of western, NY. Snow boots on, hats and gloves on snug, a clean hill of pure joy laid out before us for hundreds of yards in all directions, sled underfoot – and the Monroe County sheriff comes by to relocate us. And it’s all because you suck. I am sure someone in the past few years bumped their head while sledding. I am sure that some people crashed into one another while sledding at some point in the past few years. After all, on the best snow days dozens and dozens of families get the same excited feeling we do and head for the same hills. Indeed, part of the ritual of sledding that is important is learning how to respect the actions of others – not wallowing on the ground at the bottom, dragging your sled up along the side of the path, not aiming for people with your sled, and having a good laugh when you wipe out. And I am sure someone had the brilliant idea of suing the county or suing another sledder for some accident that may have occurred in the past.

So Monroe County (in my charitable interpretation) is not necessarily telling me what’s good for me, and telling me that I cannot make decisions about risk, thrill and safety for myself and my children – what they are telling me is that few of my neighbors are capable of making those decisions without imposing massive costs on the county and indeed me. This is perhaps a liability issue.

And you know what? That sucks. If I were running Monroe County, I could see why I too might want to make the same rules (they do allow sledding now only in a few designated areas), but where is real leadership when we need it? Where are citizens of influence and policymakers leading the charge to remind people that individual responsibility is important, is to be cherished, and is a valued part of living in a decent society? Where are the policymakers to put an end to the litigousness that perhaps has led to this outcome? Why can’t Monroe County make it clear (pass a law?) that “buyer beware” when people are out on a sledding hill on public property? Are people really too stupid to handle that?

So sure, we have this asinine park paternalism to deal with, but I offer up the very likely possibility that the park planners are not the asinine ones – we all are, and that sucks. And it sucks living among folks who are like that.

OK, rant over, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

HT to Julia R for brightening my day!

This the men and women of the Community Soup Kitchen have provided for 26 years, not once missing a day. Now comes a challenge greater than any snowstorm or power outage. Earlier this year, the Morristown Division of Health ruled that henceforth the soup kitchen would be considered a “retail” food establishment under New Jersey law.

…

Most obvious is the higher cost: at least $150,000 more a year.

…

Much of this cost results from a new prohibition on people donating food they’ve prepared at home. For those on the giving end, often this was the only way they could participate, so eliminating their contributions means eliminating volunteers. For those on the receiving end, it means no more homemade meat loaf, lasagna, cakes and so forth.

…

For example, many of the women would bring their own aprons from home. No more. Now it’s all latex gloves, throw-away aprons, and a ban on food servers even entering the kitchen. In short, more institutional cafeteria than Grandma’s house.

…

In the 26 years this kitchen has been open, there seems to be no case of food poisoning.

Read the whole thing. You can never be too safe I guess. Have a lovely day.

Those who create costs pay for them — that simple idea is the logic behind the Clean Air Act and most other environmental regulations

If that is the simple logic behind the Clean Air Act, then the act should be torn up and tossed into the garbage. If such a comment was put onto my environmental economics exams, it would receive a failing grade. The simple logic behind good economics AND good environmental policy is not to ask those who create costs to pay for them – that is something that we may want to do after the fact. But what good economics and environmental policy requires is this: those who can mitigate problems for the lowest cost should do the mitigating.

An enormous body of evidence supports this, and indeed it does not necessarily coincide with it being the “damager” that is the low cost mitigator. Does it mean the “damager” should not contribute financially? Not at all. There’s much more to say about that piece, but one must turn one’s attention to other things for the time being.

1. Allow the FDA to ban everything, but to approve only that which is sanctions (sanction in the affirmative sense).
2. The FDA bans nothing a priori, but has the power to ban anything which it sanctions (sanction in the prohibitive sense).

In a world where resources are scarce, knowledge is dispersed and tacit, which of the two options would a priori be expected to deliver better outcomes in terms of drug and food safety and costs? Of course in the US we follow 1 and folks who mention 2 as a possibility are told they must want a horrible America. Can you write down a simple model of each and articulate conditions for when you’d choose 1 over 2 or vice versa?