I first encountered a reference to Monckton's Law today. It seems very apt and fitting in many cases today with regard to how all of our various governments around the world operate. It also explains something I've spoken of often for years now.
I've pointed out how they give bills and new laws titles that sound great and promise great things and if someone doesn't want to vote for them or challenge them they mock the person and say "You don't support X" where X is the good thing the title would imply the bill or law is doing.
My observation has lead me to realize that a lot of the time (perhaps even most) the result ends up being the opposite of what that title would imply. They use fear, ridicule, and fear of being ridiculed to convince people to ram through things based upon title alone. The body of the bills is often very much the opposite of what that loaded title would make you think.
Monckton's Law is something it seems created by "Lord Christopher Monckton" whom is a person I've been aware of for years that has been in conflict with the Climate Change Alarmists. He was actually engaged in challenging them since before they migrated from "Global Warming" which was specific to "Climate Change" which is not specific and can cover any change of any kind.
Monckton's Law of Opposite Consequences
"Any attempt by governments to interfere in the free market in pursuit of some political objective or another will tend to bring about a result that is precisely the opposite of that which was – however piously – intended."
I chose to write this article after seeing reference to it as that specific line in this article. I wanted to know more and I found out it is very difficult to find references to this "Law" yet people apparently are very aware of it. Even Monckton's detractors reference it.
Why then is it so difficult to find?
I did find Monckton himself referencing it in an article about Gun Control, Militias, and Massacres which certainly is different from the normal foray into Climate Change territory.
The simple truth is that Monckton is not a one issue person. He is a person like many of us that recognizes the accelerating authoritarianism and tyranny and is trying to stop it. He is one of those that knows the Scientific Method is a tool designed to protect us from our biases while we seek answers. He knows you can always question and challenge in science. He knows that pushing consensus (aka popularity) as a reason to support something and not challenge it is not at all scientific. He is fighting what some of us have come to refer to as Scientism.
In the cult of Scientism the priest hides behind labels. Yet they still push dogma which you dare not question. You are supposed to blindly believe what they tell you or risk being viewed as a denier. They may even elevate the fear and coercion tactics and call you a terrorists, a seditionists, an insurrectionists, a racist, etc. All of these labels have nothing to do with the topic they supposedly are the expert on. They have everything to do with keeping you in line. If you are afraid your career will be destroyed, your life put at risk, etc. then the hope is you'll get in line and go along with what they are saying. There is absolutely nothing scientific about that. Though it is a lot like religion. In fact it might as well be a Secular Religion. Instead of manipulating you with fear of damnation in the afterlife they are instead manipulating you with the potential of them turning your here and now into hell. You are the dreaded denier. That is their version of the Blasphemer, or Heretic.
If you are not allowed to challenge something then it absolutely is NOT Science. This is inescapable truth. Now the thing you are questioning might have a basis in science yet a certain group of people might find benefit in not allowing the narrative to change. In that case it may have begun with the seeds of science and it was hijacked and turned into dogma to fit a narrative. This is usually political, power, or wealth related reasons.
That is enough of a side track. It is my own personal reasons I think about things similarly to Monckton's Law of Opposite Consequences.
For years I talked about how laws and bills tended to do the opposite of what their flowery emotionally loaded title would imply. Whether you called this Clown World, Mirror World, etc. That essentially is the basis for this Law.
Here are some examples I cited in the past:
"No Child Left Behind" - didn't leave children behind because it stunted all children. If you were gifted you were held back. This is the genesis of the "Participation Trophy" and other similar things. The result did not lift all children. It equalized them and sought equity. Yet lifting people up is not the only way to achieve equity.(1) You can also pull all people down. That is what this and all "equity" actions I am aware of do. They make it far worse. Opposite Consequences.
"Gun Control" - the places with the most strict gun control not only tend to have the most gun deaths (so many that a lot of those places never even report such things on the news) but other crime accelerates as well. Criminals that already plan to break the law don't care that you have an anti-gun law. The only people it impacts is law abiding people. They lose the ability to defend themselves and others. It does not deter criminals. It encourages them. This is perhaps why 90% of mass shootings occur in gun free zones. What better place for an armed criminal to go than somewhere they know their victims are disarmed? Now the other thing it does is disarm the populace so they cannot resist a government that might say be taken over by a dictator. Perhaps this is why Hitler, Mao, and many others pushed gun control narratives and disarmed their populace before going full on Tyrant. Perhaps this is why Australia is going through what it is going through now. Opposite Consequences.
"Affordable Healthcare Act" - Also known as Obamacare, or if you live in Massachusetts it is just an evolution of Romney Care. It was written largely by the Insurance companies, Pharmaceutical Lobbyists, etc. It centralized a lot of things. If you study history and the consequences of such things the outcome was obvious to many of us dissenting against this move. The result has been much less effective medical industry, and sky rocketing costs. It has provided record profit to the people that wrote the bill though. It also provided a wealth of lobbyist money and political fundraising that further insinuated unelected power in the government and corrupted it.
I used to be able to make appointments and go see the doctor the same day. This was not unusual. I could do this when I had insurance, and I could do it when I did not. Now with or without insurance I have to schedule appointments months in advance. My insurance premiums are through the roof. Some years I had to go without because Post-"Affordable Healthcare Act" my insurance premiums were on par with my mortgage payment and still had co-pays and other things.
I have insurance now purely for an emergency and that costs me more than any bill but my mortgage. Yet I haven't been to the doctor in over a year. They make massive profit and I don't actually get to use the service. Opposite Consequences.
"Inflation Reduction Act" - Get ready for even more inflation. Opposite Consequences.
That is enough for a moment. Yet I do think being aware of this concept is valuable.
I also see the value in Lord Christopher Monckton despite the ad hominem attacks, and ridicule his detractors constantly throw his way.
I wanted to write this article once I realized how difficult it is to actually find reference to this material when we do a search.
- Equity cannot be achieved of the type being pushed. It is resisted by reality and nature itself. We can seek to provide equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome though is impossible and this easily provable. Put two people in a room somewhere. Drop a prize in a random location. Have them both try to get it. The one closest will get there first. This is a simple example of how reality works. EQUITY is only achievable in the negative pulling everyone down direction. Yet really the central planners are always elevated. They end up the Lords and Ladies and we end up the Serfs and Slaves.
EDIT: I propose instead of this being Monckton's Law that it be Monckton's Razor as there are exceptions.