Capper is taking issue with some comments I made on a post by a member of the JSOnline Reader Advisor Committee.  The Committee Member said:

To use a Milwaukee County transit bus, people will need to be wise by paying the weekly or monthly pass upfront. Stella, a senior citizen, in a tight squeeze with her Social Security monthly pension, who several times a week visits her friend across town will have to pay two fares to ride the buses needed. Our County leaders want to save now. What they do not see is that maybe Stella will visit her friend less, or not at all. Maybe Stella or her friend might develop what long ago was call “melancholy” which fully developed will debilitate their health. Maybe in this saving process we the county residents will end up paying more because the end result might be that Stella, or her friend will end up using medical services they will not be able to pay. The same can be said for not spending in children’ art, music, sports programs in our school resulting in the residents of Milwaukee County having to spend more for jails.

To which I replied:

Maybe by eating that extra Twinkie as you type out a weird post, you will increase your cholesterol and extra point, causing a heart attack in a few years which will increase the insurance premiums the rest of us pay.

Maybe by flapping its wings, a butterfly will disturb the air in Africa enough to cause a devastating hurricane in Florida which will cost millions of dollars in property damage.

Its bad enough when we try to make public policy based off of bad statistics that are politically motived. Do we also have to make public policy based off of a Rube Goldberg litany of things which might link together to create some ill effect later down the line?

Now I have no idea what this person ate while writing this post, or if she (or he... I can't tell based on the name) is over weight or in ill health. That was not my point.  My point is that it becomes very easy through strange lines of logic like this to connect absolutely anything that we do, with some over arching "public benefit" which allows people to either increase taxes, or restrict our liberty. The State of New York has already proposed making it illegal for restaurants to cook with any salt, and they are also looking at banning the sale of products that contain High Fructose Corn Syrup. Now that the government has taken an even larger interest in the cost of our insurance, they also presume to have the right to control other aspects of our lives that they think affect our health.

The argument made by the Reader Advisory Committee is no different. By changing the model by which people buy bus passes to control costs further, some imaginary woman named Stella may not be able to visit her imaginary friend. Somehow, this will cause "melancholy" which will create a drain on other public services.

Capper then tries to tie this to preventative maintenance on things like the Zoo Interchange which could have eliminated the current costs we're seeing now, or preventative maintenance on your car which will keep it running longer and in better condition. Set aside for a moment that I don't believe anyone has argued that a lack of maintenance was at fault for our current Zoo Interchange problems (the structure was simply at the end of its life)... even Capper's arguments are a stretch.

For one, there is a direct link between engine maintenance and its ability to run longer. If you never change your oil... your engine will seize up. If you never fill potholes on a road... it will deteriorate faster and become impossible to drive on. More importantly than that direct link is the fact that there are no alternative courses. There is nothing you can do to your car besides oil changes to prevent engine seizes. There is no magic fix for potholes other than filling them to prevent the road from deteriorating.

The imaginary example invented by the Reader Advisory Committee Member doesn't meet either condition. First of all, there is no reason to believe that Stella won't be able to use the new system for purchasing a bus ticket, and therefore not meet with her friend. And even if she wasn't able to, who's to say that she won't call her friend more often in order to stay in touch? If she doesn't call her friend, who's to say that the friend's neighbors won't become more involved when they notice her state? There is no direct connection between the lack of bus tickets, and the deterioration of this person's mental state, and as you can see, there are alternatives to help her.

That's the problem with Rube Goldberg arguments. They are a set of completely disparate and unconnected system that have to be setup perfectly next to each other in order to have one fire off the next event in the chain. If one domino is slightly to far away from another, or a marble doesn't quite fall exactly as you want, the whole chain stops, and your expected outcome won't occur.

If you make arguments based of this type of thinking, then absolutely anything can be tied to anything else. How about this? If a rental car tax is increased to pay for the bus system, then people will travel to Milwaukee less, which will cause a business owner who is dependent on travel and has to lay off a college student named Mark. Mark is unable to get another job and has to drop out of college, becomes angry and turns to crime.

So don't you see, if we don't keep taxes low, the future cost will be much higher!