I think it’s pretty common and widely accepted that people support laws for their second-order, indirect consequences rather than their most obvious first-order consequences. Some examples:
Taxes on alcohol and tobacco are not mainly made for the purpose of raising money for the government, but in order to reduce alcohol and tobacco consumption.
During recessions, governments often increase spending, not necessarily because they think the spending targets are worthwhile on their own merits, but instead because they want to stimulate demand and improve the macroeconomic situation.
Education is mandatory for children perhaps in part because education is inherently valuable, but more importantly because widespread education is good for economic growth.
These aren’t necessarily perfect analogies, but I think they suggest that there’s no general norm against supporting policies for their indirect consequences. Instead, it’s often healthy when people with different motivations come together and form a political coalition to support a shared policy goal.
I think these examples may not illustrate what you intend. They seem to me like examples of governments justifying policies based on second-order effects, while actually doing things for their first-order effects.
Taxing addictive substances like tobacco and alcohol makes sense from a government’s perspective precisely because they have low elasticity of demand (ie, the taxes won’t reduce consumption much). A special tax on something that people will readily stop consuming when the price rises won’t raise much money. Also, taxing items with low elasticity of demand is more “economically efficient”, in the technical sense that what is consumed doesn’t change much, with the tax being close to a pure transfer of wealth. (See also gasoline taxes.)
Government spending is often corrupt, sometimes in the legal sense, and more often in the political sense of rewarding supporters for no good policy reason. This corruption is more easily justified when mumbo-jumbo economic beliefs say it’s for the common good.
The first-order effect of mandatory education is that young people are confined to school buildings during the day, not that they learn anything inherently valuable. This seems like it’s the primary intended effect. The idea that government schooling is better for economic growth than whatever non-mandatory activities kids/parents would otherwise choose seems dubious, though of course it’s a good talking point when justifying the policy.
So I guess it depends on what you mean by “people support”. These second-order justifications presumably appeal to some people, or they wouldn’t be worthwhile propaganda. But I’m not convinced that they are the reasons more powerful people support these policies.
I think it’s pretty common and widely accepted that people support laws for their second-order, indirect consequences rather than their most obvious first-order consequences. Some examples:
Taxes on alcohol and tobacco are not mainly made for the purpose of raising money for the government, but in order to reduce alcohol and tobacco consumption.
During recessions, governments often increase spending, not necessarily because they think the spending targets are worthwhile on their own merits, but instead because they want to stimulate demand and improve the macroeconomic situation.
Education is mandatory for children perhaps in part because education is inherently valuable, but more importantly because widespread education is good for economic growth.
These aren’t necessarily perfect analogies, but I think they suggest that there’s no general norm against supporting policies for their indirect consequences. Instead, it’s often healthy when people with different motivations come together and form a political coalition to support a shared policy goal.
I think these examples may not illustrate what you intend. They seem to me like examples of governments justifying policies based on second-order effects, while actually doing things for their first-order effects.
Taxing addictive substances like tobacco and alcohol makes sense from a government’s perspective precisely because they have low elasticity of demand (ie, the taxes won’t reduce consumption much). A special tax on something that people will readily stop consuming when the price rises won’t raise much money. Also, taxing items with low elasticity of demand is more “economically efficient”, in the technical sense that what is consumed doesn’t change much, with the tax being close to a pure transfer of wealth. (See also gasoline taxes.)
Government spending is often corrupt, sometimes in the legal sense, and more often in the political sense of rewarding supporters for no good policy reason. This corruption is more easily justified when mumbo-jumbo economic beliefs say it’s for the common good.
The first-order effect of mandatory education is that young people are confined to school buildings during the day, not that they learn anything inherently valuable. This seems like it’s the primary intended effect. The idea that government schooling is better for economic growth than whatever non-mandatory activities kids/parents would otherwise choose seems dubious, though of course it’s a good talking point when justifying the policy.
So I guess it depends on what you mean by “people support”. These second-order justifications presumably appeal to some people, or they wouldn’t be worthwhile propaganda. But I’m not convinced that they are the reasons more powerful people support these policies.