Effectively framing public policy issues begins by identifying the proper standard of value. However, selecting the proper goal is only the start. If we do not embrace the proper method for selecting and evaluating facts, then we will not make the best policy choices.
There are two components to the proper method: context and alternatives. Context refers to the range of facts that we will consider when evaluating a policy. Alternatives refers to other policies that might be more effective in achieving the goal. Those who adopt the proper method seek the truth, rather than justification for one’s current position.
If we consider an issue in isolation, then we will not identify how a policy will impact other issues. If we want to make good policy decisions, then we must consider the full context. We must look at all issues that might be impacted by a policy. We must look at the long-term consequences. We must integrate all of the relevant facts. The failure to do so guarantees that we will make poor decisions.
If we drop context, we look only at the immediate and easily seen results. We willfully ignore long-term and less obvious consequences. Consider rent control as an example. Despite overwhelming evidence that rent control reduces both the quantity and quality of rental housing, politicians and housing activists continue to call for restrictions on what landlords can charge for rent. If we look only at the short-term consequences, we might conclude that rent control is good—it keeps rents below the market rate. But if we examine the long-term consequences, we will realize that rent control disincentivizes investment into rental housing and reduces the housing stock.
More significantly, rent control does not promote individual liberty. It forces landlords to act contrary to their judgment, rather than protecting their freedom to act. If individual liberty is our standard, then rent control does not and cannot attain the goal that we seek.
Unfortunately, virtually all public policy debates focus on false alternatives. We are given the choice between the status quo—a mixture of government controls and individual liberty—and more government controls. The alternative of expanding individual freedom is seldom considered. If we examine nearly any policy debate, we will find that the proposals invariably restrict and regulate someone. The debate centers on who will be controlled and who will receive the benefits.
To make the best policy decisions, we must objectively evaluate the pros and cons of all of the alternatives. But this seldom happens. Instead, both Democrats and Republicans look to government controls and regulations to solve the latest problem. Defenders of the free market must reject this framework.
Instead, we must reframe the debate. We must assert a new standard—individual liberty. We must demand that our opponents consider the full context, as well as the pros and cons of alternatives. Truth is on our side, and we must insist that the facts—all of the facts—be considered.
The fundamental issue is statism vs. freedom. We must make that point explicit. This requires properly framing public policy issues. When we do so, we are much more likely to change minds.