Bad Baseball Bill
by Jim Rutter
Recently, in their Feb 21-28 issue, Sports Illustrated posted the following under their “Go Figure” weekly column: “$100—the fine that would be incurred by a pro athlete who charges a kid under 16 for an autograph if a bill introduced by Rhode Island State Senator Roger Badeau becomes law.” Essentially, if this bill became law, any professional athlete, whether at a sporting event, a sponsored convention, or going about their private lives while in the state of Rhode Island cannot charge a fee for their autograph to any child under the age of 16. It’s always good to know that the governments, everywhere we elect them, are “thinking about the children.”
Now let’s think about some consequences of such a bill, if the Rhode Island State Senate passes it into law. Number One, count on an immediate drop in the appearance of professional athletes in the state of Rhode Island. Of course, I don’t mean for the many professional leagues that have teams in the state (none). I’m referring to the appearances, already paid, of these athletes in sponsored sports collectible conventions, paid openings of businesses like car dealerships, and paid appearances at speaking events, dedications of memorials, and the like. Like I mentioned, Rhode Island has no professional sports teams to call her own. The citizens of this state can travel to see the players of neighboring states whose teams they adopt as their owns (e.g. New England Patriots), or they could attend conventions in the hopes of meeting them personally and obtaining an autograph. However, if Badeau’s bill (I’d call it “Bad Bill” for short, but no) passes into law, it’s an odds on favorite that pro athletes thinking of traveling to Rhode Island at a now lesser price will turn down the conventions in that state in favor of more lucrative deals elsewhere (Traditionally, athletes at these events are paid a fixed appearance fee, and then are free to charge, or not, an amount of their choosing for autographing sports memorabilia). An athlete who would have earned (and it is earned), say ten-thousand dollars in appearance fees, and then an additional five thousand or more at five-dollars-an-autograph (now denied), for an appearance in Rhode Island, would, under this new law, take offer B in Boston, where he gets the same flat-rate of 10K, but can also earn money for autograph-signing.
Or you could do the math and find consequence number two of such a law. A savvy sports promoter, not wanting to lose recurring business in the state of Rhode Island where he has organized conferences before, makes the following decision: the promoter will now raise the price of the standard appearance fee to a rate comparable to the old fee plus a dollar amount equal to the average number of autographs signed by professional athletes at such venues in the past. Not wanting to incur the detrimental costs of such a bill on the free market by himself, he will then pass the cost on as increased ticket prices to enter, increased leases for vendors and stall operators, decreased wages to venue workers, etc. The net result of eliminating consequence number one could mean increased ticket prices for every one who has or plans to attend, even if they were not there necessarily to seek autographs. Hence, the cost of a small group’s desires (autograph seekers) are now passed on to all convention attendees, with the intended effect of all wealth transfers—an increase in purchasing power for the group that benefits (children seeking autographs). Another possible effect of consequence number two is increased drink and food prices at the venue, increased prices on sports memorabilia to cover the higher lease prices, which will in turn affect the number of attendees and the amount and quality of their purchases. Shrewd collectors will purchase less goods knowing they will be available at lower prices in nearby cities and states; families who spent the day will now either not go at the higher prices, or go for shorter times, skipping the lunch carts or cafeterias; the vendors will see less traffic as kids who came for the “free” autograph now find themselves paying twenty dollars, rather than ten to get in, etc. As a result, the convention suffers overall, even with the appearance of pro-athletes now signing “free autographs” for kids under 16. Less-attended conventions turn away all who make the convention possible, as vendors and sellers experience lesser rates of return and therefore decide not to show up. Also, the associated industries suffer (aren’t we all tired of hearing how much associated industries either benefit or suffer from some government plan?). Fewer convention-goers lower the number of hotel rooms booked, the traffic at area restaurants, the volume of taxis used and needed. And the good people of Rhode Island can hand themselves all this, just to protect their children from evil greedy athletes. (Why is it that no one ever points the finger at the benefiting special interest and accuses them of being evil and greedy? C’mon, we all know evil children.)
Consequence number three, and one probably unforeseen by those watchdogs of public justice in the Rhode Island State Senate: parasitic and black-market industries will quickly develop to fill in the wealth-transferring loopholes such a proposal offers. In this case, it isn’t hard at all to imagine a sports-collectible seller, buying a carton of baseballs, and offering any interested kid a few bucks to go stand in line and get his baseball signed. “You bring me back the baseball, you get the five bucks.” The value of a four-dollar baseball just amplified to the current market value of that baseball signed by any specific pro-athlete for the mere cost of five extra dollars. A sports-collectible seller who could have gotten a few signatures at most (and paid for them), now gets as many as he can get kids to scam the new law. Hence, the sports collectible dealer’s wealth is increased, once again, at the expense of the pro-athlete, and per above, of everyone who attends and makes the convention possible. Since this practice would skirt the spirit of the law while obeying the letter, I imagine that “police crackdowns” on this type of activity would surely be promised by the local D.A. every time a convention comes to town. All, of course, at the transferred expense of extra (or everywhere else reduced) policing required for the police to catch those greedy sellers of sports collectibles. Thank you State Senator Badeau.
Finally, consequence number four: While it’s very easy to prove that any child is over the age of sixteen (you got I.D.?), how does one go about proving that any “child” asking for a free autograph is under the age of sixteen. The easy and quick answer is “more regulations!” And we all know the associated costs of extra bureaucracy. (In case you don’t, here’s an easy example: the event promoter will now have to pay additional workers to check the birth certificates of any child wanting an autograph, either at the door or by the autographing table, thus resulting in additional costs, that like in consequence number two, will then have to be passed on to every consumer, not just those seeking autographs, since no one can charge for autographs. That’s only one, very inexpensive solution, relatively speaking, considering how bad the government can rack up expenses—think prescription drug coverage for seniors.)
I list all of these consequences only because libertarians primarily argue in this fashion. I list all of these consequences as a specific lesson as to why we should not argue this way. While all four consequences illustrate the bad economics of such a proposal put forth by State Senator Badeau, they do not show the immorality of both the bill he has proposed and the intent and character of his actions in proposing such a bill.
The main problem that I have with libertarians arguing this way (a la Henry Hazlitt, or many others), is that the supporters of such a bill, even with all of these faulty economic proposals can simply propose more “solutions” to the problem. The economic minded libertarian, quick to point out the failures and flaws of these new “remedies” eventually gets brushed aside under the rubric of “well, nothing’s going to make you happy,” and “we want this bill to protect our children.” It is at this point that I say the libertarians who do argue economically rather than morally, argue wrong.
I will admit, it’s fun to point out how stupid your opponent is in regards to the real workings of a free market; however, the much stronger argument is to point out that he’s an immoral asshole. The major upshot of arguing for the moral high ground is because most of the people who argue for proposals like Badeau’s already assume a moral superiority. These are the people who want to “help others,” who look out for “the downtrodden,” and those that cannot defend themselves. People like Badeau walk into work everyday with a chip on their shoulder and a self-righteous grit on their smile. For them, working out the economics is an afterthought. They’re doing good. It’s well past the time that libertarians go on the strongest offensive possible to show them that not only are they not doing good, but that they’re evil people with the worst motivations possible, intent only on doing harm and wrong to others.
I’ll also admit, that pointing out these consequences to many, whether in public debate, or in print, has the effect of alerting constituents to the problems involved in such a proposal like Badeau’s. Arguments like those listed above will even convince many that such proposals are not economically viable. While effective in its own right, this type of strategy fails to achieve the real libertarian goal: that of presenting a consistently principled way to structure the interrelations of the government and free market, that is not only economically sound, but that also respects the human rights of private property and the right to life, labor, and free contract of individuals. Hence, what libertarians should seek to do in all occasions is to show that they present the only moral point of view. It is simply not enough to show the economic wrongs of such a proposal; we must also convince everyone that these proposals are morally wrong.
Let me illustrate this further. Badeau’s proposal, expressly limits the freedoms of professional athletes to engage in their individual right of free contract. How libertarians should point this out, is to say that “In a perfect world, sponsored by Roger Badeau, professional athletes become the de facto slaves of children seeking their autographs.” You might quickly point out that “no one cares about pro athletes and their ‘rights.’” That’s not the point. The point of such a response is to put the onus of moral legitimacy back upon the proponents of such a bill by showing that they are morally in the wrong
The ultimate goal of those opposing a bill like Badeau’s is then to change the moral status of those that propose it, and ultimately the moral premises of a society that let’s them. If libertarians are to succeed, they must first convince others that people like Badeau are not only morally wrong, but evil in their intentions. We must first convince others that the wealthy are not objects for society to exploit. (As we must also convince them that no member or group of society is an object to be exploited.) Again, it might at first glance, seem fruitful to point out to others that “a pro athlete’s time is extremely valuable” and that we cannot just stipulate that they submit some of it to the autograph collecting desires of children. That too enters us back into the realm of economic, and not moral consequences.
Badeau’s bill is morally wrong because it denies professional athletes their right of property, their right of free contract, their right to their own labor, and moreover, because a bill like this would then use force to ensure the denial of those rights. Effectively, such a bill holds the threat of a fine at the point of a gun over the heads of professional athletes, all of who have equal claim to rights as every other member of our society. Our society would (hopefully, though I’m not sure anymore) reject the notion that “all shopkeepers must give free ice cream and coke to all the children who ask for it” simply because we realize that children have no right to ice cream or soda they don’t pay for. Ipso facto on the signature of professional athletes. We should view anyone who claims otherwise with the same moral lens we cast on slave owners and thieves.
Moreover, libertarians should paint Roger Badeau as a fascist, a thief, an extortionist, and an exploiter. Again, that no one cares about the group he is attempting to exploit is not an issue. We either win on principle, or failing that, we start shooting people like Roger Badeau. (Can I say that?) In either case, economic arguments against proposals like Badeau’s are insufficient. We must respond at all times in a moral fashion against those that act immorally, or else we lose the principled stance we claim in favor of the economic analyses our opponents use to argue for their personal gain. When we begin to argue on their terms, we lose the ability to switch back to principles when our opponents say to us, “Well, why should baseball players get so much money?” (and still be able to charge children for autographs?) Once you start arguing consequences, you can no longer consistently argue for rights.
The second worst part of a bill like this is that it teaches children that exploitation in their favor is somehow morally defensible. It’s bad enough that they learn this when peering over their parents shoulder near April 15th. But teaching them that their desire to obtain a signature trumps the rights of another human (a rich pro athlete) is no less a crime than if we were to teach them that their desire to obtain new cotton sweaters trumps the rights of another human during slavery. The principle is the same, and libertarians should be quick to point out that the moral status is therefore also the same.
The worst part of a bill like this is that it violates human rights, and that a society allegedly committed to freedom and individual liberty has too many members who see nothing wrong with such a proposal. Decent people in Rhode Island and everywhere should recognize Roger Badeau for what he is: a party to thief, the moral equivalent of a common bank robber or a slave driver. Decent people would stop voting for him, libertarians should argue that we run him out of town on a rail.