I have to laugh when I hear about situations like this. In a nutshell, the state of Massachusetts, in an attempt to reduce air pollution, hatched a scheme to "encourage" commuters to use mass transit. Their tactic was to mandate that some parking lots in Boston remain closed until after rush hour. The idea, of course, was to make driving in to work so inconvenient that commuters would choose the subway.

The plan was partially successful. The commuters are, indeed, inconvenienced. But they aren't flocking to the buses and the subway. Instead, they are driving downtown, same as they always do, and then either driving around looking for another place to park or waiting in line (with engines idling) for the lots to open. Commuters interviewed in the article are (understandably) scratching their heads wondering how this is reducing air pollution.

Has the government caught on? The article would lead one to believe that they have not. Apparently, the mandate included some lots that have yet to comply. The statement about working the "bugs" out of the system indicates that the government intends to regulate those lots as well. So, the government response is to increase the level of interference. One wonders what might follow this scheme. They could implement a pass system regulating when, and where, a commuter is permitted to park. Or, they could shut down the parking lots they currently regulate, plow them under, and turn them into parks. (I know Kelo implied that the "public good" was supposed to take the form of increased tax revenue, but surely they could argue that reducing air pollution is another form of "public good.")

In purely economic terms, this situation is a small-scale example of what happens when a government engages in economic planning. Such schemes are bound to go awry, because it is impossible to predict how individuals will react to changes in market conditions. If the Massachusetts government does resort to more extreme measures, it will be interesting to see what market changes ensue. In the face of government-mandated prohibition, a black market is likely to emerge. (Just ask anyone who remembers Prohibition, or someone who lived in the former Soviet bloc.) (And, yes, I know I said it was impossible to anticipate the behavior of individuals; however, the behavior of large groups en masse tends to be more predictable.) Any place where it is possible to park surreptitiously could become a potential source of illicit revenue. And anyone who utilized the black market would become a criminal -- and why? Not because he violated the rights of another individual, but because he refused to engage in the behavior being forced on him by the government.

Of course, government attempts at behavior modification are nothing new. Wanna smoke a little pot? Even better, head up to Canada and then quote Romans 1:26-27 in public. These sorts of programs bring the term "nanny state" into sharp focus. The government is trying to bring about changes for the "public good" that the "public" apparently does not perceive for itself (or else they would voluntarily make changes). This is the sort of thing a parent does to his child, or God to His disciple. That government would usurp either role is an idea that would have repelled the Founding Fathers, and should repel us today.