They say that a camel is a horse designed by committee. I think there is a lot of truth to that humorous insight. It has been my experience that any time a group is involved in the planning process, the result is usually a compromise with which no one is happy.

It's that way with many government regulations on business, too.

Currently there are proposed regulations to force automobile companies to improve gas mileage and to strengthen roofs. I believe both of these proposals are misguided even though the intent behind the regulations is very good.

Take the gas mileage restrictions, for example. One of the factors driving this proposed regulation is carbon emissions that may cause global warming. Congress is under pressure from those who believe that many of us are not behaving in an environmentally sensitive way and buying fuel-efficient vehicles. The effect of the regulation is to impose a specific solution on the people who are "misbehaving."

The difficulty in this case is what economists refer to as an "externality." An externality is a cost imposed on people who don't use the product directly. In this case, people who drive cars impose higher carbon pollutants in the air on non-users. The economic solution is to make drivers pay for the total costs; that is, impose a fee on every gallon of gasoline that is used and use the money collected to remove the carbon from the air.

The beauty of the economic solution is that it imposes the costs on the people who cause the problem.

On the other hand, the regulation to make automobile manufacturers improve fuel mileage may be a good idea on the surface, but it forces a specific solution with unintended side effects. It will raise the cost of American cars, which eventually will result in layoffs in the American automobile industry.

It may cause people to hold on to old, fuel-inefficient cars longer because they are grandfathered and don't have to obey the rules on new cars. People may buy foreign cars because they aren't covered by the regulations. People will find ways around the regulation and new, more extensive regulations will have to be added to restrict the loopholes.

However, if people are forced to pay the total cost of using gasoline, entrepreneurial solutions can be devised. Entrepreneurs may develop additives that improve mileage. Maybe some people will choose to drive less. Some people will avoid buying fuel-inefficient cars. Others may pay premiums for fuel-efficient cars. Once the users are forced to bear all the costs, they can use many different methods to deal with the problem. A regulation imposes a specific method and will have to be reinforced with more and more regulations.

I believe that consumers should make decisions based on their own driving habits and their personal determination of cost/benefit trade-offs. Give them the choice. Don't impose a specific solution on them, even if the intent is noble.

Allowing a choice means entrepreneurs are free to develop new and innovative ways of solving a problem rather than having a government impose a specific solution.

Some people may choose $400,000 cars with triple-reinforced roofs and sidewalls, radar/ computer-controlled steering, and six-foot collapsible bumpers.

Some people may devise new entrepreneurial solutions. Some people may prefer the cars we have and run the risks.

Just like some people may choose a horse rather than a camel.