I'm always amazed at how we have laws for every little thing (or more accurately, against every little thing).
Maybe it's the coder in me but it just seems so inefficient, like an if…else if… with dozens of conditions…
Maybe it's the coder in me but it just seems so inefficient, like an if…else if… with dozens of conditions…
> Nah, probably easier to keep pretending that it's super-simple to manage humans at scale just because it's easier to reason about.
This canard about libertarians [1] not understanding the complexity of the real world is oft-repeated, but it is misguided, and comes off as condescending to boot.[2]
The likes of Hayek and Friedman did not contend that reality is simple; they contended that it was complex -- too complex for economic systems based on expansive government intervention (socialism, mercantilism, etc) to grapple with and produce satisfactory outcomes.
They advocated a free market system on the premise that it was the best way to handle this complexity, not on the basis that it doesn't exist.
Now, you are free to question whether empirical evidence bears out either point. But it is ignorant to suggest libertarianism is based on eschewing complexity.
1. Here I am referring mostly to libertarians of a consequentialist lean. Libertarians of a mostly deontological lean are orthogonal to this discussion because whether or not they understand the world's complexity is mostly immaterial to their policy prescriptions, as they are concerned mostly with morality, not outcomes.
2. Usually unintentionally, I would hope, though it seems that at least with mpyne it is not.
They shifted simplicity from society to the individual. So if the social was complex it was nevertheless based on a the motives of simple individuals.
That is, people are selfish rational actors. The problem is that they arent. Libertarian models of humans are incredibly simplistic.
I can't speak to Friedman, but Hayek's views were more subtle than that (and so are mine, for what little it matters). He recognized many limitations on the rationality of economic actors; he advocated what today would probably be referred to as bounded rationality.
http://books.google.com/books?id=CdI9VRcn1SEC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA...
http://books.google.com/books?id=Dc1s6zB8Ee8C&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8...
http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/10.1057/97811372... (same book)
http://www.georgesoros.com/interviews-speeches/entry/why_i_a...
The very source of the value we place upon institutions, people, goals, etc. is entirely a product of the interaction between culture and basic psychological drives.
People do not have "preferences" in the strong propositional sense required for modelling. They have drives, ideals, etc. These can be systematized by asking them to rank states of affairs but even here things are delicate (which is why polling on issues is generally useless).
Any kind of "rationality" talk is extremely prescriptive in practice: failing to actually look at the world and describe it, libertarians et al. go around theorizing in an ahistorical vacuum with pseudo-computer human stand-ins. And criticise actions in the real world that dont conform.
People aren't at all clear on what they want, nor how to accomplish it. People respond to impulses and psychological drives not propositionalized goals.
This tired, unresearched, and common "rebuttal" of libertarian ideals is completely false.
What qualifies as "satisfactory" is where things get complicated. For Friedman, satisfactory is maximizing shareholder value. That goal is much too narrow for a well-functioning society. Markets serve society, society does not serve markets.
Optimizing for Friedman's definition of satisfactory puts many important things on the backburner: environment, quality of life, social justice, good communities, social programs, health, worker rights, etc.
That doctrine (which I disagree with, FWIW) applies to companies, not to overall economic outcomes.
Not so. Friedman's "goal" is not maximizing shareholder value, but rather maximizing economic efficiency, and economic efficiency includes things like social programs, health, the environment, etc.
Long-term, yes. Quarter to quarter? No, and that's partially why we're in the mess that we're in.
The interest rate (if it was determined by a market) is essentially the price of renting money, or in other words, the market's description of the value of using capital now versus using that capital in the future. The interest rate is one major way that markets can balance long- and short-term benefits. It is a fundamental and vital part of an economy, and it (along with issuing money itself) is arguably the part of the economy most interfered with by governments.
Markets can selectively ignore variables. For instance, the energy industry is not worried about externalities. If it did, we'd be nearly fully using renewables by now.
If markets cared about health instead of what's cheap, addictive, and easy to ship and store, grain and sugar wouldn't be so heavily pushed.
The petroleum industry lobbies for subsidies and receives them, since it's an incredibly good return on their investment.
> "Market forces" are great when you can have failure. You can't have failure with something that's keeping you from dying.
Surely you recognize that governments can fail in their regulation of health care. For example, there is no shortage of cases where the FDA certainly caused many deaths and a lot of suffering by banning or slowing down the introduction of numerous drugs.
You can't safely introduce drugs without doing controlled studies.
The issue is simple: is protection of local industry justified in the face of globalization. Obliquely (not orthogonally), are local businesses adding social value, or is lowest cost the absolute and only barometer of utility. Only once we have answered these questions can we decide if Amazon is correct or not, and it is not going to help to cite a bunch of dead people, who, in my opinion, are very clearly responsible for the ills of our current society.
Far better, citing The Economist Style Guide, "think what you want to say, then say it as simply as possible".
In that light, it is most appropriate to discuss the views of exemplars and intellectual fathers of a particular strain of libertarianism. My personal views are of little consequence to the discussion, considering that I have had no influence on libertarian ideology, and that my opinions depart from most of my fellow libertarian-minded folk in a number of ways.
The issue may be simple, but it doesn't have a thing to do with what you're talking about. Amazon operates in France. It's a local business. Next question?
I don't think that issue is simple, but my answer is no, and my reasoning is similar to why I don't think that protection of the horse and carriage industry should be protected in the face of the nascent automobile industry.
For example, if it were impossible to create laws regarding traffic signs, it would still be possible to achieve a similar 4-way intersection, with cars stopping for each other - it would have to physically prevent passage from one side to the other, alternative the open direction, like gates or whatever. Can you imagine if that were at every intersection?
Or you can just put up 3 lights on a timer, and a bit of law and add it to the list of stuff the system handles.
So complaining about "laws for every little thing" is a really poor way of looking at things. What maritime traffic laws apply to you? or hazardous waste laws? or commercial construction laws? or banking regulation laws? etvcetc.
One answer is "all of them" but the other is "none of them". They're really part of that aspect of activity, not really part of one long codebook of everything you have to obey all the time.
You can go weeks without even thinking about the law. But if you start do something regulated you haven't done before, it might be your first thought. This is as it should be - the law is like an API for a friendly reality.
Just look at places with total lawlessness and lack of rule of law. That is not a preferable starting point for any project or endeavor you might conceivably participate in.
In complex organized sports like football (association or American, take your pick), there are lots of rules about the movement of players, the flow of the game, etc. that are generally followed, and penalties are generally well enforced when the rules are not followed. And yet there are no laws behind these rules. It would appear that complex rules can be created and enforced by mechanisms other than law.
But they just don't apply to the OP - unless the OP becomes a football coach or starts operating a fishery, he can just ignore them.
(I did mean to start my original comment "You're just not encapsulating reality properly".)
Yes, but the alternative to a huge number of laws is not necessarily total lawlessness and lack of rule of law.
And in fact, laws are not even the only way of regulating activities - the are plenty of other ways of setting and enforcing rules. See the work of Elinor Ostrom, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics†, on the the community-based governance of the commons.
† not a "real" Nobel prize, I know
Reality has many more variables, like cost, beauty, physics, etc.
There are many minor laws that are necessary (don't show your penis to children, don't poop on the ground) then there are some that are driven by other reasons such as greed, self-interest, and population control (drug laws, surveillance laws) then there are other laws that are a grey area such as congress being exempt from insider trading. Safety is important too, (seatbelts, shining lasers at airplanes). Then there are the religious laws that are probably unnecessary (can't buy alcohol on Sundays).
I think that laws should have mandatory expiration times or a review process to ensure they are still relevant. The great thing about the US is that each state can have different laws and each can be a test-bed to see what works out best, it's not necessarily used like that but it's a good idea in theory.
That would require a national id system, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, it's not like there aren't several database of those currently.
Congress should be able to override laws that passe public votes (if the decision by congress is 75%+), and the POTUS should be able to override the decision of congress.
At least we should test this idea in one state. If it is successful then roll it out to other states, then nationwide.
It would be nice to see more public discussion on ways to improve government and processes that would actually make these ideas possible to implement. Unfortunately those in power don't want to give up their power even for the good of the country, so that makes it very difficult.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Mjo8GU-zBs_suk_8eg_Y...