Paternalism and regulation
May 05, 04 | 4:51 pm by Andy StedmanIn the comments of a Catallarchy blog post on state paternalism by Micha Ghertner, a “scott” asks me:
i understand andy. but as long as the state is in existence, and “owns” these roads, etc. do you not agree that some of these regulations are necessary? i mean certainly people in some of these government organizations understand safety, and since they are funded by theft, they are guaranteed to be around when they’re needed :)
First, I don’t agree that “government organizations understand safety, and since they are funded by theft, they are guaranteed to be around when they’re needed.” It is, in fact, demonstrably not true in many places. Only the fact that most EMT’s and firefighters genuinely want to help people do they provide a decent level of service for most people today, but those folks don’t get to decide where (and how many) government hospitals and fire stations get built, nor how many ambulances and fire trucks they buy. That is all subject to the political process, and we have no way of knowing how things would look in a free market. Perhaps emergency rooms would be in strip malls and as common as pizza delivery stores.
also, a business can’t have asbestos and put up a sign saying so, and then have that be legal and avoid a lawsuit. certainly that’s not ok?
If “have asbestos” means have it on the premises (as opposed to sending clouds of dust into the air) I have no problem with it. If no workers are willing to take on the risk, he’ll either go out of business, clean it up, or provide protective gear. No workplace is or ever will be completely safe.
so in other words, how do you get from here to there? how do you remove these safety regulations, and turn them over to private hands without a lot of safety problems inbetween? maybe i’m just an idiot for thinking the government does a few good things, but that’s how i feel. and i don’t think the private sector would provide them all, since some probably aren’t profitable. and even if they do have private regulations, they can’t be forced obviously. even if you have clear evidence that cars all need these certain brakes or whatever, do we just wait until people die and go from there? i just don’t understand.
as long as the law is public, what regulations are ok? where do you draw the line?
How does the state regulate things? It does exactly what is being objected to: “just wait until people die and go from there”. It is rarely proactive as it has no interest in being so. That is, however, beside the point. As I pointed out in the comment to which he is responding, I don’t have a principled objection to the regulations themselves. Were the roads operated by a private company without tax funding or eminent domain acquisition, I wouldn’t object in principle if they required all cars to be blue, or have six wheels, any more than I object to racetrack owners having their own standards today. I believe I can, though, make educated guesses at what sort of “regulations” would appear in a market. I wouldn’t drive on a road that allowed brakeless cars, if I could avoid it, just as I wouldn’t eat in a restaurant with the toilets adjacent to the food prep area, or buy groceries from a store which stored unrefrigerated raw chicken on top of their broccoli. Therefore, if the private enterprise wants to attract my business, it has to at least meet my minimum standards. When these become “regulations” is when a company like UL, or AAA, or Consumer’s Union starts giving stars or “seals of approval.” That relieves me of the burden of inspecting restaurants’ kitchens myself, and leaves me with the lesser burden of deciding which seals of approval are worth looking for.
Getting back to roads, I don’t believe that in a free market, seatbelt, child safety seat, or helmet laws would be duplicated as private requirements. The reason is that the risks associated with not having these devices are nearly entirely absorbed by the individual who chooses not to use them. Those who want such regulations are quite free to use them on their own and get the full personal benefits of the increased safety. Now, I could be wrong. It’s possible that the vast majority of people would refuse to drive on a road where they had an increased risk of killing someone else who neglected to protect themselves, but from what I know this is unlikely. In the case of brakes and lights on the other hand, the driver without these features puts himself and others at increased risk, so the road owner has an incentive to exclude him if others are not willing to assume that risk.
This doesn’t really answer Scott’s question, though, and I don’t intend to do so. I don’t consider this a cop-out, and I’ll explain why by paraphrasing his question with a different situation. Assume that chattel slavery is still legal, and heavily regulated by the state as to how many hours slaves may work, how much they should get fed, how often and with how many partners they may be bred, how risky their work can be, etc. Scott might then ask,
I understand andy. but as long as slavery is in existence, and these people are owned, etc. do you not agree that some of these regulations are necessary? i mean certainly people in some of these government organizations understand slave safety, and since they are funded by taxing the slaveowner, they are guaranteed to be around when they’re needed
I can’t answer either question satisfactorily in the terms stated, because I disagree with the premises.
May 5th, 2004 at May 05, 04 | 10:10 pm
That is all subject to the political process, and we have no way of knowing how things would look in a free market. Perhaps emergency rooms would be in strip malls and as common as pizza delivery stores.
but isn’t that a bit convenient? perhaps there would be private organizations that keep products and services safe for everyone, but perhaps there wouldn’t be? i guess i need something with more of a foundation to go on. wasn’t the reason state safety agencies were created was because they were needed? i.e. we have the USDA because there were a lot of problems with infected meat, and there were no private regulations in place to take care of the problem? i just seems beneficial to have preventive measures in place instead of waiting around until something happens, although i agree it’s tough to know when to draw the line if that’s the case.
If “have asbestos” means have it on the premises (as opposed to sending clouds of dust into the air) I have no problem with it. If no workers are willing to take on the risk, he’ll either go out of business, clean it up, or provide protective gear. No workplace is or ever will be completely safe.
what if they didn’t realize the asbestos was on the premises? am i free from liablity as long as i put up some indicator of asbestos? even a little sign? do i have to explain the risks of asbestos, or can i just assume they know it’s unsafe? there doesn’t seem to be any clear answers here.
I don’t have a principled objection to the regulations themselves. Were the roads operated by a private company without tax funding or eminent domain acquisition, I wouldn’t object in principle if they required all cars to be blue, or have six wheels, any more than I object to racetrack owners having their own standards today.
let me ask this, should current regulatory standards be disbanded even if they have no private alternative ready to be put in its place? it seems reckless. i’d rather have someone checking my product, even if it is not being done as well as possible, then no one at all. i guess i’m just not sure if private regulation, while it works for some areas, can work for all others.
In the case of brakes and lights on the other hand, the driver without these features puts himself and others at increased risk, so the road owner has an incentive to exclude him if others are not willing to assume that risk.
ok. so i guess the roads would have to be privatized before the regulations. that works.
thanks for your responses
May 5th, 2004 at May 05, 04 | 10:16 pm
“wasn’t the reason state safety agencies were created was because they were needed?”
Needed by whom? I don’t need such coercive monopolies. I’m not your child and I don’t need you to look out for me.
May 5th, 2004 at May 05, 04 | 10:18 pm
Needed by whom? I don’t need such coercive monopolies. I’m not your child and I don’t need you to look out for me.
well if you want to have some e.coli go for it. i’m sorry, but this kind of rhetoric does nothing to advance what should be a civilized debate, and you’re not going to get any more support for your movement if you act this way.
May 5th, 2004 at May 05, 04 | 10:30 pm
Do you really think regulations work to keep you safe, Scott?
Do you ever buy anything that is safer or of higher quality than required by law?
If (even more) unsafe food was available, don’t you think that the producers of safer food would go out of their way to let you know that fact, just like car manufacturers advertise their 5-star safety ratings (you know they don’t need all 5 stars to legally sell the vehicle.)
Do you know that I wear a motorcycle helmet even though I live in a state that doesn’t require it, and always wear gloves and boots when riding even though no US state (as far as I know) requires those?
Did you know that loads of food is cooked each day in kitchens not regulated by the government, with no regulator checking whether the chicken is cooked through, or the vegetables kept in a separate area from the meat, or the food served at 140°F? You’ve probably eaten it yourself–it was fixed by your mom.
May 5th, 2004 at May 05, 04 | 10:30 pm
Scott,
This is an individualist site, not a movement site. I don’t give a wet slap about movements.
You want to advance a civilized debate? Then how about withdrawing approval from the common practice of forcing individuals to pay for things they disapprove of? Because otherwise I don’t see how such a debate can possibly be civilized.
But what did you find uncivilized about my response?
May 5th, 2004 at May 05, 04 | 10:34 pm
Oh, and don’t mind Kennedy, he’s old and grouchy. Now he’s going to tell you that whether someone is correct or not is not dependent on how much you like how they say it, and that it’s irrational for you to reject correct arguments because of their presentation.
Plus, he’s more blunt than rude.
Edit: he beat me to it, but I was close.
May 5th, 2004 at May 05, 04 | 10:46 pm
“Oh, and don’t mind Kennedy, he’s old and grouchy.”
I think I’m sweet.
May 5th, 2004 at May 05, 04 | 10:47 pm
Do you really think regulations work to keep you safe, Scott?
i never said they were perfect, i’m simply asking you to show how a better private alternative would occur. are you saying there aren’t any effective state regulations? be honest.
If (even more) unsafe food was available, don’t you think that the producers of safer food would go out of their way to let you know that fact, just like car manufacturers advertise their 5-star safety ratings (you know they don’t need all 5 stars to legally sell the vehicle.)
they might. there are a lot of snakes out there, regardless of whether they are in the public or private sector.
Do you know that I wear a motorcycle helmet even though I live in a state that doesn’t require it, and always wear gloves and boots when riding even though no US state (as far as I know) requires those?
good for you, but not everyone is so smart (although i’m against the regulation in this case still)
Did you know that loads of food is cooked each day in kitchens not regulated by the government, with no regulator checking whether the chicken is cooked through, or the vegetables kept in a separate area from the meat, or the food served at 140°F? You’ve probably eaten it yourself–it was fixed by your mom.
good! however that may be the exception not the rule. i’m a consequentialist, and there are a lot of areas regulated by the state that i have to be shown would be provided for better in the free market.
May 5th, 2004 at May 05, 04 | 10:48 pm
John,
i simply find your tone to be arrogant and rude. i don’t think your my child. take it how you will, but i am sincerely interested in AnCap ideas and find your attitude discouraging. just a consideration.
May 5th, 2004 at May 05, 04 | 10:59 pm
Sabotta or someone is going to smack me for making a consequentialist argument, but I’ll do it anyhow.
If a batch of contaminated beef from ACME meats gets through the FDA and to the grocery stores, resulting in dozens of deaths, will the owner of ACME be richer or poorer next year? How about the director of the FDA? (Hint: his salary is tied to the size of his organization.)
If Consumer Reports had rated the Ford Pinto as being very safe, would they have more or fewer subscribers the next year?
May 5th, 2004 at May 05, 04 | 11:03 pm
It’s a consideration I factored in long ago Scott. Those for whom the tone is an insurmountable barrier are of very limited value to me.
If you don’t take me for your child then can’t we simply dismiss the idea that there could be any validity to treating me as a child via government?
You’ve asserted you think government regulation is needed. I tell you I don’t need it.
Should I be compelled to pay for what I judge I do not need? If you you say yes then you are affirming I should be treated as a child. If you say no then you’ve answered your own question.
May 5th, 2004 at May 05, 04 | 11:10 pm
If a batch of contaminated beef from ACME meats gets through the FDA and to the grocery stores, resulting in dozens of deaths, will the owner of ACME be richer or poorer next year? How about the director of the FDA? (Hint: his salary is tied to the size of his organization.)
a good point, and i agree that government is very hard to punish. however, what is your alternative? also, is there really no case of government regulators being fired or successfully sued?
If Consumer Reports had rated the Ford Pinto as being very safe, would they have more or fewer subscribers the next year?
they will probably will lose subscribers, but that hardly makes up for the people who died based on that assertion. what is there to assure that CR pays, and pays severely (i.e. not just losses in subscriptions)? in other words, has the situation improved without the state?
May 5th, 2004 at May 05, 04 | 11:13 pm
It’s a consideration I factored in long ago Scott. Those for whom the tone is an insurmountable barrier are of very limited value to me.
for someone who acccuses me of treating you like a child, you sure want to talk to me like i’m yours. get of your high horse.
Should I be compelled to pay for what I judge I do not need? If you you say yes then you are affirming I should be treated as a child. If you say no then you’ve answered your own question
depends on the consequences, right? you can’t boil down the issue to just being compelled, as friedman showed. you have to look at the result. and if state action leads to better consequences than the free market, you have to deal with that.
May 5th, 2004 at May 05, 04 | 11:16 pm
scott: “they will probably will lose subscribers, but that hardly makes up for the people who died based on that assertion. what is there to assure that CR pays, and pays severely (i.e. not just losses in subscriptions)? in other words, has the situation improved without the state?
I don’t think CR ought to pay unless they voluntarily take on that risk, and certainly the DOT would not pay now. Unless the automaker commits fraud, the vehicle is what it is represented to be, and the user assumes all risk. This is as it should be–after all, the manufacturer can’t die in the car on the user’s behalf.
May 5th, 2004 at May 05, 04 | 11:19 pm
As a consequentialist, would you be okay with my robbing you as you left to go grocery shopping, then taking the money and shopping for healthier foods than you would have chosen and delivering the food to your house? As long as I didn’t hurt you too badly, the consequences would be better, right?
May 5th, 2004 at May 05, 04 | 11:19 pm
I don’t think CR ought to pay unless they voluntarily take on that risk, and certainly the DOT would not pay now. Unless the automaker commits fraud, the vehicle is what it is represented to be, and the user assumes all risk. This is as it should be–after all, the manufacturer can’t die in the car on the user’s behalf.
so you mean CR shouldn’t pay unless it can be shown they knew the car was unsafe, but said it was safe anyway?
May 5th, 2004 at May 05, 04 | 11:24 pm
scott: “so you mean CR shouldn’t pay unless it can be shown they knew the car was unsafe, but said it was safe anyway?”
No, I mean CR shouldn’t pay unless they agreed contractually to assume responsibility. That can happen, but it would make the product (the report) more expensive. Otherwise, all they are providing is a recommendation, backed by their reputation, not an insurance policy.
May 5th, 2004 at May 05, 04 | 11:25 pm
As a consequentialist, would you be okay with my robbing you as you left to go grocery shopping, then taking the money and shopping for healthier foods than you would have chosen and delivering the food to your house? As long as I didn’t hurt you too badly, the consequences would be better, right?
probably not, but the problem is that this situation is completely unlikely to happen. if you assume complete irrationality you can prove anything. just for fun though, perhaps after my money was stolen and i was knocked to the ground, i discovered a car bomb which would have killed me had i gone to the store as i was planning to. then it would be acceptable.
in exchange, i offer friemdan’s gun scenario, which is very damaging to AnCap as it shows the problems with negative rights confliciting, and i’d say is a bit more realistic.
May 5th, 2004 at May 05, 04 | 11:28 pm
No, I mean CR shouldn’t pay unless they agreed contractually to assume responsibility. That can happen, but it would make the product (the report) more expensive. Otherwise, all they are providing is a recommendation, backed by their reputation, not an insurance policy.
so CR basically has no legal liability for anything it publishes? seems reckless, especially if it is the consumer’s perception that they do. perfect information does not exist, you know.
May 5th, 2004 at May 05, 04 | 11:34 pm
I’m drawing a blank on the “Friedman scenario”. What are you referencing?
May 5th, 2004 at May 05, 04 | 11:34 pm
scott: “probably not, but the problem is that this situation is completely unlikely to happen. if you assume complete irrationality you can prove anything.”
But, this is precisely what the regulator does. He allows you to spend your money on groceries, or cars, but not on certain kinds of groceries or cars of which he does not approve. He removes those from the market by shutting down or bullying their producers.
scott: in exchange, i offer friemdan’s gun scenario, which is very damaging to AnCap as it shows the problems with negative rights confliciting, and i’d say is a bit more realistic.
I’m not certain that “more realistic” is a good description. I have trouble imagining a bunch of unarmed people standing around in a stateless, gun-law-less society.
This blog entry isn’t (at root) about consequentialism, but I’ll give you my take on the Friedman’s gun scenario, at no extra charge. Any one of those people who wants to is free to go and get the gun off the porch, as long as they are willing to accept the consequences.
May 5th, 2004 at May 05, 04 | 11:38 pm
Kennedy: it is discussed here.
And here.
May 5th, 2004 at May 05, 04 | 11:40 pm
Oh that piece.
Well Patri is approving treating the guy as a child, isn’t he? So as a consequentialist you do seem to be saying you’ll treat me as a child if you find it to your benefit to do so.
(Responding to Scott. I figured it out before seeing Andy’s post.)
May 6th, 2004 at May 06, 04 | 12:22 am
Well Patri is approving treating the guy as a child, isn’t he? So as a consequentialist you do seem to be saying you’ll treat me as a child if you find it to your benefit to do so.
well john, you admitted in the comments of the first catallarchy link that sometimes violations of rights are acceptable. so now it seems that your system is no less arbitrary than any other. after all, if a tax creates better consequences it’s ok right? same for any state action.
May 6th, 2004 at May 06, 04 | 12:39 am
Scott, could you be a little more precise in your refererences? A link would help.
A tax that creates “better consequences” is not okay.
May 6th, 2004 at May 06, 04 | 12:41 am
you said
“2. I would consider it reasonable to violate rights under some circumstances.”
http://www.catallarchy.net/blog/cgi-bin/archives/000635.html (towards the bottom)
May 6th, 2004 at May 06, 04 | 12:50 am
Oh, okay. But I don’t hold that such actions are not violations of rights, that those whose rights are violated are not entitled to compensation from me or retaliation agaisnt me. They are fully entitled to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent my violation of their rights.
May 6th, 2004 at May 06, 04 | 12:55 am
They are fully entitled to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent my violation of their rights.
so if the gun owner takes his gun back before you can shoot, does nothing, and thus the hostages are all shot dead, is that ok?
May 6th, 2004 at May 06, 04 | 1:09 am
Freidman’s gun scenario isn’t really a problem with ancap, it’s a problem with natural rights ancap. stealing someone’s gun does not a state make.
May 6th, 2004 at May 06, 04 | 1:18 am
well both consequential and nr ancap have their problems, and friedman comes up with scenarios for both.
May 6th, 2004 at May 06, 04 | 1:20 am
“so if the gun owner takes his gun back before you can shoot, does nothing, and thus the hostages are all shot dead, is that ok?”
He has comitted no offense against anyone. He’s fully etitled to secure his property.
May 6th, 2004 at May 06, 04 | 4:45 am
I don’t have particular problems with state health agencies except how they’re funded. If you go to eat at a restaurant or purchase food at a supermarket, there’s something contract law calls “implied warranty of merchantability.” That is, when someone offers something for sale, they’re implicitly saying the thing is saleable (or saleworthy). This is pretty similar to the libertarian notion of fraud.
Now, I might think that the market would do a better job of health certification (I really doubt it), or that the market is a more moral way of doing it (which is true), but I don’t worry too much about shutting a place down for being grossly unsanitary.
May 6th, 2004 at May 06, 04 | 6:16 am
Josh,
Do you doubt you’d be able to get sanitary food in a free market?
May 6th, 2004 at May 06, 04 | 6:32 am
No, not at all. What I do doubt is that market regulatory schemes are going to be a vast improvement over state regulatory schemes. They may even be worse. Rational ignorance and information/entertainment overload combine to make for wildly uninformed consumers.
May 6th, 2004 at May 06, 04 | 6:44 am
In a free market sanitary food is a private good and it’s not rational to be ignorant of the quality of the food you eat.
On the other hand it’s quite rational to remain ignorant of what your public officials are doing since you have next to nothing to say about it.
May 6th, 2004 at May 06, 04 | 6:45 am
The proper response in the Friedman case is to take the gun, shoot the bastard, replace the gun and bullets used. He can take you to court, but no court in the world is going to do anything to you because you did him no harm. In Federal Rules of Civil Procedure parlance, this is getting kicked out on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion: failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
May 6th, 2004 at May 06, 04 | 6:49 am
I’m not going to cry if you do that, but on the other hand if he has to shoot you to secure his property I’ll recognize him to be within his rights.
May 6th, 2004 at May 06, 04 | 6:53 am
Further, if you do harm him to take the gun you will be responsible for that. It may not always easy to takes someone’s gun without someone getting hurt. You’re responsible for harm to either of you if you are the rights violator.
May 6th, 2004 at May 06, 04 | 3:37 pm
Rational ignorance and information/entertainment overload combine to make for wildly uninformed consumers.
Rational ignorance is a characteristic of politics, not markets. In politics, it’s okay to be stupid, because your vote, for all intents and purposes, doesn’t count. In markets, poor decisions affect you negatively and wise decisions reward you.
Nearly everyone knows about complicated things that they actually have to buy, like computers. They know what a 120 GB HD, 1 GB RAM, Pentium processor, Buses, video cards, USB ports, yadda, yadda, yadda are and how they will affect the product they buy. Yet, those same people think free trade is bad.
May 6th, 2004 at May 06, 04 | 5:45 pm
Nearly everyone knows about complicated things that they actually have to buy, like computers.
you can’t be serious. many people with computers have no idea what they are doing.
May 6th, 2004 at May 06, 04 | 5:47 pm
In politics, it’s okay to be stupid, because your vote, for all intents and purposes, doesn’t count. In markets, poor decisions affect you negatively and wise decisions reward you.
I should rephrase this. In politics, the effect of a single vote is diffuse. It effects everyone in a very, very, very small way, not just the person pulling the lever. Thus, if you pull the lever by making stupid decisions, like by voting for candidates who favor protectionism, it is not only you who is affected, by rather everyone, in a small way. You don’t pay for your own stupidity. Most of the effects of your stupidity are transferred to everyone else. Thus, being stupid doesn’t really cost you much. In politics, it is rational to be stupid. Why waste your time and effort educating yourself on something like trade policy when everyone else has to face the consequences of your actions?
Instead, in the market, for the most part, you pay for your own stupidity. If you buy a clunker of a car, you lose. Nobody else does. If you by a 486 computer with a 5 GB hard drive, you lose. Nobody else does. Thus, it makes sense to educate yourself about what computer specs mean. Even low income, low education level folks know about computer specs and what they mean. Your stupidity affects you and nobody else.
In the market you pay the costs for your own stupidity. In politics, the stupidity of an individual is transferred to the rest of us.
Markets cull stupidity. Politics magnify them.
May 6th, 2004 at May 06, 04 | 6:33 pm
Wilde: “In politics, the effect of a single vote is diffuse. It effects everyone in a very, very, very small way, not just the person pulling the lever. Thus, if you pull the lever by making stupid decisions, like by voting for candidates who favor protectionism, it is not only you who is affected, by rather everyone, in a small way. You don’t pay for your own stupidity. Most of the effects of your stupidity are transferred to everyone else.”
This sounds backwards to me. If your yes or no vote on an issue could actually impoverish or enrich everyone, including yourself, it would be rational for you to determine which vote would do which. This is not the case. Go to the booth, punch out whichever chads out you want, and you have nearly no chance of changing the outcome of the vote. In the unlikely event that the yes/no counts are either identical or differ by exactly one favoring your choice, the vote result will be determined in the courts anyway. That is why it is rational to remain ignorant on the issues being voted on.
May 6th, 2004 at May 06, 04 | 7:05 pm
I’m not going to cry if you do that, but on the other hand if he has to shoot you to secure his property I’ll recognize him to be within his rights.
He isn’t within his rights because he is using an inappropriate level of force. Lethal force is only usable when person or family (technically, those you are duty-bound to protect) is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury. You can’t shoot someone for cutting across your backyard or stepping onto your front yard to smell your azalea bush. Justice requires proportion of force.
Further, if you do harm him to take the gun you will be responsible for that.
Of course.
May 6th, 2004 at May 06, 04 | 7:15 pm
Rational ignorance is a characteristic of politics, not markets.
Actually, it’s characteristic of any situation where it doesn’t pay to expend the effort to learn about all the possible dangers/problems of making a wrong choice. This is certainly true in voting. This is also true in numerous market situations where the cost of learning enough to make a fully-informed choice is less than the risk of any problems acquired from making a bad choice.
In the food case, we expect restaurants and supermarkets to be clean. We don’t think about the health department when we walk through. It never crosses my mind that the food there isn’t sanitary or hasn’t been handled in any sort of manner, or that the Cuyahoga County health department is subject to regulatory capture is probably staffed with ridiculously corrupt bureaucrats who are friends of the mayor.
In politics, it’s okay to be stupid, because your vote, for all intents and purposes, doesn’t count. In markets, poor decisions affect you negatively and wise decisions reward you.
Wise voting decisions may reward you with satisfaction, although likely not with the candidate you want.
While it’s true that wise decisions reward you in the market, what rewards you more is learning enough to make a decision that won’t do you serious harm.
Nearly everyone knows about complicated things that they actually have to buy, like computers. They know what a 120 GB HD, 1 GB RAM, Pentium processor, Buses, video cards, USB ports, yadda, yadda, yadda are and how they will affect the product they buy.
You’re on crack, my friend. 4 out of 5 people who buy a computer have no idea what those are or what they do - they just know a bigger number is better. Look at the Dell and Gateway commercials, they offer you the service of calling up and telling them what you want the computer to do, and the representative will recommend a type of system for you. That doesn’t show me that the average computer buyer knows what computer parts do and how they interact.
You were probably right in 1990. You’re not right now.
May 6th, 2004 at May 06, 04 | 7:42 pm
you can’t be serious. many people with computers have no idea what they are doing.
I am completely serious. They may have no idea how a computer works, or what digital logic is, or how a circuit needs to be designed, but they are educated about computers in the way it effects them. They know that more RAM means faster performance, more hard drive space means a greater capacity to store information, cable and DSL lines are faster than phone lines, etc. When they make the decision of what to buy, they have to educate themselves on how the products will affect their own lives or else they will throw away their money.
May 6th, 2004 at May 06, 04 | 8:29 pm
“…but they are educated about computers in the way it effects them.”
Whatever they know, they individually bear the costs and reap the benefits of their own judgment.
May 6th, 2004 at May 06, 04 | 8:49 pm
“He isn’t within his rights because he is using an inappropriate level of force. “
I wrote: “I’m not going to cry if you do that, but on the other hand if he has to shoot you to secure his property I’ll recognize him to be within his rights.”
He’s not morally obliged to let you take his gun if he has the means to prevent you from doing so. If he says “stop or I’ll shoot” and you don’t stop then he is not morally obliged to prefer your life to his property.
Look at it another way. If he sees you coming how are you going to take his gun without escalating force to the point where you threaten his life?
May 6th, 2004 at May 06, 04 | 9:09 pm
Andy,
“This is not the case. Go to the booth, punch out whichever chads out you want, and you have nearly no chance of changing the outcome of the vote.”
I’m sure you remember mean, median, and mode from arithmetic. If we’re calculating your expected return on effort in voting in a large election the median and mode are zero, the mean expected return is very small but not zero. “Nearly no chance” is some chance which means there is some expected return. And of course even if you cast the deciding vote your return is likely only the difference between the candidate you chose over the one who would have otherwise won, divided by the number of people who will share the benefit of your decision.
While the expected return on your investment of time and effort may not quite be zero, it’s virtually certain that you can get a better return by investing the same time and effort in a private sector choice, which means your vote has a negative expected return when you factor in the opportunity cost.
May 6th, 2004 at May 06, 04 | 9:25 pm
And the difference Bush and Kerry is so small that you you could spend every waking hour between now and the election trying to calculate which would ultimately benefit you more, and still get it wrong. I could easily choose between them on certain selected grounds, but there is really no way for me to reliably calculate which one will ultimately harm me less.
May 6th, 2004 at May 06, 04 | 10:45 pm
He’s not morally obliged to let you take his gun if he has the means to prevent you from doing so. If he says “stop or I’ll shoot” and you don’t stop then he is not morally obliged to prefer your life to his property.
His warning doesn’t affect much. If I’m stopping to sniff his azalea bush or use a piece of property without putting him or his family in imminent danger, it would be grossly unjust for him to use lethal force to stop me, whether he warns me or not.
Look at it another way. If he sees you coming how are you going to take his gun without escalating force to the point where you threaten his life?
I don’t have any right to the gun, obviously. I’m certainly not allowed to harm him to take it. But by the same token, he doesn’t have the right to harm me to stop it.
May 7th, 2004 at May 07, 04 | 1:51 am
Joshua: I don’t have any right to the gun, obviously. I’m certainly not allowed to harm him to take it. But by the same token, he doesn’t have the right to harm me to stop it.
What the hell are you talking about? You’ve just legitimized all forms of theft.
scott: are you saying there aren’t any effective state regulations?
Are you saying there are?
May 7th, 2004 at May 07, 04 | 3:27 am
Joshua: Lethal force is only usable when person or family (technically, those you are duty-bound to protect) is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.
Sez who?
I have every right in the world to kill someone who is threatening some third party’s life, if I choose to do so. I’m “duty-bound” to protect whom I choose. Further (as Shonk sorta noted) you’re okaying every property crime in existence, from theft to burglary to arson. Maybe fraud, too. You might consider a punch in the snoot to be “serious injury”, but you’re implicitly stating that burning down someone’s home and contents, their whole life up to that point, is not. Defense of property with lethal force is perfectly justified, no matter what you think section 224(c)13 of the Federal Serf Behavior Statute has to say about it. Some dumbfuck wanders into my minefield, and I’ll sue his damn’ estate for the cost of replacing the toe-poppers. A huge portion of what’s wrong in society is that people simply won’t keep their stinking hands to themselves, and shooting people too dumb or ill-bred to understand concepts like private property would go a long way toward improving things.
May 7th, 2004 at May 07, 04 | 4:06 am
Are you saying there are?
consumer product safety commission? i guess if you want to let manufacturers release dangerous products and just wait until they harm someone that’s your prerogative though.
May 7th, 2004 at May 07, 04 | 4:49 am
What the hell are you talking about? You’ve just legitimized all forms of theft.
Not hardly. I might have been injudicious with my word choice, though. You can’t use lethal stopping power outside of imminent bodily harm, not even to protect property. It’s an old common law rule, and a good one.
May 7th, 2004 at May 07, 04 | 4:56 am
Sez who?
I would say “abstract principles of justice,” the same thing on which every other natural law proponent would rely. More concretely, generations of judges working out of the Anglo-American common law tradition.
I have every right in the world to kill someone who is threatening some third party’s life, if I choose to do so. I’m “duty-bound” to protect whom I choose.
Not necessarily. You’re duty bound to rescue those who you put in grave danger unless your rescue attempt would endanger your life or worsen the situation.
In this case, family is who you’re duty-bound to protect, but I threw the technical version out there anyway.
Further (as Shonk sorta noted) you’re okaying every property crime in existence, from theft to burglary to arson. Maybe fraud, too. You might consider a punch in the snoot to be “serious injury”, but you’re implicitly stating that burning down someone’s home and contents, their whole life up to that point, is not.
You’re on crack. I’ve done nothing of the sort.
Defense of property with lethal force is perfectly justified, no matter what you think section 224(c)13 of the Federal Serf Behavior Statute has to say about it.
Oooh, aren’t we witty!
And I hate to tell you this, but principles of justice require proportion of force. This was recognised centuries ago in the common law and has been applied since. If you shoot someone who cuts across your backyard, you’re a psychopath, a murderer, and ought to be sent to the gallows.
May 7th, 2004 at May 07, 04 | 5:17 am
“i guess if you want to let manufacturers release dangerous products and just wait until they harm someone that’s your prerogative though. “
Whether or not it’s my prerogative was really the only point under debate her. Somehow I don’t think you mean to concede that it is.
Manufacturers release products that harm people now, even with your public safety commissions. Are you willing to allow such harm to continue? If quintupling the funding of such agencies made products safer, would you quintuple their funding?
May 7th, 2004 at May 07, 04 | 5:21 am
Josh,
If the guy is competent and determined to keep his gun how are you going to get it off of him without threatening bodily harm? An attempt to wrest his gun away from him can fairly be interpreted as such a threat, he’s not obliged to trust in your mercy.
May 7th, 2004 at May 07, 04 | 5:36 am
John,
I would simply like something to be there. if a private regulatory agency can takeover the job of a public one, great. but that job needs to be done. it’s just a safety issue.
May 7th, 2004 at May 07, 04 | 5:45 am
Lot’s of jobs need to be done, Scott. The job of producing food needs to be done. The question is whether anyone is entitled to forcefully impose the terms on which the job will be done.
May 7th, 2004 at May 07, 04 | 6:19 am
I would say “abstract principles of justice,” the same thing on which every other natural law proponent would rely. More concretely, generations of judges working out of the Anglo-American common law tradition.
Your abstract principles don’t seem to extend to defense of property. See below.
You’re on crack. I’ve done nothing of the sort.
You have set an exclusive barrier around the use of force. You said: Lethal force is only usable when person or family (technically, those you are duty-bound to protect) is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.
Get this: all force is potentially lethal - that’s what makes it force. “Lethal force” is a redundancy, or at best an after-the-fact analysis. “Forcing” someone to stop doing something might in fact end up killing them. So you, by that statement, would condemn someone as a murderer (or attempted murderer) who shot a burglar. You’d also condemn someone who took back his property from a thief via force. That’s essentially giving property crime a free pass.
Oooh, aren’t we witty!
I am.
And I hate to tell you this, but principles of justice require proportion of force. This was recognised centuries ago in the common law and has been applied since. If you shoot someone who cuts across your backyard, you’re a psychopath, a murderer, and ought to be sent to the gallows.
Suppose they “cut through” your living room, and snag a few choice items along the way. Are you a “psychopath” if you shoot them then?
May 7th, 2004 at May 07, 04 | 7:16 am
John,
again, it depends on if that force leads to good overall consequences. to say it never does would require considerable effort. perhaps this is just a separate discussion then.
May 7th, 2004 at May 07, 04 | 7:49 am
But if it’s legitimate to weigh harm to me against benefit to you then who’s to say what consequences are good overall? Obviously the person being forced doesn’t consider the consequences to be good overall, so who’s entitled to make that decision?
May 7th, 2004 at May 07, 04 | 8:14 am
Josh: Not hardly. I might have been injudicious with my word choice, though. You can’t use lethal stopping power outside of imminent bodily harm, not even to protect property. It’s an old common law rule, and a good one.
As JTK points out, how are you going to take my gun away from me without imminent bodily harm?
scott: consumer product safety commission?
Underwriter’s Laboratories and Consumer Reports have done a hell of a lot more for product safety than any product safety commission ever has.
Speaking of underwriters, insurance companies and ambulance-chasing lawyers are also pretty good at keeping those mean ol’ evil and rapacious corporations in check. For example, I was at a talk given by John Hasnas last summer and he was talking about some people he’d met who had a part-time job walking around the streets of New York City with a street map, marking potholes and uneven sidewalks on the map. The maps were then being sent in to the city’s public works department so as to inform them about these potentially dangerous sections of the public thoroughfares. Who was paying them to do this? A lawyer. Not some government safety commission, but a lawyer. Why? Because if the city had received notice of these hazards and then failed to fix them, that represented negligence on their part and would make the city liable if someone got hurt tripping on one of the potholes (and, lest this be construed as an endorsement of the state justice system, I would note that this standard of negligence and liability was a feature of the common law long before it was co-opted by the state). So, in this example, we have private individuals expending their own resources to compile a comprehensive list of dangerous products (in this case, the product being sidewalks) and then providing the manufacturer with a detailed list so that the manufacturer then has the opportunity to correct the defects — and, if he doesn’t, the manufacturer is liable for any damages he might incur. All without any fancy safety commissions or regulations.
Obviously, anecdotes aren’t proof of anything, but, so far as anecdotes go, I think this is a particularly illuminating one.
May 7th, 2004 at May 07, 04 | 8:29 am
“As JTK points out, how are you going to take my gun away from me without imminent bodily harm?”
Yeah, Shonk is so tall he could just hold it out of your reach going “Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah…”
May 7th, 2004 at May 07, 04 | 11:43 pm
Underwriter’s Laboratories and Consumer Reports have done a hell of a lot more for product safety than any product safety commission ever has.
ah, so the cpsc still has done some good things then? i do like CR, but their info isn’t available to everyone, just those who can afford it.
May 7th, 2004 at May 07, 04 | 11:44 pm
John,
I was speaking of overall consequences, i.e. net social utility.
May 8th, 2004 at May 08, 04 | 12:13 am
And who’s entitled to judge that?
May 8th, 2004 at May 08, 04 | 3:58 am
are you not a consequentialist? whoever’s involved in the act. do you have any better way to reach rational decisions?