17 ms·
I'd say this is more of a city planning office problem than a "paternalistic California" problem. The plastic bag ban caused much gnashing of teeth, but it was
by mturmon 11y ago
I'd say this is more of a city planning office problem than a "paternalistic California" problem.
The plastic bag ban caused much gnashing of teeth, but it was a basic instance of market failure (nobody pays for the externalities of bag pollution), and people have adapted fine since the ban took effect.
You see the kind of standards worship that you described in the LA city planning office as well as SF. There will be swearing up and down that this requirement is in place for a solid reason, and then in 5 years the requirement disappears.
Runoff from buildings is my favorite example: a few years ago, you had to ensure rainwater runoff from new structures was conveyed to the street. By pumping it uphill if necessary. You signed a document promising to maintain the pump in perpetuity. (Reason: your runoff could damage nearby properties.) Now, you can't pump runoff to the street, you have to sequester some on-site. (Reason: drought, plus, city can't treat all that water itself.)
Another instance of this is installation of crosswalks. One year, the city refuses to put in new crosswalks because "it will encourage unsafe crossings". Next year, city is putting in new crosswalks all over because it will encourage pedestrian activity, make citizens healthier, etc.
- jacobush 11y agoAll of which are true.
- swombat 11y agoIt's almost as if the "city council" or "government" is an entity composed of multiple people who are human and have conflicting agendas, visions, opinions, dreams, etc (sometimes within a single person) and so end up acting in a way that reflects their contradictions and human biases...
- bmelton 11y agoSure, and that's a fair point, but perhaps those humans shouldn't have the authority to impose their whimsies on the entirety of their neighbors because they think it's a good idea.
- dragontamer 11y agoMaybe their neighbors should work on electing better humans. Someone needs to write the laws. Laws need to be updated over time, as society changes and our values change.
- swombat 11y agoCompletely agree. I don't believe authoritarian dictates are a way to achieve good aims in this century. And yet we must live with this type of organisation, for now, because we are still developing the alternatives...
- eldavido 11y agoYou know, I used to be a hardcore libertarian, but I've reconsidered a bit. The density of cities like Manhattan/SF mean you have to have some level of regulation above and beyond what makes sense when everyone has an acre of his own land, to do with what we chooses. Whether it's noise, pollution, traffic safety, fire codes, etc., I think giving up a little bit more freedom than you would living on, say, a farm, is the price of living in a place with so much jammed in to so little space. Maybe something to think about, if you take umbrage with people "imposing their whimsies" (I'm not being sarcastic, I really think about this a lot). Austin is nice, but it's a car-city. Show me one walkable city without the petty tyranny of city government and I'd move there pretty quickly.
- bmelton 11y agoI'm kind of a hybrid, really. I consider myself a libertarian at times, but mostly, a constitutionalist. I find that I object to most of the laws passed federally, but don't mind them so much when they're passed at the level of a municipality, city or even state (y'know, 10th amendment). In short, I don't believe in one-size-fits-all policies, as while I think a $15 minimum wage might work wonderfully in places like San Francisco, or NYC, I think they'd be disastrous in places like Alaska, or Arkansas. Regardless, much of the legislation I see being passed in places like San Francisco are fairly arbitrary, and that's the sort of thing I was responding to in the grand-parent. For what it's worth, I tend to think less of these impositions as tyranny because, specifically, if I don't like what's going on in San Francisco, I can move to Austin.
- eldavido 11y agoDo you listen to EconTalk? Michael Munger (famous econ prof) has what he calls the "Munger test", which is, does this proposal/statement about business/government/academia/etc. presuppose ideal human beings to carry it out, or the venal, petty, real people we know?
- mhb 11y agoHe named the argument for free market capitalism vs. socialism after himself? Wow.
- SpaceCadetJones 11y agoI'm not sure what you mean. Could you explain?
- khedoros 11y agoIt's based on the idea that capitalism works because it harnesses greedy self-interest, while a pure communist state would fail because there's no direct connection between doing extra work and getting extra benefit. Capitalist farmer grows 10% more food; they make higher income from the sale of their crops. Communist farmer grows 10% more food; the farmer doesn't see extra benefit. Why bother to do the extra work? The ideal person might answer "For the greater benefit of my fellow countrymen". A realistic person might answer "Come to think of it, I wonder how little work I can do before I actually see concrete negative consequences".
- st3v3r 11y agoProblem is, those arguments always assume the people are doing things fairly. In many instances, instead of extra work, it's cutting corners.
- alphapapa 11y agoNo, it doesn't assume that. Competition incentivizes independent agents to compete, and customers evaluate who offers the best goods and services, serving their own self-interests.
- CPLX 11y ago> It's almost as if the "city council" or "government" is an entity composed of multiple people who are human. Not just human, humans from California. Just saying.
- st3v3r 11y agoJust saying what?
- dmix 11y agoIf you ever spend an extend amount of time on the East coast of America and then spent time living on the West coast you'd see there is a real cultural difference. One of those associated with California (in recent times) is that they love adding countless small regulations and rules that businesses and citizens must follow (almost like Germany, but not as bad). Somewhat related to the smug/elitist leftist stereotype.
- ancap 11y ago>The plastic bag ban caused much gnashing of teeth, but it was a basic instance of market failure (nobody pays for the externalities of bag pollution) In no way does this demonstrate a "market failure". Municipalities own and/or strongly control the entire waste removal pipeline. Had the process been in control of a private entity they could have been free to make their own rules saying they will not permit plastic bags, or charge an appropriate fee for their disposal.
- dragontamer 11y agoWho pays for all the plastic-bags that are floating in the wind on the side of the road? In any case, a ban is dumb. My state has a plastic-bag tax to pay for the externality. Its minor, and it helps people remember that plastic-bags cause real pollution... without necessarily hitting people with a hammer over it. Most people move on to reusable bags because of a minor tax. So it was effective as well.
- ancap 11y agoYou're still not describing a "market failure".
- lostlogin 11y agoYou seem very unhappy at the idea of market failure.
- ancap 11y agoA more accurate statement might be that I don't care for half-witted theories which are widely toted, used as justification to impose authoritarian regulations and conceal the true cause of today's problems.
- mturmon 11y agoI did feel the cold boot of the Government on my neck as I forked over that nickel. If I don't pay, they will send men with guns to ensure I do. Men with guns!
- russell_h 11y agoI bought this book the other day, haven't had a chance to start reading it yet: http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520266568 http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520266568 I did get a chance to read one excerpt which proposed that Prop 13, by shifting power from local to state government, reduced participation in local government, making it more beholden to special interests and less goal oriented when it comes to exercising the power it still has.
- SilasX 11y ago>The plastic bag ban caused much gnashing of teeth, but it was a basic instance of market failure (nobody pays for the externalities of bag pollution), and people have adapted fine since the ban took effect. But the ban caused much, much more damage than needed to remedy the externality. If mispricing were the problem being solved, they could slap an appropriate tax on the stores' bags, and then stores would pay it, fold it into prices, implement policies to discourage too many bags, roll their eyes, and move on. Instead, the bag law means they must explicitly charge the customer for bags; they can't just absorb it into prices (as every store did before). (And I don't know if you've ever worked as a cashier, but adding another step to every transaction gets old really quick, and holding up a line so someone can dig for a dime because they forgot to ask for one the first time around is ridiculous.) Furthermore, ten cents is (by any reasonable back-of-the-envelope measure) far more than the magnitude of the externality, and it's not put into a fund to remedy the externaliites, nor can I get the ten cents back when I redeem it and thereby prove that it's not going into some bird's lungs. This is just like most hastily-considered conservation policies: penny-wise and pound foolish. I'm likewise hounded to cut back on showers, despite them producing far more economic value than uses of water that are basically value-destructive (growing alfalfa) and which get a free pass. Similarly, I get paid nothing for having an ultra-low-carbon lifestyle, while people get large government subsidies to make their already-wasteful lifestyle a little less so. Yes, it sucks when externalities aren't priced in. But we shouldn't use that justification as carte blanche to overcharge for the wrong ones.
- jdblair 11y agoThe point is to encourage you to bring your own bag, eliminating a disposable bag from use. To do that you have to charge explicitly for it.
- maxerickson 11y agoIt's kind of ironic, plastic bags probably have one of the lower environmental impacts of all the things one might find in a grocery store. I mean, most people burn more fuel driving to the store than they use plastic bags in a year (a gallon of gasoline is about 6 pounds), but we don't have a 'combine trips' awareness campaign.
- lliamander 11y agoIt's interesting that plastic bag pollution is an issue. I reuse all of my grocery bags as waste-basket liners. Making plastic grocery bags expensive, or just outright banning them, wouldn't actually reduce my consumption of plastic. Rather I would just shift to buying pre-packaged waste liners.
- aplummer 11y agoDo you accumulate plastic bags? In theory I would imagine you need less waste liners than shopping bags. As well, I think people might prefer the specifically designed waste liners, so you might be an edge case (or at least a general case) here.
- lliamander 11y ago> In theory I would imagine you need less waste liners than shopping bags. Fair point, I do accumulate plastic bags, and I offset by switching to paper bags (which we use for accumulating small recyclable items). You can also use them for other purposes (lunch bags, etc). > I think people might prefer the specifically designed waste liners You are probably right. I think I am an edge case, but I like the affordance provided by the grocery bag handles, and they make it easier to tie the bag up once you are ready to throw it away.