5 ms·
>Source? This is logical extrapolation, and it's more or less validated by empirical evidence. It's not scientifically proven because we're dealing with incred
by aminok 10y ago
>Source?
This is logical extrapolation, and it's more or less validated by empirical evidence. It's not scientifically proven because we're dealing with incredibly complex phenomena where there are always potential confounding factors, but a reasonable case can still be made based on real world events.
See Venezuela for an extreme example of the consequences of interventionism.
The theory that intervention does harm is based on the fact that this complex system we know as an economy exists the way it does because of carefully weighted decisions of millions of people, each trying to meet their own needs in the most efficient manner available to them that does not cause harm to others (since harmful action is generally illegal in a market economy [there are edge cases of courses, like misleading advertising]). That carefully wrought symphony of welfare-maximizing human interaction is crudely disrupted by authoritarianism any time a legislature signs a law in effect that forces millions to act a certain way, that they otherwise would not have, or refrain from engaging in some voluntary interaction that they otherwise would have engaged in.
An authoritarian intervention to force several million to do some action to benefit several other million is going to have innumerable unintended consequences, that could not possibly be a net positive for the world.
- pron 10y agoWhoa, authoritarianism? Who said anything about authoritarianism? All prosperous economies are quite heavily regulated. You sound like that messianic group in the 40s and 50s of Milton Friedman, Mises, Hayek and friends who believed that the market solves everything. No one is proposing communism; no need to dig up the politics of the Mont Pelerin Society.
- aminok 10y agoAll regulations on voluntary market activity are a form of prohibition, where engaging in some voluntary activity is punished by prison sentences or expropriation of wealth. That is textbook authoritarian intervention. Just because it is popular and the most powerful countries do it does not mean it is not authoritarian. I don't believe that markets will solve everything but I do believe that the best chance we have to solve problems is through voluntary market action as opposed to authoritarian action.
- dpark 10y ago> That is textbook authoritarian intervention. It's really not. It's not authoritarian when a democratically elected government creates regulations that it's citizens want. That's just governance. Otherwise every law a government passes is authoritarian, in which case the word is meaningless.
- aminok 10y agoAny law that punishes a voluntary action is authoritarian, whether it has a democratic mandate or not. Not all laws punish voluntary action. For instance, a law against theft is not authoritarian.
- dpark 10y agoTheft is a voluntary action. The thief is taking an action of their own volition. Your definition is flawed and meaningless.
- aminok 10y agoI should clarify, when I say "voluntary action", I mean mutually voluntary or consensual action, where no one's person or property is violated. The idea of being free to act in any way other than violating the rights of others (though violence, theft, etc) is a pretty widely accepted principle of a free society.
- dpark 10y agoNearly all laws are passed under the belief that someone is victimized when the behavior is but prohibited (or required).
- aminok 10y agoThe vast majority of such justifications are hollow, and usually premised on the idea that adults are too incompetent to make correct consumer, employment, etc decisions for themselves. E.g. laws against selling dangerous products like drugs to adults. The arguments for such laws are only appealing to the sound-bite digesting 20-second-attention-span crowd. I'd argue that they'd never stand in a court of law.