6 ms·

It's more specific. It's saying regulation should be largely post-hoc or with clearly defined before-hand rules. Instead, many people need permits (&c) for thin

It's more specific. It's saying regulation should be largely post-hoc or with clearly defined before-hand rules. Instead, many people need permits (&c) for things where they're already following the rules. That creates a procedural barrier to change of any kind, and therefore is a massive handout to incumbents and crushes the most valuable part of a competitive market.

maxxxxx 9y ago
Then he should have expressed it that way. To me it sounded like the usual "government is bad" rant.
- KODeKarnage 9y ago
  That doesn't sound very open-minded. How many great arguments are you ignoring because they don't support larger, more intrusive governments? The point is, you don't know.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    I don't support larger, more intrusive governments. But I think his Twitter example is bad. Twitter has no externalities so it shouldn't need government approval which it actually didn't need. So there was no problem. The only permission needed was from investors who had to cough up the money. Instead of railing against solar power maybe he should also rail against the massive subsidies the oil industry gets through decades long military intervention in the Middle East and elsewhere. He also doesn't touch more complex areas such as nuclear energy for example. Is it OK for everybody to do "Permissionless Innovation" on reactor designs and from time to time one of them blows up? I hope the author will move close to one of these innovation paradises.
    - KODeKarnage 9y ago
      "The only permission [Twitter] needed was from investors who had to cough up the money." That was his point. "Instead of railing against solar power..." Irrelevant what-about-ism. "Is it OK for everybody to do "Permissionless Innovation" on reactor designs ..." I will tell you that you don't really understand what the author is saying. But you won't believe that. You will continue to believe the author must be stupid.
      - maxxxxx 9y ago
        How about you explain it? Obviously I don't understand what he's saying.
        KODeKarnage 9y ago
        A fruitless exercise. The same pathology that prevents you from understanding his article, would prevent you from understanding further explanation. Go back. Read the article again. Multiple times. And TRY to do it fairly. TRY to recognise your biases and presumptions. If you are incapable of doing that, then what chance would other people have of successfully explaining it?
        maxxxxx 9y ago
        You are a master debater.
        KODeKarnage 9y ago
        This isn't rhetoric. I sincerely believe you cannot overcome your biases. People could spend hours trying to explain this to you, and you will simply turn around and claim that libertarians think nuclear safety regulation is bad.
        tomhoward 9y ago
        He's just pointing out that more innovation happens when people don't have to seek permission (from the government or from other companies) in order to innovate, and uses some examples to illustrate the point. Twitter is just one valid example among many that have emerged in the internet era; the whole reason we've seen so much innovation in internet-related technologies in the past 20 years is that the innovation could be done without asking anyone's permission. Concerns are now growing that with Google, Amazon, Facebook etc are becoming such powerful gatekeepers that the freedom to innovate is declining. You'd likely find he'd support government actions to reverse that trend. There's no grand anti-government agenda in this or any other of Munger's work [1]. As an economist and political scientist, he repeatedly makes the sensible point that government should limit its activities to what helps society and avoid doing things that harm society. Obviously there's vast scope for debate about what that really means, which is why he writes articles like this one, to examine the issues in detail. On this point: Instead of railing against solar power maybe he should also rail against the massive subsidies the oil industry gets through decades long military intervention in the Middle East and elsewhere. He's not railing, just commenting. And in his other work he's extremely critical of the US government's interventions in the Middle East. But this article isn't about that. [1] He's highly critical of both the Republicans and the Democrats due to their corporate cronyism and militarism, but that's very different to being critical of government altogether.
titzer 9y ago
While the libertarian agrees with you in principle, the rest of me has been mugged by reality and has seen more than a few environmental disasters that have resulted from essential zero protection from bad actors dumping in the commons. E.g. ocean microplastic is a huge problem and has a lot to do with absolutely zero oversight from regulators on what can be used as packaging material. This is a big problem that we need to come to terms with, sooner rather than later.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  Libertarians never have a concrete answer for that.
  - lend000 9y ago
    You must find the easy libertarians to debate. The answer is that maximizing liberty involves minimizing net aggressions, and externalities are aggressions. Therefore, a society is more free if the government proactively prevents/taxes/regulates certain types of externalities that are impractical to deal with in individual lawsuits (non-localized pollution fits this bill perfectly). In the case of smog, the most common interpretation is levying a carbon/pollutant tax such that the tax generates sufficient revenue to offset the damage. For something like mercury that has extreme, more localized effects, it would be perfectly reasonable and in-line with non-aggression-based philosophy to outright criminalize certain types of disposal. Compare this to progressives, who want to protect the environment but have no metric or process for measuring how much environment to protect and how/why, other than what appeals to their emotions, so they deal with everything case-by-case and inconsistently. In general, this leads to broad, draconian regulations in some domains (like not allowing people to create ponds on their property) and a lack of progress in other domains (CO2 emissions and waste disposal, for example). And yes, the carbon tax is a libertarian concept.
    - titzer 9y ago
      I've literally never heard a libertarian argue that before.

maxxxxx 9y ago

Then he should have expressed it that way. To me it sounded like the usual "government is bad" rant.

KODeKarnage 9y ago
That doesn't sound very open-minded. How many great arguments are you ignoring because they don't support larger, more intrusive governments? The point is, you don't know.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  I don't support larger, more intrusive governments. But I think his Twitter example is bad. Twitter has no externalities so it shouldn't need government approval which it actually didn't need. So there was no problem. The only permission needed was from investors who had to cough up the money. Instead of railing against solar power maybe he should also rail against the massive subsidies the oil industry gets through decades long military intervention in the Middle East and elsewhere. He also doesn't touch more complex areas such as nuclear energy for example. Is it OK for everybody to do "Permissionless Innovation" on reactor designs and from time to time one of them blows up? I hope the author will move close to one of these innovation paradises.
  - KODeKarnage 9y ago
    "The only permission [Twitter] needed was from investors who had to cough up the money." That was his point. "Instead of railing against solar power..." Irrelevant what-about-ism. "Is it OK for everybody to do "Permissionless Innovation" on reactor designs ..." I will tell you that you don't really understand what the author is saying. But you won't believe that. You will continue to believe the author must be stupid.
    - maxxxxx 9y ago
      How about you explain it? Obviously I don't understand what he's saying.
      - KODeKarnage 9y ago
        A fruitless exercise. The same pathology that prevents you from understanding his article, would prevent you from understanding further explanation. Go back. Read the article again. Multiple times. And TRY to do it fairly. TRY to recognise your biases and presumptions. If you are incapable of doing that, then what chance would other people have of successfully explaining it?
        maxxxxx 9y ago
        You are a master debater.
        KODeKarnage 9y ago
        This isn't rhetoric. I sincerely believe you cannot overcome your biases. People could spend hours trying to explain this to you, and you will simply turn around and claim that libertarians think nuclear safety regulation is bad.
      - tomhoward 9y ago
        He's just pointing out that more innovation happens when people don't have to seek permission (from the government or from other companies) in order to innovate, and uses some examples to illustrate the point. Twitter is just one valid example among many that have emerged in the internet era; the whole reason we've seen so much innovation in internet-related technologies in the past 20 years is that the innovation could be done without asking anyone's permission. Concerns are now growing that with Google, Amazon, Facebook etc are becoming such powerful gatekeepers that the freedom to innovate is declining. You'd likely find he'd support government actions to reverse that trend. There's no grand anti-government agenda in this or any other of Munger's work [1]. As an economist and political scientist, he repeatedly makes the sensible point that government should limit its activities to what helps society and avoid doing things that harm society. Obviously there's vast scope for debate about what that really means, which is why he writes articles like this one, to examine the issues in detail. On this point: Instead of railing against solar power maybe he should also rail against the massive subsidies the oil industry gets through decades long military intervention in the Middle East and elsewhere. He's not railing, just commenting. And in his other work he's extremely critical of the US government's interventions in the Middle East. But this article isn't about that. [1] He's highly critical of both the Republicans and the Democrats due to their corporate cronyism and militarism, but that's very different to being critical of government altogether.

titzer 9y ago

While the libertarian agrees with you in principle, the rest of me has been mugged by reality and has seen more than a few environmental disasters that have resulted from essential zero protection from bad actors dumping in the commons. E.g. ocean microplastic is a huge problem and has a lot to do with absolutely zero oversight from regulators on what can be used as packaging material. This is a big problem that we need to come to terms with, sooner rather than later.

maxxxxx 9y ago
Libertarians never have a concrete answer for that.
- lend000 9y ago
  You must find the easy libertarians to debate. The answer is that maximizing liberty involves minimizing net aggressions, and externalities are aggressions. Therefore, a society is more free if the government proactively prevents/taxes/regulates certain types of externalities that are impractical to deal with in individual lawsuits (non-localized pollution fits this bill perfectly). In the case of smog, the most common interpretation is levying a carbon/pollutant tax such that the tax generates sufficient revenue to offset the damage. For something like mercury that has extreme, more localized effects, it would be perfectly reasonable and in-line with non-aggression-based philosophy to outright criminalize certain types of disposal. Compare this to progressives, who want to protect the environment but have no metric or process for measuring how much environment to protect and how/why, other than what appeals to their emotions, so they deal with everything case-by-case and inconsistently. In general, this leads to broad, draconian regulations in some domains (like not allowing people to create ponds on their property) and a lack of progress in other domains (CO2 emissions and waste disposal, for example). And yes, the carbon tax is a libertarian concept.
  - titzer 9y ago
    I've literally never heard a libertarian argue that before.