3 ms·

I believe protection against abuse of top-down policy is what the 2nd amendment is for, no need to pollute the globally-efficient distribution of goods and serv

I believe protection against abuse of top-down policy is what the 2nd amendment is for, no need to pollute the globally-efficient distribution of goods and services with redundant efforts. If you would describe most of the populace as imperfectly rational (I would, and I acknowledge my own contribution to that) then it seems irrational to support policy that depends on a perfectly rational populace; like a policy that depends on a nationwide constant temperature of 72 degrees.

conanbatt 9y ago
> I believe protection against abuse of top-down policy is what the 2nd amendment is for, no need to pollute the globally-efficient distribution of goods and services with redundant efforts. I wonder how many unfair taxes have been repealed by the capacity to bear arms in response to them in the US. Examples of taxes that would be deemed extremely unfair by the recipients include soda, alcohol and tobacco taxes. > If you would describe most of the populace as imperfectly rational (I would, and I acknowledge my own contribution to that) then it seems irrational to support policy that depends on a perfectly rational populace; like a policy that depends on a nationwide constant temperature of 72 degrees. I'd like some more concrete examples of what you are pointing at. Classic economic models accept entirely that people are not perfectly rational, its just they tend to be for the majority of circumstances in aggregate. This is no secret, not even to Adam Smith, and that was centuries ago. So what policies are you talking about? The state deciding what your diet should be, how your savings should be, how your work time should be, etc?