3 ms·

If a decision has to be made then science as a guide may be the best option but much of the time it would be better for government not to try and make policy at

If a decision has to be made then science as a guide may be the best option but much of the time it would be better for government not to try and make policy at all in complex areas. Using "healthy eating" as an example, governments might try to influence what people eat by taxing or even outlawing "unhealthy" foods or subsidizing "healthy" foods. Instead of arguing over whether and how much the government should be imposing sin taxes on fats (and what kind of fats?) or sugars (and what kind of sugars), the better approach would be to do nothing and let people make their own choices based on the best information available to them at the time.

lmm 9y ago
> Instead of arguing over whether and how much the government should be imposing sin taxes on fats (and what kind of fats?) or sugars (and what kind of sugars), the better approach would be to do nothing and let people make their own choices based on the best information available to them at the time. Why? Do we believe that individuals are likely to be better informed than governments? (why?) Uncertainty is a fact of life. Any decision-making process will lead to some mistakes. That's not a reason to give up on trying to make things better. If the government believes, based on the best evidence available at the time, that a particular fat tax policy (say) will, overall, be good for society, surely it's better to implement that policy than not.
- mattnewport 9y ago
  The history of government attempts to get people to eat "healthily" is a pretty good illustration of the many ways that government policy is a bad tool for addressing these type of issues. Government policy tends to have a lot of inertia and is bad at adapting to changing information. This is particularly evident when it attempts to track evolving scientific understanding of complex topics like nutrition and diet and their relation to health. It is also prone to being overly influenced by special interests and this particular area is full of textbook examples of regulatory capture and public choice theory. I certainly believe that some individuals will be better informed and better able to translate that information into the best course of action for themselves given their goals than governments, especially "governments" as represented by a patchwork of laws and regulations the impact a complex thing like individual health. This is true even at the time that new policy is enacted and tends to become more true over time due to the inertia of government policy that goes down the wrong path.
  - lmm 9y ago
    > I certainly believe that some individuals will be better informed and better able to translate that information into the best course of action for themselves given their goals than governments, especially "governments" as represented by a patchwork of laws and regulations the impact a complex thing like individual health. Some individuals, sure. Most individuals, probably not. I agree that government policy has inertia, and that overconfidence on uncertain issues can lead to imposing well-intentioned policy that ends up being harmful. But it's equally possible to make the opposite mistake, and hold off introducing policy changes for too long because of perceived uncertainty. E.g. car seatbelt laws and tobacco advertising laws should have been introduced earlier than they were. I don't think there's any general principle we can draw here; some government policymakers could do with more humility, others could do with more confidence, but all any one of them can do "from the inside" is try to figure out how strong the evidence actually is on a given issue, and use their own best judgement in determining whether there's a clear enough scientific/medical consensus to warrant policy changes, or not.

lmm 9y ago

> Instead of arguing over whether and how much the government should be imposing sin taxes on fats (and what kind of fats?) or sugars (and what kind of sugars), the better approach would be to do nothing and let people make their own choices based on the best information available to them at the time. Why? Do we believe that individuals are likely to be better informed than governments? (why?) Uncertainty is a fact of life. Any decision-making process will lead to some mistakes. That's not a reason to give up on trying to make things better. If the government believes, based on the best evidence available at the time, that a particular fat tax policy (say) will, overall, be good for society, surely it's better to implement that policy than not.

mattnewport 9y ago
The history of government attempts to get people to eat "healthily" is a pretty good illustration of the many ways that government policy is a bad tool for addressing these type of issues. Government policy tends to have a lot of inertia and is bad at adapting to changing information. This is particularly evident when it attempts to track evolving scientific understanding of complex topics like nutrition and diet and their relation to health. It is also prone to being overly influenced by special interests and this particular area is full of textbook examples of regulatory capture and public choice theory. I certainly believe that some individuals will be better informed and better able to translate that information into the best course of action for themselves given their goals than governments, especially "governments" as represented by a patchwork of laws and regulations the impact a complex thing like individual health. This is true even at the time that new policy is enacted and tends to become more true over time due to the inertia of government policy that goes down the wrong path.
- lmm 9y ago
  > I certainly believe that some individuals will be better informed and better able to translate that information into the best course of action for themselves given their goals than governments, especially "governments" as represented by a patchwork of laws and regulations the impact a complex thing like individual health. Some individuals, sure. Most individuals, probably not. I agree that government policy has inertia, and that overconfidence on uncertain issues can lead to imposing well-intentioned policy that ends up being harmful. But it's equally possible to make the opposite mistake, and hold off introducing policy changes for too long because of perceived uncertainty. E.g. car seatbelt laws and tobacco advertising laws should have been introduced earlier than they were. I don't think there's any general principle we can draw here; some government policymakers could do with more humility, others could do with more confidence, but all any one of them can do "from the inside" is try to figure out how strong the evidence actually is on a given issue, and use their own best judgement in determining whether there's a clear enough scientific/medical consensus to warrant policy changes, or not.