3 ms·

Giving people the freedom to screwup is what got us in this mess. If my neighbor makes a bad decision and buys a house he really can't afford and the bank make

Giving people the freedom to screwup is what got us in this mess. If my neighbor makes a bad decision and buys a house he really can't afford and the bank makes the bad decision to give him the loan then it can't affect me, right? Well, it can if it's repeated millions of times. On the whole, we are irrational creatures most of the time. Humans are easily manipulated and duped. None of us is an expert in everything and so proper regulation of markets is necessary.

CWuestefeld 16y ago
Implicit in your reply is the idea that government can help shield us from harm by preventing such bad decisions. Do you have any basis for a belief that the government will make better decisions than the people? Part of any answer to this must be an explanation about how those regular people, subject to being "easily manipulated and duped", will wise up and do the right thing once put in power. Second, it should be obvious to members of a community such as HN, that progress demands the freedom for people to try out new solutions, risking failure. Protecting us from this will, at best, impede progress.
- yequalsx 16y ago
  Right now government prevents parents from trying to toughen up their 13 year old child by making him work in a coal mine. Parents who want to do such a thing are being prevented from making this bad decision by government. It would be a bad decision on my part if I knowingly made unsafe products and sold them to people. Government does its best to prevent me from making this bad decision.
  - CWuestefeld 16y ago
    You have addressed neither of my concerns: 1. How does a government official become wiser and less susceptible to manipulation or being duped? How is it that's he's got an edge over my decision-making skills? 2. If government is acting as a nanny, how can we prevent that from becoming an obstacle toward innovation (which is just another word for "risky behavior")? Trite and silly replies don't make these concerns go away.
    - yequalsx 16y ago
      They weren't trite or silly replies. Perhaps you are unaware of the history of child labor in this country. Perhaps you are unaware of the history of companies knowingly selling products that are harmful. It was government intervention that largely stopped these practices. There are lots of examples of where government has stepped in to regulate affairs to protect people from making bad or ill informed decisions. Before seatbelt use became popular or considered by the population as necessary government forced car manufacturers to put them in cars even though it increased the price of a car. Most people can't make an informed decision on what constitutes safe food. Consumers rely on government to have adequate standards that are enforced. Without such standards people would make bad decisions.
      - dnautics 16y ago
        "Most people can't make an informed decision on what constitutes safe food. Consumers rely on government to have adequate standards that are enforced. Without such standards people would make bad decisions." Bullshit. What government agency prevents us from having exploding lightbulbs. There isn't one. It's done by Underwriter's Laboratory. There is no good reason why we can't have an Underwriter's laboratory for food. Or an underwriter's laboratory for medicines, instead of the FDA. In fact we are seeing en mass rebellion against the USDA (particularly in the organic-certification area) where the USDA is seen as basically an agent that prevents upstart food producers and entrenches big-food interests that can afford to pay for extremely expensive certification. You know what, the FDA screws up big time, too. Remember how we had an e coli outbreak? So what are you going to do when 'government standards' are 'inadequate'?
        yequalsx 16y ago
        Change government. Of course government can be bad. It can also be good. If light bulbs started exploding and causing harm government agencies would step in and investigate. Legislation may then have to be passed to prevent the issue from re-occurring. Sometimes industry acts without government intervention and government intervention isn't necessary. Government is, in such cases, the regulator of last resort. FDA does screw up big time. It's what happens when their efforts at enforcement are hampered. It's what happens when regulatory capture occurs. It's an example of the necessity for a functioning government that looks after the interests of society.
- dnautics 16y ago
  "Right now government prevents parents from trying to toughen up their 13 year old child by making him work in a coal mine. Parents who want to do such a thing are being prevented from making this bad decision by government. It would be a bad decision on my part if I knowingly made unsafe products and sold them to people. Government does its best to prevent me from making this bad decision." Well both of your examples are ones where one person is harming another. I mean if you wanted to argue that government prevents people from "harming" themselves, like assisted suicide or drug use, you might have an argument, but I think you will find the libertarian position to be rather consistent on those matters. (And also very tolerant of individuals stepping in to help each other out).
  - yequalsx 16y ago
    Go back to my original example of people buying houses that they couldn't afford. One person making this bad decision is OK. Millions making it isn't OK. Prior to the collapse the economic incentives in place in the mortgage industry were contrary to a healthy market and resulted in a collapse that affected the whole nation. Had better rules been in place the mess would not have occurred. If enough bad economic decisions are allowed to take place it can affect the whole country. A society has an interest in preventing such a thing from occurring. It's one of the roles of government.
    - dnautics 16y ago
      "Had better rules been in place the mess would not have occurred." How about not having rules in place that created the mess? Why, for example, was the interest rate so low, making it artificially easy to take on mortgages? Why were home mortgage payments tax-deductible? You think that these economic decisions are made in a vacuum, but you really ought to look in to the political decisions that were made to push people en masse into a series of economic moves that were probably unsustainable. The notion that the most recent economic crises were a failure of the market is completely laughable. Ironically, it's exactly the notion that government is supposed to "prevent bad economic decisions" that has resulted in centralization of economy (via the fed, via subsidization of bank risk, by subsidization -i.e. stealth corporate welfare- of retirements through 401ks, IRAs) - so that instead of a few bad actors getting punished for poor choices, risk is socialized and we all have to bail out the rich guys.
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  Do you have any basis for a belief that the government will make better decisions than the people? One potential reason this might be true (which I point out more to observe than to advocate) is that the rules and proceedings of regulatory agencies are systematic, and tend to outlast individuals' terms of office. Agency rules generally require prior public consultation, are subject to the scrutiny of judicial review, and so forth. This rulemaking process exists to bring some objectivity to the subject of policy. Of course, it fails frequently or we'd never have any bad policies to worry about. The process has inherent shortcomings; but then again, so do all the alternatives. There are many examples of business disregarding externalities leading to entirely avoidable tragedies of the commons.

CWuestefeld 16y ago

Implicit in your reply is the idea that government can help shield us from harm by preventing such bad decisions. Do you have any basis for a belief that the government will make better decisions than the people? Part of any answer to this must be an explanation about how those regular people, subject to being "easily manipulated and duped", will wise up and do the right thing once put in power. Second, it should be obvious to members of a community such as HN, that progress demands the freedom for people to try out new solutions, risking failure. Protecting us from this will, at best, impede progress.

yequalsx 16y ago
Right now government prevents parents from trying to toughen up their 13 year old child by making him work in a coal mine. Parents who want to do such a thing are being prevented from making this bad decision by government. It would be a bad decision on my part if I knowingly made unsafe products and sold them to people. Government does its best to prevent me from making this bad decision.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  You have addressed neither of my concerns: 1. How does a government official become wiser and less susceptible to manipulation or being duped? How is it that's he's got an edge over my decision-making skills? 2. If government is acting as a nanny, how can we prevent that from becoming an obstacle toward innovation (which is just another word for "risky behavior")? Trite and silly replies don't make these concerns go away.
  - yequalsx 16y ago
    They weren't trite or silly replies. Perhaps you are unaware of the history of child labor in this country. Perhaps you are unaware of the history of companies knowingly selling products that are harmful. It was government intervention that largely stopped these practices. There are lots of examples of where government has stepped in to regulate affairs to protect people from making bad or ill informed decisions. Before seatbelt use became popular or considered by the population as necessary government forced car manufacturers to put them in cars even though it increased the price of a car. Most people can't make an informed decision on what constitutes safe food. Consumers rely on government to have adequate standards that are enforced. Without such standards people would make bad decisions.
    - dnautics 16y ago
      "Most people can't make an informed decision on what constitutes safe food. Consumers rely on government to have adequate standards that are enforced. Without such standards people would make bad decisions." Bullshit. What government agency prevents us from having exploding lightbulbs. There isn't one. It's done by Underwriter's Laboratory. There is no good reason why we can't have an Underwriter's laboratory for food. Or an underwriter's laboratory for medicines, instead of the FDA. In fact we are seeing en mass rebellion against the USDA (particularly in the organic-certification area) where the USDA is seen as basically an agent that prevents upstart food producers and entrenches big-food interests that can afford to pay for extremely expensive certification. You know what, the FDA screws up big time, too. Remember how we had an e coli outbreak? So what are you going to do when 'government standards' are 'inadequate'?
      - yequalsx 16y ago
        Change government. Of course government can be bad. It can also be good. If light bulbs started exploding and causing harm government agencies would step in and investigate. Legislation may then have to be passed to prevent the issue from re-occurring. Sometimes industry acts without government intervention and government intervention isn't necessary. Government is, in such cases, the regulator of last resort. FDA does screw up big time. It's what happens when their efforts at enforcement are hampered. It's what happens when regulatory capture occurs. It's an example of the necessity for a functioning government that looks after the interests of society.
dnautics 16y ago
"Right now government prevents parents from trying to toughen up their 13 year old child by making him work in a coal mine. Parents who want to do such a thing are being prevented from making this bad decision by government. It would be a bad decision on my part if I knowingly made unsafe products and sold them to people. Government does its best to prevent me from making this bad decision." Well both of your examples are ones where one person is harming another. I mean if you wanted to argue that government prevents people from "harming" themselves, like assisted suicide or drug use, you might have an argument, but I think you will find the libertarian position to be rather consistent on those matters. (And also very tolerant of individuals stepping in to help each other out).
- yequalsx 16y ago
  Go back to my original example of people buying houses that they couldn't afford. One person making this bad decision is OK. Millions making it isn't OK. Prior to the collapse the economic incentives in place in the mortgage industry were contrary to a healthy market and resulted in a collapse that affected the whole nation. Had better rules been in place the mess would not have occurred. If enough bad economic decisions are allowed to take place it can affect the whole country. A society has an interest in preventing such a thing from occurring. It's one of the roles of government.
  - dnautics 16y ago
    "Had better rules been in place the mess would not have occurred." How about not having rules in place that created the mess? Why, for example, was the interest rate so low, making it artificially easy to take on mortgages? Why were home mortgage payments tax-deductible? You think that these economic decisions are made in a vacuum, but you really ought to look in to the political decisions that were made to push people en masse into a series of economic moves that were probably unsustainable. The notion that the most recent economic crises were a failure of the market is completely laughable. Ironically, it's exactly the notion that government is supposed to "prevent bad economic decisions" that has resulted in centralization of economy (via the fed, via subsidization of bank risk, by subsidization -i.e. stealth corporate welfare- of retirements through 401ks, IRAs) - so that instead of a few bad actors getting punished for poor choices, risk is socialized and we all have to bail out the rich guys.
anigbrowl 16y ago
Do you have any basis for a belief that the government will make better decisions than the people? One potential reason this might be true (which I point out more to observe than to advocate) is that the rules and proceedings of regulatory agencies are systematic, and tend to outlast individuals' terms of office. Agency rules generally require prior public consultation, are subject to the scrutiny of judicial review, and so forth. This rulemaking process exists to bring some objectivity to the subject of policy. Of course, it fails frequently or we'd never have any bad policies to worry about. The process has inherent shortcomings; but then again, so do all the alternatives. There are many examples of business disregarding externalities leading to entirely avoidable tragedies of the commons.