5 ms·
Perhaps the parent is too critical of the rule makers, but you are far too forgiving. Laws in the US happen like this: someone has trouble parking one day and
by jaredklewis 7y ago
Perhaps the parent is too critical of the rule makers, but you are far too forgiving.
Laws in the US happen like this: someone has trouble parking one day and decides that the solution is to make more parking a legal requirement, giving little or no thought to the second or third order effects of those laws.
I'm not a big fan of philosopher Michael Huemer, but he makes an interesting metaphor regarding laws. He compares society with the human body and laws with medicine. For a long time medicine wasn't based on empirical evidence, but on logic and "common sense." Most medical advice from before the scientific method was more harmful than helpful. The human body is such a complex and delicate system that almost all interventions are more harmful than helpful. Even in the presence of a medical issue, unless there is evidence that a given medical intervention is more helpful than harmful, no medical intervention is probably better than an unproven one.
Just because a societal ill exists, doesn't mean that the first legal remedy that pops into someone's head is a good idea. Even if that idea solves the problem (a big if), will its second and third order effects cause more damage than the original problem?
American political discourse is dominated by a desire to "take action." But unless lawmakers are willing to start consulting economists and domain experts, no action at all is probably better.
You seem to think that endless sets rules is a necessary evil, but my intuition is the opposite: for every US law that makes for a better society, there are ten which are holding us back.
- fierarul 7y agoI agree that doing something just so something is done about it is not a solution and it generally produces a worse outcome. Ultimately I started questioning a lot of these rules and discovered in time what I said in the original post: a lot of people need to be forced with (new) rules because they will not think of anybody else or even actively try to workaround the rules. And I'm not forgiving of rule makers: I think they are really bad at what they do, both in how they reach consensus and how they codify it in law, but I understand the general need they fill, so to say.
- nitrogen 7y agosomeone has trouble parking one day and decides that the solution is to make more parking a legal requirement, giving little or no thought to the second or third order effects of those laws. Or, "someone owns a small house and one or two cars and finds they can't park because the neighbors have six roommates with one car each", or "developer builds 50 units without parking expecting the neighborhood to absorb the cars".
- nmfisher 7y agoWhich should also lead to a broader consideration of “why do so many people need cars in the first place?”
- fierarul 7y agoWell, yes, but until we fix something at a societal level which takes decades some poor people on a given street struggle because all the new buildings increase people and car density but not parking space. Which means, it makes sense to apply the rule first, and then fix society and then we can turn that excess parking space in gardens if need be.
- jaredklewis 7y agoSure, the first order effect of minimum parking requirements is that there is more parking, which is nice in a situation like the one you describe. I don’t dispute that. What are the second and third order effects and how do those effects compare with doing nothing? Will these laws be revisited as modes of transportation and the urban environment changes? (Spoiler alert, no). Without these laws would everyone just be permanently unable to park? Or would tenants, knowing how hard it is to park in public spots, pay a premium for private parking? Wouldn't those premiums incentivize developers to add private parking? But unlike the legal remedy, when those incentives go away, we don’t have to keep building parking spots.
- jimbokun 7y agoMore tenants would forgo owning a car and walk, bike, use public transportation, or call an Uber.
- masonic 7y ago"developer builds 50 units without parking expecting the neighborhood to absorb the cars" That's exactly what's happening in downtown San Jose right now. One specific example::the city is approving a big new hotel on a tiny lot next to the De Anza Hotel with absolutely no parking provided, externalizing that mess onto the already parking-deprived neighborhood. SAP Center event nights will get really interesting.
- gamblor956 7y agoIt's more like, a bunch of apartment buildings were built before cars were big. Now cars are everywhere, and there is insufficient parking for existing residents, let alone new residents. Therefore, new or substantially renovated residential construction is required to have X parking spots per bedroom. If you actually go to city council meetings they will explain why all of these rules and regulations exist. Just because random Joe on the internet can't see the problem doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
- jaredklewis 7y agoI’m not arguing that laws are made without basis. A lack of parking is a problem, and a legal remedy isn’t on its face absurd. I’m arguing that lawmakers don’t give enough consideration to the second and third order effects of laws. Minimum parking requirements solve one problem, but they create many others. I have attended many city council meetings and my impression of city councilors by and large is that they don’t rely enough on the work of economists, urban planners, and other domain experts.
- stainforth 7y agoOn the other side of this all I see is that there are very powerful entities that do not want to be constrained. Blood was shed for the rule of law. I don't want to return to feudalism