4 ms·

> We should require our legislators to more clearly articulate and value externalities from a given policy and identify groups it creates negative externalities

> We should require our legislators to more clearly articulate and value externalities from a given policy and identify groups it creates negative externalities for, and how they should be compensated (or why they do not deserve to be compensated). That would be identity politics 2.0 and the end of nation states. Not only lawmakers targeting different groups of society to pass legislation, but also identifying (highly subjectively) other groups to be compensated for 2nd and 3rd-order effects introduced by that legislation.

bitwize 6y ago
It's the application of Coase's theorem at the level of the legislature. Nothing "identity" about it; if others are unduly negatively affected by a measure then they deserve compensation.
veridies 6y ago
I realize the practical difficulties here, but the actual concept (identifying who's going to be impacted, and offering targeted solutions) sounds like a pretty good idea in theory. Calling it 'identity politics 2.0' is an easy way to dismiss it, but it doesn't respond to the actual argument.
- bluetomcat 6y ago
  Consider the following situation with parties A, B and C involved. "A" wants to do something that negatively affects B, while C is unaffected. The legislator would decide to compensate B, but who is taxed for that? In case of taxing A and C, C's freedom as a group would be compromised. In case of taxing only A, the cost would be prohibitive and could discourage A from wanting to do its thing in the first place.
  - katbyte 6y ago
    Then maybe A just shouldn’t do the thing that’s going to harm B to a prohibitive amount?
    - mensetmanusman 6y ago
      Inventing the car hurt horse breeders and kicked off global climate change, I don’t think people would argue that their life would be better without the invention of the vehicle.
  - helen___keller 6y ago
    Going from this post to your previous post: > That would be identity politics 2.0 and the end of nation states Still seems like a massive leap in rhetoric. The truth is that this sort of compensation already exists in the united states. For example: eminent domain, which requires a just compensation for government acquisition of private land. Another example, many cities require some form of compensation from a real estate developer to the surrounding community in exchange for a permit to undergo a big construction; for example, funding a public park or some such. Neither of these examples seem like "identity politics 2.0" much less the end of nation states. You can argue it's ineffective public policy, but again its a massive leap in rhetoric you took with your earlier post.
  - veridies 6y ago
    > In case of taxing A and C, C's freedom as a group would be compromised. True. That's why targeted taxes (eg carbon taxing) are often a good idea. However, if we as a society vote to do things that seriously harm a subset of society, then we as a society are partially responsible for that harm. > In case of taxing only A, the cost would be prohibitive and could discourage A from wanting to do its thing in the first place. I think it's entirely reasonable to price externalities into the cost of an action.

bitwize 6y ago

It's the application of Coase's theorem at the level of the legislature. Nothing "identity" about it; if others are unduly negatively affected by a measure then they deserve compensation.

veridies 6y ago

I realize the practical difficulties here, but the actual concept (identifying who's going to be impacted, and offering targeted solutions) sounds like a pretty good idea in theory. Calling it 'identity politics 2.0' is an easy way to dismiss it, but it doesn't respond to the actual argument.

bluetomcat 6y ago
Consider the following situation with parties A, B and C involved. "A" wants to do something that negatively affects B, while C is unaffected. The legislator would decide to compensate B, but who is taxed for that? In case of taxing A and C, C's freedom as a group would be compromised. In case of taxing only A, the cost would be prohibitive and could discourage A from wanting to do its thing in the first place.
- katbyte 6y ago
  Then maybe A just shouldn’t do the thing that’s going to harm B to a prohibitive amount?
  - mensetmanusman 6y ago
    Inventing the car hurt horse breeders and kicked off global climate change, I don’t think people would argue that their life would be better without the invention of the vehicle.
- helen___keller 6y ago
  Going from this post to your previous post: > That would be identity politics 2.0 and the end of nation states Still seems like a massive leap in rhetoric. The truth is that this sort of compensation already exists in the united states. For example: eminent domain, which requires a just compensation for government acquisition of private land. Another example, many cities require some form of compensation from a real estate developer to the surrounding community in exchange for a permit to undergo a big construction; for example, funding a public park or some such. Neither of these examples seem like "identity politics 2.0" much less the end of nation states. You can argue it's ineffective public policy, but again its a massive leap in rhetoric you took with your earlier post.
- veridies 6y ago
  > In case of taxing A and C, C's freedom as a group would be compromised. True. That's why targeted taxes (eg carbon taxing) are often a good idea. However, if we as a society vote to do things that seriously harm a subset of society, then we as a society are partially responsible for that harm. > In case of taxing only A, the cost would be prohibitive and could discourage A from wanting to do its thing in the first place. I think it's entirely reasonable to price externalities into the cost of an action.