4 ms·

> you can't say the government exists in a vacuum I'm not saying that govt exists in a vacuum. I'm saying who is responsible for what it does. > I do not lik

by anamax 15y ago

> you can't say the government exists in a vacuum I'm not saying that govt exists in a vacuum. I'm saying who is responsible for what it does. > I do not like the way city hall is run either, but it's a two-way street. No, it's not. The way City Hall works in SF is entirely the responsibility of the voters of SF. As long as they insist on setting it up so it can be bought off, it will be, and that's their fault. No, it isn't the fault of the people buying. Not one little bit.

anigbrowl 15y ago
Yes it is partly their fault, because they are the ones corrupting the political process at the electoral level. There are so many different factors that go into electing people at city hall, and the public is no more a monolithic entity than the government. Rather, it includes multiple groups some of whose interests are aligned on some issues and conflict on others. The electorate can't, and shouldn't, build the entire election around the taxi issue; that would be irrational. But it's not obvious what the most effective leverage point for change is; this is a basic lesson of public choice theory. The people buying influence (and today, holding the public interest hostage by blockading city hall) are also a part of the problem. You can't sensibly object to rent-seeking and then give the rent-seekers a free pass when they kick back some of their extracted rents in the form of political lobbying.
- anamax 15y ago
  > You can't sensibly object to rent-seeking and then give the rent-seekers a free pass when they kick back some of their extracted rents in the form of political lobbying. I'm not objecting to rent-seeking; that would be like objecting to gravity. I'm objecting to folks who set up opportunities for rent-seeking and then complain when it happens. I'm blaming folks who set up said opportunities for the rent-seeking that occurs.
  - anigbrowl 15y ago
    Once again, the electorate is not monolithic, but highly fragmented. To pretend otherwise is to endorse the divide-and-conquer approach of professional lobbyists. Whenever someone proposes reforms it's billed as an attack on freedom, whenever someone complains about the absence of reforms, it's billed as the electorate's own silly fault. This has been pointed out to you before, and you're an intelligent person, so I think it's rather disingenuous of you to keep trotting out the naive form of the argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory
    - anamax 15y ago
      > Once again, the electorate is not monolithic, but highly fragmented. That's irrelevant to my point. I'm not making a public choice theory argument. Yes, public choice theory discusses rent-seeking, but it isn't the only basis for doing so.
      - anigbrowl 15y ago
        It's entirely relevant; your whole argument on the notion of unitary agency. Public choice theory explains why this line of reasoning is fundamentally flawed. If you don't understand this then all I can suggest is that you spend some time thinking it over, because you have certainly not articulated a coherent argument in defense of your position and I grow tired of explaining the obvious.
        anamax 15y ago
        > It's entirely relevant; your whole argument on the notion of unitary agency. No, it doesn't, even if your argument requires that it does. Yes, some folks support structures that make rent-seeking easy while others oppose. In both groups, you have folks who want govt to provide a particular good and some folks opposed. All of thse are still responsible for the resulting rent-seeking, even though clearly they're not "unitary". > I grow tired of explaining the obvious. You haven't explained anything. You've dropped a buzz-word that is only tangentially related and made some false assumptions. I like public choice theory, but it isn't a complete explanation of everything in govt. In particular, while it talks about treating govt as an economic problem, it makes some assumptions about govt that aren't necessary.

by anamax 15y ago

anigbrowl 15y ago

Yes it is partly their fault, because they are the ones corrupting the political process at the electoral level. There are so many different factors that go into electing people at city hall, and the public is no more a monolithic entity than the government. Rather, it includes multiple groups some of whose interests are aligned on some issues and conflict on others. The electorate can't, and shouldn't, build the entire election around the taxi issue; that would be irrational. But it's not obvious what the most effective leverage point for change is; this is a basic lesson of public choice theory. The people buying influence (and today, holding the public interest hostage by blockading city hall) are also a part of the problem. You can't sensibly object to rent-seeking and then give the rent-seekers a free pass when they kick back some of their extracted rents in the form of political lobbying.

anamax 15y ago
> You can't sensibly object to rent-seeking and then give the rent-seekers a free pass when they kick back some of their extracted rents in the form of political lobbying. I'm not objecting to rent-seeking; that would be like objecting to gravity. I'm objecting to folks who set up opportunities for rent-seeking and then complain when it happens. I'm blaming folks who set up said opportunities for the rent-seeking that occurs.
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  Once again, the electorate is not monolithic, but highly fragmented. To pretend otherwise is to endorse the divide-and-conquer approach of professional lobbyists. Whenever someone proposes reforms it's billed as an attack on freedom, whenever someone complains about the absence of reforms, it's billed as the electorate's own silly fault. This has been pointed out to you before, and you're an intelligent person, so I think it's rather disingenuous of you to keep trotting out the naive form of the argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory
  - anamax 15y ago
    > Once again, the electorate is not monolithic, but highly fragmented. That's irrelevant to my point. I'm not making a public choice theory argument. Yes, public choice theory discusses rent-seeking, but it isn't the only basis for doing so.
    - anigbrowl 15y ago
      It's entirely relevant; your whole argument on the notion of unitary agency. Public choice theory explains why this line of reasoning is fundamentally flawed. If you don't understand this then all I can suggest is that you spend some time thinking it over, because you have certainly not articulated a coherent argument in defense of your position and I grow tired of explaining the obvious.
      - anamax 15y ago
        > It's entirely relevant; your whole argument on the notion of unitary agency. No, it doesn't, even if your argument requires that it does. Yes, some folks support structures that make rent-seeking easy while others oppose. In both groups, you have folks who want govt to provide a particular good and some folks opposed. All of thse are still responsible for the resulting rent-seeking, even though clearly they're not "unitary". > I grow tired of explaining the obvious. You haven't explained anything. You've dropped a buzz-word that is only tangentially related and made some false assumptions. I like public choice theory, but it isn't a complete explanation of everything in govt. In particular, while it talks about treating govt as an economic problem, it makes some assumptions about govt that aren't necessary.