3 ms·

Isn't the cookie jar an alegory of the commons? And as such shouldn't it be forbiden to shit in the cookie jar? I had the impression that it was how the story

Isn't the cookie jar an alegory of the commons? And as such shouldn't it be forbiden to shit in the cookie jar? I had the impression that it was how the story ended when we talked about cookies, but maybe I didn't get the memo.

josephg 5y ago
The point is that being forbidden and being illegal are different ideas. It’s bad for society to codify too much behaviour in law. Knowing the law is no substitute for knowing the difference between right and wrong. Regulating Facebook is a great example. Congress could easily react to facebook’s indiscretions by passing new laws here which stifle innovation.
- satellite2 5y ago
  I think I got that part. I was referring to the book the tragedy of the commons (very interesting small book that I recommend) which basically says that when you have N users of some common, even if game theory says that it's in their best individual best interest to protect the common as it is the strategy that maximise satisfaction, if N becomes large enough, someone will start damageing it and soon everyone will do the same. So the tragedy is that you actually have to enforce the behaviour that's in everyone's best interest as a law.
  - josephg 5y ago
    Oh, I totally agree. When it comes to a fishing community surrounding a lake, having rules in place to limit the number of fish each fisherman can catch benefits everyone. But the same principle applies to me and my friends eating cookies. Each of us is incentivized to eat as many as we can - because its a limited resource and they're delicious. But in this case we use social, not legal consequences to punish defectors. If my friends see me eat all the cookies, they will be angry with me. This is a strong enough system to keep us honest. But imagine if we adding a law here, making it a crime to eat all the cookies. Would that improve our behaviour? No. We might not want to share cookies at all if its possible one of us could go to jail for it. I think laws are often appropriate. But laws are a blunt instrument. They can't be our only tool to protect the commons.
- munk-a 5y ago
  > It’s bad for society to codify too much behaviour in law. The issue with over-codification is one of the complexity in the laws that result - not that a large number of prohibitions is actually damaging to society. If too many laws exist then enforcement becomes intractable, arbitrary and unjust - but if enforcement could be sanely and fairly dealt out then there are lots of things that we'd appreciate being laws - i.e. sniping someone's parking spot while they're pulling in: it's a dangerous action that encourages people to park faster than they're comfortable and generally makes people act like assholes... but is it worth paying someone 50k/year to prevent sniping parking spots? Nope.
  - josephg 5y ago
    > if enforcement could be sanely and fairly dealt out then there are lots of things that we'd appreciate being laws I'm hearing a hypothesis - that if enforcement was cheap and easy, we could make a better legal system (and a better society) by regulating far more human interaction. Presumably we'd have AI systems monitoring everyone at all times, and issuing automatic fines if you snipe someone's parking spot. "Citizen #421 you have been found guilty by AI of the crimes of eating the last cookie, and failing to call your mother while overseas. Please proceed immediately to the nearest reeducation facility for behavior correction" I agree that there is often marginal (and proximate) benefit in having more laws. I'm in favor of FB being regulated somehow. But my point is that more laws - even when restricting antisocial behaviour - can still create a worse society. The reason is not just because enforcement is arbitrary. Another example of this is the controversial Canadian bill C16, which sought to make it essentially illegal to misgender someone. Critics of the bill argued that despite everyone agreeing that its extremely disrespectful to misgender someone, it still shouldn't be illegal. This is a subtle argument, but its an important one if we want our societies to stay free and healthy.
    - mountainb 5y ago
      Facebook is governed by many laws and it flouts a lot of them. For example, they screw up the DMCA process continuously in a way that by statute should make them lose their safe harbor (no "Section 230 reform" needed). Just by sheer volume of mistakes related to processing DMCA notices and counternotices they should lose their safe harbor protection. Even though surely many of the mistakes are unintentional human error, it doesn't actually matter that much according to the wording of the law. They allow the hosting of a lot of egregious criminal activity, including maintaining uncountable numbers of what the law would define as notorious marketplaces for criminal activity. The trouble is lack of enforcement. You cannot fix a lack of enforcement with new laws that will just go unenforced.

josephg 5y ago

The point is that being forbidden and being illegal are different ideas. It’s bad for society to codify too much behaviour in law. Knowing the law is no substitute for knowing the difference between right and wrong. Regulating Facebook is a great example. Congress could easily react to facebook’s indiscretions by passing new laws here which stifle innovation.

satellite2 5y ago
I think I got that part. I was referring to the book the tragedy of the commons (very interesting small book that I recommend) which basically says that when you have N users of some common, even if game theory says that it's in their best individual best interest to protect the common as it is the strategy that maximise satisfaction, if N becomes large enough, someone will start damageing it and soon everyone will do the same. So the tragedy is that you actually have to enforce the behaviour that's in everyone's best interest as a law.
- josephg 5y ago
  Oh, I totally agree. When it comes to a fishing community surrounding a lake, having rules in place to limit the number of fish each fisherman can catch benefits everyone. But the same principle applies to me and my friends eating cookies. Each of us is incentivized to eat as many as we can - because its a limited resource and they're delicious. But in this case we use social, not legal consequences to punish defectors. If my friends see me eat all the cookies, they will be angry with me. This is a strong enough system to keep us honest. But imagine if we adding a law here, making it a crime to eat all the cookies. Would that improve our behaviour? No. We might not want to share cookies at all if its possible one of us could go to jail for it. I think laws are often appropriate. But laws are a blunt instrument. They can't be our only tool to protect the commons.
munk-a 5y ago
> It’s bad for society to codify too much behaviour in law. The issue with over-codification is one of the complexity in the laws that result - not that a large number of prohibitions is actually damaging to society. If too many laws exist then enforcement becomes intractable, arbitrary and unjust - but if enforcement could be sanely and fairly dealt out then there are lots of things that we'd appreciate being laws - i.e. sniping someone's parking spot while they're pulling in: it's a dangerous action that encourages people to park faster than they're comfortable and generally makes people act like assholes... but is it worth paying someone 50k/year to prevent sniping parking spots? Nope.
- josephg 5y ago
  > if enforcement could be sanely and fairly dealt out then there are lots of things that we'd appreciate being laws I'm hearing a hypothesis - that if enforcement was cheap and easy, we could make a better legal system (and a better society) by regulating far more human interaction. Presumably we'd have AI systems monitoring everyone at all times, and issuing automatic fines if you snipe someone's parking spot. "Citizen #421 you have been found guilty by AI of the crimes of eating the last cookie, and failing to call your mother while overseas. Please proceed immediately to the nearest reeducation facility for behavior correction" I agree that there is often marginal (and proximate) benefit in having more laws. I'm in favor of FB being regulated somehow. But my point is that more laws - even when restricting antisocial behaviour - can still create a worse society. The reason is not just because enforcement is arbitrary. Another example of this is the controversial Canadian bill C16, which sought to make it essentially illegal to misgender someone. Critics of the bill argued that despite everyone agreeing that its extremely disrespectful to misgender someone, it still shouldn't be illegal. This is a subtle argument, but its an important one if we want our societies to stay free and healthy.
  - mountainb 5y ago
    Facebook is governed by many laws and it flouts a lot of them. For example, they screw up the DMCA process continuously in a way that by statute should make them lose their safe harbor (no "Section 230 reform" needed). Just by sheer volume of mistakes related to processing DMCA notices and counternotices they should lose their safe harbor protection. Even though surely many of the mistakes are unintentional human error, it doesn't actually matter that much according to the wording of the law. They allow the hosting of a lot of egregious criminal activity, including maintaining uncountable numbers of what the law would define as notorious marketplaces for criminal activity. The trouble is lack of enforcement. You cannot fix a lack of enforcement with new laws that will just go unenforced.