I've long wished our federal and state constitutions included limits on government participation in the economy. I've no idea what those limits might look like, just that it should be many orders of a magnitude less than it currently is.
Salient point about leftists (and maybe even a lot of average people) thinking that it's business that is corrupting government. My observation is that this is the case as well. They seemingly believe that if it weren't for businesses corrupting and wielding power over the poor, powerless government then it would be able to properly control them for the greater good. It's remarkable.
Bryan should be allowed to just make a point and not turn it into a political movement, but this post cries out for a call to action. Is it just a black pill, or if we believe this post, what should we do about it?
Most of what we do when we discuss politics is to advertise what values we have and whose side we are on.
Whatever else you might say about the effectiveness of the policy, the person who is demanding the government step in and stop X bad thing or do Y good thing is very effectively conveying that they believe X is bad/Y is good.
That's just not true for free market solutions. Sure, maybe you really do want less regulation to help people buy homes cheaper or lift them out of poverty but also maybe you want it for selfish reasons.
I don’t know about you, I selfishly want myself and my neighbors to prosper. Prosperous people make and do things that I want, and can afford to pay me.
Who should receive credit for originating the idea? I don’t remember him giving someone else credit when he wrote about it in The Myth of the Rational Voter. Was he stealing it? Or has it been too long since I read that, my memory is wrong, and he did footnote an originator?
He popularized it but it wasn't the sort of thing you needed to cite people for, the idea that it might not be instrumentally rational to be completely epistemically rational has certainly been explored in philosophy going quite a ways back and I suspect has shown up in psychology and a bunch of other disciplines.
This possibility is kinda an obvious one. I mean every atheist since Hume has basically given that as the explanation for why so many people end up as theists.
What Bryan did was argue that it wasn't some weird edge case that just shows up in things like religion but something that should be taken seriously in economics. That's the non-obvious point and I'm happy to credit him with that but not the mere idea that sometimes we choose to believe things that aren't rational to believe because it's beneficial is kinda obvious and been in the ether forever.
Yes, discussion of "rational irrationality" has been around for quite a while. It was familiar when I was a graduate student in philosophy (1987-95) and maybe before that. It often appeared along with discussions of choosing to restrict your future choices -- Ulysses and the sirens, etc.
The cost is publicly taking a position that is at odds with what people who want to not be regulated (eg capitalists) want. You are publicly siding against an interest for no direct gain to yourself (just the gain from actually being part of tgat coalition)..
And in some sense it is extremely costly insofar as you are burning resources to no real benefit at all. The key point is that you can't directly benefit from the policy. It's why it's not as effective for NIMBY issues because you can credibly allege they benefit from restricting building and aren't doing it out of concern for whatever.
I mean there is a limit to the cost of any declaration of political viewpoint but relative to that it's pretty costly.
We must live in very different contexts. I would say the cost goes the other way, if there is any. I am surrounded by market skeptics. Maybe joining the CPUSA might cost me something, but maybe not as much as announcing that I want to vote for the libertarian. Not much either way.
Ohh, I agree that the overall calculation may go the other way. That's why I said the direct cost. I'm not claiming it's altruistic, you may benefit from being part of the market skeptic alliance.
The point being though is that it's genuinely committing yourself to be on that side because you are burning your bridges with the other group. If someone says, yes I care about helping the poor and that's why I oppose the minimum wage they aren't doing that. They aren't forgoing being on the side of the buisness owners etc by saying that.
---
What I was trying to say is that what we care about is which side in a dispute people align themselves with. For instance, opposing the minimum wage clearly declares yourself to be part of the people who are on the side of being concerned for the poor worker in a way that saying: actually the minimum wage helps the worker doesn't because the later person hasn't clearly picked a side by advocating something against the interests of the other group.
Unfortunately, the businesses _do_ want to be regulated. Regulation has all sorts of advantages. It entrenches their positions. It shields them from liability lawsuits.
And decreases productivity in the long run for all. But being a big fish in a small pond is desired by the haters of independent judgment. Thus tribal wirtchdoctors.
I've long wished our federal and state constitutions included limits on government participation in the economy. I've no idea what those limits might look like, just that it should be many orders of a magnitude less than it currently is.
Salient point about leftists (and maybe even a lot of average people) thinking that it's business that is corrupting government. My observation is that this is the case as well. They seemingly believe that if it weren't for businesses corrupting and wielding power over the poor, powerless government then it would be able to properly control them for the greater good. It's remarkable.
Bryan should be allowed to just make a point and not turn it into a political movement, but this post cries out for a call to action. Is it just a black pill, or if we believe this post, what should we do about it?
Vote extra hard? Lol. I guess just self indulge in the fact that you're wiser than everyone else because there's not much you can do to change it.
Yet things do change. I guess it’s just random.
I think the change has been a gradual and continuous move towards more statism and less free markets, which is what I would expect.
Doesn't Robin Hanson's signalling/alliances stuff pretty convincingly explained what's going on?
Most of what we do when we discuss politics is to advertise what values we have and whose side we are on.
Whatever else you might say about the effectiveness of the policy, the person who is demanding the government step in and stop X bad thing or do Y good thing is very effectively conveying that they believe X is bad/Y is good.
That's just not true for free market solutions. Sure, maybe you really do want less regulation to help people buy homes cheaper or lift them out of poverty but also maybe you want it for selfish reasons.
I don’t know about you, I selfishly want myself and my neighbors to prosper. Prosperous people make and do things that I want, and can afford to pay me.
“very effectively conveying that they believe X is bad/Y is good. “
Isn’t it the opposite? That is a cheap signal. It shouldn’t work.
Bryan's rational irrationality at work?
Well I wouldn't credit Bryan as originating the idea, but yes.
Who should receive credit for originating the idea? I don’t remember him giving someone else credit when he wrote about it in The Myth of the Rational Voter. Was he stealing it? Or has it been too long since I read that, my memory is wrong, and he did footnote an originator?
He popularized it but it wasn't the sort of thing you needed to cite people for, the idea that it might not be instrumentally rational to be completely epistemically rational has certainly been explored in philosophy going quite a ways back and I suspect has shown up in psychology and a bunch of other disciplines.
This possibility is kinda an obvious one. I mean every atheist since Hume has basically given that as the explanation for why so many people end up as theists.
What Bryan did was argue that it wasn't some weird edge case that just shows up in things like religion but something that should be taken seriously in economics. That's the non-obvious point and I'm happy to credit him with that but not the mere idea that sometimes we choose to believe things that aren't rational to believe because it's beneficial is kinda obvious and been in the ether forever.
Yes, discussion of "rational irrationality" has been around for quite a while. It was familiar when I was a graduate student in philosophy (1987-95) and maybe before that. It often appeared along with discussions of choosing to restrict your future choices -- Ulysses and the sirens, etc.
You confuse reason w/rationalization
The cost is publicly taking a position that is at odds with what people who want to not be regulated (eg capitalists) want. You are publicly siding against an interest for no direct gain to yourself (just the gain from actually being part of tgat coalition)..
And in some sense it is extremely costly insofar as you are burning resources to no real benefit at all. The key point is that you can't directly benefit from the policy. It's why it's not as effective for NIMBY issues because you can credibly allege they benefit from restricting building and aren't doing it out of concern for whatever.
I mean there is a limit to the cost of any declaration of political viewpoint but relative to that it's pretty costly.
We must live in very different contexts. I would say the cost goes the other way, if there is any. I am surrounded by market skeptics. Maybe joining the CPUSA might cost me something, but maybe not as much as announcing that I want to vote for the libertarian. Not much either way.
Ohh, I agree that the overall calculation may go the other way. That's why I said the direct cost. I'm not claiming it's altruistic, you may benefit from being part of the market skeptic alliance.
The point being though is that it's genuinely committing yourself to be on that side because you are burning your bridges with the other group. If someone says, yes I care about helping the poor and that's why I oppose the minimum wage they aren't doing that. They aren't forgoing being on the side of the buisness owners etc by saying that.
---
What I was trying to say is that what we care about is which side in a dispute people align themselves with. For instance, opposing the minimum wage clearly declares yourself to be part of the people who are on the side of being concerned for the poor worker in a way that saying: actually the minimum wage helps the worker doesn't because the later person hasn't clearly picked a side by advocating something against the interests of the other group.
Unfortunately, the businesses _do_ want to be regulated. Regulation has all sorts of advantages. It entrenches their positions. It shields them from liability lawsuits.
And decreases productivity in the long run for all. But being a big fish in a small pond is desired by the haters of independent judgment. Thus tribal wirtchdoctors.