Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[wufwugy]

My thoughts pretty much exactly. Making sure people aren't left stranded is essential. That's what creates crime, poverty, ghettos, sickness etc and results with huge loss of productivity. Unless of course we're talking about social darwinism and feel it's ok for them to just die off.

The data is not conclusive that these things are created by people "falling through the cracks". As for the common claim that poverty increases crime, ghettos, and sickness, I think the only one the data may one day conclude is true is for sickness. The data linking poverty and crime has not been holding up lately, and there are much better explanations for ghettos.

What we know is that economics can help understand this. The field can't explain everything about why ghettos and their facets exist, but it is well documented that those regions are among the most regulated and subsidized. Which is interesting since economic predictions are that this is what would happen if you regulate and subsidize something a lot.

I want no part with a nanny state. There are definitely limits to where I want the state to stick its nose in, but I also think there are parts in which I think its nose is needed. Not all people are concerned how they harm others when they're reaching for their goals and taking care of themselves, and somebody needs to keep them in check. The best solution I'm aware of is a government with central policing. I don't care if it's optimal with regard to efficiency and I don't care how much your local police force is corrupt and useless, in many places it's been shown to work and can most likely therefore in other places too. The key is it needs to be available for everybody, not just those who can afford it.

There are two big issues with this: (1) what you're describing is how it would work in a poorly functioning system. Nobody is arguing that the state can't do a whole bunch of stuff and then have some of that stuff work better than others. That's standard variation. It should be expected that if you have violence monopolies, you're going to have varying outcomes based on other factors. Also, your claim that some places work well because of their violence monopolies (like where you live) is not accounting for the many other variables that academics believe to be more applicable, like variations in level of cultural homogeneity.

(2) Admitting a reduction in efficiency is admitting that your way is not the right way. Even an annual 0.1% increase in efficiency by a market system is enough to develop a more functional and moral system than the status quo. Not engaging efficiency is subsidizing ourselves at the expense of our progeny, so to speak. Of course, we're not dealing with numbers so tiny because the real amount of efficiency, growth, and innovation that the markets bring is far greater than 0.1%.

I don't care what the number of regulations is, important is that there's enough of them and they're smart. The legislative process should be a science and evidence based PDCA cycle. Laws and regulations should undergo continuous improvement and refinement based on results and metrics.

I agree that our approach should be science and evidence based. That's what this is all about. I think the science is telling us that limiting government works best.

The Law of Unintended Consequences

Regulation by monopoly is antithetical to the endeavor of producing positive results. Unintended consequences and moral hazards are unavoidable when regulation is used, it doesn't matter how "good" they may be. It's like hydrating by drinking salt water.

That said, regulations can certainly be less bad. For example, if Jeb Bush gets elected president, he may pursue an education voucher system by national mandate. A law like that would have unintended consequences and thus be worse than having no mandate on education in the first place, but it would have much lower unintended consequences and produce fewer moral hazards than the current existing mandates.