= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
mattnewport comments on Open Thread: June 2010 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (651)
I'd question the need to have government involved in the decision at all. Why not let the airlines decide their own security policies?
At least three reasons:
Because airlines have these large objects that can function as missiles and bring down buildings. So failing to secure them harms lots of other people.
As with other industries, individuals do not have the resources to make detailed judgments themselves about safety procedures. This is similar to the need for government inspection and regulation of drugs and food.
Violation of security procedures is (for a variety of good reasons) a criminal offense. In order for that to make any sense, you need the government to have some handle in what procedures do and do not make sense.
The first two reasons only justify requiring that airlines carry liability insurance policies against the external damage that can be caused by by their planes and injuries/deaths of passengers. Then, the insurer would specify what protocols airlines must follow before the insurer will offer an affordable policy. Passengers would not have to make such judgments in that case.
Remember to look for the third alternative!
I don't understand the point you're making in 3.
ETA: Actually, you know what? This has devolved into a political debate. Not cool. Can we wind this down? (To avoid the obvious accusation, anyone can feel free to reply to my arguments here and I won't reply.)
Well, my general approach is to think that we should continue political discussions as long as they are not indicating mind-killing. For example, I find your point about liability insurance to be very interesting, and not one I had thought about before. It is certainly worth thinking about, but even then, that's a different type of regulation, not a lack of regulation as a whole.
If it's not there in your judgment then, I'll continue.
Yes, but it certainly makes a difference in how many choices and alternatives regulation chokes off. Even if you believe in regulation as a necessary evil, you should favor the kind that accomplishes the same result with less intrusion. And there's a big difference between "Follow this specific federal code for airline security", versus "Do anything that convinces an insurer to underwrite you for a lot of potential damages."
Similarly, when it comes to restricting carbon emissions, it makes much more sense to assign a price or scarcity to the emissions themselves, rather than try to regulate loose correlates, such as banning products that someone has deemed "inefficient".
If you consider all that obvious, then you should understand my frustration when libertarians have to pull teeth to get people to agree to mere simplifications of regulation like I describe above.
Yeah, no disagreement with those points. (Although now thinking more about the use of insurance underwriting there may be a problem getting large enough insurance. For example, in some areas there have been home insurance companies that went bankrupt after major natural disasters and didn't have enough money to pay everything out. One could see similar problems occurring when one has potential loss in the multi-billion dollar range.)
Reinsurance.
Good point, although again, would then push the regulation back one level to make sure that the insurance companies risk was appropriately allocated.
One of the oldest reinsurers originally had unlimited liability for members. I think that provides much more effective oversight of risk allocation than any regulation.
No, it didn't. Did you miss the part where Lloyds imploded, and the unlimited liability destroyed scores of lives (and caused multiple suicides)? The 'reinsurance spiral' certainly was not effective oversight. Even counting the Names' net worth, Lloyds had less reserves and greater risk exposure than regular corporate insurance giants that it competed with, like Swiss Re and Munich Re.
EDIT: It occurs to me that the obvious rebuttal is that Lloyds was quite profitable for a century or two, and so we shouldn't hold the asbestos disaster against it. But it seems to me that any fool can capably insure against risks that eventuate every month or year; high quality risk management is known from how well the extremely rare events are handled.
Their liability is still limited by the laws regarding personal bankruptcy. You can't pay back money you don't have. (In the old days, there was debtor's prison, but that really doesn't help anyone.)
Some libertarians oppose limited liability for shareholders of corporations because it distorts the incentives to reduce the risk of harm to third parties. I tend to lean in that direction although I can see the merit in some arguments in favour of limited liability.
Ah yes, the orthodox doctrine of the Church of Unlimited Government. I'm a heretic and don't accept any of these as self evident. I find it interesting that it doesn't even occur to most people to ask the question whether any given issue should even be considered as a legitimate concern of government. From the second link (emphasis mine):
I'm not at all sure what any of this has to do with anything. I agree with the quoted section that having the government step in to regulate how much carryon luggage people can have is an example of people making bad assumptions about government. Indeed, this one is particularly stupid because it is economically equivalent to charging a higher price and then offering a discount for people who don't bring carryon luggage. And psych studies show that if anything people react more positively to things framed as a discount.
But I don't see what this has to do with anything I listed. Can you explain for example how the fact that airplanes are effectively large missiles is not a good reason for the government to be concerned about their security? The use of airplanes as weapons is not fictional.
Similarly, regarding my second point are you claiming that people in general do have the time and resources to determine if any given drug is safe or is even what it is claimed to be? I'm curious how other than government regulation you intend to prevent people from diluting drugs for examples.
Edit: And having now read the essays you linked to I have to say that I'm a bit confused. The notion that the US of all countries has a religious belief in unlimited government is difficult for me to understand. The US often has far less regulation and government intervention than say most of Europe. So the claim that the US has a religion of "Unlimited Government" as a replacement for an established religion clashes with the simple fact that many countries which do have established or semi-established religions still have far more government intervention. Meanwhile, it seems that it is frequently politically helpful in the US to talk about "getting the government off of peoples' backs" or something similar. So how the heck is this a religion in the US?
This rather illustrates my point. You can see the lack of justification for a fairly extreme example like the carry on luggage but can't see how that relates to the question of airline security. From my perspective the idea that government should even be discussing what to do about airline security in the original example is at least as ridiculous as the luggage example is from your perspective.
Airlines already have a strong economic incentive to take measures to avoid hijacking and terrorist attacks, both due to the high cost of losing a plane and to the reputational damage and possible liability claims resulting from passenger deaths and from the destruction of the target. I would expect them to do a better job of developing efficient security measures to mitigate these risks if government were not involved and also to do a better job of trading off increased security against increased inconvenience for travelers. There is absolutely no reason why a potentially dangerous activity necessitates government involvement to mitigate risks.
You can make the same argument with regard to many goods and services available in our complex modern world. It is equally flawed when applied to drugs as when applied to computers, cars or financial products. There is no reason why government has to play the role of gatekeeper, guardian and guarantor. In markets where government involvement is minimal other entities fill these roles quite effectively.
Since the italics are yours, I'm going to focus on that term and ask what you mean by necessitate? Do you mean society will inevitably fall apart without it? Obviously no one is going to make that argument. Do you mean just that there are potentially ways to try to approach the problem other than the government? That's a much weaker claim.
Really? Cars are extensively regulated. The failure of government regulation is seen by many as part of the current financial crisis. And computers don't (generally) have the same fatality concerns. What sort of institution would you replace the FDA with ?
I mean that recognizing the existence of a perceived problem does not need to lead automatically to considering ways that government can 'fix' it. Drug prohibition is a classic example here. Many people see that there are problems associated with drug use and jump straight to the conclusion that therefore there is a need for government to regulate drug use. Not every problem requires a government solution. The mindset that all perceived problems with the world necessitate government convening a commission and devising regulation is what I am criticizing.
I'd abolish the FDA but I wouldn't replace it with anything. That's kind of the point. People would still want independent assessments of the safety and efficacy of medical treatments and without the crowding out effects of a government supported monopoly there would be strong incentives for private institutions to satisfy that demand. The fact that the nature of these institutions would not be designed in advance by government but would evolve to meet the needs of the market is a feature, not a bug.
So basically it all comes down to "Should the government worry about this or not?" Is there any good heuristics or principles for determining wether or not the government should regulate something? I'm not upset at the system for being wrong per se, but I am upset about it being so inconsistent and unreliable.
A good heuristic is "no it shouldn't". Whether there are any exceptions to this rule is an open question.
So how do you feel about the government regulating what credit card issuers or insurers are allowed to offer? I see this as similar to the carry-on luggage issue. I don't want credit card companies to be allowed to offer misleading rates or unfair policies like paying off the lowest interest rates first. I'm not sure about carry-on luggage, but what about charging for a bathroom? That seems clearly within the scope of legitimate concerns of government, given that air travel is already heavily regulated.
I think there are some credit card practices that could be framed as fraud (You can change my interest rate without telling me? And without telling me you won't tell me? Seriously? What the hell?) so the government would have to be involved even in a strict libertarian society, but I never like where this is going.
Libertarianism, as a political concept was an idea invented by David Nolan to suit his political theories. He had a chart, and a quarter of it is various types of libertarians.
If you like more social liberties than the American center, and more economic liberties, and are willing to forgo some amount (even a small amount) of government services and protections to achieve them, then you are some where on that quarter of the map. You don't necessarily have to be way off in the corner with the anarchists or defend every idea they have.
This argument doesn't work. Just because you already have heavy regulation, doesn't justify having more regulation. Also, many libertarians would say that the solution should be to simply remove much of the heavy regulation of air travel.
Well, it doesn't by itself justify more regulation, but it makes additional regulation less burdensome. If trains were not regulated and planes were, it might be reasonable to add regulation of bathrooms to plane regulations, but not to introduce regulation to trains so we could regulate bathrooms.
Fair enough.