= 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)
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.