He’s interesting, but awfully repetitious—a trait which is worse for videos than writing.
Also, in his argument against regulation (built around a homeless man who had to save for months to be able to afford a business license), he doesn’t address the most common argument for regulation which is that sometimes businesses are extremely dangerous to customers and employees.
he doesn’t address the most common argument for regulation which is that sometimes businesses are extremely dangerous to customers and employees.
I think the implicit argument is that the risk is worth it, because the costs of regulations are so high elsewhere.
Humans supposedly love regulation because we are generally irrationally risk averse and can signal good stuff about ourselves by proposing legislation that sounds good to our brains which interpret it as guidelines for a small stone age tribe of a few dozen people rather than setting guidelines and rules that will live a life of their own in institutions that govern millions of people.
Thanks for the attention! I thought my channel might be too political for this forum, so I never linked it.
In reply: I am for voluntary regulation. Rather than a centralized regulatory agency, I’d like to see free-market approaches, so that big agri-business (for instance) can’t slip through dishonest loop-holes. Multiple standard systems, much like you have with motorcycle helmets.
In fact, that’s a great place to start; there’s a lot of debate on what sort of tests and technology make the safest motorcycle helmet, and the two different standards are moving in different directions. Now I—as a non-fabricator—don’t really know enough to take a stance on either, but I’m confident that the competition between the two has improved both styles.
Vendors would display the label of whatever regulatory agency had certified them, and the agency would be less susceptible to manipulation or bribery, because they’d be selling their image.
Vendors would display the label of whatever regulatory agency had certified them, and the agency would be less susceptible to manipulation or bribery, because they’d be selling their image.
I might be a statist, but I agree with that. When it works as intended, competition between producers/vendors of anything is a great social good for individuals, as it raises them to a position of power (see Mises et al). However, I wonder if such agencies can’t be made semi-public, or if they couldn’t work like an advanced and well-directed banking system; there’s a central government agency, which licenses and watches over municipal and private ones; its direct regulatory services would be very conservative, to create a stable “fallback point” for customers.
He’s interesting, but awfully repetitious—a trait which is worse for videos than writing.
Also, in his argument against regulation (built around a homeless man who had to save for months to be able to afford a business license), he doesn’t address the most common argument for regulation which is that sometimes businesses are extremely dangerous to customers and employees.
I think the implicit argument is that the risk is worth it, because the costs of regulations are so high elsewhere.
Humans supposedly love regulation because we are generally irrationally risk averse and can signal good stuff about ourselves by proposing legislation that sounds good to our brains which interpret it as guidelines for a small stone age tribe of a few dozen people rather than setting guidelines and rules that will live a life of their own in institutions that govern millions of people.
Thanks for the attention! I thought my channel might be too political for this forum, so I never linked it.
In reply: I am for voluntary regulation. Rather than a centralized regulatory agency, I’d like to see free-market approaches, so that big agri-business (for instance) can’t slip through dishonest loop-holes. Multiple standard systems, much like you have with motorcycle helmets.
In fact, that’s a great place to start; there’s a lot of debate on what sort of tests and technology make the safest motorcycle helmet, and the two different standards are moving in different directions. Now I—as a non-fabricator—don’t really know enough to take a stance on either, but I’m confident that the competition between the two has improved both styles.
Vendors would display the label of whatever regulatory agency had certified them, and the agency would be less susceptible to manipulation or bribery, because they’d be selling their image.
I might be a statist, but I agree with that. When it works as intended, competition between producers/vendors of anything is a great social good for individuals, as it raises them to a position of power (see Mises et al).
However, I wonder if such agencies can’t be made semi-public, or if they couldn’t work like an advanced and well-directed banking system; there’s a central government agency, which licenses and watches over municipal and private ones; its direct regulatory services would be very conservative, to create a stable “fallback point” for customers.
Could be interesting for things that are hard to quantify such as ‘natural’ foods or whatever.