An example is in Federalist No. 10. Madison is trying to design a political environment resilient to the corrupt effects of factions:
Designing for resillence is not the same thing as designing a system to get politicans to do certain things. If you think as Miltion Friedman that “the right” thing is free market policies, designing the political system in a way that gives political advantages to those people who push free market policies, you are likely reduce resiliency.
A more recent example would be last year’s ban on members of Congress trading stocks based on the inside information they have as lawmakers. I think Milton Friedman’s point is that one should direct efforts toward supporting policies like that, rather than trying to elect politicians who are too ethical to insider-trade.
Given Friedman’s politics I doubt that he had actions such as restricting members ability to trade stocks in mind. That’s not the kind of political agenda that Friedman pushed.
Then I don’t think you understand what that policy does. Lawmakers get their information regardless of how they vote or what policies they persue. That kind of insider trading allows lawmakers to personally enrich themselves instead of making bargains with people who want to hand them money.
What the policy does do, is that it provides a new tool for the people who have information about the trades that a congressman makes, to blackmail the congressman.
You might get some positive effects through the policy, so I’m not clear that it’s a bad law.
rather than trying to elect politicians who are too ethical to insider-trade.
What’s the problem that you are trying to solve in the first place? Insider-trade? Let Eliot Spitzer run the SEC and double SEC funding.
Insider trading doesn’t exist because there a lack of laws against the practice.
I didn’t downvote you, but I’m not continuing the argument because it seems really political in a partisan way. I suspect that’s what’s motivating the downvotes.
Designing for resillence is not the same thing as designing a system to get politicans to do certain things. If you think as Miltion Friedman that “the right” thing is free market policies, designing the political system in a way that gives political advantages to those people who push free market policies, you are likely reduce resiliency.
Given Friedman’s politics I doubt that he had actions such as restricting members ability to trade stocks in mind. That’s not the kind of political agenda that Friedman pushed.
Then I don’t think you understand what that policy does. Lawmakers get their information regardless of how they vote or what policies they persue. That kind of insider trading allows lawmakers to personally enrich themselves instead of making bargains with people who want to hand them money.
What the policy does do, is that it provides a new tool for the people who have information about the trades that a congressman makes, to blackmail the congressman.
You might get some positive effects through the policy, so I’m not clear that it’s a bad law.
What’s the problem that you are trying to solve in the first place? Insider-trade? Let Eliot Spitzer run the SEC and double SEC funding. Insider trading doesn’t exist because there a lack of laws against the practice.
I didn’t downvote you, but I’m not continuing the argument because it seems really political in a partisan way. I suspect that’s what’s motivating the downvotes.