Yep. This definitely not how it’s done in the “real world”.
In the “seat belts” example, this would involve replacing a law mandating seat-belts what a (presumably high) tax on selling vehicles without seatbelts set to equal the economic/social benefits of seat belts.
I think as a matter of pragmatism, there are cases where an outright ban is more/less reasonable than trying to determine the appropriate tax. For example, I don’t think anyone thinks that the “social cost” of dumping nuclear waste into a river is something we actually want to contemplate.
Yep. This definitely not how it’s done in the “real world”.
In the “seat belts” example, this would involve replacing a law mandating seat-belts what a (presumably high) tax on selling vehicles without seatbelts set to equal the economic/social benefits of seat belts.
I think as a matter of pragmatism, there are cases where an outright ban is more/less reasonable than trying to determine the appropriate tax. For example, I don’t think anyone thinks that the “social cost” of dumping nuclear waste into a river is something we actually want to contemplate.