RoR: Forum

"Indeed, automobile repairers are
often suspected of this. What, apart from conscientiousness, keeps such
folks on the straight and narrow is competition, the knowledge that if
they don't do the work well enough someone else will jump in to do so."

Once again, as previously in Tibor's discussion of "private" health care, certain elemental facts are excluded.

In the case of health care, the issue was posed as private, "capitalist" health care vs. socialist health care. Were that it were so. In fact, we have now a mixture of private, fascist and socialist health care, with the corporate fascist model dominating. Naturally this system has produced a myriad abuse, corruption, malfeasance, danger to the patients and enormously overblown costs.

True private, capitalist health care would solve the problems, but the actual choice is between the above, actual system, which is demonstrably awful, and the potential of the addition of a lot more socialism to the mix, with possibly a reduction in the fascist element that is gaming the system to the detriment of patients and often providers as well. I.e., the cost/benefit of the shift is really impossibly complex to determine, but will probably happen regardless, as the public is truly FED UP.

In the case of automotive repairers, my own personal experience (as with the medical fiascos I have endured) informs me that I should not trust any auto repair shop that has not been recommended to me by someone who has used their services on a long term basis and who is very personally knowledgable about auto mechanics as well. Even then, I will be worrying about every little ping for years afterwards. This after having a couple vehicles destroyed by repair shops.

About every 8 years or so, here in California, there is a revelation by the State Fraud investigators about some new case of massive consumer fraud committed by some major auto repair chain, e.g., Sears, Firestone... Investigators will take a vehicle that is in perfect mechanical condition into the shop, complain about some noise, and then be told that they need a new motor or transmission. Then, having had the repairs done, they go to the next shop in the chain and are told the same thing. Often, over half of the repairs from some national repair chain will be bogus.

The problem is that we don't have a real mechanism, state or private, that effectively deals with this situation - ignorant consumers paying specialists who must be blindly trusted and who have a tiny incentive to be honest, compared to a massive opportunity to profit. One true free market solution might involve an insurance company or private fraud investigators performing the function now performed - obviously inadequately - by the state. But how would they make money on this?

Perhaps if they could cut a deal with the insurance companies that every business must pay in order to operate for a reward on catching fraud? Perhaps a shift to a "health maintenance" model, in which a repair service has a contract to keep your vehicle in good shape. Such warranties are often available, but for some reason appear to be underused. Perhaps everyone wants to believe that they are lucky? Like the alleged 90% of teenagers who believe that they are more attractive than the median?

At present, the state regulators are all we have to catch and deal with fraud. And the actual number of such inspectors is pitifully small, as in only a handful of personnel in the field of automotive insurance fraud for the entire state of California.

Similar problems can be found in virtually every area where consumers are essentially ignorant of the technical details of what they purchase. In the case of computers, for example, an ignorant public has for decades bought the latest version of MicroSloth Windoze, on the grounds that buying the market leader couldn't be too far wrong. However, the reality is that that very sentiment is the self-fulfilling marketing strategy that has kept MS the market leader, in spite of unbelievably primitive, kludgy and failure prone software. "Go with the leader" is all that Bernie Madoff needed.

Again, clearly the state systems designed to deal with fraud, etc. are inadequate, but for competition to step in and do the job will clearly require something that we do not yet have, as it is certainly not working very well to date. When your computer stops working, do you think that the local repair shop is likely to tell you that it only requires a simple change of a software option, when they could charge hundreds of dollars on a claim that you have no way of personally verifying?

Yes, the state regulators are inadequate, costly, and prone to perpetuating the problems. But without an alternative that actually works, what is the public likely to vote for?

Post 1

Sunday, June 28, 2009 - 9:19pm

There is no valid comparable alternative to state regulations since such regulation is a violation of individual rights, which are unalienable. So what could assist in securing good service before bad service is provided? Various private alternatives, such as watch dog agencies on the model of the Better Business Bureau, Good Housekeeping, etc. But these options are now crowded out by the illegitimate state regulatory agencies. (More on this matter can be found in my book, Private Rights, Public Illusions [The Independent Institute, 1995].)

Post 2

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 7:13pm

Agreed as far as the private alternatives you mention. However, when one does a profit analysis of the watchdogs vs. the crooks, it seems clear that the crooks win hands down. I.e., Consumer Reports may do a great job, but they only have as much money to spend on it as they can get from advertisers and purchasers of their magazines and reports. Their assets for investigation are spread over the entire field of products sold on the market, and any one spectacular exposure might get them some sympathy sales, but they cannot afford to really alienate the people who they are supposedly investigating, and people can only read so much. The level of consumer fraud is so high that CR can pick and choose virtually any field and be guaranteed of a hot story.

Where I work, I used to handle all the advertising, keeping track of press releases that I generated, as to whether or not a magazine covered them, sweet talking editors and advertising sales, for the purpose of keeping them interested enough to give us free coverage in the hopes of eventually converting us to paying advertisers, etc. The 40 or so trade magazines and a handful of popular magazines that I dealt with would blatantly offer deals like, "buy a two page color spread and we'll guarantee you a feature article and at least two press releases." Virtually every magazine did this. So much for typical journalistic integrity.

Similarly, the Better Business Bureau, etc., are typically funded by the very businesses that you are expecting them to effectively monitor. Enough said.

I suggest once again that perhaps something like an explicit social contract would help. However, if insurers were to simply require that their clients sign an agreement to award discovery damages to anyone who could demonstrate fraud, then a whole market for freelance as well as professional snoops might emerge.

I recall when Ralphs supermarkets got busted for consistently overcharging, failing to give advertised discounts, etc. I shopped Ralphs and at least every other time the reciept would be wrong - always in their favor. Then I would hold up the entire line while the manager was called over and their bogus procedure for correction dragged through. Then the state busted them and, under the terms of the settlement, they had to not only give you the merchandise for free if they overcharged, but I seem to recall that you also got some kind of cash or voucher as well. It still took them several months to clean up their act, and I got a ton of free groceries during that period, but they did eventually straighten out.

If Firestone or whoever had to pay $5000 to the snoop every time they could demonstrate fraud, they would clean up their act as well, I'm sure. And it wouldn't take the state to do it. All it would take would be for the insurance companies to get behind such a plan.

Post 3

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 11:24pm

The problem is that we don't have a real mechanism, state or private, that effectively deals with this situation - ignorant consumers paying specialists who must be blindly trusted and who have a tiny incentive to be honest, compared to a massive opportunity to profit.

We do have a real mechanism -- word of mouth, and not doing repeat business with people who don't do good work at a reasonable price.

It's not perfect, but the government alternative is worse, as Tibor points out. The private solution is the least bad alternative.

I recall when Ralphs supermarkets got busted for consistently overcharging, failing to give advertised discounts, etc. I shopped Ralphs and at least every other time the reciept would be wrong - always in their favor.

Why on earth did you keep going back, knowing they were overcharging you? Were they the only supermarket in town?
(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 6/30, 11:26pm)

Post 4

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 - 7:10am

Both Machan and Phil make valid points. I've already gone on record here to say that I believe there CAN be good regulations, although the predominant Objectivist view is that any regulation, by its nature, is an infringement of individual rights. Objectivism does recognize the value of cooperation between men, and - to a great extent - regulation is a reflection of this cooperation.

The knowledge and experience necessary to make good regulations reside in the industries themselves. Most practical is self regulating industry associations (e.g. realty boards), which can agree on 'best practices'. The second most practical method is the 'watchdog groups' mentioned by both Machan and Phil.

Both such organizations are limited in their power to influence members, consumers, or businesses. They can report bad practices, they can censure bad acts, and, in some cases, can fine offending (cooperative) members. These measures are all helpful, but are not reliably effective.

I have always felt that once we reach certain plateaus of knowledge, it is incumbent on us to establish hard-earned knowledge as the new baseline. Codifying this hard earned knowledge - gained from first hand industry experience - only makes good sense. Enforcing such rules or lessons is a logical value. However, the mechanisms mentioned above (trade associations and watchdog groups) - both of which rely entirely upon rational industry cooperation - have no teeth, and are clearly ineffective.

I know that supporting the idea of regulation begs the question 'who'll regulate the regulators', but the truth is that I see absolutely no philosophical difference between a stop sign that prevents hasty drivers from crossing in front of oncoming traffic, and a regulation that prevents hasty bankers from loaning money to unreliable borrowers.

There are just some lessons we ought to be able to point to, and simply say "we've learned that - we're not going to make that mistake (or by omission, allow others to make that mistake) again.

We live in an interconnected world. As well demonstrated by the current financial crisis, the failure to use what would otherwise have been called common sense, impacts not just on the fools who ignored the lessons of the past, but impacts everybody connected to the market (i.e. everybody). Agreeing to sensible rules (or regulations) is just smart cooperation.

jt

Post 5

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 - 10:28am

Jay,

It goes beyond the question of who would regulate the regulators. There is the question of who would make the regulations, what should be regulated, and when do you have enough regulation in an area? There are no good answers to any of those questions because there is no standard. That is the great value that individual rights serve - a standard to judge any and every act of government.

You talked about codifying knowledge, but that is done in books, in college courses, in company policy manuals, in formalized apprenticeships. What you are talking about is making things required - making legal restrictions on behavior - and even if doing so violates an individual's rights.

You want a system where "knowledge" is enforced, "given teeth," you said even if it means destroying freedoms, interfering with the economic marketplace, and placing blind trust in the civil servants that promulgate these never-ending streams of rules and regulations that they, the bureaucrats claim to have more wisdom on, and have more right, than the person in the industry working with their own property.

The competitive market does a better job of enforcing the real "regulations" by putting companies out of business that don't pay attention to industry knowledge.

Your system ends up distorting the marketplace itself. The entire housing bubble was caused by passing and then tweaking of the regulations on who should get loans. The lenders would never have gotten into subprime loans to any significant degree because they make their own internal regulations driven by profit and loss. They had to set that aside and substitute the judgment of Barney Frank instead.

Your argument, at its heart is altruistic - it says lets take what we know (which is questionable), and create regulations (which they do badly), and enforce them (in violation of individual rights) for the good of others (which the market place would actually do better).

Post 6

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 - 11:27am

you said even if it means destroying freedoms, interfering with the economic marketplace, and placing blind trust in the civil servants that promulgate these never-ending streams of rules and regulations that they, the bureaucrats claim to have more wisdom on, and have more right, than the person in the industry working with their own property.

Steve,

Never known you as one to put words into anyone's mouth, but trust you know many of these comments are your extrapolations from my comments, not my personal views.

It should be a given that if there are to be regulations, that there have to first be rules as to what can be regulated, and as to what limits should be applied to that authority. Any such authority must itself be severely limited in its scope and mission. What we see today is a total, unrestricted abuse of such authorities. That reality does not preclude there being a sane, respectful, highly restricted authority, placing individual rights as a prime consideration. Rules on/for such authorities must be in place first, to prevent them (any government body) from exceeding/extending their authority.

And I dispute that the argument is altruistic. Trust me that it is up close and personal. The damage done by the runaway stupidity of politicians, banks, homebuyers, brokers, security companies, and insurers - in that order - has caused severe losses which have reverberated throughout the marketplace, hurting businesses like my own. It is very much like being side-swiped by somebody that ran a traffic light. I am quite, and very personally interested in seeing such insanity prevented. I do not think that we are obliged to suffer stupidity.

Refusing to support any regulation, because we are afraid there will be bad regulations, will leave the field open to ONLY BAD regulations (much like we see now). The problem is not so much with having regulations, the problem is not having hard and fast guidelines limiting the power and focus of any regulating authority that is created.

If you can reasonably foresee a time when we will eliminate all government regulatory bodies, then I am wrong. If you do not foresee such a time, then the logical and necessary approach is not to fight all such regulatory bodies, but to start aggressively limiting their authority and focus.

jt

Post 7

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 - 2:14pm

Jay,

My sentence wasn't clear. It needed different punctuation. My meaning was, that you wanted this 'knowledge enforced', "given teeth", as you put it.

And you are asking for this enforcement even though it will mean destroying freedoms, interfering with the economic marketplace, and placing blind trust in the civil servants that promulgate these never-ending streams of rules and regulations that they, the bureaucrats claim to have more wisdom on, and have more right, than the person in the industry working with their own property. (The words 'put into your mouth' were only those you actually said: "given teeth" and the rest did not come from your mouth but appeared to because of the missing punctuation - when it was intended as a statement of the logical implications.)
----------------

You said, "It should be a given that if there are to be regulations, that there have to first be rules as to what can be regulated, and as to what limits should be applied to that authority. Any such authority must itself be severely limited in its scope and mission. What we see today is a total, unrestricted abuse of such authorities. That reality does not preclude there being a sane, respectful, highly restricted authority, placing individual rights as a prime consideration. Rules on/for such authorities must be in place first, to prevent them (any government body) from exceeding/extending their authority."

Problems:

What standard or means exists to determine what those rules are that restrict or set limits? I maintain that you can never find any that will work.
Today's reality, I maintain, is the logical outgrowth of government operating as if individual rights weren't an absolute and total limitation - ignore that, and the rest follows automatically and it is only a question of time.
You talk about, "...placing individual rights as a prime consideration..." But the instant that you actually make individual rights the prime consideration, you negate the moral and legal status of any regulation that violates an individual right - which is pretty much all regulations.

Your wish to place the regulation-limiting rules in place first is well intended, but individual rights are already first, and from them the constitution is drawn to define only that structure and that power that supports the individual rights, and from the constitution are drawn only those laws that are constitutional. Nowhere is the source of the rules you describe. They have no standard and they fall outside of the intellectual chain of moral legitimacy.
-----------

You spoke of, "The damage done by the runaway stupidity of politicians, banks, homebuyers, brokers, security companies, and insurers..." But the politicians created the laws and THE REGULATIONS that governed sub-prime loans, lenders were required by regulation to have a percent of their portfolio in these loans, banks are the most heavily regulated of all industries, Fannie and Freddie are government creations and must abide congress' regulatory wishes on a day-by-day basis, and these agencies were required to buy the sub-prime mortgages, the Fed's credit and printing press policies (products of regulation) inflated the bubble, and taxpayer funded groups (money disbursed by regulation) like ACORN pushed the debacle along at the grass-roots level. The security companies and insurers, both heavily regulated, were buying what were touted as government backed instruments (more regulation). The homeowners and brokers were only doing what was made possible BECAUSE of regulation. If there had been no regulations in this area, there would not have been artificially low interest rates and that would have stopped the bubble from getting large enough to cause a problem, and the lenders would not have created bad loans because it would harm their overall profits, and there would have been no one to buy those bad loans. This horror story was the child of regulations - cause by regulations, continued by regulations, and would never have been able to exist without regulations.
-----------

You say that "...the problem is not having hard and fast guidelines limiting the power and focus of any regulating authority that is created." And you have said these rules need to be in place first. So, give us some examples of such rules that would be hard and fast guidelines that we should have in place first.
------------

You call for putting into place limits on regulations. I say that is like limiting the amount of poison the patient takes instead of getting the patient to quit taking the poison. The proposal of limits implies that there can be such a thing as a good regulation and I'm saying that there is no such thing.

Post 8

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 - 4:12pm

Steve,

"The proposal of limits implies that there can be such a thing as a good regulation and I'm saying that there is no such thing."

I would like to say that this is the crux of our disagreement - I believe it can be done, and you don't. However, I'm sure it is the greater, more basic question of the use of force, that is the major obstacle.

The problems

What standard or means exists to determine what those rules are that restrict or set limits? I maintain that you can never find any that will work.

I won't say this is simple, but yes, there is one clear guideline that can be (has marginally been) used - each industry shall set its own standards. Authorities shall adopt no regulations which are not sanctioned by the industry's own written standards of best practices. Thus the industries themselves set the rules, and the government only acts to enforce those rules.

Today's reality, I maintain, is the logical outgrowth of government operating as if individual rights weren't an absolute and total limitation - ignore that, and the rest follows automatically and it is only a question of time.

Absolutely true - if the government is permitted to continue acting in this unprincipled manner. This entire, and very costly, recession is the result of government regulatory policies that eschewed good industry standards in order to achieve political objectives. Government is not going to stop wanting to interfere. The only true and practical course is to restrain them. Then good ( at least better, more intelligent) regulations can be established.

But the instant that you actually make individual rights the prime consideration, you negate the moral and legal status of any regulation that violates an individual right - which is pretty much all regulations.

...which is why industries have to set the rules. For that matter, the only rules industry should set are "best and safest practices" - none other. We should be able to learn from our mistakes. It is in our rational self interest to establish safe minimum standards, and it is in our rational self interest to protect ourselves from the actions of those who don't honor those standards.

I was injected by poison for over six months last year... I hated it, but it is the only thing that kept me alive. Life is complex.

jt

Post 9

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 - 5:49pm

You mentioned, "...each industry shall set its own standards. Authorities shall adopt no regulations which are not sanctioned by the industry's own written standards of best practices."

This allows the leaders in each industry to join together and lock out competition by jiggering the regulations. It has happened again and again and is the source of many, many of the regulations we have today. It is a mechanism that encourages trade restrictions, protectionism, and accepts costs of regulations that are known to be intolerable by emerging competitors. That isn't a workable standard.

Industries can NOT create the regulations without constraining competition. Politicians can NOT set the regulations without catering to lobbyists or ideologies. Bureacrats can NOT set the regulations since they aren't accountable and they don't know what is needed and they aren't capable of even approaching the ability of a free market to provide effective business regulation. There are no good regulations and no standard that will separate out the alledged good from bad regulations.

It might be that nothing is perfect in this area... but given a chance, the free market will come as close as we can get.

When you say, "The only true and practical course is to restrain them [government]. Then good ( at least better, more intelligent) regulations can be established." When you talk about "intelligent regulations" and call for them, then you open the flood gates. Which makes your fist sentence a joke - you have called for regulations in the same breath that you called for restraining government.

You call for "best and safest practices" - none other. but you still haven't show any principle that separates out the alledged good regulations from the bad. I can say that if isn't safe to use anything but those curly cue lightbulbs because it isn't safe to allow our enemies such a large share of energy. I can say *anything* when there is no standard. Industries can't be allowed to partner with government and set the rules - if you do, it will move towards freezing things as is, and working to decrease the competition.

Post 10

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 - 8:35pm

So... you are saying that given the opportunity... industry associations would only promote practices that benefited the few, larger corporations? that such associations would themselves seek to restrict trade and competition? Best and safe practices are generally proven practices that have already been widely adopted throughout the trade.

There are no carte blanches. Proof, proven practices, is the standard, minimum criteria that must separate out the good from the bad. If such practices had been maintained over the past six years, instead of the low, politically motivated standards which were applied, we would not have seen this depth of recession. More simply put, in absence of (insisting upon) 'good' regulations, there will always be bad regulations. This practice (regulations) will never go away, but if proper effort is made, and restraints can be built into the system, the abuses can be made to go away.

In short, we can hope they will go away, but the reality is that they will not.

jt
(Edited by Jay Abbott on 7/01, 8:37pm)

Post 11

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 - 9:11pm

Jay,

You said, "If such practices ['good' regulations] had been maintained over the past six years, instead of the low, politically motivated standards which were applied, we would not have seen this depth of recession.

If we insisted on a free market economy and recognized that government must never be allowed to meddle in the economy it would not have happened at all! It is your belief in mythical good regulations that give cover to those who are destroying our freedom.
-----------------

You said, " This practice (regulations) will never go away, but if proper effort is made, and restraints can be built into the system, the abuses can be made to go away."

I'm sorry, Jay, but that is nonsense. You say that regulations will never go away, but that somehow, magically, we can get to a position where only 'good' regulations will exist... Yeah, and I'll ride to work on a unicorn.

You repeatedly exhibit a strange, deeply ingrained pessimism about the possibility of real freedom. It has existed to a much greater degree in the past, here in this country. Surely we can do what we have done before, and do it even better.

Post 12

Thursday, July 2, 2009 - 6:49am

Steve,

I simply think that the best we can achieve, short of a new revolution, is to learn how to properly restrain government and such regulatory authorities. This task alone, given present day circumstances, will be enormous. It is certainly questionable whether it ever could be done. Yet the prospect of eliminating regulations in their entirety, is more than enormous. Under the current circumstances, it is an impossible, unrealistic task. Hope and moral certitude just won't be enough to wrest that change from within the framework of the government we have now.

I cannot do anything about my pessimism concerning the chances for (positive) revolutionary change in our government. It seems illogical to expect. Likewise, I'm sure you find it difficult to erase your pessimism about the chance that regulators and industries might actually exercise fair, honest judgement.

I thoroughly respect your opinion and intent, and sincerely hope I haven't irritated you on this issue. The likelihood is that neither of us will be around long enough to see whether either position is ever realized.

jt

Post 13

Thursday, July 2, 2009 - 7:34am

Steve,

I did want to comment on the analogy that real freedom existed to a much greater degree in the past, and therefore we should be able to achieve it again, even better, in the future. I would certainly hold out this hope, too. However, I am struck by the immense differences between now and then.

People were generally more self-reliant, and were expected to be, in the 18th century. Much of the known world was still open and untamed. There were no laws except those the people 1) brought with them, and 2) could personally enforce. The rules of trade were simple and clearly understood by all. Most everything - most issues - were all local issues, and the solutions found were equally local, adhering to the common interests of the local people - who therefore generally understood the issues well. It was a different atmosphere than the one we live in today.

Today, people are much less self-reliant. There are contradictory messages promoted by government and groups. People are at once told they should be self-reliant, but that it is never their fault if they are not. They're even further encouraged to believe that if they should fail... it is someone else's fault. Government and laws (some ambiguous and contradictory) are everywhere, and they govern virtually everything (often twice or more). It is rarely in question whether there is a law about something, it is more in question about which law should apply. And it is partly for this reason, that now when an issue is taken up in Corpus Christi, that people in Peoria must now take note and form an opinion... because even if they have not experienced the problem, that distant decision can affect them immediately. This complexity is, in a modern world, unavoidable*.

I won't try to draw any conclusions about this, other than that the world, and how we interact now, is much different than in the past. How we navigate through the world is much different than the past. Current circumstances should not be ignored, when we are trying to look for solutions.

jt

*I was struck by an article about China (PROC) yesterday, discussing China's announcement to "indeterminate delay" in mandating "green folder" software (screens out unapproved political content) on all computers. News of the announcement spread across China like wildfire as people "twittered" each other with the good news.

Post 14

Thursday, July 2, 2009 - 3:56pm

Jay,

You said, "[I] hope I haven't irritated you on this issue." I feel irritated I haven't been able to shake you free of the idea that it is logical to crusade for an ideal of 'good' regulations, but not to crusade for an end to regulations, and I'm irritated that I haven't been able to get you to see that regulations (good, bad or middle of the road) will always cause more harm than a free market. But it is all irritation for not getting through to you - not at you (mostly :-) - if you know what I mean.
-----------------

On your comments about the past being different, and that freedom fit the past better than it does the present...

You talked about people being more self-reliant in the past than they are now. True, but self-reliance rises to meet the need. Take away freedom and self-reliance will wither away in that area like a muscle that isn't used. Freedom, or its lack, is causative when you talk about self-reliance.

You mention complexity - I'll refer you to Rand, or to any of the free market economists. The greater the complexity, the less likely it is that government can manage it as well as the forces of the free market.

Self-reliance is a part of what is required for healthy self-esteem, it is needed to operate efficiently as a part of the economy and a part of society. It is part of the core to being human, to our natural method of living, to say nothing of flourishing. Self-reliance is needed to be happy and to be successful. It is not compatible with nanny state regulations.

The rate of change and the degree of change and the breadth of change are increasing exponentially - and government can not manage an economy. What they could get away with a few years ago with only minor harm, will in a few more years cause far greater consequences. The more we change, the faster we change, and the more complex our world becomes, the more important it is that we ensure a free market - only that invisible hand of Adam Smith's can keep us safe.

Post 15

Thursday, July 2, 2009 - 5:03pm

Phil, I really can't say I agree with you and your argument seems to be 90% based on personal anecdotes. My experience has been quite different. For instance:

Auto repairs - to some extent you are right, but you don't need any kind of special knowledge, just enough general knowledge on how things work, what is needed, along with the experience as you say. I go there knowing what I want done, and carefully consider anything I am told and the price. Have not ever had any problems in 20+ years.

Medical - similarly, you know your body best and with the wealth of information now available on the internet it is not hard to make informed decisions. While the regulations we have are bad, the picture is not as bleak as you paint it.

similarly, computers, supermarkets - just watch what is going on and being informed is all you need - don't assume either government or anyone else is looking out for you and you will do fine. Lots of people do just fine with windows despite the issues, and the alternative (Mac) is also very vibrant - each has pluses and minuses. For instance maybe it was kludgy - but when I switched from mac to pc I was able to fix stuff myself by learning the kludgy stuff, whereas with macs I was at a loss to troubleshoot - they are kind of black boxy, as in less prone to fail but when they do harder to fix - of course things may have changed - but as I said there are choices (plus linux for the truly geeky) and change/innovation has been rapid and exceptional on all sides.

i.e. - KNOW what the hell is going on and what you are doing - that should be a BIG goal for Objectivists in general anyway

Post 16

Thursday, July 2, 2009 - 8:36pm

Steve,

We are in agreement that the greater the complexity, the less governments are capable to manage (anything), and the greater the potential harm they will incur.

jt

Post 17

Friday, July 3, 2009 - 10:48am

It is very possible that some government regulation will deliver more value than it will consume. It is also possible that incarcerating a bunch of people without a trial will actually land some real criminals in prison. Also, some censorship will eliminate some horrible ideas from a society. These possibilities have nothing to do with whether doing such things ought to be public policy. Also, as Aristotle put it, one swallow doesn't make for spring time. The main issue is that without having convicted someone of a bona fide crime, it is wrong to impose legal sanctions on the person. Due process requires this, not cost benefit analysis. I am sure that when people used to be lynched, some of the victims had it coming to them. Still it was wrong. Government regulation is equivalent to prior restraint. It has no role in a free society.

Post 18

Friday, July 3, 2009 - 1:19pm