From: Peter C. McCluskey (pcm@rahul.net)
Date: Fri Jun 29 2001 - 10:26:14 MDT
bradbury@aeiveos.com ("Robert J. Bradbury") writes:
>On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Peter C. McCluskey wrote (responding to me):
>
>> - there is widespread evidence that people are much more successful than
>> anyone else at determining what is in their self interest, and that other
>> people who claim to know better are usually maximising some other set of
>> interests.
>
>Are they? Can you say that about tobacco products or alcohol?
Not with any certainty. Which is part of my point - if I were sufficiently
motivated to collect and analyze enough of the relevant data, whatever
motivated me would probably generate strong biases. And there are fewer
such motives that would bias me towards trusting the consumers than towards
paternalism.
>I'm all for allowing people to pursue these things so as you can
>completely eliminate any transfer of costs to the rest of society.
>Read, "I" shouldn't have to pay, even indirectly, for your bad habit.
>If you choose to use these products *you* should have to pay all
>of the costs (presumably up front since society may not be able to collect
I agree. If you made an argument that was clearly based on externalities,
I would react differently than I did.
>> One means of evaluating products is using the reputations of
>> the vendors; the therapist has probably used something like this approach
>> to determine that sticking to organic foods isn't very risky.
>
>What if the vendors don't know what they are talking about?
The results are imperfect. Any alternative strategy has similar problems.
>Does the average organic produce vendor inform the consumer
>that 'natural' vegetables are filled with 'natural' toxins?
No. I think pressure for such labelling might be worthwhile.
But consumers have a pretty good idea that the risks posed by
those toxins have been acceptable in the past.
>You fall into situations where you trust the reputation of
>people for reasons that are entirely irrational. Should
>the government make Pyramid schemes "legal" because some
>people may feel it is in their interest to design and market
>them or participate in the early levels? Such schemes
>work because people can manufacture 'false' reputations
>to suit their needs.
Probably there are situations where paternalism is desirable. But I think
there ought to be a strong burden of proof required of the advocates of
paternalism. For example, why isn't better labeling of Pyramid schemes
adequate?
>In the case of EDTA, you don't have a crowd of people out there saying
>"Buy mayonnaise without EDTA".
Not specifically. The say buy foods without lots of "chemicals".
>migrate from the farm states to the coasts. The U.S. is returning farmland
>to forest as the marginal producers drop out of the game. If the therapist
>has a problem with this she should go buy one of the farms and attempt
>to make a go of it (raising organic produce if she likes).
If there is a tragedy of the commons problem causing the centralized control,
this is no substitute for moralizing directed at affecting the behavior of
consumers.
>> And a similar calculation would probably show that, if your motives
>> were simply to prevent near-term health problems, you should forget about
>> the labeling debate too. The fact that you haven't suggests to me that you
>> are obscuring your goals.
>
>Peter, you are probably correct in that I've got better near
>term things to worry about. However the arguments crystalized
You misunderstand. I'm hypothesizing that you are rationally motivated
(by a combination of a long-term health concerns and a desire to make your
expertise more valuable) to make approximately the arguments you are making.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter McCluskey | Fed up with democracy's problems? Examine Futarchy:
http://www.rahul.net/pcm | http://hanson.gmu.edu/futarchy.pdf or .ps
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:21 MST