He writes that it is a “weird notion” to believe
that if each individual can, on his or her own, choose which offerings of private businesses to accept and which to reject, and all without having to coordinate these choices with other individuals, people are slaves to corporations – but that individuals regain their freedom and dignity only by voting to use government power to regulate businesses, with every individual forced to abide by the ‘will’ of the majority.
By the way, there is a web site called Voice and Exit, which may represent an interesting libertarian-ish movement, but the web site seems to have been designed by stoners. I just can’t penetrate it.
It is a weird notion, but that is not why we have most regulations. Large portions of our economy operate in realms where private interests would be unable to operate on their own. The activities require a shared social risk, and private consent will simply not work.
No individual or corporation can simply decide to fly objects weighing many tons over the heads of other citizens, or place a power plant on the mouth of a river, or decide to wire a city with optical fiber. It is impossible to obtain consent from every citizen individually in a jurisdiction. So the only feasible option is democratic consent, and there are conditions for these operations, just as there is in private transactions where consent is exchanged.
Perhaps we should also recognize that most regulations are the price we pay to unlock realms of economic activity that would otherwise never exist.
Interesting points from Tom – but are these examples of regulations or of non-regulation? In the UK the landing flight path into Heathrow airport – one of the world’s busiest is over London. Presumably it would be more costly to divert around London. So far, so good…
It’s possible to imagine a parallel universe in which greater regulation in those fields restricted those industries. Perhaps that’s Tom’s point to be fair. I think of that as more like co-ordination/planning as a separate thing to regulation which is more to protect the public/environment, etc. Like, say cat. converters removing Lead and such.
People always talk as if Libertarians/Capitalists/free-marketeers, etc. are opposed to these things. Not really. If they are worked out rationally, and pass cost-benefit tests, then let a 1000 regs bloom.
Easier still, just copy what Singapore does and be done with it.
The govt absolved the airlines of liability after 9/11. I think you are on the right track.
What you are talking about is almost the opposite of what the ‘voice’ crowd talks about. They talk about inserting democracy and debate into internal corporate and private decisions, basically on the premise that everything anybody does affects everybody else. You seem to be talking about regulation as a way to get around debate and the stonewalling that such an insane process would stifle everything with.
That’s the theory, and there are some examples of laws that work that way.
They are not the norm, though, in any real-world government today. To name some U.S. examples: CAFE standards, Energy Star, the flourescent lightbulb. In all of these cases, we were better off before the government got involved.
Impenetrable for sure, dude.
I thought I was an advocate for voice and exit, but according to that website perhaps I’m just another “stick in the mud”!
“It is a weird notion, but that is not why we have most regulations.”
The idea that most regulations are in the realm of public utilities or activities that potentially pose great hazards to the public is laughable. We’ve reached the point where nearly 30 percent of Americans require a state license to work in their occupations. But there’s been some good news on that front:
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-20150329-column.html#page=1
Someday, we may live in a brave, scary new world where you can hire someone to braid your hair or clean your dog’s teeth without the state (and rent-seeking industry insiders) inserting themselves into the process.
“The idea that most regulations are in the realm of public utilities or activities that potentially pose great hazards to the public is laughable.”
First off, I wasn’t just talking about great public hazards. It could be as simple as the right to dump cleaning solutions down the drain, or a limit on just how big a truck you can drive on the highway.
I probably also shouldn’t have used the word “most”. I don’t know what percentage of regulations fit my description. But you don’t either. It certainly isn’t a laughable percentage.
I know many of these laws produce ugly results and often do more harm than good. Democracy is good at providing legitimacy and bad at dealing with complex decision making. But I also know that pure private markets cannot always deal with liabilities, and sometimes when society steps in and limits liabilities in exchange for some rules, that is actually a good thing.
This doesn’t sound like what the ‘voice’ crowd is talking about though. They very much think in terms like those provided by Kling/Boudreaux.
I’m down with what you are laying down, dude.
Alex Tabarrok is listed as a speaker at the Austin event.
Apparently no one can be told what vote and exit is, unless you attend a talk where they tell you what it is.