Libertarians are usually adamant that they prefer less government to more. But sadly this tends to make them reluctant to express opinions on choices between different non-zero government scenarios. After all, that might have them seeming to endorse some non-zero government scenario, while their primary desire is to make it clear that they are anti-government. So the main choices on which they are willing to express an opinion is between ones with clearly “more” versus “less” government.
I super strongly support this principle. It is in fact my main political principle. However, I note that the current US system of civil law seems to have been greatly sabotagued over the last century, so that those whith experience with it seem to be almost universally skeptical of civil law. John Stossel once wrote that as a Libertarian he should be in favor of solving more problems through civil war but in light of his observations he can’t be. I’m pretty sure that civil law in Singapore and until recenty in Hong Kong were much closer to what the US had in the 19th century and more sure that they are much closer to what our common sense says civil law should be.
Government regulation also mainly uses the threat of monetary losses. Law prevents losses by via the threat of lawsuits changing behavior. Allowing govt to act without proving its value is exactly the problem of it having too much discretion.
Suing is only expensive because we've let lawyers make it so, to their benefit and our cost. There are ways to make it much cheaper. https://www.overcomingbias....
Civil law is a very blunt instrument. There are several improtant drawbacks:- burden of proof on the damaged party- monetary incentive as the only instrument to influence behavior a priori- certain damages can only be insufficiently corrected by monetary awards after the fact (death, permanent injury, environmental effects)- wealth destruction by letting damages to happen instead of preventing them
Besides, in reality, it's mostly a mixture of both: governance for the standard case, civil law for the grey zone, criminal law for the hard stop in the extreme cases.
Suing is prohibitively expensive and biases strongly in favor of large corporations. Relying on lawsuits to solve negative externalities is a horrible, myopic, discredited, shortsighted, intellectually lazy idea.
Governance normally implies an ongoing-interaction by those doing the governing. In an Em scenario, is it possible that a wide-enough range of human interactions are simulated and stored in a database so that the governance becomes a largely automatic response?
If this automatic response was honed over a large period of time, could it then act as a template for how to govern interstellar scenarios where light-lag prohibits the real-time investigation by a governing body?
I realize you might cover this topic in your book, so I just purchased the Audible version - I've been meaning to for a long time!
Is there a place where you can sue a relative to support you if you loose your job?
Yes, civil law has been sabotaged in many ways, and we should fix that.
I super strongly support this principle. It is in fact my main political principle. However, I note that the current US system of civil law seems to have been greatly sabotagued over the last century, so that those whith experience with it seem to be almost universally skeptical of civil law. John Stossel once wrote that as a Libertarian he should be in favor of solving more problems through civil war but in light of his observations he can’t be. I’m pretty sure that civil law in Singapore and until recenty in Hong Kong were much closer to what the US had in the 19th century and more sure that they are much closer to what our common sense says civil law should be.
Government regulation also mainly uses the threat of monetary losses. Law prevents losses by via the threat of lawsuits changing behavior. Allowing govt to act without proving its value is exactly the problem of it having too much discretion.
Suing is only expensive because we've let lawyers make it so, to their benefit and our cost. There are ways to make it much cheaper. https://www.overcomingbias....
Civil law is a very blunt instrument. There are several improtant drawbacks:- burden of proof on the damaged party- monetary incentive as the only instrument to influence behavior a priori- certain damages can only be insufficiently corrected by monetary awards after the fact (death, permanent injury, environmental effects)- wealth destruction by letting damages to happen instead of preventing them
Besides, in reality, it's mostly a mixture of both: governance for the standard case, civil law for the grey zone, criminal law for the hard stop in the extreme cases.
Suing is prohibitively expensive and biases strongly in favor of large corporations. Relying on lawsuits to solve negative externalities is a horrible, myopic, discredited, shortsighted, intellectually lazy idea.
The em scenario doesn't have a cheaper way to guess how people will react than to just see how those people actually react.
Governance normally implies an ongoing-interaction by those doing the governing. In an Em scenario, is it possible that a wide-enough range of human interactions are simulated and stored in a database so that the governance becomes a largely automatic response?
If this automatic response was honed over a large period of time, could it then act as a template for how to govern interstellar scenarios where light-lag prohibits the real-time investigation by a governing body?
I realize you might cover this topic in your book, so I just purchased the Audible version - I've been meaning to for a long time!