[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem here is that the people doing the analysis (the regulators) are not the ones that bear the costs or reap the benefits (or suffer the downsides) of their regulations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor should they be. The regulator's goal should not be to decide private disputes. The regulator's goal should be to account for society's broadest interests, which include everything from the specific rights at issue, to collateral consequences like economic efficiency, economic growth, implications for employment, prices to consumers, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Society doesn't have interests. Individuals have interests. Bureaucrats are unable to determine those interests effectively, and are even less effective at implementing policies to achieve those interests, when compared to letting the individuals in question determine and pursue their own interests. Government bureaucracy *hurts* efficiency, growt, prices, and employment (overall - of course, there are some individual winners in this process (mainly the bureaucrats and those that feed off of their wake)).

[ QUOTE ]
If you dont understand why litigation is more expensive than bureaucracy, it is because you have never been involved in a lawsuit. Hiring a competent lawyer costs a minimum of $300 per hour, and in some cities like NYC, probably $800 per hour. Add in associate & paralegal time, expenses, etc., and it is easy to hit an even higher blended rate. It doesnt get more expensive than litigation. Bureaucrats are much cheaper.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cheaper? The direct cost of litigation is not the only cost. The direct cost of the bureaucracy is not the only cost, either. There are the additional costs associated with regulatory compliance, cost of opportunities lost due to regulations, etc. Bureaucracy looks cheaper because lots of its costs are hidden and those that aren't are spread over a huge population.

If bureaucracy is so cheap, why do so many companies (and individuals) strive for deregulation? Why are telephone service and air travel so much cheaper now since they've been deregulated?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why doesn't the threat of "very very expensive" private enforcement of rights have the same deterrent effect of encouraging "voluntary compliance"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the plaintiff must spend lots of money to enforce his rights. Most plaintiffs will not/cannot do this. Therefore, the pricing on litigation favors the status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that cost can't be recovered as part of damages? The cost doesn't even have to come out of the plantiff's pocket up front; contingency is pretty common.

[ QUOTE ]
You are the one who complained about the corruptibility of government. All I am saying is that those with money necessarily have a greater ability to exercise influence--they can hire lawyers, file lawsuits, gain access, make campaign donations, etc. Money necessarily equals power, always has, always will. As I said, lobbying is just an extension of democracy, and there is no way to get rid of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I complained about corruptability of government. Are you suggesting that the answer to this problem is "more government"???

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, we shouldn't all walk. You're implicitly making an assumption that IF we could perfectly determine damages from small-scale polluters and issue judgements with little or no overhead, such that anyone damged from car pollution could and would pursue damages, that people would decide that internal combustion engines are not economically feasable (which is certainly possible) and, once that became evident, would simply give up and not use mechanical transportation, and never devise any other method.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not assuming anything. You were the one taking issue with cars because they have emissions.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I wasn't. You made a comment with a huge implied logical leap (if non-zero-emmission cars are found to be huge liabilities, we have no alternative other than to walk), I just pointed it out. I didn't bring it up.

[ QUOTE ]
Im saying something else--pollution is not bad per se. It should not always be "minimized." Pollution is simply the byproduct of the post-industrial society we live in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree with this. If someone wants to pollute his own property, it's fine with me. If his pollution starts spreading to my property, then we'll see if it's damaging and if claims should be pursued. Your suggested remedy (regulation) doesn't make such distinctions - it's just a big hammer striking at anything that anyone might label "pollution".

[ QUOTE ]
The United States is the wealthiest country on earth. I like this. I am willing to despoil the environment (within limits) to achieve this. Most people agree with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, fine with me - as long as you're despoiling your own property and not mine.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Additionally, we know there *are* zero emission power sources (solar, hydroelectric, geothermal). The fact that they aren't developed enough to provide all power we need *right now* is merely an artifact of the regulatory environment that encourages (or doesn't discourage) pollution-generating energy sources.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're talking about something different. You're talking about technology development, not whether gasoline cars are bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

You conflated them. Another poster was talking hypothetically about zero emission vehicles, and you said they don't exist. I'm trying to resperate the two issues by pointing out that they aren't theoretically impossible, they just haven't been developed because there are incentives (both regulatory and market) to stick with what we have now.