If I had 20% more of my paycheck, I'd gladly donate money to help people in third world countries have food and clean water.
While I don't know you and cannot judge whether this is true for you specifically or not, I will bet you 20% of my monthly paycheck that it's not true for most people.
Here's a minor but related issue that I've been thinking about lately. At places like Trader Joe's, they give you a discount for using your own canvas grocery bags instead of plastic ones. At most other grocery stores, they don't care. At grocery stores in Europe, they charge you extra if you use their plastic bags.
So here's the thing. I use the green bags at Publix and Kroger just because I think it's a good thing to do. I don't get a discount and I don't avoid a tax. A lot of people do the same thing. So I'm not saying nobody ever does anything good unless forced to do so. But practically everybody in Europe uses green bags because there's an economic advantage to making that decision. The government has stepped in and placed a tax on something in order to incentivize doing good things. Positive results: virtually everybody uses canvas bags. Negative results: You have to pay a little bit when you forget your canvas bag. Net result: positive. The fact is that even though some people will do good things just because they're good, more people will do good things when they have to.
This is actually called Social Engineering. I'm against the government doing these kinds of things because the government gets it wrong. Right now, they try to give incentives to do things that are deemed morally right. The problem is, not everyone has the same sense of morals. For example, if a man and a woman, are married, they get a tax deduction. However, because it is deemed morally wrong by the federal government(which I disagree with btw), if two men or two women are married, they do not get this same incentive.
There is a positive thing about social engineering though and your example is perfect to illustrate it. The market can implement many of the normal and sane social engineering ideas such as the one you gave without the need for the government to do it. In fact you give a perfect example of this with the way that Trader Joe's does it. Whole Foods is also doing something similar up here in Seattle. QFC (Kroger rebranded for the northwest) always assumes you want paper bags instead of plastic which is a step.
This is also similar to the concept of libertarian paternalism (which is an oxymoron btw). The problem with the government nudging us into doing something good even with an ability to opt-out is that eventually people will say, why does there need to be an opt-out and they would remove our choice (aka the government banning plastic bags even though they can have their uses). There is an article on this in this months Reason magazine. (w00t got to say that twice on this LJ entry :p)
It's just that I'm over the whole GOVERNMENT ALWAYS BAD, PEOPLE ALWAYS GOOD argument. Because it's not, and they're not.
I'm not saying the government should get to decide whether I am required to murder children; I'm saying I don't have a problem with the government putting in place things that The Market is apparently "allowed" to do. The slippery slope "But then they'll stop letting you use plastic bags!" is, by definition, a fallacy. The Market does some fucked-up shit too, but because it's The Market you guys don't freak out about it. So what if people like to buy stuff from Wal-Mart because their terrible employee rights and labor ethics make their crap cheaper? Thank goodness the government didn't step in to protect their workers; it saved me $2 on this t-shirt!
I can assure you that you will not convince me that the libertarian point of view is a good one just as I'm never going to convince you it's a bad one, so it is probably advisable to stop now.
While I don't know you and cannot judge whether this is true for you specifically or not, I will bet you 20% of my monthly paycheck that it's not true for most people.
Here's a minor but related issue that I've been thinking about lately. At places like Trader Joe's, they give you a discount for using your own canvas grocery bags instead of plastic ones. At most other grocery stores, they don't care. At grocery stores in Europe, they charge you extra if you use their plastic bags.
So here's the thing. I use the green bags at Publix and Kroger just because I think it's a good thing to do. I don't get a discount and I don't avoid a tax. A lot of people do the same thing. So I'm not saying nobody ever does anything good unless forced to do so. But practically everybody in Europe uses green bags because there's an economic advantage to making that decision. The government has stepped in and placed a tax on something in order to incentivize doing good things. Positive results: virtually everybody uses canvas bags. Negative results: You have to pay a little bit when you forget your canvas bag. Net result: positive. The fact is that even though some people will do good things just because they're good, more people will do good things when they have to.
Reply
There is a positive thing about social engineering though and your example is perfect to illustrate it. The market can implement many of the normal and sane social engineering ideas such as the one you gave without the need for the government to do it. In fact you give a perfect example of this with the way that Trader Joe's does it. Whole Foods is also doing something similar up here in Seattle. QFC (Kroger rebranded for the northwest) always assumes you want paper bags instead of plastic which is a step.
This is also similar to the concept of libertarian paternalism (which is an oxymoron btw). The problem with the government nudging us into doing something good even with an ability to opt-out is that eventually people will say, why does there need to be an opt-out and they would remove our choice (aka the government banning plastic bags even though they can have their uses). There is an article on this in this months Reason magazine. (w00t got to say that twice on this LJ entry :p)
Reply
I'm not saying the government should get to decide whether I am required to murder children; I'm saying I don't have a problem with the government putting in place things that The Market is apparently "allowed" to do. The slippery slope "But then they'll stop letting you use plastic bags!" is, by definition, a fallacy. The Market does some fucked-up shit too, but because it's The Market you guys don't freak out about it. So what if people like to buy stuff from Wal-Mart because their terrible employee rights and labor ethics make their crap cheaper? Thank goodness the government didn't step in to protect their workers; it saved me $2 on this t-shirt!
I can assure you that you will not convince me that the libertarian point of view is a good one just as I'm never going to convince you it's a bad one, so it is probably advisable to stop now.
Reply
Also I was just trying to say my thoughts on things and was not trying to sound harsh or anything. If it came across that way, then I apologize.
I'll end with that.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment