Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : 5spl -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LPS5 who wrote (2278)	1/15/2007 12:47:48 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2534

A comment posted in response to an argument by Richard Posner in favor of the NYC ban on trans fats. - "Much of Mr. Posner's argument is the observation that it's economically inefficient for each individual to think about trans fat, and that costs are lowered by having the government do that thinking for us. While I'm personally inclined toward the opposing, libertarian position, I would like to propose a compromise: Take all your nanny-state rules and bundle them into a single Nanny State Seal of Approval, which could be displayed by establishments that choose to follow those rules, and not by establishments that choose otherwise. Laws already on the books (fraud) would be used to punish cheaters who display the Seal without following all the rules. A particularly appealing benefit is that the fraction of businesses displaying the Seal would be a real-time readout of the economy's opinion of the usefulness of the Seal and the rules behind it. And concern for that very visible indicator would give the rule makers and incentive to keep the rules reasonable: if you walked down the street and no restaurants displayed the seal, you would know beyond a doubt that no significant fraction of the customer set considers the rules worthwhile. The bureaucracy behind the rules would see that it had lost its leverage, and would set about fixing its rule set. This compromise captures most of the savings of having the government do our thinking for us, without our sacrificing additional liberties." Posted by Peter Pearson at December 18, 2006 12:29 AM becker-posner-blog.com