Do you listen to EconTalk? Michael Munger (famous econ prof) has what he calls the "Munger test", which is, does this proposal/statement about business/government/academia/etc. presuppose ideal human beings to carry it out, or the venal, petty, real people we know?

He named the argument for free market capitalism vs. socialism after himself? Wow.

That's the "invisible hand" - different concept.

Invisible hand: two people following their own greed by engaging in a non-coerced, knowledgable exchange, produce a surplus benefit, in which both individuals are better off.

Munger test applied to the idea of the invisible hand: Does it work for greedy people? yes. If one party won't be better off as a result of the exchange, they won't participate.

Munger test applied to the idea of increasing revenue by increasing tax rates on the ultra-wealthy: Does it work for greedy people? Not linearly, because they'll have a great incentive to find ways to restructure or shelter their income from the increased taxes.

It's actually a simple public choice-based test; there is no single argument for capitalism and against socialism (, there are many).

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you explain?

It's based on the idea that capitalism works because it harnesses greedy self-interest, while a pure communist state would fail because there's no direct connection between doing extra work and getting extra benefit.

Capitalist farmer grows 10% more food; they make higher income from the sale of their crops. Communist farmer grows 10% more food; the farmer doesn't see extra benefit. Why bother to do the extra work?

The ideal person might answer "For the greater benefit of my fellow countrymen". A realistic person might answer "Come to think of it, I wonder how little work I can do before I actually see concrete negative consequences".

Problem is, those arguments always assume the people are doing things fairly. In many instances, instead of extra work, it's cutting corners.

Sure, and that's a fair point, but perhaps those humans shouldn't have the authority to impose their whimsies on the entirety of their neighbors because they think it's a good idea.

You know, I used to be a hardcore libertarian, but I've reconsidered a bit.

The density of cities like Manhattan/SF mean you have to have some level of regulation above and beyond what makes sense when everyone has an acre of his own land, to do with what we chooses. Whether it's noise, pollution, traffic safety, fire codes, etc., I think giving up a little bit more freedom than you would living on, say, a farm, is the price of living in a place with so much jammed in to so little space.

Maybe something to think about, if you take umbrage with people "imposing their whimsies" (I'm not being sarcastic, I really think about this a lot). Austin is nice, but it's a car-city. Show me one walkable city without the petty tyranny of city government and I'd move there pretty quickly.

I'm kind of a hybrid, really. I consider myself a libertarian at times, but mostly, a constitutionalist. I find that I object to most of the laws passed federally, but don't mind them so much when they're passed at the level of a municipality, city or even state (y'know, 10th amendment). In short, I don't believe in one-size-fits-all policies, as while I think a $15 minimum wage might work wonderfully in places like San Francisco, or NYC, I think they'd be disastrous in places like Alaska, or Arkansas. Regardless, much of the legislation I see being passed in places like San Francisco are fairly arbitrary, and that's the sort of thing I was responding to in the grand-parent.

For what it's worth, I tend to think less of these impositions as tyranny because, specifically, if I don't like what's going on in San Francisco, I can move to Austin.

We've got a bag ban here, too. ;)

Maybe their neighbors should work on electing better humans.

Someone needs to write the laws. Laws need to be updated over time, as society changes and our values change.

Completely agree. I don't believe authoritarian dictates are a way to achieve good aims in this century. And yet we must live with this type of organisation, for now, because we are still developing the alternatives...

> It's almost as if the "city council" or "government" is an entity composed of multiple people who are human.

Not just human, humans from California.

Just saying.

Just saying what?

If you ever spend an extend amount of time on the East coast of America and then spent time living on the West coast you'd see there is a real cultural difference.

One of those associated with California (in recent times) is that they love adding countless small regulations and rules that businesses and citizens must follow (almost like Germany, but not as bad). Somewhat related to the smug/elitist leftist stereotype.