[vjvj]

I like the way the author has articulated this.

It can be built on by applying the economics concept of "externalities" - i.e. side effects (positive or negative) from a particular action such as the exercising of a right or freedom.

To get us closer to a perfect world, we need to start measuring the value of externalities (arguably not always easy to get right but possible to estimate) and to whom this gain or loss in value occurs so that they can be compensated by the externality creator(s).

I agree with the author that most people do not consider the negative externalities of a particular freedom being exercised.

We should require our legislators to more clearly articulate and value externalities from a given policy and identify groups it creates negative externalities for, and how they should be compensated (or why they do not deserve to be compensated).

[bluetomcat]

> We should require our legislators to more clearly articulate and value externalities from a given policy and identify groups it creates negative externalities for, and how they should be compensated (or why they do not deserve to be compensated).

That would be identity politics 2.0 and the end of nation states. Not only lawmakers targeting different groups of society to pass legislation, but also identifying (highly subjectively) other groups to be compensated for 2nd and 3rd-order effects introduced by that legislation.

[veridies]

I realize the practical difficulties here, but the actual concept (identifying who's going to be impacted, and offering targeted solutions) sounds like a pretty good idea in theory. Calling it 'identity politics 2.0' is an easy way to dismiss it, but it doesn't respond to the actual argument.

[bitwize]

It's the application of Coase's theorem at the level of the legislature. Nothing "identity" about it; if others are unduly negatively affected by a measure then they deserve compensation.

[helen___keller]

> We should require our legislators to more clearly articulate and value externalities from a given policy and identify groups it creates negative externalities for, and how they should be compensated (or why they do not deserve to be compensated).

I wonder if this could be a potential remedy for the issue of modern legislation paralysis:

We have lots of modern problems, we often know what are some effective solutions to these problems, and are unable to implement any of them because every solution imposes some kind of externality upon a group with sufficient political power to lobby against it.

For example: building dense housing and public transit in a boom town. It's generally agreed that this is the only sustainable end state (more housing with public transit to offset traffic) and yet we end up with total paralysis on every front: In the rich neighborhoods, nobody wants development to disturb their idyllic suburban life. In the poor neighborhoods, nobody wants a flurry of investment dollars to drive up prices and push out renters. Nobody who drives wants tax dollars on transit, and nobody who uses transit wants tax dollars building more highways. The cycle continues.

[raxxorrax]

To the example: You wouldn't have the necessary democratic legitimization to implement it and I think that is excellent since declaring it the only sustainable end state is very likely wrong. Similar problems within the educational system exist and it is not a completely independent problem to that example.

[bluetomcat]

The paralysis occurs because the political debate revolves around satisfying group interests of affected parties, instead of articulating a "grand vision" which would advance society to a better state, at the cost of temporarily negliging the pure economical interest of more vocal parts of society.