[MichaelGlass]

"Government casuses cronyism -- especially anti-cronyism laws". What should the role of government be? I guess the authors would say: Governments should be replaced with financial modeling. I'm not convinced.

There's something fundamentally undemocratic (and perhaps, sadly, realistic) about this take. Will advocating for broad de-regulation and business rule actually reduce cronism? Will it / can it reduce negative externalities?

I just think ... we've tried that. It's been the experiment of the last 40 years. What's next?

[simonh]

I think the best approach is a balance of powers between multiple branches of government, as we have in many liberal democracies. Executive, legislative and judicial. It's a long way from perfect, but it's actually worked pretty well for hundreds of years. Combined with a robust system of individual freedoms of speech, association, ownership and labour rights. What that all adds up to is capitalism plus regulation by a representative government.

The main alternatives that have been tried concentrate power in the hands of a single group, or ultimately a single person. In fact arguably giving power to a single group implicitly gives it to the leader of that group. This has always been a disaster, and always will be a disaster as long as we are recognisably human, with all the associated flaws.

Corruption and abuses are the result of human failings. We're always going to have to continuously strive against them.

[peteey]

The past 40 has seen an increase in housing regulation. NIMBYs create restrictive zoning rules.

Developers can only build after attending dozens of meetings. City council must grant an exception to the NIMBY laws.

Only wealthy developers can afford the process. Various council and board member get kick backs for the exemptions.

Housing is an important example because its the most expensive thing most people purchase. Grift is enabled by individuals electing representatives who oppose construction, not capitalism.