Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why do they persist with models that don't represent reality despite knowing it? Why do physicists ignore friction whenever possible? In general, for any task, you take the simplest model that represents the aspects of reality that you care about. But you stay aware of the limits. That's true in physics or engineering just as much as in economics. That's why NASA uses Newtonian mechanics for all their rocket scienc…
Many of the policies you mentioned sound great in a world of spherical cows but break down in the real world. For example you say a basic policy is a tax on guns instead of a ban. First of all I dispute that is even orthodox economics. Second there is some strong evidence that gun bans reduce violence. Free migration is another one. It is an insanely complicated issue in the real world. No country has 100% free migra…
First, I apologize for using guns as an example. That's a needlessly divisive topic. The general principle of 'taxes instead of bans' is rather orthodox. You see that more often applied to the example of drugs or emissions.
Second, what evidence do you have for gun bans reducing violence? And reduce violence compared to what baseline?
I am very willing to believe that if you compare a free-for-all with a ban on guns, that the latter will see less violence. (I haven't looked into the evidence. Results might differ depending on details and on when and where you do that, and who gets exceptions to the bans. Eg police and military presumably are still allowed guns? Hunters probably as well? Etc. It's not so important.)
My point is that in terms of violent crime avoided, a situation where each gun and each bullet comes with a million dollar tax would be statistically indistinguishable from a ban.
And in practice, a less severe tax would probably be enough to achieve those goals whilst still preserving access to guns for those who prefer it that way.
> No country has 100% free migration or they wouldn’t be a country.
What kind of definition of 'country' are you using here that breaks down in this way? (And what do you mean by '100%'? How nitpicky do you want to be?)
A history lesson from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport
> A rapid expansion of railway infrastructure and wealth in Europe beginning in the mid-nineteenth century led to large increases in the volume of international travel and a consequent unique dilution of the passport system for approximately thirty years prior to World War I. The speed of trains, as well as the number of passengers that crossed multiple borders, made enforcement of passport laws difficult. The general reaction was the relaxation of passport requirements.[18] In the later part of the nineteenth century and up to World War I, passports were not required, on the whole, for travel within Europe, and crossing a border was a relatively straightforward procedure. Consequently, comparatively few people held passports.
> During World War I, European governments introduced border passport requirements for security reasons, and to control the emigration of people with useful skills. These controls remained in place after the war, becoming a standard, though controversial, procedure. British tourists of the 1920s complained, especially about attached photographs and physical descriptions, which they considered led to a "nasty dehumanisation".[19] The British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act was passed in 1914, clearly defining the notions of citizenship and creating a booklet form of the passport.
Btw, Switzerland as a country does not restrict immigration. That's left to the Kantone (which are sort-of the equivalent to American states). Yet, you'd be hard pressed to argue that Switzerland is not a country. If memory serves right, the US used to have similar arrangements in their past?