Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rum Deal: America’s booze laws are terrible

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 199 posts

Re: Rum Deal: America’s booze laws are terrible

#171

Post by potatosareok »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #136
stonemetal wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is an attempt to prevent a tragedy of the commons. NY doesn't have enough road capacity to handle all of the taxis that would be profitable in a free market. Therefore they limit the number of taxis to ease congestion.

> NY doesn't have enough road capacity to handle all of the taxis that would be profitable in a free market. // Are you sure it will increase the overall number of vehicles on the roads? There can only be more taxis if there is sufficient demand to pay for them and their drivers. If there are more taxis then there's a downward pressure on prices which, yes, creates the possibility of more demand. But reality doesn't…

I can't speak to this as a subject I've done a lot of research on, but this reminded me of a story I heard on NPR a few years ago. The story argues that taxis actually spend a disproportionate amount of time on the street, relative to other cars, and so have a disproportionately large effect on the overall city congestion. This is because cars drive point-to-point but taxis stay on the street all day. The conclusion drawn is that this increased congestion will actually cost tons of money.

This point is directly opposed to your statement that "Taxis are better optimised resources in urban areas than car-ownership".

I can't argue that either point is right or wrong, but I'd like to know if you had any information I can read supporting your point about taxis being better optimized for cities.

In any case, I just wanted to contribute this story as another data point along the way.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/31/157477611/does-new...

Re: Rum Deal: America’s booze laws are terrible

#172

Post by m_mueller »

hibikir wrote: post #138
cobrausn wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A longtime wish of mine is that every law ever written came up for review every decade or so, providing ample opportunity to adjust and remove laws to fit changing cultural norms. There is probably a downside to this that I'm not seeing, not being a lawyer and all that.

There are quite a few downsides. The first problem is that now you have to dedicate a whole lot of work to maintenance. Even if this was done in good faith, you'd have millions spent just reading and rubber stamping laws. Legislatures get little done as it is to add more work. Then, we have the problem of getting the legislature to take this seriously. What stops gigantic omnibus renewals that, for all intents and pu…

I look at laws as sort of a program code for society - they define a cost function for unwanted behavior (while the economic system defines a reward function for wanted behavior). From that perspective I have to disagree here - I think GP's suggestion is good - laws should be reviewed from time to time just like legacy code should be reviewed for maintainability reasons (even just so that you keep some people familiar with the code). Every decade is probably too much, but every 20-30 years should be doable without too much cost.

The main problem is creating a process where outdated laws can be removed efficiently - which obviously needs to be done in congress. I think there could be a monetary reward involved - not for the congressmen obviously, but for non-members of the congress who initiate a process that leads to a successful removal.

Re: Rum Deal: America’s booze laws are terrible

#173

Post by eli_gottlieb »

danudey wrote: post #144
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And now I suddenly feel the need to stand up on behalf of people four years younger than myself and say: drunk college douchebags are people, too. They have equal rights and an equal stake in governance, too.

Sure, but the issue in this case isn't about rights or governance, it's about local issues caused by non-local individuals. Vancouver has a similar issue, where the drinking/clubbing/partying district, Granville Street in the heart of Vancouver's downtown, is a huge destination for partygoers from all over the region; not just Vancouver, but outlying cities and suburbs as well; a city of around 600k has to take on th…

There would be a lot fewer problems with out-of-towners throwing up in "drinking districts" if:

1) Nightlife and fun weren't utterly concentrated into single small districts, forcing people to commute to go out for an evening.

2) Cities and towns dealt civilly with college students instead of treating them as pinatas.

Re: Rum Deal: America’s booze laws are terrible

#174

Post by baddox »

nitrogen wrote: post #165
nickff wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a free market, property rights are more extensive than in a highly regulated market, so tort law serves many of the purposes that regulators and federal agencies currently do. When a multinational company causes damage to a harbor, beach, ecosystem or city, damaged parties can file suit for compensation. A harbor authority may have provided a guarantee to assume responsibility for environmental problems, in order…

In a free market, property rights are more extensive than in a highly regulated market, so tort law serves many of the purposes that regulators and federal agencies currently do. So how does a small property owner fund decade-long litigation against a giant corporation?

Well, for one thing, litigation (like virtually all goods) would be a lot cheaper. But I think a better rhetorical way to answer your question is by proposing another: how does a small property owner currently fund decade-long litigation against a giant corporation, or a government?

Re: Rum Deal: America’s booze laws are terrible

#175

Post by baddox »

dragonwriter wrote: post #148
baddox wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but implicit in that statement is that regulation is never desirable. Not exactly. What's implicit in that statement is that a structure with the physical ability to create and enforce regulations will probably create some effective regulations, and some ineffective regulations. Just like how a market will probably lead to some efficient outcomes, and some inefficient outcomes (i.e. market failures). So the questio…

> If we as a society can't aggregate our desires effectively enough to avoid a market failure (e.g. to fund a public good, like a highway system [0]), why should we expect to be able to aggregate our desires effectively enough to give legal authority to an organization to use violence to avoid a market failure? What if the problem isn't inability to effectively aggregate desires, its inability to redistribute externa…

Internalizing costs is certainly a part of what I meant by "effectively aggregate our desires."

Re: Rum Deal: America’s booze laws are terrible

#176

Post by gadders »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #128
gadders wrote: post #13

I remember trying to buy more than two 40oz bottles of malt liquor when I was in the USA. It made me laugh as it's only about as strong as Carlsberg Special Brew, and my Nan drinks that.

So... Are you saying you weren't allowed to? If so, why not? You can walk into any random liquor store that I'm aware of and buy gallons of beer or hard liquor if you want to

I was not allowed to buy more than two. This would have been in either Jersey, Maryland, Delaware or Pennsylvania. I am going back 20 years or so.

Re: Rum Deal: America’s booze laws are terrible

#177

Post by baddox »

warfangle wrote: post #143
baddox wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but implicit in that statement is that regulation is never desirable. Not exactly. What's implicit in that statement is that a structure with the physical ability to create and enforce regulations will probably create some effective regulations, and some ineffective regulations. Just like how a market will probably lead to some efficient outcomes, and some inefficient outcomes (i.e. market failures). So the questio…

How would a Free (as opposed to 'free' with regulations attached) market limit industrial pollution (some contaminations of which aren't discovered until almost a century after the original contamination[0])? In a Free market, how does an individual litigate against a multinational oil company that spills 17-30 million gallons of oil into a major metropolitan area[1]? (Very slowly: litigation has been ongoing with ne…

> How would a Free (as opposed to 'free' with regulations attached) market limit industrial pollution (some contaminations of which aren't discovered until almost a century after the original contamination[0])?

That's hardly a fair question, because if the contamination so aren't even discovered for a century, there's very little any society ("free" or governed) can do.

Re: Rum Deal: America’s booze laws are terrible

#178

Post by baddox »

warfangle wrote: post #169
nitrogen wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a free market, property rights are more extensive than in a highly regulated market, so tort law serves many of the purposes that regulators and federal agencies currently do. So how does a small property owner fund decade-long litigation against a giant corporation?

[can't directly reply to nickff..hm, thread too deep?] In the dream libertarian world of Free Market, every agent has perfect knowledge for every decision they make, courts never make mistakes, transgressors are always held liable, and pot is legal. I'm assuming they'd probably have to sell themselves into sexual bondage to pay for the lawyer costs, but nickff does outline some interesting options! 1) a number of nei…

Can you explain how a government, particularly a modern republic that is at least ostensibly formed through consent of the governed, elections, etc., can solve these problems? I'm looking for a specific mechanism by which the people, who you claim are incapable of making correct decisions in a market, can make correct decisions when it comes to electing a government.

Re: Rum Deal: America’s booze laws are terrible

#179

Post by rtpg »

cobrausn wrote: post #130
IvyMike wrote: post #59

Philip K. Howard has a new book out: The Rule of Nobody. (Note: I haven't read it, I've just seen a few interviews and considered buying the book.) The premise is that the fact that laws are constantly added but almost never removed is crippling us. Also, unfair laws are almost always unfair in someone's favor, and the groups benefiting will defend those unfair laws tooth-and-nail, and the morass of laws becomes even…

A longtime wish of mine is that every law ever written came up for review every decade or so, providing ample opportunity to adjust and remove laws to fit changing cultural norms. There is probably a downside to this that I'm not seeing, not being a lawyer and all that.

a lot of laws actually work like this (see the George Bush tax cuts and Patriot act renewals).

It does allow for fresh debate on things but can also cause a lot of friction and uncertainty.

Re: Rum Deal: America’s booze laws are terrible

#180

Post by tptacek »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #173
danudey wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but the issue in this case isn't about rights or governance, it's about local issues caused by non-local individuals. Vancouver has a similar issue, where the drinking/clubbing/partying district, Granville Street in the heart of Vancouver's downtown, is a huge destination for partygoers from all over the region; not just Vancouver, but outlying cities and suburbs as well; a city of around 600k has to take on th…

There would be a lot fewer problems with out-of-towners throwing up in "drinking districts" if: 1) Nightlife and fun weren't utterly concentrated into single small districts, forcing people to commute to go out for an evening. 2) Cities and towns dealt civilly with college students instead of treating them as pinatas.

Nightlife isn't concentrated into small eras because of licensing. If you want bars and nightclubs spread out through an area, you are arguing for liquor licensing.

In neither the Vancouver example nor the Wrigleyville example is the problem "college students".

Post reply on HN