Hacker News Reader

Comment by djschnei | Hacker News Reader

I suppose, semantically you are correct. I would suggest that a framework for mutually beneficial interaction (interdependence?) doesn't need a bureaucracy to be enforced. In fact, the need for a coercive third party proves the shortcomings of said framework.

View on HN

> I suppose, semantically you are correct. I would suggest that a framework for mutually beneficial interaction (interdependence?) doesn't need a bureaucracy to be enforced.

That's an interesting theory, but I would suggest that most successful such frameworks in human history have included some form of bureaucracy.

Bureaucracies, like everything, come in varying forms and magnitudes. In my years of studying, the most successful frameworks (bureaucracies, whatever you want to call them) served very limited and precise purposes. I agree, for mutually beneficial human cooperation to take place there needs to be something to enforce the rules. In my opinion, those rules all come down to enforcing individual property rights. Anything above and beyond that is detrimental on the whole.

What frameworks would you point to as examples of what you're talking about (besides the EU... cause I think it's objectively a bad example haha)?

I disagree. Many of the rules do not come down to only enforcing individual property rights. An optimal outcome for society and each individual can reached by enforcing them in many scenarios, but not all.

For example, how do you reach an optimal solution for orphans with the enforcement of private property rights? Or what about regulation of the relationship between a doctor and their patients? If the patient is mentally unable to act as a rational agent, there may be a conflict of interest between the doctor and patient without regulation.

What about health and safety standards? How does only focusing on private property rights deal with the vast asymmetry of information out there?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com