Understandable Social Systems

Brennan and Magness’ book Cracks in the Ivory Tower: The Moral Mess of Higher Education reviews many ways that colleges overpromise, and fail to deliver. It confirms (with Caplan’s Case Against Education) a picture wherein ordinary people are pretty clueless about a big institution in their lives. This cluelessness also seems to apply to many other life areas, such as medicine, charity, politics, etc. In each area, most people don’t seem to understand very basic things, like what exactly is the product, and what are the incentives of professionals?

That is, we each live in many complex social systems, such as political, transport, medical, religious, food, and school systems. Due to our poor understanding of such systems, we have low abilities to make intelligent personal choices about them, and even worse abilities to usefully contribute to efforts to reform them. This suggests a key criteria for evaluating social systems: understandability.

When we don’t understand our social systems, we can be seen as having little agency regarding them. They are like the weather; they exist, and may be good or bad, but we are too ignorant to do much about them. If a situation is bad, we can’t work to make it better. Some elites might have agency re such institutions, but not the rest of us. So a key question is: can we reform or create social institutions that are more understandable, to allow ordinary people to have more agency regarding the institutions in their lives?

One possible solution is to use meta-institutions, like academia, news media, or government regulators, that we may better understand and trust. We might, for example, support a particular reform to our medical system based on the recommendation of an academic institution. Our understanding of academia as a meta-institution could give us agency, even when we were ignorant of the institutions of medicine.

As an analogy, imagine that someone visits a wild life refuge. If this visitor does not understand the plants and animals in this area, they might reasonably fear the consequences of interacting with any given plant or animal, or of entering any given region. In contrast, when accompanied by a tour guide who can advise on what is safe versus dangerous, they might relax. But only if they have good reason to think this guide roughly shares their interests.  If your guide is a nephew who inherits your fortune if you die, you may be much less relaxed.

So here’s a key question: is there, at some level of abstraction, a key understandable institution by which we can usefully choose and influence many other parts of our social world? If we think we understand this meta institution well enough to trust it, that could give us substantial agency regarding key large scale features of our social worlds. For example, we could add our weight to particular reform efforts, because we had good reasons to expect such reforms to on average help.

Alas, academia, news media, and government regulators all seem too complex and opaque to serve in this key meta role. But three other widely used and simpler social mechanisms may be better candidates.

  1. Go with the majority. Buy the product that most other people buy, use the social habits that most others use, and have everyone vote on key big decisions. When some people know what’s best, and others abstain or pick randomly, then the majority will pick what’s best. Yes, there are many topic areas where people don’t abstain or pick randomly when they don’t know what’s best. But if we can roughly guess which are the problematic topics, then in other areas we may gain at least rough agency by going with the crowd.
  2. Follow prestige. Humans have rich ancient intuitive mechanisms for coordinating on who we find impressive. These mechanisms actually scale pretty well, allowing us to form consensus on the relative prestige of nations, professions, schools, cities, etc., and via these proxies, of individuals. Related ancient mechanisms let us form consensus on elite opinion, i.e., on what prestigious people tend to think on any given topic. Yes, elites are biased toward themselves, and to express opinions that make them seem impressive. Still, we can do worse than to follow our best.
  3. Embrace Winners. Nations, cities, firms, professions, teams, media, clubs, lovers, etc. often compete, in the sense that some grow at the expense of others that shrink or disappear. Often they compete for our personal support. And often we see judge that the competition is roughly “fair” and open to many potential competitors. In such cases, we may embrace the winners. For example, we may try many competitors, and stick with those we like best. Or we may go with the lowest price offer, if we can control well enough for quality variations.

Each of these big three mechanisms has limits, but they do seem to satisfy the requirement that they are very simple and many ordinary people can at least roughly understand why they work, and where they run into problems. Together they may cover a pretty wide range of cases. In addition, we can augment them with many other approaches. For example, we can just expose ourselves to choices and follow our intuitions on which are best. We can follow choices by those we know and trust well, those who seem to know more about a topic, and those who seem more honest in their evaluations. Together all these tricks may give us substantial agency re the social institutions in our lives.

Yet those examples of how badly most people misunderstand school, medicine, etc. suggest there is vast room for improvement. And so I look for ways to do better. Not just at designing institutions that actually work, in the sense of producing efficiency, equity, generality, robustness, evolvability, etc. Not just at designing meta-institutions with these features. And not just at gaining the support of majorities or elites, or at winning many fair competitions in the world. I seek meta-mechanisms that can also be simple and clear enough to their advantages be understandable to many ordinary people.

This is the context in which I’d like you to see my highest hopes for prediction markets. I offer them not just as mechanisms that actually work, producing and aggregating info at a low cost. After all, there may be other complex and subtle mechanisms that experts expect to achieve similar or even somewhat better results. But the problem in that case is that ordinary people may wonder how well they can trust such expert judgements.

No, I’m interested in the potential for prediction markets to serve as a simple understandable meta-institution, on par with and at the level of going with the majority, following prestige, and embracing winners. Simple enough that many ordinary people can directly understand why they should work well in many applications, and also to understand roughly where their limitations lie. Yes, not everyone can understand this, but maybe most everyone could know and trust someone who does understand.

Low Prestige Hurts More

It can feel terrible to feel unwanted. Unwanted by schools, labor markets, sport teams, music bands, acting troupes, or romantic partners. We feel bad when we feel unwanted, and we often pity others to see them unwanted. Though we don’t usually pity enough to actually choose them over alternatives. And they can feel even worse to see our pity, as it affirms the visibility of their rejection.

Ever since we were foragers, humans have distinguished two kinds of status: dominance and prestige. Dominance is illicit, and we have norms saying to prevent and resist it, while prestige is not only allowed but encouraged. So one way to sympathize with and support someone who is unwanted is to frame their rejection as illicit dominance.

Since rich folks and big for-profit firms are easily portrayed as illicit dominators, it is easy to blame their illicit dominance when they reject people. So many people like to support those rejected by firms, such as for jobs at firms or loans from banks, by blaming firm dominance. Big firms can also be blamed when the products and services they sell explain why people are rejected by others. E.g., video games, tobacco, and payday lending.

This all helps explain why so many are so quick to blame “capitalist” firms and a larger culture and “system” of capitalism, such as for many kinds of discrimination leading to unfair rejection. Such blamers can then self-righteously sympathize with the rejected without having to actually choose them.

Note that economists often blame public pressures to cut firm rejections for bad economic effects, such as high unemployment in Europe where it is hard to fire workers, and excess home loans to risky households before the 2008 financial crisis.

This perspective also helps explain why people are reluctant to blame their “systems” of romance, friendship, conversation, sport, music, arts, which also result in rejections that make so many feel unwanted. Those systems tend to be associated more directly with prestige, and lack identifiable villains to blame for dominance. Except when big business gets involved. Rejection there can also be blamed on a larger “capitalist” culture causing discrimination, such as re sexual preferences or gender identities.

But here’s the thing: even without any illicit domination, some will have lower prestige than others, and that will hurt. Badly. In fact, it probably hurts even more than having low dominance, as that can be self-righteously blamed on others’ illicit pursuit of high dominance. Being low prestige, in contrast, elicits little sympathy from others, as showing sympathy toward such folks risks being pushed to not reject them, and being seen has having poor evaluation abilities regarding prestige.

The only simple solutions I see are an easy one, ignore it all, and a hard one: sometimes actually and honestly sympathize with the low in prestige. And let them see that sympathy. Which yes, will sometimes lead you to make “pity” choices you might not otherwise make. Do it because it hurts. (Some propose more complex solutions; they must wait for another post.)

Chiang’s Exhalation

Ted Chiang’s new book Exhalation has received rave reviews. WSJ says “sci-fi for philosophers”, and the Post says “uniformly notable for a fusion of pure intellect and molten emotion.” The New Yorker says

Chiang spends a good deal of time describing the science behind the device, with an almost Rube Goldbergian delight in elucidating the improbable.

Vox says:

Chiang is thoughtful about the rules of his imagined technologies. They have the kind of precise, airtight internal logic that makes a tech geek shiver with happiness: When Chiang tells you that time travel works a certain way, he’ll always provide the scientific theory to back up what he’s written, and he will never, ever veer away from the laws he’s set for himself.

That is, they all seem to agree that Chiang is unusually realistic and careful in his analysis.

I enjoyed Exhalation, as I have Chiang’s previous work. But as none of the above reviews (nor any of 21 Amazon reviews) make the point, it apparently falls to me to say that this realism and care is limited to philosophy and “hard” science. Re social science, most of these stories are not realistic.

Perhaps Chiang is well aware of this; his priority may be to paint the most philosophically or morally dramatic scenarios, regardless of their social realism. But as reviewers seem to credit his stories with social realism, I feel I should speak up. To support my claims, I’m going to have to give “spoilers”; you are warned.The shortest story, “What’s Expected of Us”, describes the consequences of a “predictor” machine. It has one light and one button. The light turns on briefly exactly one second before the button is pressed, proving that no one has free will to choose to see the light and not push the button. The story claims that about a third of those who play with these machines are so distraught to learn this that they must be hospitalized within a few weeks because they refuse to eat.

That’s a crazy prediction; ~4/5 of the >1000 I polled say that in this situation <1% of folks would have to be hospitalized. Lots of us already don’t think we have free will, and have no trouble eating. And abstract considerations rarely make any dent in most folks’ behavior. Also, the key “negative time delay circuit” could be used to very make powerful computers and communicators; it wouldn’t just be used to make people feel weird about free will.

In “The Great Silence”, an intelligent parrot says

One proposed solution to the Fermi paradox is that intelligent species actively try to conceal their presence to avoid being targeted by hostile invaders. Speaking as a member of a species that has been driven nearly to extinction by humans, I can attest that this is a wise strategy.

Actually, I’m pretty sure that parrots are less likely to go extinct if they reveal to us an ability to articulate their analysis of the Fermi paradox. They might get enslaved, but they wouldn’t go extinct.

In “Omphalos”, a world of Christians who have direct evidence that creation happened learn that Earth may have been practice for some other planet God cares more about. Our narrator has a “crisis of faith”, and it is suggested but not directly stated that many others feel similarly. In fact, few would be disturbed; few actually base religious beliefs on such concrete evidence.

In “The Truth of Fact, The Truth of Feeling”, we hear two stories. In one, a “primitive” people who first encounter text records prefer the account from their verbal history of their people, even when contradicted by text records. In another, a future person newly exposed to easily searched video records of his personal history uses it to learn he had misremembered of a key life event. Because it says almost nothing about the typical use of such records, I find no fault with his depiction, other than his not exploring the many other foreseeable implications of such tech. I also have little to complain about the story “Exhalation”, as it says little about social behaviors.

In “The Merchant and the Alchemist’s Gate”, an ancient Baghdad merchant has built a mirror-sized object that functions as a time portal, allowing one to travel to either 20 years in the future or the past, depending on which side one uses. He has left another portal with his son in another city. When he likes a customer in his shop, he sometimes offers to let them use his portal. He has done this for at least 20 years, and the portal says he will continue to do so for another 20. The merchant doesn’t charge for the use of his portal, has no security protecting it, doesn’t ask users to keep it secret, and his users sometimes tell others about it. In fact, this whole story is told from the point of view of a user telling a king about it.

It is pretty crazy that an ancient merchant who had devoted such a tiny fraction of his life to the effort could build such a thing, especially without being part of a community where others are close to doing what he has done. But it is every more crazy that while such a portal could be used to make a fortune, not one who hears about it steals it for this purpose. ~2/3 of the >400 I polled say that there’s a <1% chance of this outcome, if such a portal were treated this way by its owner.

In “Anxiety is the Dizziness of Freedom”, a new kind of device can split the universe into two branches that start out the same but then deviate due to random fluctuations, and then allow communication between these two branches. In the story, these devices are used almost entirely to let people find out about which aspects of their personal lives are how random. At some point it is mentioned that an author sometimes sells the writings of their alternative copy, but this is presented as a rare usage.

Actually, this ability to exchange info between branches allows for exponential decreases in the cost of mental work. If a task can be broken into subtasks that  produce info when completed, you can assign different tasks to each of N branches, exchange info to combine their results, and complete such tasks N times more cheaply. So vast resources would go into using such devices this way, the economy would be drastically restructured to support this, and the economy would soon get much richer. Chiang misses all of this.

The premise of “The Lifecycle of Software Objects” is that “artificial intelligence is going to require the equivalent of good parenting”. That is, human-level AI can only be created by human parents raising an emotionally-immature AI child for twenty years via time-intensive loving care; no shortcuts are possible. Businesses start the project, but quit when they realize how long it may take.

Only a handful of loving parents continue as long as it takes, and resist the temptation of evil businesses who offer money to exploit their beloved children. Even when these AI kids have college level inference and debating abilities, they still have childlike grammar, and parents see them as not mature enough to make key life choices. Their parents are proud to have sacrificed to keep these kids from working, and to have made them too “willful” to do menial jobs like butler.

These AI kids have been raised mostly in a particular virtual reality (VR) world also popular with humans, with rare ventures into our reality via robot bodies. When most humans switch to another VR world, it is said that that these kids can’t move unless the code that runs their brains is ported to run this new VR software system. A port said to be too expensive for these parents to afford. So these kids are stuck living alone in the old VR world.

For some unexplained reason parents refuse to make many copies of their kids so they could have lots of company there. Also unexplained is why they can’t just connect these kids to this new VR world via the robot body interface connected to the interface that humans use to experience it.

I agree with the ~2/3 of the >700 I polled who say that there’s <1% chance that the first way to achieve human-level AI is via human parents raising AI kids for twenty years. Even less likely is that AI requires 21st Century western elite style parenting. Chiang again seems to focus on a socially unrealistic scenario that lets him make the very dramatic philosophical or moral points.

My poll results suggest that it is not just professional social scientists who are aware of most of these social unrealism. Which suggests that many, even most, of the other book reviewers were aware of it. So why didn’t any mention it, even as they praised Chiang for carefully thinking through his story premises?

I hear Hollywood is working on movies based on two of these stories. Alas the one movie so far based on a Chiang story, Arrival, is based on the most unrealistic premise of any of his stories, that learning a new language could let us directly “remember” the future. That’s a bad sign re future movie realism.

Expand vs Fight in Social Justice, Fertility, Bioconservatism, & AI Risk

Most people talk too much about values relative to facts, as they care more about showing off their values than about learning facts. So I usually avoid talking values. But I’ll make an exception today for this value: expanding rather than fighting about possibilities.

Consider the following graph. On the x-axis you, or your group, get more of what you want. On the y-axis, others get more of what they want. (Of course each axis really represents a high dimensional space.) The blue region is a space of possibilities, the blue curve is the frontier of best possibilities, and the blue dot is the status quo, which happens if no one tries to change it.

In this graph, there are two basic ways to work to get more of what you want: move along the frontier (FIGHT), or expand it (EXPAND). While expanding the frontier helps both you and others, moving along the frontier helps you at others’ expense.

All else equal, I prefer expanding over fighting, and I want stronger norms for this. That is, I want our norms to, all else equal, more praise expansion and shame fighting. This isn’t to say I want all forms of fighting to be shamed, or shamed equally, or want all kinds of expansion to get equal praise. For example, it makes sense to support some level of “fighting back” in response to fights initiated by others. But on average, we should all expect to be better off when our efforts are on averaged directed more toward expanding than fighting. Fighting should be suspicious, and need justification, relative to expansion.

This distinction between expanding and fighting is central to standard economic analysis. We economists distinguish “efficiency improving” policies that expand possibilities from “redistribution” policies that take from some to give to others, and also from “rent-seeking” efforts that actually cut possibilities. Economists focus on promoting efficiency and discouraging rent-seeking. If we take positions on redistribution, we tend to call those “non-economic” positions.

We economists can imagine an ideal competitive market world. The world we live in is not such a world, at least not exactly, but it helps to see what would happen in such a world. In this ideal world, property rights are strong, we each own stuff, and we trade with each other to get more of what we want. The firms that exist are the ones that are most effective at turning inputs into desired outputs. The most cost-effective person is assigned to each job, and each customer buys from their most cost-effective supplier. Consumers, investors, and workers can make trades across time, and innovations happen at the most cost-effective moment.

In this ideal world, we maximize the space of possibilities by allowing all possible competition and all possible trades. In that case, all expansions are realized, and only fights remain. But in other more realistic worlds many “market failures” (and also government failures) pull back the frontier of possibilities. So we economists focus on finding actions and policies that can help fix such failures. And in some sense, I want everyone to share this pro-expansion anti-fight norm of economists.

Described in this abstract way, few may object to what I’ve said so far. But in fact most people find a lot more emotional energy in fights. Most people are quickly bored with proposals that purport to help everyone without helping any particular groups more than others. They get similarly bored with conversations framed as collecting and sharing relevant information. They instead get far more energized by efforts to help us win against them, including conversations framed as arguing with and even yelling at enemies. We actually tend to frame most politics and morality as fights, and we like it that way.

For example, much “social justice” energy is directed toward finding, outing, and “deplatforming” enemies. Yes, when social norms are efficient, enforcing such norms against violators can enhance efficiency. But our passions are nearly as strong when enforcing inefficient norms or norm-like agendas, just as a crime dramas are nearly as exciting when depicting the enforcement of bad crime laws or non-law vendettas. Our energy comes from the fights, not some indirect social benefit resulting from such fights. And we find it way too easy to just presume that the goals of our social factions are very widely shared and efficient norms.

Consider fertility and education. Many people get quite energized on the topic of whether others are having too many or not enough kids, and on whether they are raising those kids correctly. We worry about which nations, religions, classes, intelligence levels, mental illness categories, or political allegiances are having more kids, or getting more kids to be educated or trained in their favored way. And we often seek government policies to push our favored outcomes. Such as sterilizing the mentally ill, or requiring schools to teach our favored ideologies.

But in an ideal competitive world, each family picks how many kids to have and how to raise them. If other people have too many kids and and have trouble feeding them, that’s their problem, not yours. Same for if they choose to train their kids badly, or if those kids are mentally ill. Unless you can identify concrete and substantial market failures that tend to induce the choices you don’t like, and which are plausibly the actual reason for your concerns here, you should admit you are more likely engaged in fights, not in expansion efforts, when arguing on fertility and education.

And it isn’t enough to note that we are often inclined to supply medicine, education, or food collectively. If such collective actions are your main excuse for trying to control other folks’ related choices, maybe you should consider not supplying such things collectively. It also isn’t enough to note the possibility of meddling preferences, wherein you care directly about others’ choices. Not only is evidence of such preferences often weak, but meddling preferences don’t usually change the possibility frontier, and thus don’t change which policies are efficient. Beware the usual human bias to try to frame fighting efforts as more pro-social expansion efforts, and to make up market failure explanations in justification.

Consider bioconservatism. Some look forward to a future where they’ll be able to change the human body, adding extra senses, and modifying people to be smarter, stronger, more moral, and even immortal. Others are horrified by and want to prevent such changes, fearing that such “post-humans” would no longer be human, and seeing societies of such creatures as “repugnant” and having lost essential “dignities”. But again, unless you can identify concrete and substantial market failures that would result from such modifications, and that plausibly drive your concern, you should admit that you are engaged in a fight here.

It seems to me that the same critique applies to most current AI risk concerns. Back when my ex-co-blogger Eliezer Yudkowsky and I discussed his AI risk concerns here on this blog (concerns that got much wider attention via Nick Bostrom’s book), those concerns were plausibly about a huge market failure. Just as there’s an obvious market failure in letting someone experiment with nuclear weapons in their home basement near a crowded city (without holding sufficient liability insurance), there’d be an obvious market failure from letting a small AI team experiment with software that might, in a weekend, explode to become a superintelligence that enslaved or destroyed the world. While I see that scenario as pretty unlikely, I grant that it is a market failure scenario. Yudkowsky and Bostrom aren’t fighting there.

But when I read and talk to people today about AI risk, I mostly hear people worried about local failures to control local AIs, in a roughly competitive world full of many AI systems with reasonably strong property rights. In this sort of scenario, each person or firm that loses control of an AI would directly suffer from that loss, while others would suffer far less or not at all. Yet AI risk folks say that they fear that many or even most individuals won’t care enough to try hard enough to keep sufficient control of their AIs, or to prevent those AIs from letting their expressed priorities drift as contexts change over the long run. Even though such AI risk folks don’t point to particular market failures here. And even though such advanced AI systems are still a long ways off, and we’ll likely know a lot more about, and have plenty of time to deal with, AI control problems when such systems actually arrive.

Thus most current AI risk concerns sound to me a lot like fertility, education, and bioconservatism concerns. People say that it is not enough to control their own fertility, the education of their own kids, the modifications of their own bodies, and the control of their own AIs. They worry instead about what others may do with such choices, and seek ways to prevent the “risk” of others making bad choices. And in the absence of identified concrete and substantial market failures associated with such choices, I have to frame this as an urge to fight, instead of to expand the space of possibilities. And so according to the norms I favor, I’m suspicious of this activity, and not that eager to promote it.

Who Likes Simple Rules?

Some puzzles:

  • People are often okay with having either policy A or policy B adopted as the standard policy for all cases. But then they object greatly to a policy of randomly picking A or B in particular cases in order to find out which one works better, and then adopt it for everyone.
  • People don’t like speed and red-light cameras; they prefer human cops who will use discretion. On average people don’t think that speeding enforcement discretion will be used to benefit society, but 3 out of 4 expect that it will benefit them personally. More generally people seem to like a crime law system where at least a dozen different people are authorized to in effect pardon any given person accused of any given crime; most people expect to benefit personally from such discretion.
  • In many European nations citizens send their tax info into the government who then tells them how much tax they owe. But in the US and many other nations, too many people oppose this policy. The most vocal opponents think they benefit personally from being able to pay less than what the government would say they owe.
  • The British National Health Service gets a lot of criticism from choosing treatments by estimating their cost per quality-adjusted-life-year. US folks wouldn’t tolerate such a policy. Critics lobbying to get exceptional treatment say things like “one cannot assume that someone who is wheel-chair bound cannot live as or more happily. … [set] both false limits on healthcare and reducing freedom of choice. … reflects an overly utilitarian approach”
  • There’s long been opposition to using an official value of life parameter in deciding government policies. Juries have also severely punished firms for using such parameters to make firm decisions.
  • In academic departments like mine, we tell new professors that to get tenure they need to publish enough papers in good journals. But we refuse to say how many is enough or which journals count as how good. We’d keep the flexibility to make whatever decision we want at the last minute.
  • People who hire lawyers rarely know their track record and winning vs. losing court cases. The info is public, but so few are interested that it is rarely collected or consulted. People who hire do know the prestige of their schools and employers, and decide based on that.
  • When government leases its land to private parties, sometimes it uses centralized, formal mechanisms, like auctions, and sometimes it uses decentralized and informal mechanisms. People seem to intuitively prefer the latter sort of mechanism, even though the former seems to works better. In one study “auctioned leases generate 67% larger up-front payments … [and were] 44% more productive”.
  • People consistently invest in managed investment funds, which after the management fee consistently return less than index funds, which follow a simple clear rule. Investors seem to enjoy bragging about personal connections to people running prestigious investment funds.
  • When firms go public via an IPO, they typically pay a bank 7% of their value to manage the process, which is supposedly spent on lobbying others to buy. Google famously used an auction to cut that fee, but banks have succeed in squashing that rebellion. When firms try to sell themselves to other firms to acquire, they typically pay 10% if they are priced at less than $1M, 6-8% if priced $10-30M, and 2-4% if priced over $100M.
  • Most elite colleges decide who to admit via opaque and frequently changing criteria, criteria which allow much discretion by admissions personnel, and criteria about which some communities learn much more than others. Many elites learn to game such systems to give their kids big advantages. While some complain, the system seems stable.
  • In a Twitter poll, the main complaints about my fire-the-CEO decisions markets proposal are that they don’t want a simple clear mechanical process to fire CEOs, and they don’t want to explicitly say that the firm makes such choices in order to maximize profits. They instead want some people to have discretion on CEO firing, and they want firm goals to be implicit and ambiguous.

The common pattern here seems to me to be a dislike of clear formal overt rules, mechanisms, and criteria, relative to informal decisions and negotiations. Especially disliked are rules based on explicit metrics that might reject or disapprove people. To the extent that there are rules, there seems to be a preference for authorizing some people to have discretion to make arbitrary choices, regarding which they are not held strongly to account.

To someone concerned about bribes, corruption, and self-perpetuating cabals of insiders, a simple clear mechanism like an auction might seem an elegant way to prevent all of that. And most people give lip service to being concerned about such things. Also, yes explicit rules don’t always capture all subtleties, and allowing some discretion can better accommodate unusual details of particular situations.

However, my best guess is that most people mainly favor discretion as a way to promote an informal favoritism from which they expect to benefit. They believe that they are unusually smart, attractive, charismatic, well-connected, and well-liked, just the sort of people who tend to be favored by informal discretion. Furthermore, they want to project to associates an image of being the sort of person who is confidently believes this. An incentive that tends to induce overconfidence.

That is, the sort of people who are eager to have a fair neutral objective decision-making process tend to be losers who don’t expect to be able to work the informal system of favors well, and who have accepted this fact about themselves. And that’s just not the sort of image that most people want to project.

This whole equilibrium is of course a serious problem for we economists, computer scientists, and other mechanism and institution designers. We can’t just propose explicit rules that would work if adopted, if people prefer to reject such rules to signal their social confidence.

The Persistence of Poverty

On Bryan Caplan’s recommendation, I just read The Persistence of Poverty, by Charles Karelis (2007). Karelis seeks to explain these patterns:

Five patterns that have been common among the poor in many times and places, then, and that played a role in keeping them poor or making them poorer, are: 1. not working much for pay; 2. not getting much education; 3. not saving for a rainy day; 4. abusing alcohol; and 5. taking risks with the law. … [And] having children early and out of wedlock … is doubtless a big factor in poverty in the United States today.

His explanation is that often we experience diminishing returns for “relievers” that reduce our pain. Which actually gives us increasing, not diminishing returns for getting “more” in that area. For example:

Consider housing. Suppose we take the perspective of a couple whose house has a bedroom for them and each of their six children, plus adequate room for entertaining and other functions besides. Clearly they are consuming or using housing in the more-than-sufficient range. Their house is a source of positive experience. As each child leaves for college (let us say), the amount of space available for the use of the couple goes up by roughly equal amounts, but probably their enjoyment of the house goes up by smaller and smaller amounts. …

Now imagine a couple whose dwelling is a one-bedroom house that is barely adequate for themselves. If a child arrives, then given the crowded conditions, the couple’s privacy is much reduced, their peace and quiet is disturbed, and they may have to start sleeping in shifts. Whatever the compensating joys of parenthood may be, these are impressive deteriorations in their physical comfort. By the time child number six arrives, the couple may hardly notice the further deterioration in their situation that occurs as a result. One more voice outside the bedroom door when you cannot sleep anyway on account of the five that are already audible probably will not make much difference.

That is, you don’t notice as much of a difference between very and mildly crowded, as you do between mildly and not at all crowded. Karelis further claims that this sort of things happens much more often for people who are poor relative to their culture:

Whether something is functioning as a reliever for a given consumer is relative. It is only partly a question of objective economic circumstances, because it depends too upon how the consumer sees those circumstances. … A more anthropological view responds that the difference lies in neither discipline nor opportunity but in the values of the various sub-cultures. … No one doubts that different cultural groups within the United States have different histories, and that these different histories create different economic norms and expectations. For instance, having come from much poorer countries, Asian immigrants to the United States often have relatively low norms and expectations. By contrast, African-Americans, who are closely acquainted with the lifestyles of middle-class whites, and who have long been exposed to “the American dream” and all it implies, often have relatively high norms, if not exactly expectations. … this … predicts that the felt relief of the marginal dollar will be greater for poor Asian immigrants than the felt relief of the marginal dollar for similarly poor African-Americans.

Karelis first published this idea in 1986, and he notes that similar ideas were published by van Praag in 1968 and Friedman & Savage in 1948. I find the idea coherent and mildly plausible, but just based on Karelis’ arguments, I wouldn’t put it much above other common poverty explanations, such as stupidity, sickness, impatience, impulsiveness, and lack of self-control.

However, I gave more weight to this account after I realized that it is implied by my usual favorite account of income status: utility linear in income rank. As income is usually distributed lognormally, the function relating rank to log income must be convex below and concave above median income. This implies diminishing returns in income above median income, and a range below median income with increasing returns to income. When you have increasing returns to income, you value each unit of income more when you have more of it, rather than the usual diminishing returns case, where you value each unit of income less, the more income you have.

Karelis suggests some policy implications:

Seeing that the income effect and the substitution effect of strategies to make work pay will be mutually reinforcing, making work pay [via increased wages] is a double-barreled anti-poverty approach. By contrast, no-strings assistance is a single-barreled approach, since it lacks a positive substitution effect. …

Thirty-five years ago the speeches and writings of American civil rights leaders often framed or interpreted the circumstances of their audiences by “comparing them up”—measuring them against the circumstances of the middle-classes and the upper-middle classes, or even against the images of the good life found within the American Dream. This was openly done for the sake of energizing audiences with discontent. The goal was reasonable enough, but according to our theory, the strategy was probably counterproductive. …

Increasing the differential between the income from crime and the income from honest work—by raising the odds of punishment, lengthening sentences, or making (honest) work pay better—is likelier to be effective than strategies built on the assumption that criminals are dysfunctional and hence unresponsive to sticks and carrots of this kind; and it is likelier to be effective than strategies built on the assumption of atypical preferences. …

Our utility function could [correctly] be used to justify putting the least poor people ahead of the very poorest people in distributing assistance.

Though Karelis didn’t mention it, the same logic says to allow and even promote more gambling among the poor; within the convex region gambles look like a net gain.

However, all these policy recommendations are based on assuming that the preferences of other poor people don’t change when you help one poor person move up their utility function. But if the transition from convex to concave utility, and other aspects of the utility of money, result from the actual distribution of income in one’s reference culture, then helping one person changes the distribution against which others compare themselves.

For example, if utility is linear in rank, the help you give one person is exactly cancelled by the hurt you thereby inflict on the others who this one person has jumped over in rank. Yes, with some other functional form, the help might outweigh the hurt, but with other forms the hurt might outweigh the help. This effect of changing the reference distribution is not small, and shouldn’t be ignored as Karelis does.

Finally, Karelis focuses entirely on immediate choices, rather than on long-term strategies. Young poor people who care about the long run should focus on trying to dig their way out of poverty, and so much less display the six patterns of poverty that Karelis tries to explain. So to predict typical poor behaviors, we need to add a substantial degree of impatience or lack of self-control to Karelis’ account.

Added 4p: Karelis responded to my email, and asked me to post this comment:

Thank you for blogging so thoughtfully about my book. One comment. The hypothesis of the book can fairly easily be extended to the putative fact that impulsiveness, impatience, and lack of self-control are commoner among the poor by introducing the idea that overcoming these weaknesses is a kind of work. The idea would be that this “will-work” will have less appeal when the material gain produced yields a smaller rather than larger addition to utility, as (the hypothesis contends) is the case in the lower income ranges. As I recall, Andrew Sullivan, Ezra Klein, and Ta-nehisi Coates all noted this extrapolation of my theory around the time the book appeared. The amendment was made possible, really, by research into the nature of willpower subsequent to the publication of my book.

This story can work re efforts to make small gains while poor, but doesn’t work re making big gambles or long-term efforts to dig oneself out of poverty. Those should be seen as large gains, even for someone who can’t find sufficient motivation to work for small gains. So to explain a poor person uninterested in either of those, we need to add something else to our story.

Added 6p: Karelis further responds:

Yes, we need to add something else to our story, but maybe not too much. My hypothesis says that medium-sized  additions to the consumption of someone at the low end of the income scale (additions that leave them shy of sufficiency) will raise and not lower their marginal utility for the good in question, and thereby increase their motivation to secure more of that good. You are right to see that these medium additions need not come from an external source. Self-help can be as effective as exogenous help in raising marginal utility in this way. For instance, if you have ten unwashed dishes in the sink, and someone washes eight of them, the psychological benefit you will get from washing the last two will be more than you would have gotten from washing the first two, and it doesn’t matter whether that “someone” is you or a friend.

So why don’t poor people perform this kind of self-help more often? They may have internalized the law of diminishing marginal utility, just like the policy folks who resist helping the poor for fear of undermining their motivation for self-help. More likely, none of us, rich or poor, is very good at self-gaming, i.e. figuring out and acting upon the likely impact of possible actions on what will seem rational to us when we have completed those actions.
One might plausibly argue that no one ever really makes long term plans. People who seem to be doing so, such as students going to college, are really just executing standard cultural plans, doing “what you are supposed to do”. Then the “extra” we’d need to add, to explain why the poor don’t seem to have long term plans to dig them out of poverty, is to say that the cultures of poor people often don’t have standard cultural plans that induce them to so dig.

Why Crime Discretion?

Our criminal law system gives discretion to many actors, in effect, pardon criminals, vary their punishment. Police officers and their bosses can choose not to arrest, or to charge with a lower crime, prosecutors and their bosses can choose not to prosecute, to prosecute for a lower crime, or to settle on a lower crime, judges and juries can choose not to convict and to make mild or severe sentences, and governors and presidents can pardon them, and prisons can parole them.

If you were the victim of a crime, you might be disturbed to see that so many people can in effect pardon the criminal who hurt you. Also, as these parties are paid far less to deal with that criminal than how much that criminal could suffer, you could reasonably be worried about bribes and other forms of bias and corruption. Even if you think there should be some discretion in the system, you might think that should be limited more, such as to only the judge. Why do we have so much discretion in our system?

To find out, I did this Twitter poll:

I also did two other polls, the same except “speeding” was replaced by “trespassing” and “in general”. In all three polls, by a roughly 3-1 ratio respondents thought that discretion would favor them personally. And in all cases, there is a substantial correlation between thinking that correlation benefits you and that it benefits society. However, for speeding, which is the case where they should have the most personal knowledge on the consequences of discretion, they were split evenly, about 1-1, on if discretion helps cut net social harm. And in the other two cases, where they personally know much less, they guessed about 3-2 that discretion cut net social harm.

To me, the obvious interpretation here is this: the main reason most people favor crime law discretion is that they expect to personally benefit from it. They are willing to presume that it benefits society in areas they don’t know much about, but they admit that it doesn’t in the areas they know best. This seems analogous to people estimating much higher accuracy for media reports in areas they don’t know about, compared to areas in which they’ve seen how media coverage compares to personal knowledge.

Freedom Isn’t Free

The concept of a right to health has been enumerated in international agreements which include the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. … equitable dissemination of medical knowledge and its benefits; and government-provided social measures to ensure adequate health. …

Everyone has the right to … food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services. … “responsibility [that] extends beyond the provision of essential health services to tackling the determinants of health such as, provision of adequate education, housing, food, and favourable working conditions” … right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health … each individual holds an inherent right to the best feasible standard of health. (more)

We might want to say that people have a right to food. And in a place like the Soviet Union, where food was centrality produced and distributed, a right to food might be defined in terms of fixed numbers of particular items. So many loaves of bread, kilos of meat, and bottles of milk per week, for example. Such “rights” would be complex, vary by time and place, and result mostly from complex and changing tradeoffs, as well as politics.

While basic ethical principles might influence such rights, that influence may be hard to discern among so many other influences. If a right to food were enshrined in the text of a constitution, it would be hard for courts to have that text and a few abstract principles strongly determine if any given action is taken to violate that right or not. They might accumulate case law on how to make such deacons, but that would mostly be the court defining the right, not the constitution or abstract principles. The court might delegate many details to government agencies, in which case it would be those agencies deciding most details, not the constitution or abstract principles.

In contrast, in a market economy like ours, where individuals can more easily choose the particular foods that they want, it makes less sense to talk having about having rights to particular baskets of bread, meat, milk, etc. One could instead talk about a right to so many calories or grams of protein, but that might be hard to enforce. It could make more sense to talk about a right to a minimum food budget, and to having foods available to purchase at their real costs. (Such a budget might be set by market prices to get min calories, etc.) And it might be work even better to just focus on general redistribution systems expressed in terms of money, allowing each person to choose their own food priorities.

In a market-based economy where rights are implemented via food budgets or overall redistribution policies, outcomes would be influenced more by the constitution text and abstract principles, and by many individual choices, and less by the courts or government agencies.

Similarly, in a centrally-administered medical system, one could make a long list of the particular medical treatments to which each patient is entitled, if they were diagnosed with particular conditions. This long list of medical rights would be context-dependent and change frequently, and it wouldn’t have any clear relation to basic ethical principles or a constitutional text about a right to medicine. Such a list would mostly reflect many practical tradeoffs as well as politics. It seems quite hard to formally define and enforce any simple general “right to medicine” given all this complex variation and context dependence.

When medicine is allocated more by a competitive market, it can make more sense to try to ensure that people are free to buy medicine, medical insurance, and info on medical quality, all at prices that reflect the real costs of such things. One might try to define medical rights in terms of a minimum budget that each person has to buy medicine or medical insurance or info. Or one might focus on a more general system of redistribution expressed in terms of money, and let each person choose their medical priorities. In either of these last two scenarios, abstract principles and a constitutional text, together with individual choices, could have more influence on outcomes, relative to decisions by courts and government agencies.

In this last scenario, if you saw a case where you felt bad that someone who knew about a particular medical treatment didn’t buy that treatment, you might consider pushing to increase the priority of similar people in your more general system of redistribution. So that they could have more money to buy such treatments. If you gave such people more money, but they chose instead to spend that money on other things, you might accept that they have differing medical priorities from you, or you might try to push them to share your priorities. Either way, that dispute doesn’t really seem to be about a right to medicine.

If you are with me so far regarding food and medicine, then in the rest of this post I want to convince you to think similarly about many formal civil rights and liberties. At least regarding rights and liberties whose limits are set mainly by criminal law enforcement considerations. Today our constitutions and courts try to specify many complex related rights and liberties. I will argue that this complexity is to a large degree due to having a centralized government-run system of criminal law enforcement. This is analogous to the complexity we would have if the government ran the food system or the medical system, wherein rights to food or medicine would consist of long lists of the food you could get each week, or the medical treatments to which you were entitled.

I will suggest that we could instead switch to a much more private, open, and competitive system of criminal law enforcement. In such a system, individuals could buy the particular civil rights and liberties that they wanted. We could then work to ensure that people are free to buy these rights and liberties at prices that reflect their real costs, and that people have a minimum budget to purchase such things. Or we might just focus on a more general system of redistribution expressed in terms of money, and let each person use money to express their priorities for rights and liberties re criminal law enforcement. Let me explain.

Today, we have explicitly declared a great many rather specific rights and liberties on how we are to be treated by our systems of law enforcement. Of course your actual rights and liberties vary according to your exact legal jurisdiction, the legal text there, court interpretations in that jurisdiction, and how local law enforcement agencies actually implement court rulings in their actual policies.

You may have have rights to be silent, and to not talk to police, and exceptions to those rights, such as when you must identifying yourself. You may have rights and obligations regarding when you may be detained or arrested, and who must give testimony regarding which kinds things about which kinds of associates, including themself. There are rules on when one must be allowed to consult a lawyer, and rules that require lawyers to be available free of charge. You may have have rights to keep some things private, to be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures, and there may be exceptions to these based on warrants and on which things are in “plain view” or result from “hot pursuit”. Other exceptions are based on extra powers given to police in certain situations.

You may have rights to assemble with others of your choice, and to travel freely, but these rights may have exceptions limiting where you can go where when, such as curfews and orders to stay away from some places or to stay close enough to other places. You may have a right to speedy trials. Regarding punishment, you may have rights to avoid disproportionate punishment, and cruel and unusual punishments. In prison, you may have rights to minimum qualities of food and medicine, to a lack of racial segregation, to accommodation of your disabilities, to a lack of crowding, and to some kinds of speech, contact with outsiders, and religious activities.

For all of these rights and liberties, you may have complex rights regarding who must monitor to check that they are actually being upheld, and who may sue whom claiming that they are not, and what they would win if they won. Many have claimed that in fact many important groups in our societies don’t actually have many of the rights and liberties that they are supposedly granted on paper. I’m inclined to believe many such claims, which is a big part of why I seek other approaches.

Much of this complexity results from the fact that, in order to enforce criminal law, officials sometimes need to detain, punish, and watch people, and they sometimes need to limit their travel, assemblies, and other activities. Officials sometimes need to collect info about some people from their things and from other people. These many complex rules about rights and liberties are often claimed to be designed to give everyone as many rights and liberties as feasible, while still allowing criminal law officials to do what needs doing to enforce criminal law in a reasonably cost-effective manner. Because the world is complex, these rules must be complex.

But imagine that we replaced our centralized government run system of criminal law enforcement with this:

Consider a fine-insured-bounty (FIB) crime law system. … All (but one) crime is punished officially by fines, everyone is fully insured to pay large fines, and bounty hunters detect and prosecute each crime. In a FIB system, we collectively decide the fine and bounty level for each crime, and manage a judicial system which decides individual cases.

If we set the fine level for each crime to be our best estimate of the social harm produced by one more crime event of that type (divided by the chance that it will be caught, plus enforcement costs), then the insurer-client pair would internalize that social harm, in which case we could leave that pair free to choose punishment types, costs, and levels, as well as (many aspects of) police and prosecutor monitoring and investigative powers. (more)

Within a FIB system, insurer client pairs choose most details of punishment, including type, size, duration, etc. So within such a system, there’s little need to give people rights to avoid disproportionate, cruel, or unusual punishment. Anyone can choose to avoid any type of punishment, if they are willing to pay associated insurance premiums.

Similarly for monitoring to prevent crime. Insurers will want to promote and enable such monitoring, to avoid having to pay on behalf of clients. So insurers will offer lower premiums to clients who allow more monitoring. No need to guarantee any minimum or maximum monitoring; such levels are chosen by contract. For rights re how one interacts with police, it is possible to not give bounty hunters any more rights than ordinary people have. In which case we’d need no extra rights relative to police interactions.

Now it does seem plausible that the more rights that bounty hunters have to collect evidence, such as by searching places and compelling testimony, the higher the chance that any given crime could be caught, with the criminal’s insurer forced to pay a fine. But what if lowering this chance were the main external cost that resulted from a potential criminal choosing to make it harder to collect evidence about them? In this case we could correct for this effect via fine amounts. The fine for each crime should depend on an estimate of the chance that crime would have been detected and successfully prosecuted. With decent (and perhaps conservative) estimates of how the chance of catching a crime depends on how open a criminal is to evidence collection, we could adjust fines for this effect, and thus allow insurer-client pairs to choose how open to be to bounty hunters seeking evidence.

So far I’ve argued that, in a FIB system, we don’t need formal rights and liberties regarding issues where we can just let insurer-client pairs choose, because they internalize the social harm of such choices. I’m not claiming that all civil rights and liberties are of this type, but many are. Creating a more private, open, competitive criminal law system could allow us to greatly simplify civil rights and liberties, and have the results depend a long more on constitutional text and general principles, and on individual choices, and depend less on courts and government agencies. Just as when we have private, open, competitive systems for food or medicine.

What if you felt bad when you saw someone choose fewer civil rights and liberties than you thought right or wise? You might try to persuade them to change their priorities, or you might try to increase the priority that you give to such people in your redistribution system that ensures minimum budgets to buy rights and liberties, or within your more general redistribution system. So that they could more easily afford to buy more rights and liberties if they wanted them. I think this would work better than trying to centrally legislate who exactly should have which particular rights and liberties, as that wouldn’t well take into account individual tastes, costs, and context.

Bounty Hunter Blackmail

Consider a fine-insured-bounty (FIB) crime law system such as I outlined here. All (but one) crime is punished officially by fines, everyone is fully insured to pay large fines, and bounty hunters detect and prosecute each crime. In a FIB system, we collectively decide the fine and bounty level for each crime, and manage a judicial system which decides individual cases. If we set the fine level for each crime at our best estimate of the social harm produced by that crime (divided by the chance it will be caught), then the insurer-client pair would internalize that social harm, in which case we could leave that pair free to choose punishment types, costs, and levels, as well as (many aspects of) police and prosecutor monitoring and investigative powers.

We could also let bounty hunters choose police and prosecutor costs, methods, and priorities. Instead of agonizing over centralized one-size-fits-all crime policy decisions as we do now. We could also break the blue wall of silence to ensure that all laws are actually enforced, even on police, leaving only judge-based discretion on particular cases. Via redistribution, we could help those who face high insurance premiums, but know more precisely who we are helping how much.

The total social harm from each type of crime includes not just the harm caused directly by committing that crime, but also the costs incurred by bounty hunters in pursuit, and by insurers to prevent and estimate risks. Since in a competitive market the bounty hunter costs should be close to the bounty level, this suggests that with competitive bounty hunters the fine is larger than the bounty. This difference between the fine and bounty should also be large compared to the fine. After all, if this difference were small, then bounty costs would cause most of the social harm of this crime. In that case we’d be tempted to decriminalize this activity, to drastically lower its social cost. Unless the rate at which this activity happens varies strongly enough with the fine level, the harm of inducing more of these kind of events via decriminalization would be more than outweighed by less harm per event.

The fine and bounty levels should change if the criminal (or insurer) turns themselves in quickly. In that case, no one gets paid a bounty, there’s a high probability that such crimes will be caught, and do the fine level can be lowered in compensation.

Having fines larger than bounties can create a dangerous incentive if the part of the system that sets fine and bounty levels also gets to spend a substantial part of the resulting revenue. However, in modern governments it seems be quite feasible to greatly separate these groups, making this less of a concern.

Another problem created by big fine-bounty differences is private deals between insurers and bounty hunters. If they go to court regarding a particular claimed crime event, and the bounty hunter wins, then then hunter will win much less than the insurer loses. These two parties would rather settle out of court via “blackmail” deals where the hunter gets paid and then destroys their evidence of the crime. Here they could split the fine-bounty difference, so that the insurer loses less and the hunter gains more. To prevent this, we’d have to prohibit such deals, and prohibit most insurer-hunter contact as well to make it hard to arrange such deals. Such prohibitions are easier to enforce on bounty hunters not protected by a blue wall of silence, but perhaps still not easy to enforce.

Keeping insurers and hunters apart has the disadvantage of making it harder for a hunter to help with crime prevention. If a hunter came across a person who seemed to be about to commit a crime, they might selfishly just wait for the crime to be committed, and then jump in to grab a bounty. We’d rather that they instead helped to prevent the crime. Such as by contacting the potential criminal’s insurer, and asking if they’d like to buy some info to help them avoid paying a fine. But if we allow such contact, hunters might contact insurers pretending to help with prevention, while in fact negotiating a blackmail deal regarding a crime that has already happened.

I suspect that the best answer here is to just give up on having hunters help with prevention, and thus to limit insurer-hunter interactions. Insurers are likely to take a lot of initiative to monitor and advise their clients. Hopefully as a result insurers would usually be the first to guess that a crime may be about to happen.

While most bounty hunters would be professionals, some would be amateurs who came across incriminating info via their usual interactions. Such amateurs would then face the choice to sell their info to professional hunters, or to contact the criminal directly via their usual connections to blackmail them. These these amateurs could more easily evade rules prohibiting hunter-insurer deals. But since they are not part of a competitive industry of hunters, compared to professional hunters their efforts are likely to be much more cost-effective, and far smaller. Thus amateur blackmail is much less likely to create a situation where most of the harm of a crime is due to hunter efforts. As a result, we may not actually mind this kind of hunter-insurer deal, and may not even want to prohibit it.

Liability Insurance For All

The world’s first modern limited liability law was enacted by the state of New York in 1811. In England … investors in such companies carried unlimited liability until the Limited Liability Act of 1855. There was a degree of public and legislative distaste for a limitation of liability, with fears that it would cause a drop in standards of probity. … Limited liability has been justified as promoting investment and capital formation by reassuring risk averse investors. … Others argue that while some limited liability is beneficial, the privilege ought not to extend to liability in tort for environmental disasters or personal injury. (more)

General Liability Insurance: Every business, even if home-based, needs to have liability insurance. The policy provides both defense and damages if you, your employees or your products or services cause or are alleged to have caused Bodily Injury or Property Damage to a third party. (more)

If a court finds you guilty and demands that you pay, you are on the hook to pay everything you’ve got. Same for most small businesses. But investors in big firms instead get to play “heads I win, tails we flip again”. If the firm does well they can win cash, but if the firm behaves badly, the court can only take what they’ve put into the firm. That is, the court can extract money that is in the firm, but can’t push further to get more from investors. This usually doesn’t sit well those inclined toward suspicion of big firms; why subsidize big for-profit firms relative to other forms of social organization?

The usual argument for limited liability is that without it investors would be reluctant to invest. Which makes sense and plausibly explains the initial introduction of limited liability. But that happened before the rise of the modern insurance industry. Now that insurance is easy, the obvious solution is liability insurance. Then in case of a court demanding a large payment, the insurance company pays, and the investors are insulated. Small business today typically buy such insurance as a matter of good practice, and many contracts with other businesses require them to have it.

Today we require auto accident liability insurance for car drivers. And recently some have proposed requiring gun owners to have liability insurance regarding their gun use. Insurers would then discourage risky people from owning guns, and help others reduce their risk. But many gun owners see this as a back hand way to tax guns; why should guns be singled out relative to lots of other risky products?

Yes, if we require liability insurance for some products and organizations but not others, we are implicitly subsidizing and taxing some relative to others. The obvious simple solution is to require everyone to get liability insurance for everything. The insurance could stand ready to pay the 99th percentile amount demanded of that sort of person or organization. Then we aren’t favoring any particular activity or organization type. And then some new interesting reforms become possible.