In my econ classes, we spend a lot of time talking about Cap & Trade and other market-based solutions to economic problems such as pollution. This recent article in Slate follows the concept of efficient markets to a potentially uncomfortable extreme.
In China (and likely elsewhere), it has not been unheard of over the years for the wealthy to hire body double stand-ins to serve their prison sentences. Some have justified this practice and its effectiveness. After all, the real criminal was punished by paying out the "market value of his crime", while the stand-in’s punishment intimidated other criminals, keeping the overall crime rate low. In other words, a “cap-and-trade” policy for crime.
The practice dates back centuries and was remarked on by several early western missionaries. Supposedly, the going rate in 1848 for a replacement convict was 17 pounds, which would come to roughly $2,000 in present-day dollars. Replacements are even found in cases facing execution.
As we struggle to define the scope of free markets and appropriate regulations as well as deal with questions regarding income inequality and its implications, this poses some interesting considerations. What do you think?
One thing to consider- in a modern society with a large population size there is very little deterrence for seeing someone punished for a crime. Unlike public hangings in smallish communities, we don't know the people punished and therefore would not see ourselves in their shoes, consequently- from what I know of previous research on this topic- it does not decrease crime just knowing someone is being punished for something in modern society (this is why so much of the Western world has shifted away- to any amount- from the death penalty; retribution is not something to be encouraged- vicious cycle there- and nobody sees the person being killed). The biggest thing to consider in this cap and trade example in terms of mere efficiency (and not even from a moral or ethical perspective) is that it does not deter problematic behavior, and therefore is not a justifiable action.
ReplyDeleteJust saying.
Still, climate change cap and trade is a different scenario altogether. While from a moral standpoint it's a little like buying indulgences (when do second order outcomes matter? Perhaps another topic for another day...), but other than that I don't see the inefficiency so long as you accept what the best scientists on the planet say about climate change actually being anthropogenic.
ReplyDeleteAnd I hate "slippery slope" arguments about stuff actually. If you have a problem with something down the road, stand up and shout down the road (or pre-emptively at every point before that problem, without actually opposing the thing that is not a problem). [Example: Doing marijuana, as I understand it, does not in any significant way lead to doing crystal meth. Oppose crystal meth, even when talking about marijuana, but don't support marijuana laws if you merely oppose meth use.]
But Slippery Slopes are one of my favorite logical fallacies, second only to the Straw Man and Begging the Question. Students: pay attention in your logic and philosophy classes so, like Dr. Nels, you won't fall for bad rhetorical devices.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy