ARNOLD KLING
August 14, 2011
The Top Political Contributors
August 11, 2011
Gender and the New Commanding Heights
August 11, 2011
Jamie Galbraith Makes an Assumption
August 11, 2011
Macroeconometrics: The Science of Hubris
August 10, 2011
Real and Nominal Bond Yields
BRYAN CAPLAN
August 14, 2011
The Effect of Thumb Sucking on Income
August 12, 2011
The Voice of Cold, Hard Truth to All Would-Be Educators
August 12, 2011
Ability, Morality, and Prosperity: A Paper and a Report
August 11, 2011
The Theory of Time and Frittering
August 10, 2011
Male Variance and the Remnants of the Gender Gap
DAVID HENDERSON
August 9, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken", Part Two
August 8, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken"
August 5, 2011
James Bovard on the Peace Corps
August 4, 2011
Summers Way Off on FDR and 1941
August 3, 2011
The "Amazon" Tax


So it looks like inferred incentives (pecuniary versus non-pecuniary) matter and closer relationship versus more distant relationship, something of a knowledge situation.
That suggests the regulations are an attempt at risk management.
The preferences cited by Hanson strike me as falling under the general category of a bias in favour of the primitive or pre-civilizational - the same place that the collectivist bias, anti-market bias, anti-foreign bias, animism (aka environmentalism), etc., all come from.
"This again suggests that the clever reasons some can offer are not the main reasons most folks support such biases." In other words, "the Heart hath its reasons, which the Reason knoweth not." We have been imbued by Natural Selection with impulses to behave in ways that contribute to our reproductive fitness. We naturally engage in many modes of behavior that can be rationalized--explicit reasons can be formulated for them--but for which the springs of our action lie deeper than explicit rational thought. And there are many borderline cases of action in which it is very difficult to say *just why* the agent is acting thus: often natural impulse and rational thought are both playing roles. (Indeed, rational thinking virtually always plays *some* role in our motivation, if only in that we could have suppressed our natural impulse *if we had seen a good reason to do so*.)
In short, *ex post* rationalizations of a common mode of behavior have more value than Robin Hanson allows them. They often help explain why Natural Selection has motivated this mode in us, and they often help explain why this mode continues to seem satisfactory to us (since we could suppress our natural motivation if that struck us as rationally required).
Favoring individuals over firms is simply individualism. You're an individualist, aren't you? Or are you one of those "thin" individualists who defines "individual" as "private sector entity?" And if public policy does favor individuals over firms (and I seriously doubt that it does in these post Citizens United times) it's probably because contract feudalism very heavily favors firms over individuals. They say that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.