"There is no omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God. The proof is simple. All the misery in the world is proof of it."
Preference Relationship
People live their lives every day. Their lives are a series of choices that they make based on what they consider to be the best option available to them. For example, you are reading this document right now. This is the result of your choice to read this document because you preferred it to any other option at this stage. You had the option to do something else. But you chose to read this text.
If you act rationally, you will repeat this "choice" in the way that will make you happiest. Unfortunately, we do not have the ability to see into the future, so the choices we think are good now will not necessarily be good in the future.
So, this is what I mean.
From a set of options (which we will call the feasible set), you choose the option you think is best given the information. As a result, you reach a certain level of satisfaction (which we will call the utility level). The criterion for making a choice is called a preference relation. Preference relations are usually influenced by the state of society.
The fewer the number of options, the less satisfaction you can achieve. Or, more precisely, the smaller the set of options, the higher the level of utility you can achieve. This is simple: suppose a set of options is contained within another set of options. If the smaller set of options contains a maximum point, that point is also contained in the larger set, so the best option in the larger set of options can produce at least the same or higher utility level as the best option in the smaller set of options. In other words, a larger set of options can make you happier.
What I have said above is actually the very basics of economics.
One thing is certain.
It says that if you can expand your set of options, you can't be worse off than you were before you expanded it.
So how is the set of options determined in the real world?
A set of options
In economics, the set of options is usually determined by initial endowments and technology. Initial endowments are things like how much of what resource you have at the beginning and what rights you have, and technology is the ability to produce things. For simplicity, initial endowments are usually treated as if they were just economic assets, but initial endowments are a much broader concept. Social norms and the like should also be included, but for the purpose of understanding how the economy works, they are just a miscellany. Therefore, they are usually ignored or incorporated into preference relations and left unaltered as givens.
We now leave economics behind and look more closely at how the set of choices is determined in the real world.
Constraints like those mentioned in economics, such as budget constraints, are of course constraints that limit our options, but if we look around carefully, we will see that there are many other constraints as well.
They are laws and social norms called common sense.
For example, in Asian countries, it is normal for mothers to breastfeed their babies, even in public. However, in Canada, it is against the law to do so. In Canada, mothers are deprived of the option to breastfeed in public. This law is supported by common sense and is a social norm. Somehow, Canadians are narrowing their set of options and lowering the level of utility they can achieve. This is not rational behavior. (I will explain the counterarguments to this later.) There are countless examples like this.
So what happens if you just take one big leap and remove all of these restrictions? Would that maximize the set of options?
Unfortunately, that is not the case. This is because we are social animals. Our actions affect others, to a greater or lesser extent. For example, suppose that we abolish all laws, and as a result, we are given the right to rape people. Then, those who are raped are deprived of the right not to be raped. This does not mean that the set of options has become larger. Such effects of our actions on others are called externalities. Anything we do in public almost certainly has externalities (there are negative and positive externalities. Examples of the former are pollution and rape, and an example of the latter is building a concert hall using our own money). The question is, when removing regulations while taking externalities into account, where should we draw the line to maximize the set of options?
In short, in equilibrium, we only retain those regulations that, if relaxed, would result in one or more people having less choice.
For example, I think we should regulate things that have physical externalities first. So in the example above, we don't give people the right to rape others. We don't give people the right to steal other people's things. We don't give people the right to drive recklessly.
The term "in equilibrium" suggests that negative externalities that arise conditional on human-created social norms are not taken into account because such negative effects appear to exist before the regulations are lifted, but disappear after the regulations are lifted. More precisely, negative externalities that exist conditional on the existence of currently existing regulations are not taken into account.
For example, if you have to choose between the right to breastfeed in public and the right not to be seen breastfeeding, you choose the right to breastfeed in public. In other words, it is what it would be like in the natural state. The right to wear clothes or not is also given according to this. There are many purposes for wearing clothes, such as keeping warm, fashion, and others. These are unrelated to the existence of regulations. However, being forced to wear clothes is closely dependent on current social norms. People claim the right not to see naked people and the right to "raise young people in a healthy way". Why do people not want to see naked people? It is because it has been input into our minds as a social norm that seeing naked people is "embarrassing". If this social norm is removed, the externality of the violation of the right not to see naked people disappears. The right to "raise young people in a healthy way" is the most confusing thing. What is "healthy" in the first place? Are the natives of New Guinea, who live naked, not healthy? Are wild animals not healthy? In the end, it turns out that this concept of "healthy" is actually only a concept that exists under the restrictions of the social norms we currently live in.
Finally, let us consider rationality and efficiency. This has been extensively discussed in economics, so I will not go into it any further.
We propose to eliminate all regulations except those selected by these criteria.
Revisiting preference relations
Now, what I have said above has nothing to do with philosophy, doctrine, ideology, or even religion. If you think about it with a clean mind, it is simply rational. Please note that what makes it clearly different from existing religions is that it makes surprisingly few assumptions.
However, if we were to actually do this, there is one thing we need to consider. Our mind-preference relationship cannot be switched as easily as turning a switch on and off. This means that although I wrote earlier that "negative externalities that exist conditional on the existence of current regulations are not taken into account," in reality, even if regulations are removed, negative externalities will not disappear immediately.
So what does that mean? Yes. Before we remove the restrictions, we must prepare ourselves in advance so that we can adjust to the situation when the restrictions are removed. This means repeating a thought experiment with ourselves, and in that sense it belongs to the category of philosophy or thought.
Furthermore, in a democratic society, if we are to implement deregulation as mentioned above, we need to spread this "idea." I would like you, the reader of this, to take this first step. I don't know whether it will take 100 years or 1000 years, but if everyone can start thinking rationally, things will change little by little.
And we will be able to live in a slightly better world than we do now.
Conditions for lifting restrictions
The conditions for lifting restrictions can also be expressed in a simple mathematical formula like the following:
XLet be the set of all options,SLet be the set of states of society.Sis a function of regulation. X(s∈S)Let be the set of feasible choices.
The utility function is
u:X*S→R
is defined as:
The individual utility maximization problem is
max u(x,s) st x∈X(s)
.
Current status s0, State after deregulation s1 We will represent it as:
If, for all individuals
max u(x,s1) st x∈X(s1)
max u(x,s0) st x∈X(s1)
If it is greater than , then it is better to lift the restriction.
Question
Finally, here are some questions to ask yourself:
- Did Prohibition work?
- Did the Anti-Prostitution Law eliminate prostitution?
- Who is funding drugs and cannabis? (By the way, cannabis is not a drug. It is not physically addictive and does not cause bodily damage. Therefore, it cannot be controlled by the Narcotics Control Law, and so there is the Cannabis Control Law. On the other hand, tobacco and alcohol are drugs.)
- What is the greatest harm of drugs?
- What do you think happens in countries where abortion is banned?
- Should guns be regulated?
- How would you change the law? What would be the conditions for lifting restrictions?