Index Investing News
Sunday, May 25, 2025
No Result
View All Result
  • Login
  • Home
  • World
  • Investing
  • Financial
  • Economy
  • Markets
  • Stocks
  • Crypto
  • Property
  • Sport
  • Entertainment
  • Opinion
  • Home
  • World
  • Investing
  • Financial
  • Economy
  • Markets
  • Stocks
  • Crypto
  • Property
  • Sport
  • Entertainment
  • Opinion
No Result
View All Result
Index Investing News
No Result
View All Result

Misusing Chesterton’s Fence – Econlib

by Index Investing News
December 16, 2022
in Economy
Reading Time: 5 mins read
A A
0
Home Economy
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter


In intellectual debate, I find a special charm when someone plays the proverbial “reverse card.” This is when an argument usually deployed in one direction gets applied to reach an opposite conclusion. For example, many political theorists argue for political authority and state intervention using ideal theory – but Jason Brennan played the reverse card to argue that ideal theory, if applied consistently, would actually support a stateless society operating according to free market capitalism. Chris Freiman applied his own reverse card arguing that consistent use of non-ideal theory would also support free market capitalism. Dan Moller’s reverse card argued that a worldview harboring a modest view of individual rights and a strong respect for our neighbors and community leads to libertarianism and the abolition of the welfare state.

Of course, like all modes of argument, the reverse card can be done well or poorly. I’ve occasionally seen attempts to use arguments traditionally associated with conservatism or libertarianism in defense of the regulatory state. Here I describe just one, in the hopes that it will forever be banished from discourse and spare me the secondhand embarrassment I experience when I see it invoked in this way. The argument I’m talking about is Chesterton’s Fence.

Chesterton’s Fence is an argument against hasty abolition of laws, institutions, or customs, courtesy of G. K. Chesterton. Chesterton imagines someone coming across a fence in a field for which he sees no point or purpose. A reckless reformer might say “Well, I don’t see any purpose being served by this fence, so we might as well tear it down.” This is folly, says Chesterton. If you don’t see the point of something, that doesn’t provide a justification to eliminate it – it only shows the limits of your understanding. After all, the fences don’t grow in fields like plants – someone put it there for a reason. If you don’t know why the fence was built in the first place, maybe it’s there for a good reason. Some argue that economic regulations, or the regulatory state itself, is a kind of Chesterton’s fence.

To be clear, I think Chesterton’s Fence is a good heuristic. But I don’t think it cuts any ice in the argument about economic regulation, for a couple of different reasons. First, Chesterton’s Fence isn’t an argument that existing institutions should be presumed valid, full stop. What Chesterton actually says is:

The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to [the fence] and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

So the injunction is to first understand what led to the fence being built, at which point tearing it down might prove to be the correct move after all. This is why the Chesterton’s Fence reverse card in defense of economic regulation fails. Critics of economic regulation don’t merely say “this regulation seems pointless, lets get rid of it.” Public choice theory meets Chesterton’s injunction to understand what led to these regulatory fences being created. And according to public choice, most regulation isn’t crafted to serve the public interest, but is instead largely created at the behest of lobbyists to gain special protection for themselves at the public expense. So critics of economic regulation – at least those who draw on public choice theory in their critique – have, in fact, gone off to think about why these regulatory fences were built and what purpose they are meant to serve.

And the arguments go beyond a general theory of regulation. It also consists of a body of scholarship which examines specific regulations to measure their effect. This is how Nobel Prize winning economist Ronald Coase described these findings:

Coase: When I was editor of The Journal of Law and Economics, we published a whole series of studies of regulation and its effects. Almost all the studies–perhaps all the studies–suggested that the results of regulation had been bad, that the prices were higher, that the product was worse adapted to the needs of consumers, than it otherwise would have been. I was not willing to accept the view that all regulation was bound to produce these results. Therefore, what was my explanation for the results we had? I argued that the most probable explanation was that the government now operates on such a massive scale that it had reached the stage of what economists call negative marginal returns. Anything additional it does, it messes up. But that doesn’t mean that if we reduce the size of government considerably, we wouldn’t find then that there were some activities it did well. Until we reduce the size of government, we won’t know what they are.

Reason: What’s an example of bad regulation?

Coase: I can’t remember one that’s good. Regulation of transport, regulation of agriculture–agriculture is a, zoning is z. You know, you go from a to z, they are all bad. There were so many studies, and the result was quite universal: The effects were bad.

Clifford Winston of the Brookings Institute gives a less dim assessment, but only slightly so, concluding that environmental protections have probably done more good than harm, but in every other area, economic regulations, as they are actually crafted and carried out, have done more harm than good.

(Another common response that misses the point – “Sure, you can complain that government does things imperfectly, but simply showing that something is flawed isn’t good enough. You need to show why an alternative would be better.” If something does more harm than good, then doing nothing would be better, even without an alternative. And that’s the argument being made – not that regulation is imperfect, or that it can be captured, or that it has costs. The argument is that regulations are doing more harm than good. Maybe that argument is wrong, but simply saying “nothing is perfect so what’s your alternative” is a nonresponse.)

Now, all of the above referenced arguments might be wrong. But a defender of economic regulation needs to actually make that case. They would need to say “Public choice theory is wrong about the actual point and purpose of economic regulations because [insert argument here]. Additionally, all the studies citied by Coase and all the research referenced by Winston reached the wrong results because [additional arguments].” That would be a respectable and productive response. But to simply say “sure, things are imperfect but you need to suggest a better alternative” simply fails to engage. And invoking Chesterton’s Fence is likewise toothless – the person doing so only shows they are a step behind in the discussion.

 


Kevin Corcoran is a Marine Corps veteran and a consultant in healthcare economics and analytics and holds a Bachelor of Science in Economics from George Mason University. 



Source link

Tags: ChestertonsEconlibfenceMisusing
ShareTweetShareShare
Previous Post

Billionaire Zara founder buys Seattle skyscraper for $323M

Next Post

The “Sellers Strike” Has Begun—Why The Housing Market Is Going Dark

Related Posts

SoftBank’s Masayoshi Son floats thought of US-Japan sovereign wealth fund

SoftBank’s Masayoshi Son floats thought of US-Japan sovereign wealth fund

by Index Investing News
May 25, 2025
0

Unlock the White Home Watch e-newsletter without costYour information to what Trump’s second time period means for Washington, enterprise and...

Donald Trump makes dangerous guess by rekindling his commerce conflict with the EU

Donald Trump makes dangerous guess by rekindling his commerce conflict with the EU

by Index Investing News
May 24, 2025
0

Donald Trump likes to make offers. And he could also be calculating that his sudden escalation of tariffs on the...

The Fed’s not making a revenue

The Fed’s not making a revenue

by Index Investing News
May 24, 2025
0

Unlock the Editor’s Digest free of chargeRoula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favorite tales on this weekly publication.The...

Trump’s subsequent 100 days

Trump’s subsequent 100 days

by Index Investing News
May 24, 2025
0

This week, Swamp Notes goes to London for a dwell recording. Katie Martin, host of the Unhedged podcast, and Chris...

Greenback notches greatest weekly drop since tariffs sell-off over US debt fears

Greenback notches greatest weekly drop since tariffs sell-off over US debt fears

by Index Investing News
May 24, 2025
0

Unlock the Editor’s Digest totally freeRoula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favorite tales on this weekly e-newsletter.Investor jitters...

Next Post
The “Sellers Strike” Has Begun—Why The Housing Market Is Going Dark

The "Sellers Strike" Has Begun—Why The Housing Market Is Going Dark

Surviving the Recession – on newsstands now!

Surviving the Recession - on newsstands now!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

RECOMMENDED

Cannot see MDABTC on Tradingview Account however can elsewhere?

Cannot see MDABTC on Tradingview Account however can elsewhere?

August 24, 2022
How Being a Quitter Will Make You a Millionaire

How Being a Quitter Will Make You a Millionaire

June 28, 2022
China seeks to bolster ports and aviation hubs in western areas By Reuters

China seeks to bolster ports and aviation hubs in western areas By Reuters

January 5, 2025
Stacey Abrams’s ‘Big Lie’ Loses in Court

Stacey Abrams’s ‘Big Lie’ Loses in Court

October 3, 2022
Yet another stagflation post : stocks

Yet another stagflation post : stocks

October 16, 2022
Foseco among 9 commodity stocks recording 52-week high

Foseco among 9 commodity stocks recording 52-week high

August 8, 2023
US jobs growth slowed more than forecast in July

US jobs growth slowed more than forecast in July

August 4, 2023
Specialists Forecast Entry Factors In Ethereum Hedge Funds Retail And Establishments

Specialists Forecast Entry Factors In Ethereum Hedge Funds Retail And Establishments

August 3, 2022
Index Investing News

Get the latest news and follow the coverage of Investing, World News, Stocks, Market Analysis, Business & Financial News, and more from the top trusted sources.

  • 1717575246.7
  • Browse the latest news about investing and more
  • Contact us
  • Cookie Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • DMCA
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • xtw18387b488

Copyright © 2022 - Index Investing News.
Index Investing News is not responsible for the content of external sites.

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • World
  • Investing
  • Financial
  • Economy
  • Markets
  • Stocks
  • Crypto
  • Property
  • Sport
  • Entertainment
  • Opinion

Copyright © 2022 - Index Investing News.
Index Investing News is not responsible for the content of external sites.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In