u/Serious-Cucumber-54

Parents pick the winners and losers, and the best schools rise to the top, while failing schools are filtered out. Parents measure quality by whatever metrics they find to be the most useful and reliable, just like with any other industry.

Competition forces education firms to constantly outperform each other in a race to maximize utility, meaning a race in providing the most useful and valuable education, at the least cost to parents. And new innovations, efficiencies, and ways of operating and providing education are discovered along the way that likely wouldn't have been discovered with a nationalized government-run school system.

Pair this with a government subsidy for lower-income families, so they can also afford to send their kids to great schools, and what is the issue?

If consumers prefer to purchase the insurance plan that gives them the least amount of premium/patient responsibility for the medical care that is relevant to them,

And if insurers have the incentive to minimize their portion of the bill, but also are incentivized to provide what consumers want,

Then shouldn't that drive insurance companies to selectively contract with generally the lower-cost medical providers, and force medical providers to compete between each other to provide the lower-cost medical care so they can get win the contract and receive all the clientele from insurance companies?

For instance, they rule on some case but include specific language that is not necessary but still relevant to that case (judicial dicta), with the sole purpose of pointing back to that language in future cases to justify a more favorable ruling, or using that prior text to justify adding more favorable judicial dicta in a later ruling so the body of precedent becomes stronger and more likely to lead to favorable judicial outcomes, i.e. deliberately adding to the body of precedent with specific language so it better supports future more favorable judicial outcomes.

(in other words, they have a bias for some outcome and deliberately include text in one or multiple rulings to sort of conjure up their own precedent/justification for a future favorable ruling that would otherwise not be possible without that body of text they created)

If consumers prefer to purchase the insurance plan that gives them the least amount of premium/patient responsibility for the medical care that is relevant to them,

And if insurers have the incentive to minimize their amount of expense responsibility, but also are incentivized to provide what consumers want,

Then shouldn't that drive insurance companies to selectively contract with generally the lower-cost medical providers, and force medical providers to compete between each other to provide the lower-cost medical care?

Is this the case already?

I will list the arguments commonly made in favor of humanoid robots and then rebut them each respectively:

>"Our world is already designed for the human form"

Many environments are indeed designed with the human body in mind, for instance door frame dimensions, door knobs, flat floors, staircases, etc. but it's a mistake to imply that only robots with human features can operate under these conditions, that only robots that have human hands and digits, only robots that have legs and feet, only robots that stand upright, only robots with a human head, etc. when this is obviously not the case. Wheels are compatible with flat floors, many kinds of robots can pass through standard door frame dimensions, simpler hands can be compatible with door knobs, multiple kinds of non-humanoid features can climb stairs, etc. Even if we grant that non-humanoid robots are impractical with these human-designed environments, you can easily remove some of these human-designed features to better accommodate a non-humanoid robot, especially if the non-humanoid robot is much cheaper and superior in productivity than the humanoid, which segways to my second point:

This argument implies it costs more than it would justify to redesign the environment to accommodate a non-humanoid robot, but this is often not the case. In fact, much of the world is already designed to accommodate non-humanoid machines, and we already redesign the environment to accommodate non-humanoid machines all the time, because the benefits derived from the non-humanoid machine are so great that it more than justifies the cost of redesigning the environment to accommodate it. Consider for example road and rail infrastructure, which is designed to accommodate automobiles and trains, an example where the benefit of using these non-humanoid machines outweighed the cost of building the environment to accommodate it. Similarly, the benefit of non-humanoid machines in other domains can outweigh the cost of redesigning the environment.

>"Economics of Scale"

All things equal, a mechanically simple non-humanoid robot is cheaper to manufacture and mass produce than a mechanically complex humanoid robot.

So the fixed costs for the former are smaller, plus more units are produced, meaning the fixed costs in the former are not only smaller, but they are divided between more units than the humanoid robot. So a mechanically simple non-humanoid robot would benefit more from economies of scale than a mechanically complex humanoid robot.

>"I don't want to deal with having a separate special-purpose machine for each and every task, I want one that can do it all"

I understand the convenience of having a singular machine that can do it all instead of holding a bunch of machines. For instance, it's more convenient to carry a smartphone that can do the task of taking pictures, texting and calling, telling the time, going on the internet, etc. all in one, rather than having separate machines that can do each. But unlike the smartphone, which these days is not too dissimilar (or even superior) in quality from the kind of minimal quality people are looking for in individual cameras, dumbphones, digital clocks, personal desktop computers, etc. the humanoid machine may be so inferior in productivity compared to a collection of non-humanoid machines, that it may justify having a bunch of machines.

This is not to mention that a generalist machine can also be non-humanoid.

>"In homes, where the environment will not change, it makes more sense."

It could make more sense, and maybe people find an anthropomorphic design to be more comforting (big maybe), but it's still the case that the environment can be redesigned to better accommodate a non-humanoid machine. Garages, kitchens, and laundry rooms are all made to accommodate non-humanoid machines, for example.

The common complaints raised by NIMBYs, i.e. residents who oppose development in their neighborhoods, seem to revolve around negative externalities.

For instance, a new tall apartment building being built in the middle of a single-family neighborhood can block or interfere with homeowners' views, create shade over their property, bring crime, bring traffic, higher infrastructure costs, increase strain in local hospitals/clinics, and lower their property value. All of these are technically social costs borne by third parties caused by the private transaction of a plot of land to a different owner and their subsequent construction of the apartment building, i.e. negative externalities.

NIMBYs do not want to suffer these costs, as any sufferer of negative externalities rationally does not want, and because there is presumably no solution to avoid these external costs except by having the apartment blocked, the only solution they rationally see is to block the development.

If one has an interest to prevent negative externalities and their imposed costs on uninvolved third parties, wouldn't this suggest they have an interest alignment with NIMBYs in blocking these developments? Or does the single-family low-density housing favored by NIMBYs create its own negative externalities, like requiring increased travel distance, gas consumption, air pollution, higher taxes, increased allergic reactions, increased heat, etc. for people not from the neighborhood? If so, then that suggests that there are negative externalities with whichever development pattern we choose. What does economics say at this point what approach is more minimizing of negative externalities?

If there's only one private road connecting to a location, a local monopoly, then what's to stop that private road operator from charging exorbitant fees to the users?

For instance, a home typically only has one road that connects to them, meaning every time a person has to drive out of their home, they have to use this one road provider, no other choice. So what's to stop that provider from charging exorbitant fees for this user?

If people are allowed to freely trade water rights, with the water right priced in accordance with its scarcity, then when water is particularly scarce it will be expensive, which discourages consumption and prevents it from being further depleted (Law of Demand).

The high price also can mean a high profit margin for water sellers, which encourages them to sell more water into the supply, increasing supply and returning prices back more to a market-clearing equilibrium (Law of Supply).

The price mechanism keeps the supply from being overconsumed, encourages conservation and investment into more water-efficient practices/innovations, and incentivizes increased production when warranted.

The only place the government should get involved is ensuring water producers and distributors meet environmental, safety, and anti-competitive regulations, but other than that, it should be totally left up to the market.

Whether it be fish in the open ocean, breathable air in the atmosphere, or pigs and trees in natural lands, markets already solve issues related to scarcity of these resources.

People generally overconsume or deplete the natural resource until it reaches a point of scarcity and value that it justifies containing and reproducing it.

For instance, when it comes to cattle, fish, and trees, people were generally free to just deplete what nature brought them, and then once their actions made those resources scarce, they found it more profitable to tame the cattle, fish, and trees and farm it at an efficient level of production.

Nature initially oversupplies the resource, but we rationally deplete it until it becomes more cost-effective to artificially supply it for ourselves.

If I recall correctly President Obama through the DEA was able to make them selectively not enforce federal marijuana law in certain cases, and it was not ruled as illegal or unconstitutional.

So what's to stop President Trump for instance from doing the same with the FEC and make them selectively not enforce/deprioritize enforcement of federal campaign finance rules in certain cases for their political party/candidates?

I have heard that in order to lower house prices, the supply of homes must be increased relative to demand, but I haven't seen this logic be applied the same when it comes to roads.

I have seen the "induced demand" argument commonly levelled against expanding car infrastructure that increasing road capacity would not ultimately improve the "price" of congestion as the increased supply would initially lower congestion (and thus its perceived cost) but that this relief is only temporary as the lower perceived cost would ultimately encourage more users and consumption, returning it back to previous levels of congestion, making "one more lane" a fruitless endeavor.

So if "induced demand" means increasing road capacity has no ultimate effect on improving the price of traffic, then how can it simultaneously be the case that increasing housing capacity has a downward effect on its price? If more housing supply lowers prices, then it should also logically induce more demand/consumption of housing, which if we continue with the logic usually made for roads, should return it back to previous prices.

So I'm confused, either increasing housing supply relative to demand has no ultimate effect on house prices, or increasing road supply relative to demand has a downward effect on the price of congestion. What is going on here?

I do not believe one can hold these two arguments simultaneously, there appears to be a logical contradiction.

If induced demand ultimately means increasing road capacity has no effect on improving the price of traffic, then how can increasing housing capacity have a downward effect on its price? If more housing supply lowers prices, then it would logically induce more demand/consumption of housing, which if we run with the argument usually made for roads, should return it back to previous prices.

Either increasing housing supply relative to demand has no ultimate effect on house prices, or increasing road supply relative to demand has a downward effect on the price of congestion.

I'm sorry, but I just can't take it anymore. The zoning regulations have got to go. The people have too much power, democracy was a mistake.

Unironically leaving it to the free market, despite some of the negative externalities, would literally be on net better than having it be decided by politicians or democracy. Cities would function better, people would be allowed to build and supply things as demanded, at the locations where they are demanded, at the density and quality demanded. Any inconveniences would be priced in and the price mechanism would allocate resources and people optimally. I'm tired of the cucked position of "up-zoning" or "reform" where we get relatively small increments here and there but are perpetually far from solving the actual issues. We need to abolish it at this point.

Please SCOTUS make zoning unconstitutional. Please God.

I'm sorry, but I just can't take it anymore. The zoning regulations have got to go. The people have too much power, democracy is a mistake.

Unironically leaving it to the free market, despite some of the negative externalities, would literally be on net better than having it be decided by politicians or democracy. Cities would function better, people would be allowed to build and supply things as demanded, at the locations where they are demanded, at the density and quality demanded. Any inconveniences would be priced in and the price mechanism would allocate resources and people optimally. I'm tired of the cucked position of "up-zoning" or "reform" where we get relatively small increments here and there but are perpetually far from solving the actual issues. We need to abolish it at this point.

Please SCOTUS make zoning unconstitutional. Please God.

Legal insurance is currently a private industry, but do you all believe the costs of civil litigation should be shared along the same lines as single-payer health insurance so everyone can afford to defend their rights and hold parties accountable for their wrongdoing no matter their wealth?

Instead of allowing voters to delegate their voting power to endless proxies, through electronic ballots, which is administratively complex and vulnerable to hacking, why not make it so voters are only allowed to delegate their voting power to one level of proxy, who cannot delegate any further that voting power, and it is done through paper ballots?