IS THE “TRIGGER POINT” FOR REGULATION AND LAW? Well, that trigger point is empir

http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=7667WHAT IS THE “TRIGGER POINT” FOR REGULATION AND LAW?

Well, that trigger point is empirically possible to determine, but it is not rationally possible to determine.

Our argument is that these matters of regulation are only determinable by the willingness of an insurer to insure against the action. If it is unprofitable to insure against the action, then it is likely something we should just prohibit. If it is easy to insure against, then it is something we should leave alone.

There is no alternative ratio-empirical means by which a monopoly can make such a determination. We have a very, very bad record of deciding what should and should not be ‘permitted’.

Secondly, the high trust society is predicated on NOT defining laws that limit behavior, in the french and german style (napoleonic law), and instead, in anglo-scandinavian style, anything that is not specifically prohibited is permitted (the common law).

These are not philosophical questions. They are empirical questions. And the empirical means of measuring behavior is the willingness and ability to insure against it.

That is, after all, what a government does: it functions as an insurer of last resort. But that the insurer should be the last resort, is very different from whether that insurer of last resort should be a monopoly.

your question, as it is stated, implies that the state, and reason, and monopoly, are superior to private agency, empirical measurement, and demonstrated evidence. Including demonstrated willingness to risk, as demonstrated evidence of the truth of one’s statements.

This is both rationally and empirically a damning criticism of law, state, and and moral philosophy as anti-scientific.

But you know, i’ve been working on this problem for something like forty years and I am not terribly optimistic about convincing a lot of people – especially given the academic preference for anti-rational, anti-scientific. postmodern mysticism. 🙂

http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=7667#comment-308273