Jump to content


Why does Block think that State judges might not be the best at estimating costs and benefits?


1 reply to this topic

#1 Murphy

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPip
  • 1160 posts

Posted 10 September 2005 - 07:53 PM

Why does Block think that State judges might not be the best at estimating costs and benefits?

#2

  • Guests

Posted 31 October 2008 - 12:14 AM

1st: judges would undermine any rules with arbitrary decisions. Instead of rigid "certain" rules, property rights could change when more efficient or changeable efficiency ratios occur. For example, under the Winters doctrine of Indian water rights, water
was impliedly reserved for tribal use whenever lands were set aside as reservations. What if water rights changed due to changing uses? Was there not recently a Supreme Court Decision, allowing a city the "condemn" a church area so that the city could collect taxes from a new mall....more productively efficient????

2nd: It is very difficult for even those deeply involved in the conflict to determine costs and value, let alone a judge with little or no economic training.

3rd: Let the market determine , not politics (Many judges are elected, others appointed, clearly political!)

4th: legal or economic, which wins? That's not even looking at psychic values

5th: Flexible rulings could not be used as precedents, so more cases would need adjudication, each judges individually. That would soon clog every court docket.

Lastly, uncertainty is increased to consumers preferences, production, pricing with added judges' decisions. An entrepreneur may judge the situation differently than a judge.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users