Wouldn't it make more sense to tax or "punish" the people who don't enhance
their kids to be taller or better? In the same way that it makes more sense
to tax poor people and give their money to rich people in that the rich have
shown that they know how to use the money to produce more valuable goods and
services that feed, clothe and shelter people (including the "poor") and
provide and create jobs? (and the poor have demonstrated that they don't
know how to use or produce money & value). The point being that this
reasoning makes as much sense or more than the counter argument. Though,
being a libertarian I actually do not advocate either and instead advocate
that the government/taxation be kept out of the matter(s).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wei Dai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: Regulating Positional Goods
On Sun, Nov 21, 2004 at 07:27:32AM -0500, Robin Hanson wrote:
I was at a workshop this weekend where we discussed the possibility of
regulating human genetic enhancements, and it was suggested that
positional
goods were a valid reason for regulation. It might make sense, for
example, to tax the act of enhancing your kids to be taller than other
folks' kids.
That seems similar to wearing high heels, which according to this page:
http://podiatry.curtin.edu.au/sump.html, was regulated in 1430 Venice but
in the modern age only during national emergencies.
Some schools do have dress codes that forbid high heels. I think dress
codes are enacted at least partly for positional reasons.
Many positional goods are positional because they are used to attract
mates. Perhaps banning polygamy was done partly for positional reasons?
I can't think of anything else besides these rather weak examples. It's a
bit puzzling why positional goods are not more heavily regulated.
