jsamples wrote:
Bryan,
Why probably?
No disparagement of Cato intended, but policy analyses are not generally
on the same level as academic articles. Especially for complex
questions like the effect of voter initiatives, where economic theory
provides little guidance.
--
Bryan Caplan wrote:
Yes, I think: people are basically afraid of someone taking their kids,
and people are not in fact very comfortable with trans-racial adoption.
But when people hear about kids being sent back to abusive natural
parents, do they really say/think It's unfortunate, but on
Fred Foldvary wrote:
--- Bryan Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm highly dissatisfied with interest group explanations. Simple
reason: Most of the policies traditionally blamed on interest groups are
in fact *popular*. Adoption laws seem like a case where existing
policies are not
You are misinterpreting the function of these little issues.
Little issues don't build up. Little issues tend to be signals to
certain constituencies. For example, nobody has ever lost the vote due to
rap music, but Clinton in 1992 signalled to many in the democratic party
that he wouldn't be
I suspect interracial adoption may have an asymmetry in the intensity of
public opinion. Those of us who feel that interracial adoption is no big
deal are probably less passionate than those who are troubled by it.
James
Bryan,
Why probably?
John Samples
Cato Institute
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Bryan Caplan
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 11:44 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Median Voter Theorem and Adoption Law
Fred Foldvary wrote
Build-up has two meanings in this context. 1)Politicians could
send a series of signals to win small groups of voters. 2) Politicians
could send a series of signals to large group of voters who need
repeated re-assurances that the politician really means what he
says. Ie, build up of votes vs.
I think the median voter has the following preferences concerning
adoption: same race parents parents different race no adoption.
Bryan's point is that adoption workers seem to prefer:
same race parents no adoption parents different race.
The MVT would predict otherwise. I claim that
Fred Foldvary wrote:
The median voter theroem is not supposed to explain all legislation, since
public choice theory also states that there will be rent seeking and
privelege seeking by concentrated interests at the expense of the general
public.
I'm highly dissatisfied with interest
Robin Hanson wrote:
Yes, I think: people are basically afraid of someone taking their kids,
and people are not in fact very comfortable with trans-racial adoption.
But when people hear about kids being sent back to abusive natural
parents, do they really say/think It's unfortunate, but on
--- Bryan Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm highly dissatisfied with interest group explanations. Simple
reason: Most of the policies traditionally blamed on interest groups are
in fact *popular*. Adoption laws seem like a case where existing
policies are not popular, though perhaps I'm
fabio guillermo rojas wrote:
I don't think you should focus so much on the median voter theorem.
The logic of median voter theorems is that politicians offer
policies that closely resemble the median voter's desires. This assumes
that politicians have direct influence over the
Two weeks ago there was a John Stossel special on adoption. Does the
median voter really want the system we have, where basketcase biological
parents can take their crying offspring away from impeccable adoptive
parents? How about the de facto efforts to avoid trans-racial
adoption? Etc.? I
13 matches
Mail list logo
