The one wrinkle to this I'd add is that there's evidence for a third group (separate from "people who follow rules" and "people who don't") who will follow rules conditionally.
Specifically if they don't see that other people *aren't* and getting away with it.
1/
Specifically if they don't see that other people *aren't* and getting away with it.
1/
https://twitter.com/HaygoodLaw/status/1356251243652534278
These are called "contingent cooperators", and the fastest way to lose their cooperation (e.g. free-riding in a tax game) is for them to see other people refusing to cooperate.
And that seems to be a spectrum, with different thresholds for cooperation loss.
2/
And that seems to be a spectrum, with different thresholds for cooperation loss.
2/
Most people feel like fools if they follow the rules and other people don't. Which is both a support for Lane's argument (don't make rules you won't/can't enforce) but also a support for rule-enforcement as a way to encourage cooperation.
3/
3/
Not as a way of deterring people not inclined to follow the rules, but as a way of reassuring those who are *inclined* to follow the rules, but also *strongly* adverse to feeling like they're being made a fool of.
4/
4/
Broadly I agree with Lane that simply passing more laws to prohibit more behavior doesn't help stop someone who already doesn't care about the rules.
But even those of us who otherwise *do* care about the rules are less inclined to follow them when we see them being abused.
5/
But even those of us who otherwise *do* care about the rules are less inclined to follow them when we see them being abused.
5/
It's why audits and tax enforcement are *important* even if they only audit a small number of people and only prosecute an even smaller number: contingent cooperators *need* to see that the rule is "real" and being enforced.
6/6
6/6
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
