Maggie's Farm

The examples you state don't refute Sowell's logic. For examples, shareholders stand to lose money if they buy into companies unwisely (e.g. that are not profitable or make defective products, or make poor business decisions), management can be fired for making poor decisions. Bankruptcy laws do give a company or individual a second chance, but those who declare it pay a price regardless.

It seems pretty obvious to me! He's obviously not talking about business people but rather those (e.g. intellectuals and politicians) who come up with ideas about how the world ought to work but when their ideas are implemented and fail, they suffer no consequences of their being wrong.

So when an academic, intellectual, or politician says that a company should do something, for example, pay their employers more, provide more benefits, etc., the appropriate response should be - "Why don't you start a business and show us how it's done." Spouting off on how things ought to be is easy and risk free, but if you risk to implement what you think, that's very different.

You didn't address my point. The quote you said lacked context in the first place needs none as it is a rule that works in the general case and in the second place none of your examples or your counter example refute Sowell's axiom. It seemed obvious to me that "wrong" does not mean "illegal." Since the subject was making decisions, wrong refers to a bad decision.

So how about: "The most stupid and dangerous system for making decisions is one where those who make decisions are insulated from the consequences of those decisions." It's the same thing.

Whatever... You seem to be stuck on "pay no price", but you give examples where a price is paid (i.e. mild rebuke or being thrown under the bus). It was completely obvious to me what he meant and that it was just common sense. I'm completely bewildered that anybody would try to discredit it. After all, a mistake is often the biggest teacher but only if one pays a price for that mistake. It is rare that a person learns anything from a mistake for which he hasn't paid a price. More often, he is emboldened to make the mistake again assuming there is no price. The academic/intellectual/politician who has "great" theories about how the world works doesn't really know if those theories work because he hasn't tried them. Look at all the college professors who have supported Chavez and support Maduro. Socialism is great - but they're not going to Venezuela to live under it. They can spout all kinds of nonsense and pay no price because they are mostly tenured.

It's your prerogative to find examples where you think it doesn't apply (taking the Constitution at its word, I think your Oregon example is, while not completely off point, weakened because the Federal Govt. is designed to handle national issues and the states are supposed to handle local ones - 10A) or determine that the people who make decisions should not be impacted by their folly (along with the rest of those impacted by that folly). But I expect that you resent it when people who have only theories impose those theories on you but not themselves.