(a) restrict the supply of training data and therefore lengthen AI timelines, and (b) redistribute some of the profits of AI automation to workers whose labor will be displaced by AI automation
It seems fine to create a law with goal (a) in mind, but then we shouldn’t call it copyright law, since it is not designed to protect intellectual property. Maybe this is common practice and people write laws pretending to target one thing while actually targeting something else all the time, in which case I would be okay with it. Otherwise, doing so would be dishonest and cause our legal system to be less legible.
I think these examples may not illustrate what you intend. They seem to me like examples of governments justifying policies based on second-order effects, while actually doing things for their first-order effects.
Taxing addictive substances like tobacco and alcohol makes sense from a government’s perspective precisely because they have low elasticity of demand (ie, the taxes won’t reduce consumption much). A special tax on something that people will readily stop consuming when the price rises won’t raise much money. Also, taxing items with low elasticity of demand is more “economically efficient”, in the technical sense that what is consumed doesn’t change much, with the tax being close to a pure transfer of wealth. (See also gasoline taxes.)
Government spending is often corrupt, sometimes in the legal sense, and more often in the political sense of rewarding supporters for no good policy reason. This corruption is more easily justified when mumbo-jumbo economic beliefs say it’s for the common good.
The first-order effect of mandatory education is that young people are confined to school buildings during the day, not that they learn anything inherently valuable. This seems like it’s the primary intended effect. The idea that government schooling is better for economic growth than whatever non-mandatory activities kids/parents would otherwise choose seems dubious, though of course it’s a good talking point when justifying the policy.
So I guess it depends on what you mean by “people support”. These second-order justifications presumably appeal to some people, or they wouldn’t be worthwhile propaganda. But I’m not convinced that they are the reasons more powerful people support these policies.
It seems fine to create a law with goal (a) in mind, but then we shouldn’t call it copyright law, since it is not designed to protect intellectual property. Maybe this is common practice and people write laws pretending to target one thing while actually targeting something else all the time, in which case I would be okay with it. Otherwise, doing so would be dishonest and cause our legal system to be less legible.
...
I think these examples may not illustrate what you intend. They seem to me like examples of governments justifying policies based on second-order effects, while actually doing things for their first-order effects.
Taxing addictive substances like tobacco and alcohol makes sense from a government’s perspective precisely because they have low elasticity of demand (ie, the taxes won’t reduce consumption much). A special tax on something that people will readily stop consuming when the price rises won’t raise much money. Also, taxing items with low elasticity of demand is more “economically efficient”, in the technical sense that what is consumed doesn’t change much, with the tax being close to a pure transfer of wealth. (See also gasoline taxes.)
Government spending is often corrupt, sometimes in the legal sense, and more often in the political sense of rewarding supporters for no good policy reason. This corruption is more easily justified when mumbo-jumbo economic beliefs say it’s for the common good.
The first-order effect of mandatory education is that young people are confined to school buildings during the day, not that they learn anything inherently valuable. This seems like it’s the primary intended effect. The idea that government schooling is better for economic growth than whatever non-mandatory activities kids/parents would otherwise choose seems dubious, though of course it’s a good talking point when justifying the policy.
So I guess it depends on what you mean by “people support”. These second-order justifications presumably appeal to some people, or they wouldn’t be worthwhile propaganda. But I’m not convinced that they are the reasons more powerful people support these policies.