Maybe I'm misreading you, but you seem to have missed what seems to me one of the biggest downsides: the costs of barnacles simply aren't visible to people (though this is connected to points #1 and 2). For example, a company with a lot of hiring barnacles doesn't know about the good employees they lose out on, because they never hire them. Or a country with strict libel laws doesn't find out about the corrupt politicians who aren't reported out by media outlets that are afraid of being sued. Sometimes, even the people who endure the barnacles don't realize the costs (as can be the case in the "it only takes a minute" one)
When a rule exists, people perceive it to be there for a reason, and are loathe to remove it. When a rule does not exist, people perceive this to be the default state of affairs, not an intentional choice, and have no objection to bringing that rule into existence.
Of course Lyndon Johnson attempted to end poverty by creating programs to bring people out of poverty . To qualify you have to not only be in poverty--but must stay in poverty. If you get a $5. raise you lose $5 in housing assistance, $5 in food assistance and $5 in energy assistance, et al. So my getting more to be less poor, by being poor one is impoverished by taking the assistance one gained back triply making people more poor.
Well not exactly what you are talking about, but maybe relevant.
Maybe I'm misreading you, but you seem to have missed what seems to me one of the biggest downsides: the costs of barnacles simply aren't visible to people (though this is connected to points #1 and 2). For example, a company with a lot of hiring barnacles doesn't know about the good employees they lose out on, because they never hire them. Or a country with strict libel laws doesn't find out about the corrupt politicians who aren't reported out by media outlets that are afraid of being sued. Sometimes, even the people who endure the barnacles don't realize the costs (as can be the case in the "it only takes a minute" one)
Bastiat's distinction between that which is seen and unseen certainly applies in many cases here, yes.
When a rule exists, people perceive it to be there for a reason, and are loathe to remove it. When a rule does not exist, people perceive this to be the default state of affairs, not an intentional choice, and have no objection to bringing that rule into existence.
Of course Lyndon Johnson attempted to end poverty by creating programs to bring people out of poverty . To qualify you have to not only be in poverty--but must stay in poverty. If you get a $5. raise you lose $5 in housing assistance, $5 in food assistance and $5 in energy assistance, et al. So my getting more to be less poor, by being poor one is impoverished by taking the assistance one gained back triply making people more poor.
Well not exactly what you are talking about, but maybe relevant.