domolito

Obviously you have a nice collection of cases where QI was abused, but there are presumably equally many cases where QI has protected the government from frivolous lawsuits.

How do you envision that public sector employees, who are invariably lowly paid, should cover their legal costs if QI is removed, especially in the case of a frivolous lawsuit?

It seems to me that the government eats the cost somehow, which dramatically raises the cost of government services. I.e., we get fewer schools because of all the lawsuits that schools now have to defend against.

I would love to hear how you envision a balance between the rights of citizens vs the rights of government employees not to be unfairly targeted by bad actors seeking to exploit this system for personal financial gain.

Thanks for the detailed response, and for linking that article. I've only skimmed its contents, but it looks to be more of a philosophical analysis of rights rather than a data-based or experimental analysis of economic trade-offs.

Having worked in both state and federal government (albeit not in any area that involves storming into people's homes, or shooting anyone), I'm fairly skeptical of the claim that it will lead to reduced costs or more efficient service (although I could certainly see it increasing accountability).

This is based on the fundamental misconception that government works like the private sector. It does not (at least, not in the bureaucratic, non-enforcement areas that I'm familiar with). The goal of a company is to be profitable (and thus efficient). The goal of a government organization is to achieve its mission accountably (efficiency is a secondary concern). The way that accountability is achieved is with paperwork and bureaucracy. So this is going to result in more paperwork, longer wait times, and higher costs. It doesn't matter how much you train people, if you increase their requirement for accountability you are going to get less efficient service.

I'm not saying that accountability is bad (it's great!), and I (and most people) would prefer cops to think more carefully about shooting guns and kicking down doors! But the claim about what is right and just is obviously philosophical rather than economic, and I think it's optimistic to claim that there are no potential trade-offs to this policy.

Also, if you have links to economic or data-based approaches to this question, I'd love to see them.