i mean, both claims are accurate, no? without air resistance they'd land the same way, whether you want to characterize that as just as gently or just as violently. i agree violently would be the more informative characterization! but in terms of "same" degree of, both are accurate? 1/

in this analogy, the state stands in for the parachute. 2/

in a transaction-cost-free world (as @t0nyyates.bsky.social accurately points out, with transaction costs interpreted broadly, including the costs of overcoming information asymmetries, enforcement problems, etc) you'd have no use of a parachute, it could only get in the way. 3/

I agree for the analogy to work I have to posit the Coase stand-in as making the point in a particularly unhelpful way (just as gentle rather than just as violent), which is maybe a bit mean… 4/

but if your point was to emphasize that AIR RESISTANCE MATTERS, you might make the claim that way, expecting your audience to understand the irony in it. /fin