Are you for or against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency?

[Kidlicious]

I do think that people are generally more persuasive when they are less insulting.

You worship the ground KH walks on, yet the only thing he ever posted which you truly understand is, "you ****."

[Traianvs]

Look, as an analogy, you can blame the smoker or you can blame the tobacco company. It's true that without the tobacco company the smoker wouldn't be able to smoke, but it's also true that without the smoker deciding to smoke he wouldn't be addicted to cigarettes. In my mind, it makes more sense to hold consumers accountable for their mistakes than producers for facilitating the mistakes.

Consumers are stupid. We're irrational beings. Why would people hold on to smoking when they know it's detrimental to their health? Because they value something else a lot more, such as the pleasure or the status or whatever.

You can't expect people to be responsible, because by and large it's not going to happen. It's like consuming: people will consume when or because they can. Doesn't matter if in 20 years time resources will be depleted or inflation will cause their savings to plummet or whatever. If they can do it now, it means they should. At least according to the current consumerist mantra.

Holding irrational people like ourselves completely accountable (like you seem to be advocating) is delusional. The only way to resolve that is to use our rationality, and prohibit certain extremities.

[Kidlicious]

I think that he's trying to say that it's wrong to prohibit them from producing poison for people to consume. That's what he calls morality. Oh and you can kill innocent people as long as you save a tobacco company owner.

[Elok]

Consumers are stupid. We're irrational beings. Why would people hold on to smoking when they know it's detrimental to their health? Because they value something else a lot more, such as the pleasure or the status or whatever.

You can't expect people to be responsible, because by and large it's not going to happen. It's like consuming: people will consume when or because they can. Doesn't matter if in 20 years time resources will be depleted or inflation will cause their savings to plummet or whatever. If they can do it now, it means they should. At least according to the current consumerist mantra.

Holding irrational people like ourselves completely accountable (like you seem to be advocating) is delusional. The only way to resolve that is to use our ration selves, and prohibit certain extremities.

So we're rational enough to make decisions for each other, but not rational enough to make decisions for ourselves? Howzat work?

[Jon Miller]

So we're rational enough to make decisions for each other, but not rational enough to make decisions for ourselves? Howzat work?

Generally knowledge is greater in aggregate than it is for (large) number of individuals.

JM

[-Jrabbit]

"Ten million flies can't be wrong."

[Kidlicious]

The thing is that people know they shouldn't smoke, but people don't do the right thing, so that's what rules are for.

[Elok]

And when knowledge isn't greater in aggregate, you get moral panics/witch hunts. No thanks, I'd rather educate the public and let them make all the crap decisions they want. I'd agree to a ban on smoking tobacco, but only to restrict people's ability to harm (or just irritate) others with their crap decisions. I suppose you could argue for tobacco use creating an unfair burden on health care systems, but that would open up a whole can of worms.

[Jon Miller]

You can't educate the public about everything.

People have been trying to do so with limited number of things (tobacco, gambling, etc), and to only limited success.

What about all the things that you can't satisfactorily educate the public in. For example: climate change.

JM

[giblets]

The thing is that people know they shouldn't smoke, but people don't do the right thing, so that's what rules are for.

No, they know smoking is bad for their lungs. It's up to them to decide what to do with their body.

[Jon Miller]

To clarify:

For gambling, I can run the probabilities myself and make an informed decision. I am educated. Most people are not. That is why we have, as a group, acted against gambling. Most people are left with 'trusting' the specialists that gambling is bad.

For tobacco, I can read and understand the results of studies and make an informed decision. I do have to trust other scientists (to do the studies right), but really I primarily understand statistics, not biology. The bit of education does help me. Once more, most people are not, and we have (as a group) acted against tobacco. Most people are left with 'trusting' the specialists that smoking is bad.

For climate change, I can read the results of studies, but there are scientists who would maintain that I do not understand them and I question if I can make an informed decision. I am very educated in statistics and science, but to draw conclusions I have to trust models, theories, and complicated experiments. I have to trust the conclusions of the scientists, not only the results, and I choose to. Which means that other people classify me as 'informed' and 'educated', but really I am not. I just trust the majority of scientists who study the climate.

Other than saying 'I believe in science', I have no surety that my decisions on climate change are crap or not crap. I am not making an informed decision. This is despite my much higher levels of education than the average person (particularly in science).

It is stupid to say that we can educate people so that they won't make crap decisions. Rather, we need to use society and the specialists that develop to protect people from making crap decisions.

Which is why I am a bit upset with the financial specialists, because rather than using their specialization to protect society from making crap decisions, they seem to have used their specialization to enrich themselves from societies crap decisions.

JM

[Elok]

I am not aware of any theory of government which says it exists to protect us from ourselves.

[Traianvs]

And when knowledge isn't greater in aggregate, you get moral panics/witch hunts. No thanks, I'd rather educate the public and let them make all the crap decisions they want. I'd agree to a ban on smoking tobacco, but only to restrict people's ability to harm (or just irritate) others with their crap decisions. I suppose you could argue for tobacco use creating an unfair burden on health care systems, but that would open up a whole can of worms.

About the tobacco ban, you could see it this way: until there was a smoking ban in place, most people failed to quit smoking in the presence of non-smokers. They valued their pleasure more than someone else's health. They knew they were harming and annoying not only themselves but others too, but they couldn't care less. Plezzur first!

Personal freedom is nearly always contingent on other people's freedom, as we all know. You can educate as much as you want, at a certain point in time you'll need some regulation to punish those freeriders who profit from other people's decisions not to harm others, but who'll continue their own irresponsible behaviour anyway.

Education is more to be seen as a first step towards gaining broad support, before turning to full blown regulation. It's senseless to regulate something when there's no general agreement/consensus.

[Elok]

Also, any action to be taken WRT climate change is necessarily one of large groups together; very few people talk about prohibiting automobile use beyond X hours a day, or any other restrictions on the individual. That won't do anything but generate political opposition and confuse the issue.

The desired end state, from my point of view, is not one in which people have ceased to make stupid decisons--rather, I should say, that is a desirable state, but I recognize that it is simply not going to happen. Ideally all should be free to make a royal mess of their own lives, and the harm they generate by their poor choices should be quarantined to a zone about themselves. Then they can learn. Or not, if that's their choice.

[Jon Miller]

I am not aware of any theory of government which says it exists to protect us from ourselves.

It exists because you can't do everything yourself.

Including being educated enough to make informed decisions in every possible important part of modern life.

JM