4 ms·
> Ireland did something similar years ago and the results were incredible. An almost overnight transformation of the cleanliness of the cities and countryside.
by TruthAndDare 10y ago
> Ireland did something similar years ago and the results were incredible. An almost overnight transformation of the cleanliness of the cities and countryside. Nobody would like to reverse the decision now despite significant opposition before-hand.
Are you suggesting that the issue of debate was whether it would lead to less litter? That's almost obvious, isn't it? Surely, the question must rather be whether it is morally acceptable for us to impose such a rule on other people.
- jahnu 10y agoI'm showing, not suggesting, that many people needed to experience the enforcement in order to be convinced of the benefits of changing their habits.
- TruthAndDare 10y ago> many people needed to experience the enforcement in order to be convinced of the benefits of changing their habits. So, do you mean that these people considered the outcome uncertain until it was tried?
- samastur 10y agoFor us? It's their government which is elected. Have you ever been to Kathmandu? Non-degradable rubbish is problem in many places, but I don't remember one where there would be so much of it littered on the side of roads for kilometers at end.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- pjc50 10y ago> morally acceptable for us to impose such a rule on other people Yes? It's such a trivial imposition. This isn't Singapore caning people for chewing gum.
- TruthAndDare 10y agoI'm trying to nail down what the actual issue of debate is, or should be. You are merely sharing your opinion on that issue. That is fine, but beside the point I was getting at.
- jahnu 10y agoAre you suggesting representative democracy is immoral?
- TruthAndDare 10y agoYes, deciding what others are allowed to do is something I am morally uncomfortable with. That is not to say that I have come up with something else that is not also questionable. In any case, I do think that we should strive toward having just a bare minimum of laws. However, it seems to be too much fun to make laws, once you get in a position to do so, for people to abstain from it.
- infinite8s 10y agoWhat are you talking about? Do you wish to live in a human society? Litter of plastic bags is an externality - all this law does is to impose the costs on those who incur it.
- cmurf 10y agoI think this is pure free markets are the only moral structure, coercion is immoral, etc. ideology. I do not find it compelling because adherents' apply the "coercion is wrong" absolutely when it comes to governments enforcing it through fines, but deny economic coercion applies when e.g a bank charges overdraft or late fees no matter how ludicrous. There is a suggestion that ultimately a bank doesn't put you in jail, where governments can do that if you continue to not pay fines. But increasingly governments take unpaid fines from income tax refunds or other mechanisms for collection rather than consider outstanding fines a criminal offense rather than civil.
- Retra 10y ago"No person shall dictate to another what they are allowed to do" sounds a lot like dictating to others what they are allowed to do.
- GrinningFool 10y ago> Surely, the question must rather be whether > it is morally acceptable for us to impose such > a rule on other people. When people are not considering the effects of their actions and possible harm done by them - litter, environmental - because it doesn't benefit them to do so, then it's the elected government's duty to step in and impose such rules. People have already made clear through their actions that in the absence of those rules, they won't behave on the best interests of the community.