5 ms·

At the risk of being downvoted, I would like to raise a topic for deliberation- Why are some acts (driving and polluting) penalized, but other acts that also c

At the risk of being downvoted, I would like to raise a topic for deliberation- Why are some acts (driving and polluting) penalized, but other acts that also cause harm (especially to children) are not penalized? Driving and pollution are low hanging fruit, but what about polluting water supplies? Trash, sewage, dumping, antibiotics and pesticides in food sources.... Surely all of these things are dangerous to everyones health, especially children. Should we have facial recognition software for people walking around with bags near water sources at certain hours of the day?

evgen 10y ago
This is called "Whataboutism" and when you bounce to it you have already given up on your main argument. Some acts are penalized before others because the negative externality is easy to identify, some are penalized before other problems because the agent of negative externality is easy to identify and tax, and some are penalized before other problems because those pushing for the penalty have a better PR machine or more political muscle. None of these conditions means that there are not other negative externalities that need to be prevented or taxed/penalized, nor does it mean that some contrived dystopian solution is a likely consequence of our desire to prevent these other negative externalities.
- salesguy222 10y ago
  That's fine, I agree with your assessment, even though you are implying that by raising a question, I have somehow lost an argument :) You say that "those pushing for the penalty have better PR/political muscle", and you imply that they have more muscle than groups pushing for other penalties, or maybe even against penalties. What I would like to point out is, we are assuming that the majority of citizens of Stockholm or Singapore or etc have clearly voted in favor of this execution of public policy, because if they didn't, they would just leave or rebel or something. But in reality, I dare say that all over the globe, small elite groups of people are paid exorbitant sums of money to come up with these laws and carry them out. They then use cherry-picked statistics to justify the existence of the program (and then attack any naysayers as wanting to live in polluted dystopian hell holes like some stereotypical example of a Chinese city). Would you agree then, that certain groups being able to penalize other people for the supposed "crime of driving" is not the most optimal and equitable way to balance negative externalities? Perhaps it should be the burden of other people to deal with the negative externalities of something reasonable to expect in city living, like air pollution?
  - evgen 10y ago
    > That's fine, I agree with your assessment, even though you are implying that by raising a question, I have somehow lost an argument :) I am not implying it, I am stating it outright. Your "argument" here is so tissue-paper thin as to boggle the mind and it is not even worth wasting time doing a point-by-point refutation. It is the burden of "other people" to deal with the negative externalities of driving, specifically those "other people" who decide to get in a car and drive. Don't like it? Drive somewhere else.
    - salesguy222 10y ago
      For a very long time after cars were invented, the burden was actually the reverse of what you describe. It used to be, "you don't like cars driving near you? Live somewhere else." And it seems most people were fine with that, choosing to move to rural areas, where there were still cars, just less of them. This localized tax is palatable to me because it is local and not national. But, it is still worth pointing out that the people who penalize behavior by taxing certain daily activities... may more so be in it for the money than for the social good. If you disagree, that's fine. But when people are dying and having negative quality of living for so many more serious reasons, taxing congestion with a complex technological system is, in my opinion, deck chairs on the Titanic. I hope that those who are greatly affected by it choose to move and bring their value elsewhere that welcomes them. Maybe Stockholm will feel their absence, maybe not.
vivekd 10y ago
But dumping, and polluting water supplies are illegal in every developed nation I know of. Things like pesticides, antibiotics, trash and sewage are also heavily regulated to minimize environmental harm. The government has been going after these things as much as reasonably possible.
- salesguy222 10y ago
  And yet it still happens, and I am sure the rate at which it happens will continue to grow. Cars are regulated at the manufacturer level and the consumer level. Dumping is illegal, as it should be, but it is enforced in varying and ineffective ways. Some of the smallest offenders are vigorously prosecuted, while some of the largest offenders are slapped with small token fines that don't cover the cost of the problem, if ever! I would say my greater point is, a lot of this "penalizing bad behavior" is analogous to security theatre... the smallest offenders pay in money and sanity... the largest offenders laugh at their joke fines [ since they run the world ;) ]

evgen 10y ago

This is called "Whataboutism" and when you bounce to it you have already given up on your main argument. Some acts are penalized before others because the negative externality is easy to identify, some are penalized before other problems because the agent of negative externality is easy to identify and tax, and some are penalized before other problems because those pushing for the penalty have a better PR machine or more political muscle. None of these conditions means that there are not other negative externalities that need to be prevented or taxed/penalized, nor does it mean that some contrived dystopian solution is a likely consequence of our desire to prevent these other negative externalities.

salesguy222 10y ago
That's fine, I agree with your assessment, even though you are implying that by raising a question, I have somehow lost an argument :) You say that "those pushing for the penalty have better PR/political muscle", and you imply that they have more muscle than groups pushing for other penalties, or maybe even against penalties. What I would like to point out is, we are assuming that the majority of citizens of Stockholm or Singapore or etc have clearly voted in favor of this execution of public policy, because if they didn't, they would just leave or rebel or something. But in reality, I dare say that all over the globe, small elite groups of people are paid exorbitant sums of money to come up with these laws and carry them out. They then use cherry-picked statistics to justify the existence of the program (and then attack any naysayers as wanting to live in polluted dystopian hell holes like some stereotypical example of a Chinese city). Would you agree then, that certain groups being able to penalize other people for the supposed "crime of driving" is not the most optimal and equitable way to balance negative externalities? Perhaps it should be the burden of other people to deal with the negative externalities of something reasonable to expect in city living, like air pollution?
- evgen 10y ago
  > That's fine, I agree with your assessment, even though you are implying that by raising a question, I have somehow lost an argument :) I am not implying it, I am stating it outright. Your "argument" here is so tissue-paper thin as to boggle the mind and it is not even worth wasting time doing a point-by-point refutation. It is the burden of "other people" to deal with the negative externalities of driving, specifically those "other people" who decide to get in a car and drive. Don't like it? Drive somewhere else.
  - salesguy222 10y ago
    For a very long time after cars were invented, the burden was actually the reverse of what you describe. It used to be, "you don't like cars driving near you? Live somewhere else." And it seems most people were fine with that, choosing to move to rural areas, where there were still cars, just less of them. This localized tax is palatable to me because it is local and not national. But, it is still worth pointing out that the people who penalize behavior by taxing certain daily activities... may more so be in it for the money than for the social good. If you disagree, that's fine. But when people are dying and having negative quality of living for so many more serious reasons, taxing congestion with a complex technological system is, in my opinion, deck chairs on the Titanic. I hope that those who are greatly affected by it choose to move and bring their value elsewhere that welcomes them. Maybe Stockholm will feel their absence, maybe not.

vivekd 10y ago

But dumping, and polluting water supplies are illegal in every developed nation I know of. Things like pesticides, antibiotics, trash and sewage are also heavily regulated to minimize environmental harm. The government has been going after these things as much as reasonably possible.

salesguy222 10y ago
And yet it still happens, and I am sure the rate at which it happens will continue to grow. Cars are regulated at the manufacturer level and the consumer level. Dumping is illegal, as it should be, but it is enforced in varying and ineffective ways. Some of the smallest offenders are vigorously prosecuted, while some of the largest offenders are slapped with small token fines that don't cover the cost of the problem, if ever! I would say my greater point is, a lot of this "penalizing bad behavior" is analogous to security theatre... the smallest offenders pay in money and sanity... the largest offenders laugh at their joke fines [ since they run the world ;) ]