3 ms·

The logic isn't insane if applied to a better example. If there's no penalty to making cars without seatbelts, then carmakers will make cars without seatbelts.

The logic isn't insane if applied to a better example. If there's no penalty to making cars without seatbelts, then carmakers will make cars without seatbelts. So we outlaw cars without seatbelts. This is exactly the society we live in. Sure, a car with no seatbelts might be better than no car at all. But society has decided that cost is worth it, in order to incentivize widespread installation of seatbelts. Berkeley has chosen to throw its car away rather than install the legally required seatbelts. Not all regulations are good (and this one may not be), but I think the logic behind them is understandable, not insane.

Fezzik 10y ago
That seems like a poor example. Seatbelts are a measurable safety benefit to nearly every single person who drives or rides in a car. The deaf OR hard of hearing population of the united states is roughly 4.1% (10.6 million). A closer example would maybe be: if paraplegics needed special seatbelts to be safe in cars, should we mandate that all car makers be required to install special seatbelts that are paraplegic compatible? (Paraplegics make up a small fraction of the population of the United States - somewhere around 300,000). Obviously that comparison has holes in it as well, but it is a lot closer. And I would think the answer would be no, not because of heartlessness, but simply because it doesn't make sense. I assume, again not heartlessly, that most paraplegics do not drive. Likewise, most deaf people will not access these videos. It seems closer to insanity than reasonableness to mandate either of these things.
darawk 10y ago
Yes, but there are limits to that logic. And people seem to be taking the position that the moral hazard inherently justifies the policy. While I am taking the position that the moral hazard justifies the policy within reason, and that this particular example falls clearly outside that definition.
2_listerine_pls 10y ago
Cars without seatbelt affect everyone. Subtitle-less videos only affect a minority. People pay for cars with seatbelt. Free videos don't earn income.

Fezzik 10y ago

That seems like a poor example. Seatbelts are a measurable safety benefit to nearly every single person who drives or rides in a car. The deaf OR hard of hearing population of the united states is roughly 4.1% (10.6 million). A closer example would maybe be: if paraplegics needed special seatbelts to be safe in cars, should we mandate that all car makers be required to install special seatbelts that are paraplegic compatible? (Paraplegics make up a small fraction of the population of the United States - somewhere around 300,000). Obviously that comparison has holes in it as well, but it is a lot closer. And I would think the answer would be no, not because of heartlessness, but simply because it doesn't make sense. I assume, again not heartlessly, that most paraplegics do not drive. Likewise, most deaf people will not access these videos. It seems closer to insanity than reasonableness to mandate either of these things.

darawk 10y ago

Yes, but there are limits to that logic. And people seem to be taking the position that the moral hazard inherently justifies the policy. While I am taking the position that the moral hazard justifies the policy within reason, and that this particular example falls clearly outside that definition.

2_listerine_pls 10y ago

Cars without seatbelt affect everyone. Subtitle-less videos only affect a minority. People pay for cars with seatbelt. Free videos don't earn income.