4 ms·

For the many regulations in American society, there is usually a dead body buried underneath, possibly many dead bodies, including those of women and children,

For the many regulations in American society, there is usually a dead body buried underneath, possibly many dead bodies, including those of women and children, etc. For each and every one, someone suffered terribly or died.

NhanH 7y ago
Yes, but that doesn't mean the regulations are still relevant, or that they were ever been a good regulation to start with. The PATRIOT act came from a horrible tragedy, and many people would tell you how terrrible it is.
thrower123 7y ago
Unfortunately, many times, the dead body belonged to an idiot, whose foolishness won them a Darwin Award, and the legacy of inconveniencing millions of people. We place too high a value on human life, and it's no wonder that we can't accomplish anything when a non-zero level of risk is unacceptable.
- jhayward 7y ago
  > We place too high a value on human life, and it's no wonder that we can't accomplish anything when a non-zero level of risk is unacceptable. This is too close to another formulation of the same thought: "we should allow corporations to kill people for profit, with impunity" for comfort.
  - thrower123 7y ago
    No, it's really, really not. It would be nice if we could have a discussion of acceptable levels of risk versus inefficiency without immediately taking a left turn into "Soylent Green is People!" territory.
    - jhayward 7y ago
      The "lefty" epithet, how handy. You could start by telling us why the statements aren't the same, using examples and facts. You seem to want to have an abstract, bloodless, clinical discussion of when it is acceptable to kill people in the name of "efficiency" (I will interpret this as "profit"). I can tell you that is a dishonest discussion, if that's what is intended. If you want to have it honestly you will have to first indicate an understanding of exactly, in detail, the most evil things that will happen as a result. Also the most devastating things that will happen and be protected from proportionate legal recourse under your proposed or imagined regime. It won't be a bloodless conversation.
      - abakker 7y ago
        Evil and blame free do not necessarily follow from acknowledging that some level of risk is acceptable.
        jhayward 7y ago
        This is a non-statement intended to deflect into the abstract and away from actual consequences. Policies and regulations aren't made in some Platonic ideal universe, they are made in specific, factual circumstances. Come back to us when you can talk about how a specific "acceptable" level of risk does not involve enabling evil actors, and indemnified doers for a specific policy area. Then we'll talk about the specific things you find acceptable, and just whose death and suffering you will trade for profit.
        bumby 7y ago
        I don't read their statements the same way you do. The way they come across to me is that there needs to be a discussion of risk grounded in the understanding that in many (most?) domains, zero risk is unattainable. It's like the idea of the FDA setting limits to the amount of insect contaminates allowed in food. At first, it seems disturbing until you realize that if they put a zero tolerance policy in place, there would be near-endless grounds to sue every food manufacturer out of business.
- bumby 7y ago
  > We place too high a value on human life I don't think this is quite right. More accurately, I think we need to the risk assumer and risk accepter may need to be making the informed decisions. Too often there is someone making a decision that someone else pays for. You want to strap yourself to a rocket and go into space and you have been communicated the risks and accepted them, that's one thing. It's entirely another when you get into a car running on software that you have no clue about. In the latter case, you aren't making a risk informed decision because the person/corporation determining that the risk is acceptable doesn't flow that information down to you (or, there's limited bandwidth that any one person can make an informed decision about). That's where regulation levels to playing field somewhat to ensure perverse incentives don't cause risks to be accepted by those who don't have to bear them. I or [insert relevant company name here] shouldn't be the decider on what risk you should be (perhaps unwittingly) accepting.

NhanH 7y ago

Yes, but that doesn't mean the regulations are still relevant, or that they were ever been a good regulation to start with. The PATRIOT act came from a horrible tragedy, and many people would tell you how terrrible it is.

thrower123 7y ago

Unfortunately, many times, the dead body belonged to an idiot, whose foolishness won them a Darwin Award, and the legacy of inconveniencing millions of people. We place too high a value on human life, and it's no wonder that we can't accomplish anything when a non-zero level of risk is unacceptable.

jhayward 7y ago
> We place too high a value on human life, and it's no wonder that we can't accomplish anything when a non-zero level of risk is unacceptable. This is too close to another formulation of the same thought: "we should allow corporations to kill people for profit, with impunity" for comfort.
- thrower123 7y ago
  No, it's really, really not. It would be nice if we could have a discussion of acceptable levels of risk versus inefficiency without immediately taking a left turn into "Soylent Green is People!" territory.
  - jhayward 7y ago
    The "lefty" epithet, how handy. You could start by telling us why the statements aren't the same, using examples and facts. You seem to want to have an abstract, bloodless, clinical discussion of when it is acceptable to kill people in the name of "efficiency" (I will interpret this as "profit"). I can tell you that is a dishonest discussion, if that's what is intended. If you want to have it honestly you will have to first indicate an understanding of exactly, in detail, the most evil things that will happen as a result. Also the most devastating things that will happen and be protected from proportionate legal recourse under your proposed or imagined regime. It won't be a bloodless conversation.
    - abakker 7y ago
      Evil and blame free do not necessarily follow from acknowledging that some level of risk is acceptable.
      - jhayward 7y ago
        This is a non-statement intended to deflect into the abstract and away from actual consequences. Policies and regulations aren't made in some Platonic ideal universe, they are made in specific, factual circumstances. Come back to us when you can talk about how a specific "acceptable" level of risk does not involve enabling evil actors, and indemnified doers for a specific policy area. Then we'll talk about the specific things you find acceptable, and just whose death and suffering you will trade for profit.
        bumby 7y ago
        I don't read their statements the same way you do. The way they come across to me is that there needs to be a discussion of risk grounded in the understanding that in many (most?) domains, zero risk is unattainable. It's like the idea of the FDA setting limits to the amount of insect contaminates allowed in food. At first, it seems disturbing until you realize that if they put a zero tolerance policy in place, there would be near-endless grounds to sue every food manufacturer out of business.
bumby 7y ago
> We place too high a value on human life I don't think this is quite right. More accurately, I think we need to the risk assumer and risk accepter may need to be making the informed decisions. Too often there is someone making a decision that someone else pays for. You want to strap yourself to a rocket and go into space and you have been communicated the risks and accepted them, that's one thing. It's entirely another when you get into a car running on software that you have no clue about. In the latter case, you aren't making a risk informed decision because the person/corporation determining that the risk is acceptable doesn't flow that information down to you (or, there's limited bandwidth that any one person can make an informed decision about). That's where regulation levels to playing field somewhat to ensure perverse incentives don't cause risks to be accepted by those who don't have to bear them. I or [insert relevant company name here] shouldn't be the decider on what risk you should be (perhaps unwittingly) accepting.