3 ms·

Seems like a stretch. The argument he's making is that "A is on the slippery slope to B" is equivalent to "A and B are both motivated and caused by common fact

by jdp23 16y ago

Seems like a stretch. The argument he's making is that "A is on the slippery slope to B" is equivalent to "A and B are both motivated and caused by common factors and influences", so B could just as easily have proceeded A. That's true for some A's and B's, but not always. After the kittens on top of HN yesterday, I guess we'll find out just how slippery that particular slope is ...

splat 16y ago
Color me unconvinced, too. He brings up the example of the income tax as why the slippery slope argument fails, but it's actually a pretty convincing case study of the merits of the slippery slope argument. The income tax was originally pushed through in 1894 with the argument that a small income tax (only on the very richest, of course) would allow for tariff reductions. Several years later, tariffs were increased again with no corresponding decrease in the income tax. When the sixteenth amendment was being debated, arguments were made for a clause that would limit the tax to at most 10% of income, but the clause was abandoned because no one thought the income tax could or should get that high.
CWuestefeld 16y ago
I'm sure he's fundamentally wrong. His logic depends in part on the idea that the "Action B" shares common motivations with Action A. But there's no reason that this should be so. For example, thus far the federal government has been unable to pass legislation mandating a federal law for seatbelt usage. We know they're interested because they do try to cause the same end effect, by tying it to State highway funding. Their interest isn't motivated by insurance costs (we know this because thus far the federal government has no direct interest in health insurance costs), but (presumably) by a direct interest in avoiding injuries in accidents. However, if the slipper slope is opened up by allowing the Interstate Commerce Clause to refer to mandating an activity (wearing seatbelts), then it's a fair bet that the federal government will abandon their arm-twisting (viz conditioning based on highway funding) and legislate seatbelt usage nationally. This might be a good thing; that's not the question. The real question is whether taking this first step is likely to precipitate further steps that, today, are understood to be forbidden.

by jdp23 16y ago

splat 16y ago

Color me unconvinced, too. He brings up the example of the income tax as why the slippery slope argument fails, but it's actually a pretty convincing case study of the merits of the slippery slope argument. The income tax was originally pushed through in 1894 with the argument that a small income tax (only on the very richest, of course) would allow for tariff reductions. Several years later, tariffs were increased again with no corresponding decrease in the income tax. When the sixteenth amendment was being debated, arguments were made for a clause that would limit the tax to at most 10% of income, but the clause was abandoned because no one thought the income tax could or should get that high.

CWuestefeld 16y ago

I'm sure he's fundamentally wrong. His logic depends in part on the idea that the "Action B" shares common motivations with Action A. But there's no reason that this should be so. For example, thus far the federal government has been unable to pass legislation mandating a federal law for seatbelt usage. We know they're interested because they do try to cause the same end effect, by tying it to State highway funding. Their interest isn't motivated by insurance costs (we know this because thus far the federal government has no direct interest in health insurance costs), but (presumably) by a direct interest in avoiding injuries in accidents. However, if the slipper slope is opened up by allowing the Interstate Commerce Clause to refer to mandating an activity (wearing seatbelts), then it's a fair bet that the federal government will abandon their arm-twisting (viz conditioning based on highway funding) and legislate seatbelt usage nationally. This might be a good thing; that's not the question. The real question is whether taking this first step is likely to precipitate further steps that, today, are understood to be forbidden.