7 ms·

He gave several examples, why don't you think any of them apply?

by djbebs 5y ago

skulk 5y ago
None of the examples are particularly convincing. I'm not seeing any evidence of our eventual slip into toddlerdom. > This is a world that feels compelled to pass laws requiring the use of seat belts and motorcycle helmets in the hope of protecting people who are too stupid to wear them otherwise. Does anyone really have a problem with mandating basic safety? Can you say this is actually causing harm without extrapolating and theorizing? > If your car runs out of gasoline and you manage to walk to a gas station, you cannot buy gasoline in anything other than an government approved container. The fact that you are stranded makes no difference. This one's valid, but I also don't see the practical problem here. Gas stations can just stock jerry cans as needed, it's not that big of a deal. Maybe this one can be done away with. > If someone falls off a ladder while painting your house, they can sue you and take your house. This is a matter of liability, a concept I'm sure we all can say is something we should keep around to avoid acting like toddlers. There are situations where they deserve to be compensated for their injury, and there are situations where they don't, and most court systems will attempt to distinguish the two. Now, if your court system sucks, it may not make a great decision but that's neither here nor there. > This is a world that no longer allows you to purchase hydrogen peroxide above a certain concentration for fear you will use it to make a bomb. Unless I'm missing something, this is also false. You can buy 50% hydrogen peroxide here without a license https://www.fishersci.ca/shop/products/hydrogen-peroxide-50-stabilized-certified-fisher-chemical/h341500 https://www.fishersci.ca/shop/products/hydrogen-peroxide-50-.... Is that high enough?
- roenxi 5y ago
  > Does anyone really have a problem with mandating basic safety? Yes. That is why he included the example. It is totally ridiculous that if I do something that puts myself at a minor risk then I get funnelled into a system where the options are compliance or imprisonment. The situation is complicated somewhat by the fact that as far as we call tell a rational person should agree with what the system is demanding, and it isn't important enough to fight about. But nevertheless, imprisonment should not be a theoretical outcome for someone wilfully choosing not to wear a seatbelt. I don't know, I'm not a domain expert. Maybe they don't imprison people for that and just bankrupt them. Still wildly disproportionate and an idiotic formal response to a minor bad decision.
  - pc86 5y ago
    A former coworker of mine always refused to wear a seatbelt, and to my knowledge still does. He was in a car accident and had major damage to his legs, hips, and back. Traction, several surgeries, you get the idea. Because he's too stupid to wear a seatbelt he incurred a lot of costs, both financial and psychological, for a lot of people. > Still wildly disproportionate and an idiotic formal response to a minor bad decision. Any interaction with the justice system has to have imprisonment at the end of the line. Not because that's the right way to do it, but because it just doesn't work otherwise. Let's imagine a scenario where a law is passed saying you cannot be imprisoned for a speeding ticket under any circumstances. As long as you don't get in an accident, you can go 150mph down the highway and you won't go to jail. Okay so you get a ticket for an obscene amount of money. But you can't pay it, or you just don't. Do we just throw our hands up and say "shucks, you got us on that one?" Even if you have wages to garnish or property to forfeit, you'd have to take those costs into account and now for a $500 ticket you're having your car repo'd or your wages garnished by 10% for months. It doesn't seem like an oppressive socialist hellscape to me to just say "you know what, you either pay your ticket or you go to jail, and if you're going fast enough, just go straight to jail."
    - roenxi 5y ago
      I'm not certain that a 3rd party would read that as something I agree with, so I'll just note: 1st paragraph - that looks like someone bearing the costs for their bad decision personally to me. Which is why they should be the one making the decision. 2nd & 3rd - yep. That comes close to the extended argument for why it is stupid to legally mandate wearing seatbelts. The level of threat required to enforce a minor requirement is absurd. People shouldn't be subjected to that sort of legal hazard without a high bar of justification.
      - scaramanga 5y ago
        Yes, it's true that there are lonely people who nobody cares about, who don't have loved ones who are effectively blackmailed in to becoming nurses and carers for them after they self-harm. Some of those people are also contributing enough to cover their medical expenses and maybe they exist in a society where somehow they aren't taking medical resources away from equally or more deserving others. On the other hand, however, a lot of people exist as parts of families and communities. They don't need to be mandated not to harm themselves in acts of sheer stupidity because they think about the consequences of their own actions and would be mortified to imagine themselves in a situation where medical resources are being expended on them for no other reason than their own narcissism. But more to the point, at times the task of a democracy boils down to deciding which of these two sorts of personality the society should be geared towards supporting or whether it makes sense to limit the amount of damage that lunatics and sociopths and can do to themselves or to the rest of us for that matter.
- collegeburner 5y ago
  Literally on the page: "Due to product restrictions, we cannot sell this product online. Please call Customer Service at 1-800-234-7437 or send an email to help@thermofisher.com for assistance." My guess is there will be some ID check, or maybe they only sell to people with "legitimate need" or whatever because the feds get on their ass otherwise. Any government that puts people on a blacklist for buying over n pounds of fertilizer, peroxide, whatever is a bad government.
  - johnday 5y ago
    > Any government that puts people on a blacklist for buying over n pounds of fertilizer, peroxide, whatever is a bad government. Do you think these regulations just sprang up fully formed without reason? Legislation like this is written in the blood of those who came before it.
- kragen 5y ago
  Aside from the restriction to non-online sales pointed out by another commenter, no, 50% peroxide is not high enough for rocket fuel. Armadillo Aerospace failed in large part because they couldn't get peroxide.
  - abecedarius 5y ago
    Interesting. Did the above comment mention rocket fuel before? Edited out?
    - kragen 5y ago
      No, but I don't know of any other uses for such concentrated peroxide.
      - abecedarius 5y ago
        OIC, thanks.
  - skulk 5y ago
    Can you even ship highly concenterated (>50%) hydrogen peroxide? I'd imagine what you get in the mail will be less than what you ordered due to natural decomposition. In any case, it's not a good example, highly concentrated hydrogen peroxide needs to be treated with respect and restricting/tracking its sales isn't going to make us into toddlers.
    - kragen 5y ago
      You can, yes, but not in the mail. (That's a terrifying thought!) I agree that it needs to be treated with respect. Not allowing the public to access things that need to be treated with respect is indeed treating them like toddlers.
- abecedarius 5y ago
  > Now, if your court system sucks, it may not make a great decision but that's neither here nor there. But "good decision" is not just a technical judgement. The OP claimed the U.S. courts changed their doctrine about this kind of case, at least regarding chemistry sets, around the 70s or not long before. I don't know if this is right, but it comports with other claims I've read about strict liability taking over then -- that previously, liability was a balance where adults could assume responsibility for themselves, and it was possible to sell them dangerous items if it was clear enough what they were getting, without extreme fear of lawsuits; and afterwards, not. Maybe this claim is wrong, I don't know, but it's certainly not "neither here nor there" in this argument.
  - skulk 5y ago
    It actually is, because I'm focused on the slipping into toddlerdom part. Toddlers don't care about liability, but we do. Some mildly overprotective liability doctrine (won't someone think of the children?!) isn't enough to form the slippery slope that is being implied here.
    - abecedarius 5y ago
      A lot of people here are saying they resent that they're being treated like toddlers. It's not a prospective slippery slope, it's one we've already slid down. In considering whether it's overprotective, you need to account for the products and industries that never came to exist, and not just the ones that were destroyed, like https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/02/aviation-liability-law-and-moral-hazard.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/02/av... (first paragraph).

He gave several examples, why don't you think any of them apply?

by djbebs 5y ago

He gave several examples, why don't you think any of them apply?

None of the examples are particularly convincing. I'm not seeing any evidence of our eventual slip into toddlerdom. > This is a world that feels compelled to pass laws requiring the use of seat belts and motorcycle helmets in the hope of protecting people who are too stupid to wear them otherwise. Does anyone really have a problem with mandating basic safety? Can you say this is actually causing harm without extrapolating and theorizing? > If your car runs out of gasoline and you manage to walk to a gas station, you cannot buy gasoline in anything other than an government approved container. The fact that you are stranded makes no difference. This one's valid, but I also don't see the practical problem here. Gas stations can just stock jerry cans as needed, it's not that big of a deal. Maybe this one can be done away with. > If someone falls off a ladder while painting your house, they can sue you and take your house. This is a matter of liability, a concept I'm sure we all can say is something we should keep around to avoid acting like toddlers. There are situations where they deserve to be compensated for their injury, and there are situations where they don't, and most court systems will attempt to distinguish the two. Now, if your court system sucks, it may not make a great decision but that's neither here nor there. > This is a world that no longer allows you to purchase hydrogen peroxide above a certain concentration for fear you will use it to make a bomb. Unless I'm missing something, this is also false. You can buy 50% hydrogen peroxide here without a license https://www.fishersci.ca/shop/products/hydrogen-peroxide-50-stabilized-certified-fisher-chemical/h341500 https://www.fishersci.ca/shop/products/hydrogen-peroxide-50-.... Is that high enough?

roenxi 5y ago
> Does anyone really have a problem with mandating basic safety? Yes. That is why he included the example. It is totally ridiculous that if I do something that puts myself at a minor risk then I get funnelled into a system where the options are compliance or imprisonment. The situation is complicated somewhat by the fact that as far as we call tell a rational person should agree with what the system is demanding, and it isn't important enough to fight about. But nevertheless, imprisonment should not be a theoretical outcome for someone wilfully choosing not to wear a seatbelt. I don't know, I'm not a domain expert. Maybe they don't imprison people for that and just bankrupt them. Still wildly disproportionate and an idiotic formal response to a minor bad decision.
- pc86 5y ago
  A former coworker of mine always refused to wear a seatbelt, and to my knowledge still does. He was in a car accident and had major damage to his legs, hips, and back. Traction, several surgeries, you get the idea. Because he's too stupid to wear a seatbelt he incurred a lot of costs, both financial and psychological, for a lot of people. > Still wildly disproportionate and an idiotic formal response to a minor bad decision. Any interaction with the justice system has to have imprisonment at the end of the line. Not because that's the right way to do it, but because it just doesn't work otherwise. Let's imagine a scenario where a law is passed saying you cannot be imprisoned for a speeding ticket under any circumstances. As long as you don't get in an accident, you can go 150mph down the highway and you won't go to jail. Okay so you get a ticket for an obscene amount of money. But you can't pay it, or you just don't. Do we just throw our hands up and say "shucks, you got us on that one?" Even if you have wages to garnish or property to forfeit, you'd have to take those costs into account and now for a $500 ticket you're having your car repo'd or your wages garnished by 10% for months. It doesn't seem like an oppressive socialist hellscape to me to just say "you know what, you either pay your ticket or you go to jail, and if you're going fast enough, just go straight to jail."
  - roenxi 5y ago
    I'm not certain that a 3rd party would read that as something I agree with, so I'll just note: 1st paragraph - that looks like someone bearing the costs for their bad decision personally to me. Which is why they should be the one making the decision. 2nd & 3rd - yep. That comes close to the extended argument for why it is stupid to legally mandate wearing seatbelts. The level of threat required to enforce a minor requirement is absurd. People shouldn't be subjected to that sort of legal hazard without a high bar of justification.
    - scaramanga 5y ago
      Yes, it's true that there are lonely people who nobody cares about, who don't have loved ones who are effectively blackmailed in to becoming nurses and carers for them after they self-harm. Some of those people are also contributing enough to cover their medical expenses and maybe they exist in a society where somehow they aren't taking medical resources away from equally or more deserving others. On the other hand, however, a lot of people exist as parts of families and communities. They don't need to be mandated not to harm themselves in acts of sheer stupidity because they think about the consequences of their own actions and would be mortified to imagine themselves in a situation where medical resources are being expended on them for no other reason than their own narcissism. But more to the point, at times the task of a democracy boils down to deciding which of these two sorts of personality the society should be geared towards supporting or whether it makes sense to limit the amount of damage that lunatics and sociopths and can do to themselves or to the rest of us for that matter.
collegeburner 5y ago
Literally on the page: "Due to product restrictions, we cannot sell this product online. Please call Customer Service at 1-800-234-7437 or send an email to help@thermofisher.com for assistance." My guess is there will be some ID check, or maybe they only sell to people with "legitimate need" or whatever because the feds get on their ass otherwise. Any government that puts people on a blacklist for buying over n pounds of fertilizer, peroxide, whatever is a bad government.
- johnday 5y ago
  > Any government that puts people on a blacklist for buying over n pounds of fertilizer, peroxide, whatever is a bad government. Do you think these regulations just sprang up fully formed without reason? Legislation like this is written in the blood of those who came before it.
kragen 5y ago
Aside from the restriction to non-online sales pointed out by another commenter, no, 50% peroxide is not high enough for rocket fuel. Armadillo Aerospace failed in large part because they couldn't get peroxide.
- abecedarius 5y ago
  Interesting. Did the above comment mention rocket fuel before? Edited out?
  - kragen 5y ago
    No, but I don't know of any other uses for such concentrated peroxide.
    - abecedarius 5y ago
      OIC, thanks.
- skulk 5y ago
  Can you even ship highly concenterated (>50%) hydrogen peroxide? I'd imagine what you get in the mail will be less than what you ordered due to natural decomposition. In any case, it's not a good example, highly concentrated hydrogen peroxide needs to be treated with respect and restricting/tracking its sales isn't going to make us into toddlers.
  - kragen 5y ago
    You can, yes, but not in the mail. (That's a terrifying thought!) I agree that it needs to be treated with respect. Not allowing the public to access things that need to be treated with respect is indeed treating them like toddlers.
abecedarius 5y ago
> Now, if your court system sucks, it may not make a great decision but that's neither here nor there. But "good decision" is not just a technical judgement. The OP claimed the U.S. courts changed their doctrine about this kind of case, at least regarding chemistry sets, around the 70s or not long before. I don't know if this is right, but it comports with other claims I've read about strict liability taking over then -- that previously, liability was a balance where adults could assume responsibility for themselves, and it was possible to sell them dangerous items if it was clear enough what they were getting, without extreme fear of lawsuits; and afterwards, not. Maybe this claim is wrong, I don't know, but it's certainly not "neither here nor there" in this argument.
- skulk 5y ago
  It actually is, because I'm focused on the slipping into toddlerdom part. Toddlers don't care about liability, but we do. Some mildly overprotective liability doctrine (won't someone think of the children?!) isn't enough to form the slippery slope that is being implied here.
  - abecedarius 5y ago
    A lot of people here are saying they resent that they're being treated like toddlers. It's not a prospective slippery slope, it's one we've already slid down. In considering whether it's overprotective, you need to account for the products and industries that never came to exist, and not just the ones that were destroyed, like https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/02/aviation-liability-law-and-moral-hazard.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/02/av... (first paragraph).