4 ms·

>Should governments ban all activities which surpass a certain risk threshold? The purpose of regulating personal activities is to mitigate negative externalit

>Should governments ban all activities which surpass a certain risk threshold? The purpose of regulating personal activities is to mitigate negative externalities to society, not to eliminate personal risk. Thus, whether and how something should be regulated is a function of both how probable it is to cause said externalities, and the overall absolute impact of them. The negative externalities of skiing or mountain climbing are that others in society have to pay for healthcare costs associated with injuries sustained from these inherently risky activities. However, on an absolute level, skiing/climbing injuries are rare enough that society has decided to eat this minimal cost. Smoking, on the other extreme, is much more common and has externalities that extend beyond healthcare costs to the smoker [*], e.g. secondhand smoke and litter from cigarette butts. Thus, on an absolute level, its externalities have been deemed unacceptably large by society. But rather than banning smoking outright, there are other ways to mitigate these externalities (bill smokers directly for smoking-related healthcare costs, restrict smoking to areas that minimize secondhand smoke exposure, have draconian fines for littering, etc.) This argument can also apply to alcohol (e.g. draconian penalties for drunk driving) or unhealthy food (bill healthcare costs associated with obesity directly to the patient) [*]. [*] Yes, I am aware of studies that claim smoking/obesity causes a net decrease of healthcare costs, since most expensive healthcare occurs in old age, which smokers/obese people are less likely to reach. If indeed these studies are true, that should be factored into the actuarial calculus.

fargle 4y ago
I think this represents an honest take, but it illustrates why there is such a chasm between the people applauding this kind of thing and those that are horrified. You must understand that not everybody believes that this is the role of society. Are we living in a free country or a glorified HOA? A progressive might applaud this - seems very smart, actuarial, fair, etc. And might put down a conservative that keeps harping on intangibles like freedom as being crude or simple minded or worse evil or in concert with evil things (as decided by the progressive) like Big Tobacco. Of course cancer sticks are bad. But don't assume - it could be that some people see the problem not about tobacco, but have thought about three moves ahead about several ways this can go very, very wrong. This kind of relationship with the government, well meaning at the beginning or not, will end up going only one way.
- xedrac 4y ago
  > some people see the problem not about tobacco, but have thought about three moves ahead about several ways this can go very, very wrong. This kind of relationship with the government, well meaning at the beginning or not, will end up going only one way. This was my first thought. I hate cigarettes with a passion, but allowing the government to encroach on small freedoms like this is a slippery slope. I think it is better to disincentivize things like cigarettes through taxation.
  - fargle 4y ago
    to me, the issues come from a couple places: - who gets to judge what is or is not a social ill? For example cigarettes bad, marijuana good? these are merely the whims of a fickle mob mentality. witch trials and mass paranoia are now canonized - bureaucratic inertial. governments are big. big and really inefficient. when you put so much of your existence in the hands of a government, you'll then demand so much more from it too. when it gets so big to be ungovernable, even if everyone agrees on what's right to do it becomes impossible. US VA administration and the tar pits of ancient la brea. - the above two issues presume a vast majority involved are honest brokers. but that historically appears to be not at all the case. with such centralized power, the thirst of the dark personalities is inescapable. so the facade may be painted legitimate, but very quickly the actual power will become very, very dark.

fargle 4y ago

I think this represents an honest take, but it illustrates why there is such a chasm between the people applauding this kind of thing and those that are horrified. You must understand that not everybody believes that this is the role of society. Are we living in a free country or a glorified HOA? A progressive might applaud this - seems very smart, actuarial, fair, etc. And might put down a conservative that keeps harping on intangibles like freedom as being crude or simple minded or worse evil or in concert with evil things (as decided by the progressive) like Big Tobacco. Of course cancer sticks are bad. But don't assume - it could be that some people see the problem not about tobacco, but have thought about three moves ahead about several ways this can go very, very wrong. This kind of relationship with the government, well meaning at the beginning or not, will end up going only one way.

xedrac 4y ago
> some people see the problem not about tobacco, but have thought about three moves ahead about several ways this can go very, very wrong. This kind of relationship with the government, well meaning at the beginning or not, will end up going only one way. This was my first thought. I hate cigarettes with a passion, but allowing the government to encroach on small freedoms like this is a slippery slope. I think it is better to disincentivize things like cigarettes through taxation.
- fargle 4y ago
  to me, the issues come from a couple places: - who gets to judge what is or is not a social ill? For example cigarettes bad, marijuana good? these are merely the whims of a fickle mob mentality. witch trials and mass paranoia are now canonized - bureaucratic inertial. governments are big. big and really inefficient. when you put so much of your existence in the hands of a government, you'll then demand so much more from it too. when it gets so big to be ungovernable, even if everyone agrees on what's right to do it becomes impossible. US VA administration and the tar pits of ancient la brea. - the above two issues presume a vast majority involved are honest brokers. but that historically appears to be not at all the case. with such centralized power, the thirst of the dark personalities is inescapable. so the facade may be painted legitimate, but very quickly the actual power will become very, very dark.