3 ms·
But cigarettes and apples aren't substitutes for each other. A better analogy would be a country banning emacs and mandating vi, or vice versa.
by josephcsible 3y ago
But cigarettes and apples aren't substitutes for each other. A better analogy would be a country banning emacs and mandating vi, or vice versa.
- jeffbee 3y agoIs emacs powered by kerosene?
- josephcsible 3y agoIt's not like kerosene has been banned completely, though, and the right solution for something that you want people to avoid using but not ban completely is a tax on it, not selectively banning certain uses.
- injb 3y agoIt's hard to imagine how that would work. Airline routes are usually based on a use-it-or-lose-it slot. So either the tax will have the desired effect and make the flight uneconomical, in which case it'll be discontinued, or it won't in which case the flight will continue as normal and the government will have an incentive to keep it going, having found some pre-existing use for the extra money that they now can't imagine not having! I can't read the original source: can anyone confirm if this bans private flights or only scheduled flights? I mean could Elon Musk still fly between rail-linked cities in France if he wanted to?
- josephcsible 3y agoThe point is that the market would decide which uses of kerosene are important enough to keep using, rather than the government deciding.
- jeffbee 3y agoI generally agree that it is better to tax emissions and let consumers decide where to spend their carbon budgets. For example, I don't support the idea that we should ban beef, because there are people who want to eat a hamburger and never burn motor fuel, and good for them. But, in this case, that logic doesn't seem to apply. There is nothing "free market" about either air or rail travel. Both exist within and only because of the structure of government, and would not exist without regulation and subsidy.
- josephcsible 3y agoI know rail is heavily subsidized, but aren't most airline routes (with the exception of EAS for really rural places) not subsidized at all?
- jeffbee 3y agoThe government of France owns a third of Air France and 10% of Airbus and half of Aéroports de Paris. I fail to see any rational reason to conclude that domestic air travel within France is "not subsidized at all".
- injb 3y agoRight but the only possible outcomes of the move you're proposing are: * the situation they're trying to bring about with this law or * the same situation we have now except the gov't is taking more of people's money
- abdullahkhalids 3y agoWhat about DDT or asbestos? Should we have banned them or just put a tax on them? In case of taxing, these would continued to have been used, and people and animals not using them would have experienced acute health externalities associated with these substances.
- josephcsible 3y agoDDT is actually a great example. Consider how many people died of malaria who could have been saved by its continued use.
- themoonisachees 3y agoWhat?! DDT was banned because it was killing people. Consider how many people would have died because a corporation would happily sell them poison for profit
- DirkH 3y agoA better analogy might be cigarettes or psychedelics. I believe mountains of evidence strongly suggest cigs are worse for us and cause a much worse net negative harm on society via increased long-term strain on our healthcare sector. But, just like planes, people hold onto cigarettes as a right to freedom and attach unwarranted stigma on psychedelics (just like some attach unwarranted stigma on using trains). Banning cigs in some circumstances where the other is allowed makes sense if we just think about overall human welfare, insofar as that is our goal. Same goes for planes.