7 ms·
“A bit less so” is the point. Under this logic you’re using, there’s no point to having speed limits on roadways or seatbelts and safety devices in cars. If we
by dangus 3y ago
“A bit less so” is the point.
Under this logic you’re using, there’s no point to having speed limits on roadways or seatbelts and safety devices in cars. If we can never eliminate car crash deaths, why bother with all those regulations?
Lower number of bad thing is better than higher number of bad thing.
This is known to be effective with cigarettes. Higher taxes reduce usage. Less advertising reduces usage. Advertising induces demand that would not otherwise exist.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoI think it is pretty different. The moral justification for speed limits is risks to others on shared roads, not oneself. You can drive as fast as you want on a private track.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 3y agoSeat belt law might be a better analogy, though there is always the risk of becoming a projectile when you don’t wear one that can injure others, so even that’s not a perfect one.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoThat's better, and still legal to ignore on private property. There was a lot of anger and discussion about public seat belt laws for the reasons you said.
- dangus 3y agoI think the family members of frequent gamblers might argue against the idea that it’s got no negative externalities to others.