4 ms·

> 2. Legislation won’t happen until enough people care enough to demand it I can demand legislation to encourage/require behavior that I myself won’t practice

> 2. Legislation won’t happen until enough people care enough to demand it I can demand legislation to encourage/require behavior that I myself won’t practice in absence of said legislation. It sounds counterintuitive but it makes sense… by analogy, if I’m a hockey goalie I may have the opinion that goalie pads have gotten too big and the game would be more exciting if they were required to be smaller. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to personally wear smaller goalie pads and put myself at a disadvantage, unless the league requires it. I’m in favor of laws that reduce single use plastic even if I myself don’t go out of my way to avoid single use plastic. Too many products around me use it, and if I had to pay attention to every product I buy to avoid it, it would be very difficult. But if legislation existed to force companies to avoid making it in the first place, my individual purchasing decisions would remain simple and we’d all benefit.

haswell 3y ago
> I can demand legislation to encourage/require behavior that I myself won’t practice in absence of said legislation. By this logic, the primary basis on which we make decisions is whatever provides a personal advantage. It’s an unsustainable mindset that would regularly encourage unethical/immoral but otherwise legal actions. Our individual lives aren’t businesses operating in a regulated environment or a goalie forced to operate under the rules all other goalies operate under. We live in the wide open space of every day life where we get to choose what everyday life looks like, for the most part. There are some things that are important to do because they are important, regardless of the legal landscape. If you find yourself waiting for someone to force you to change, stop and consider the implications if everyone does the same thing. > But if legislation existed to force companies to avoid making it in the first place, my individual purchasing decisions would remain simple and we’d all benefit. At least in the US, this misses the critical fact that the government’s function is to represent the will of the people; not impose their will upon the people. Clearly the US system is not doing well in this regard, but there’s a strong case to be made that apathy and lack of individual involvement are primary factors in this dysfunction. In light of this - knowing that the system itself is struggling to meet its charter - it seems especially important not to just expect some magical legislative solution. People are going to have to get involved and do the hard work.
- ninkendo 3y ago
  > By this logic, the primary basis on which we make decisions is whatever provides a personal advantage. I think you’re approaching my comment in a very uncharitable way. I said I can support legislation that contradicts my personal behavior, not that I always do. I’m not saying I always act selfishly. I’m saying it’s possible (as in, not strictly speaking a fallacy) to act individually selfishly while also voting for legislation that is unselfish. > At least in the US, this misses the critical fact that the government’s function is to represent the will of the people; not impose their will upon the people That’s not what I’m saying at all? Are you sure you’re not just reading what you want to read in my statement? I’m saying I would support legislation (as in, I would vote for candidates that campaigned on this) that would limit the use of single use plastic. I’m not saying “the government should force this even if people don’t want it”. I’m saying “we should all collectively decide we want to ban single use plastic.” I don’t know how you interpreted the comment otherwise.
  - haswell 3y ago
    Sorry, I think I must have really misinterpreted/misunderstood the comment. I’ll see if I can explain why I interpreted it that way because I’d like to understand what you mean. > > 2. Legislation won’t happen until enough people care enough to demand it > I can demand legislation to encourage/require behavior that I myself won’t practice in absence of said legislation. Can you clarify the point you’re making here or state it in a different way? I interpreted this to mean that you were endorsing the position that “I’ll support the legislation, but I’m not gonna change until everyone has to because I’d be at a disadvantage”. The goalie analogy reinforced this especially re: disadvantage. I agree that my interpretation sounds uncharitable, but I’m struggling to find the charitable interpretation. If you’re raising a pure hypothetical, i.e. “this is something that humans can technically do”, I don’t disagree, but I’m struggling to understand the relevance in that case, and would genuinely like to understand. > I’m saying “we should all collectively decide we want to ban single use plastic.” I don’t know how you interpreted the comment otherwise. For some reason, this is definitely not what I took away from the parent comment, and wouldn’t have responded the way I did if that’s what I thought you were trying to say.

haswell 3y ago

> I can demand legislation to encourage/require behavior that I myself won’t practice in absence of said legislation. By this logic, the primary basis on which we make decisions is whatever provides a personal advantage. It’s an unsustainable mindset that would regularly encourage unethical/immoral but otherwise legal actions. Our individual lives aren’t businesses operating in a regulated environment or a goalie forced to operate under the rules all other goalies operate under. We live in the wide open space of every day life where we get to choose what everyday life looks like, for the most part. There are some things that are important to do because they are important, regardless of the legal landscape. If you find yourself waiting for someone to force you to change, stop and consider the implications if everyone does the same thing. > But if legislation existed to force companies to avoid making it in the first place, my individual purchasing decisions would remain simple and we’d all benefit. At least in the US, this misses the critical fact that the government’s function is to represent the will of the people; not impose their will upon the people. Clearly the US system is not doing well in this regard, but there’s a strong case to be made that apathy and lack of individual involvement are primary factors in this dysfunction. In light of this - knowing that the system itself is struggling to meet its charter - it seems especially important not to just expect some magical legislative solution. People are going to have to get involved and do the hard work.

ninkendo 3y ago
> By this logic, the primary basis on which we make decisions is whatever provides a personal advantage. I think you’re approaching my comment in a very uncharitable way. I said I can support legislation that contradicts my personal behavior, not that I always do. I’m not saying I always act selfishly. I’m saying it’s possible (as in, not strictly speaking a fallacy) to act individually selfishly while also voting for legislation that is unselfish. > At least in the US, this misses the critical fact that the government’s function is to represent the will of the people; not impose their will upon the people That’s not what I’m saying at all? Are you sure you’re not just reading what you want to read in my statement? I’m saying I would support legislation (as in, I would vote for candidates that campaigned on this) that would limit the use of single use plastic. I’m not saying “the government should force this even if people don’t want it”. I’m saying “we should all collectively decide we want to ban single use plastic.” I don’t know how you interpreted the comment otherwise.
- haswell 3y ago
  Sorry, I think I must have really misinterpreted/misunderstood the comment. I’ll see if I can explain why I interpreted it that way because I’d like to understand what you mean. > > 2. Legislation won’t happen until enough people care enough to demand it > I can demand legislation to encourage/require behavior that I myself won’t practice in absence of said legislation. Can you clarify the point you’re making here or state it in a different way? I interpreted this to mean that you were endorsing the position that “I’ll support the legislation, but I’m not gonna change until everyone has to because I’d be at a disadvantage”. The goalie analogy reinforced this especially re: disadvantage. I agree that my interpretation sounds uncharitable, but I’m struggling to find the charitable interpretation. If you’re raising a pure hypothetical, i.e. “this is something that humans can technically do”, I don’t disagree, but I’m struggling to understand the relevance in that case, and would genuinely like to understand. > I’m saying “we should all collectively decide we want to ban single use plastic.” I don’t know how you interpreted the comment otherwise. For some reason, this is definitely not what I took away from the parent comment, and wouldn’t have responded the way I did if that’s what I thought you were trying to say.