3 ms·

I don’t think anyone believes regulation would fix the root cause of the victims’ psychological issues. The idea is that the government preventing predatory ex

by epgui 3y ago

I don’t think anyone believes regulation would fix the root cause of the victims’ psychological issues. The idea is that the government preventing predatory exploitation of vulnerable individuals, regardless of the specific cause of their vulnerability, is a good thing in and of itself.

monero-xmr 3y ago
If you follow the idea that "the government should prevent predatory exploitation of vulnerable individuals" to its logical conclusion, you create a very authoritarian society that lacks creativity. There isn't a way the government can stop this. Maybe promoting programs and outreach for people to join community groups, churches, bowling leagues, etc. but otherwise there is no fix the government can put in to solve this.
- epgui 3y ago
  I don’t think your conclusion follows from the premise at all.
  - monero-xmr 3y ago
    What would be your proposed solution for the government to prevent people from paying for products that reduce their loneliness and isolation?
    - epgui 3y ago
      I’m not convinced there’s a problem to solve here. Nobody is advocating for poorly-targeted legislation. IMO it’s better to focus on “101: how legislation works” before trying to argue in nonspecific ways that legislation fails to work as intended. The devil is always in the details, so unless someone wants to argue that “protecting vulnerable people” is not a good goal, it makes no sense to criticize a hypothetical law we don’t have in front of our eyes.
      - monero-xmr 3y ago
        That’s another way of saying, “Well I have no idea, but in the abstract I want the government to use force to prevent people from doing things that hurt themselves.” And I’m saying that’s impossible, and in trying to do the impossible you will hurt society.
        epgui 3y ago
        > And I’m saying that’s impossible That's both a serious failure of the imagination, as well as a failure to recognize that a large number of problems (of the same kind) have been solved successfully across the world by various legislation. There is a mountain of prior art here, a lot of which is totally non-controversial.
  - junofan 3y ago
    I don’t see it either, but exploitation was a big theme of Marxism-Leninism, and maybe one of them argued that fixing the exploitation of vulnerable people required abolishing the “society of the will” and adopting the “society of reason” or something. But yeah it feels like we can have some reasonable guardrails. Honestly with gambling and other vices I think a private, at-home genetic screener for behavioral risk factors would be really interesting. That would be a good place for regulation and oversight. The odds ratios can get quite large—opioid use can be 5x or more IIRC—and having that data could help people who might be otherwise surrounded by less at-risk peers indulging in these kinds of activities.

by epgui 3y ago

monero-xmr 3y ago

If you follow the idea that "the government should prevent predatory exploitation of vulnerable individuals" to its logical conclusion, you create a very authoritarian society that lacks creativity. There isn't a way the government can stop this. Maybe promoting programs and outreach for people to join community groups, churches, bowling leagues, etc. but otherwise there is no fix the government can put in to solve this.

epgui 3y ago
I don’t think your conclusion follows from the premise at all.
- monero-xmr 3y ago
  What would be your proposed solution for the government to prevent people from paying for products that reduce their loneliness and isolation?
  - epgui 3y ago
    I’m not convinced there’s a problem to solve here. Nobody is advocating for poorly-targeted legislation. IMO it’s better to focus on “101: how legislation works” before trying to argue in nonspecific ways that legislation fails to work as intended. The devil is always in the details, so unless someone wants to argue that “protecting vulnerable people” is not a good goal, it makes no sense to criticize a hypothetical law we don’t have in front of our eyes.
    - monero-xmr 3y ago
      That’s another way of saying, “Well I have no idea, but in the abstract I want the government to use force to prevent people from doing things that hurt themselves.” And I’m saying that’s impossible, and in trying to do the impossible you will hurt society.
      - epgui 3y ago
        > And I’m saying that’s impossible That's both a serious failure of the imagination, as well as a failure to recognize that a large number of problems (of the same kind) have been solved successfully across the world by various legislation. There is a mountain of prior art here, a lot of which is totally non-controversial.
- junofan 3y ago
  I don’t see it either, but exploitation was a big theme of Marxism-Leninism, and maybe one of them argued that fixing the exploitation of vulnerable people required abolishing the “society of the will” and adopting the “society of reason” or something. But yeah it feels like we can have some reasonable guardrails. Honestly with gambling and other vices I think a private, at-home genetic screener for behavioral risk factors would be really interesting. That would be a good place for regulation and oversight. The odds ratios can get quite large—opioid use can be 5x or more IIRC—and having that data could help people who might be otherwise surrounded by less at-risk peers indulging in these kinds of activities.