4 ms·
> all society's ills would have been resolved long ago This is pointlessly reductive. Bans don’t have to be 100% effective to reduce harm.
by stouset 2y ago
> all society's ills would have been resolved long ago
This is pointlessly reductive. Bans don’t have to be 100% effective to reduce harm.
- seanmcdirmid 2y agoBans done wrong can also make the thing being banned even more appealing, increasing harm. Telling teenagers they can’t do something is always in that realm of calling out forbidden fruit.
- potato3732842 2y agoEven ignoring that bans tend to make things "cool" to young people, bans done wrong tend to simply concentrate roughly the same or close to the same amount of harm. Sure, less people habitually got drunk and beat their wives/kids during prohibition, but approximately the same harm still happened, it was just concentrated in all the people who had their lives ruined or got killed by the gangsters or the feds.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- baranul 2y agoPart of the problem is sidestepping around the issue of parental accountability. Certain parties see giving the government increased power into the home, as their opportunity for more control over their populations and any dissent in general. Saying it's "for the kids" is a smoke screen for what they are actually trying to do. The laws they often promote, will do little to solve the actual problem, but will do a lot for them to increase censorship and funnel more money into their pockets.