4 ms·

"Choices have consequences. But we rarely see the many possibilities a choice can yield, let alone the probable weightings of each one." But we can do things t

"Choices have consequences. But we rarely see the many possibilities a choice can yield, let alone the probable weightings of each one." But we can do things to steer people toward good decisions or bad decisions. Your argument is a little too deterministic/fatalistic, as though things just kind of happen. Directly applying empathy to policy sometimes steers people toward bad decisions. That's just the unfortunate reality of incentives; in some cases worse than others. One way of steering people toward good decisions is to expose them to some of the consequences of their bad choices. That has some major advantages: (1) it's easy to implement and fairly natural; (2) it doesn't require central planning; (3) it preserves a lot of freedom to make a wide variety of choices, not all of which have to be perfect. Unfortunately, it also has the disadvantage that mistakes and misfortunes cause major problems -- not just for the individuals, but also for the rest of society. I believe the best trade-offs are when social assistance is provided by the most local organization that can provide it, starting with the immediate family and going up to about the size of a U.S. state at most. In a family or community, social assistance comes after years of listening to advice and with many social strings attached (usually by the more successful community members). The advice helps avoid the need for assistance; the social strings are a deterrent from bad choices and help people get back to making good decisions. For example, reproductive choices vary widely between cultures, and I believe that's a caused by things like taboos and shame. Of course, taboos and shame have their own problems because they are applied imprecisely and are sometimes outdated. Sometimes, that results in even worse decisions, like staying in an abusive relationship or not entering a good one. I didn't claim to have all the answers.

saraid216 13y ago
> One way of steering people toward good decisions is to expose them to some of the consequences of their bad choices. But how is this actually done? In any of the cases noted in the article, how would you have exposed people to those consequences without simply subjecting them to those consequences and leaving them to rot? Can you say to a single parent, "Well, now you know what kind of person not to have a child with"? The child is born. It has its own rights and needs. You're presented with a whole new set of choices to make, with their own consequences, that you still can't foresee with perfect clarity. You say that not all of the choices have to be perfect... but that doesn't seem any different from what Murray, at least as portrayed by the article, is arguing. And moreover, can you really say that you're presenting them with a choice? Here's an anti-Christian argument about free will: many Christians say that going to Hell is your own choice. Their job is to simply to inform you of that choice, so that you can freely accept Christ before you die. But the choice is between eternal bliss and eternal torment. Is that really a choice? The real choice isn't really between eternal bliss and eternal torment: it's between accepting coercion or refusing it.
- jeffdavis 13y ago
  "In any of the cases noted in the article, how would you have exposed people to those consequences without simply subjecting them to those consequences and leaving them to rot?" Expose them to a fraction of the consequences, rather than all of them. My point was not that one approach is good and another not. It's a trade-off (between adequate assistance and incentives to make good choices) and the trades are implicit in every act of assistance, whether at the family or government level. The best approach is to make good trades that provide the most assistance without steering people too much towards bad decisions. It's easier to do that in a localized (or better yet, personalized) way than using central planning on a 300M-person scale. The reason is that there are many more options to get people back on track when dealing with a problem at the local level. A government of 300M people can't do much more than throw money at the problem, which is not nearly as good of a trade-off.

saraid216 13y ago

> One way of steering people toward good decisions is to expose them to some of the consequences of their bad choices. But how is this actually done? In any of the cases noted in the article, how would you have exposed people to those consequences without simply subjecting them to those consequences and leaving them to rot? Can you say to a single parent, "Well, now you know what kind of person not to have a child with"? The child is born. It has its own rights and needs. You're presented with a whole new set of choices to make, with their own consequences, that you still can't foresee with perfect clarity. You say that not all of the choices have to be perfect... but that doesn't seem any different from what Murray, at least as portrayed by the article, is arguing. And moreover, can you really say that you're presenting them with a choice? Here's an anti-Christian argument about free will: many Christians say that going to Hell is your own choice. Their job is to simply to inform you of that choice, so that you can freely accept Christ before you die. But the choice is between eternal bliss and eternal torment. Is that really a choice? The real choice isn't really between eternal bliss and eternal torment: it's between accepting coercion or refusing it.

jeffdavis 13y ago
"In any of the cases noted in the article, how would you have exposed people to those consequences without simply subjecting them to those consequences and leaving them to rot?" Expose them to a fraction of the consequences, rather than all of them. My point was not that one approach is good and another not. It's a trade-off (between adequate assistance and incentives to make good choices) and the trades are implicit in every act of assistance, whether at the family or government level. The best approach is to make good trades that provide the most assistance without steering people too much towards bad decisions. It's easier to do that in a localized (or better yet, personalized) way than using central planning on a 300M-person scale. The reason is that there are many more options to get people back on track when dealing with a problem at the local level. A government of 300M people can't do much more than throw money at the problem, which is not nearly as good of a trade-off.