------=_Part_105206_13185623.1169520108307
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
as sort of an aside regarding that economist, I once read an article that
played devil's advocate and said we never should have axed infectious
diseases like cholera, diptheria, dysentery, tuberculosis, becuase you died
faster that way. heart disease, cancer, parkinsons, etc take much longer
and are more painful. the question it asked was something like, did saving
people from infectious diseases just leave us with longer lasting, more
painful ways to die?
also, the benefit to the gene pool only really stands if the only people who
die from lack of helmet have never had children before, whcih is highly
doubtful, isnt' it?
finally, i agree the ban is on shaky/slippery slope style ground. i suppose
then, your idea of risk-pay makes sense, if you don't wear a helmet, you
don't get insurance, and so, if you smash your head, you just screwed your
family.
which....in retrospect probably hurts their chances of procreating, very
indirectly....so maybe it does help the gene pool.
danny, i like how you are always willing to publicize when you change your
mind. that's great.
lisa
On 1/22/07, Daniel Reeves wrote:
>
> I think so. The pro-helmet argument is "society has to deal with you when
> you turn yourself into a vegetable". That's shaky ground. You could ban
> a lot of things with that rationale.
>
> Oh, right, and think of the gene pool! (ie, potential children!)
>
> Relatedly, does anyone recall the economist who claims that smokers save
> taxpayers money because dying of cancer is much quicker and cheaper than
> dying of old age? (The argument is meant to expose the disingenuousness
> of anti-smoking activists who try to justify smoking bans on the basis of
> the supposed medical costs.)
>
> Anyone have opinions about anti-gambling laws?
>
>
> --- \/ FROM Lisa Hsu AT 07.01.22 11:00 (Today) \/ ---
>
> > does this dislike of bans/laws extend to things like motorcycle/bicycle
> > helmets, seatbelts, and the like?
> >
> > just curious.
> >
> > lisa
> >
> > On 1/22/07, Daniel Reeves wrote:
> >>
> >> It took a while but Cam Wicklow's and Matt Rudary's (and possibly
> other
> >> of my opponents in this debate who I'm forgetting) points have finally
> >> fully sunk in. (The greatest thing about improvetheworld in my opinion
> is
> >> how often we prove Carl Sagan's otherwise apt obversation about
> political
> >> debate wrong (see appended email signature).)
> >>
> >> I no longer support smoke-free workplace laws!
> >>
> >> The right strategy is a coherent policy that upholds everyone's
> >> freedom:
> >> freedom to smoke and freedom to not breathe smoke. For example,
> mandated
> >> risk-pay (i.e., the very real risk of cancer for the waitstaff of smoky
> >> bars) could make it expensive enough to allow smoking that a minority
> of
> >> establishments would choose to. Voila, everyone's happy! I'm really
> sick
> >> of governments banning things. It's a dangerous precedent.
> >> Basically, I think policy-makers should be more like mathematicians.
> >> Smoking in bars and restaurants is/was a real social problem. But
> there
> >> are ways to fix it without adding laws. In fact, we can fix it by
> >> generalizing, clarifying, and consistently enforcing existing laws.
> >> Risk-pay is one way. Another way is to generalize liquor-license laws
> to
> >> include smoking, i.e., directly make it more expensive for bar and
> >> restaurant owners to allow smoking.
> >> It really boils down to the Golden Rule. Banning something is A-OK
> >> when you don't happen to want to do that thing anyway. But worry about
> >> the precedent you're setting for when the government decides that
> *your*
> >> favorite risky activity is a danger to yourself and others.
> >> I should confess though that part of the reason I finally saw the
> light
> >> on this is that, living in supposedly smoke-free New York City you
> can't
> >> walk a block without getting three facefuls of smoke.
> >> I keep thinking how nice it would be to get the smokers into some
> kind
> >> of
> >> special smoking establishments -- "bars" if you will -- and off the
> damn
> >> sidewalks! Oh the irony.
> >>
> >> And don't get me started on New York's transfats ban.
> >>
> >> Danny
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search://"Daniel Reeves"
> >>
> >> "In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's
> >> a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they
> >> would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view
> >> from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as
> >> it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes
> >> painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time
> >> something like that happened in politics or religion."
> >> -- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP Keynote Address
> >>
> >
>
> --
> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search://"Daniel Reeves"
>
> Well, you know when you're rocking back in a chair, and you go so
> far that you almost fall over backwards, but at the last instant you
> catch yourself? That's how I feel all the time. -- Steven Wright
>
>
------=_Part_105206_13185623.1169520108307
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
as sort of an aside regarding that economist, I once read an article that
played devil s advocate and said we never should have axed infectious diseases
like cholera, diptheria, dysentery, tuberculosis, becuase you died faster that
way. heart disease, cancer, parkinsons, etc take much longer and are more
painful. the question it asked was something like, did saving people from
infectious diseases just leave us with longer lasting, more painful ways to
die?
also, the benefit to the gene pool only really stands if the only people who
die from lack of helmet have never had children before, whcih is highly
doubtful, isnt it? finally, i agree the ban is on shaky/slippery slope style
ground. i suppose then, your idea of risk-pay makes sense, if you don t wear a
helmet, you don t get insurance, and so, if you smash your head, you just
screwed your family.
which....in retrospect probably hurts their chances of procreating, very
indirectly....so maybe it does help the gene pool. danny, i like how you are
always willing to publicize when you change your mind. that s great.
lisa On 1/22/07, Daniel Reeves < dreeves Æ umich.edu > wrote:
I think so. The pro-helmet argument is "society has to deal with you when you
turn yourself into a vegetable". That s shaky ground. You could ban a lot of
things with that rationale. Oh, right, and think of the gene pool! (ie,
potential children!)
Relatedly, does anyone recall the economist who claims that smokers save
taxpayers money because dying of cancer is much quicker and cheaper than dying
of old age? (The argument is meant to expose the disingenuousness
of anti-smoking activists who try to justify smoking bans on the basis of the
supposed medical costs.) Anyone have opinions about anti-gambling laws? ---
\/ FROM Lisa Hsu AT 07.01.22 11:00 (Today) \/ ---
> does this dislike of bans/laws extend to things like motorcycle/bicycle
> helmets, seatbelts, and the like? > > just curious. > > lisa
> > On 1/22/07, Daniel Reeves <
dreeves Æ umich.edu > wrote: >> >> It took a while but
Cam Wicklow s and Matt Rudary s (and possibly other >> of my opponents in
this debate who I m forgetting) points have finally
>> fully sunk in. (The greatest thing about improvetheworld in my
opinion is >> how often we prove Carl Sagan s otherwise apt obversation
about political >> debate wrong (see appended email signature).)
>> >> I no longer support smoke-free workplace laws! >>
>> The right strategy is a coherent policy that upholds everyone s
>> freedom: >> freedom to smoke and freedom to not breathe smoke.
For example, mandated
>> risk-pay (i.e., the very real risk of cancer for the waitstaff of
smoky >> bars) could make it expensive enough to allow smoking that a
minority of >> establishments would choose to. Voila, everyone s happy!
I m really sick
>> of governments banning things. It s a dangerous precedent. >>
Basically, I think policy-makers should be more like mathematicians. >>
Smoking in bars and restaurants is/was a real social problem. But there
>> are ways to fix it without adding laws. In fact, we can fix it by
>> generalizing, clarifying, and consistently enforcing existing laws.
>> Risk-pay is one way. Another way is to generalize liquor-license laws
to
>> include smoking, i.e., directly make it more expensive for bar and
>> restaurant owners to allow smoking. >> It really boils down
to the Golden Rule. Banning something is A-OK >> when you don t happen
to want to do that thing anyway. But worry about
>> the precedent you re setting for when the government decides that
*your* >> favorite risky activity is a danger to yourself and others.
>> I should confess though that part of the reason I finally saw the
light
>> on this is that, living in supposedly smoke-free New York City you
can t >> walk a block without getting three facefuls of smoke. >>
I keep thinking how nice it would be to get the smokers into some kind
>> of >> special smoking establishments -- "bars" if you will --
and off the damn >> sidewalks! Oh the irony. >> >> And
don t get me started on New York s transfats ban.
>> >> Danny >> >> -- >>
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search://"Daniel Reeves"
>> >> "In science it often happens that scientists say, You know
that s
>> a really good argument; my position is mistaken, and then they
>> would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view
>> from them again. They really do it. It doesn t happen as often as
>> it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes
>> painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time
>> something like that happened in politics or religion."
>> -- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP Keynote Address >> > --
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search://"Daniel Reeves"
Well, you know when you re rocking back in a chair, and you go so far that
you almost fall over backwards, but at the last instant you catch yourself?
That s how I feel all the time. -- Steven Wright
------=_Part_105206_13185623.1169520108307--
|
