------=_Part_91434_20786098.1169481614434
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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
>

------=_Part_91434_20786098.1169481614434
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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	  

------=_Part_91434_20786098.1169481614434--