Sure, but I wouldn't implement something like that as a policy, but as a guideline. So when someone really goes overboard into one or the other directionyou can point them to the guideline, but there is still some freedom in deciding on the spot.
People should choose their own risk management decisions, not have a government forcibly do it for them. If you're concerned, you can choose to restrict yourself, but you have no business restricting me and any number of people that mutually wish to interact with me.
There’s a road between those views: people are sometimes free agents, but often do not actively choose their own path. So while we should allow people to make their own choices when they’re actively choosing them, we can do a lot to make the default choice one that is relatively beneficial over the long term.
So things like requiring sugary drinks to carry a label that makes it obvious when a juice is as sugary as a soda. Or modifying sidewalks and parking to make walking or biking short distances more pleasurable than driving. Some of how you do this is by removing dangers from their environment, for instance by separating bike lanes from roads. And by allowing people to break from a habit cycle, for instance by establishing rules for gambling like enforcing periodic breaks in play to give people opportunities to reassess their actions.
Personal choices that have the ability to significantly negatively impact many other people have something of a tendency to get regulated and controlled in some manner.
That's reality and it's not unreasonable. The thing we need to sort out is where to draw those lines to optimize for best outcomes for both individuals and society.
Would you be in favour of applying this policy to all people displaying behaviours deemed at higher risk of requiring hospital treatment? And who should decide what constitutes risky activity?
I prefer to let people make their own choices, otherwise the alternative might just be to ban everyone from doing everything even remotely dangerous anywhere on the entire planet (who's laws will apply?)
If people want to do risky things, that's their business.
For me, this hypothetical is more a situation where we're talking about one's freedom to make choices that endanger those around them, in addition themselves. When the principal danger is to oneself I think restrictions are rarely justified, but when the consequences are borne by others, I think it's more justified. For example, when operating cars, we don't allow you to drink and drive, run red lights, or drive on the sidewalk, primarily because it creates at least as much risk for your neighbours as it does for yourself.
Right - good point. And obviously my larger point is where do you draw the line with mandates? The arguments here are largely about preventing head injuries - so how far is too far?
Sure. What I was trying to distinguish was between something that would cause real harm for reasons outside of your control, versus something that goes against some principles you made up for yourself but with no other consequences.
You could say the same thing about having children, or deciding what to eat in the morning. Or deciding what to do with your life.
Could you explain to me how you would draw the line? People can't and shouldn't be protected from themselves.
A good example is that I got addicted to heroin. It was terrible, yet, I believe that drugs should be legal and that people need to make their own choices, regardless of the consequences.
How exactly would you word or enforce such a policy? What is a "bad habit"? Is fun or happiness addictive? Why might the puritan nanny state approach work better here than with alcohol, drugs, or abortion?
> let people make their own decisions about what they put in their bodies
why not let people make their decisions about what they put in other people's bodies then? if they do damage - they suffer consequences, so it all should be fine right?
That would be fine and dandy if the decision to engage in risky behaviour only affects the individuals and businesses making them. However, this is not the case in reality.
My post was simply a discussion on the process of determining precautions, absent going to an extreme. It was not advocacy for the specific place on the spectrum where the line should be drawn. It was, in response to your comment, an observation that no matter where the line is drawn, there will be some who view it violates their freedom as too authoritarian, and others who believe it violates their freedom by allowing irresponsible decisions by others to impact them.
I won't go into the particulars of my own opinion on where the lines should be drawn except to say that I think some decisions have been bad, some have been okay, but that in general this is not a situation that lends itself to easy answers.
I don't know about this argument in general: it seems about the same as saying we shouldn't criticize people for drinking and driving because they should decide their own risk tolerance. Sure they're deciding the risk to themselves, but they don't necessarily get to unilaterally decide their tolerance to risking others without criticism.
I think it was clear I was not offering a public policy idea. I was explaining the common emotional response most of us have when they see people make decisions that they know will cause physical harm others. Like poisoning a river or driving drunk.
Generally I'd agree, but there is some rationality to the idea that we should not encourage and promote certain activities because of their inherent dangers. Smoking, for instance.
reply