SilasBarta comments on Rationality Quotes: June 2011 - Less Wrong

4 Post author: Oscar_Cunningham 01 June 2011 08:17AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (470)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: SilasBarta 01 June 2011 10:01:56PM *  23 points [-]

I agree. Unfortunately, the way it actually works is, "No, we can't allow your universal cure -- the AMA/[your country's MD association] is upset."

"No, we can't accept your free widgets -- that would cost our widgetmakers major sales."

"No, I don't want you to work for me for free -- that would put domestic servants out of jobs."

"No, I don't want to marry you -- that would hurt the income of local prostitutes."

"No, I don't want your solar radiation -- that would put our light and heat industries out of business."

Edit: Even better: "No, I don't want you to be my friend -- what about my therapist's loss of revenue?"

Comment author: wedrifid 01 June 2011 10:55:38PM *  16 points [-]

"No, I don't want to marry you -- that would hurt the income of local prostitutes."

That is a brilliant line. Now I'm trying to work out how to create a circumstance in which to use it.

Comment author: NihilCredo 04 June 2011 06:18:47PM 4 points [-]

The worst thing about how frequenting prostitutes is no longer socially acceptable, even for males, is that there are so many quips and jokes that just don't work any more.

Comment author: TeMPOraL 07 July 2013 08:39:14PM 0 points [-]

Was it ever socially acceptable?

Comment author: MixedNuts 01 June 2011 10:10:59PM 1 point [-]

IRL it's the pharmaceutic labs that block it, not the docs.

That's one of the reasons why you try to mitigate bad side effects: so that people who'll suffer on net from the efffects will STFU.

Comment author: SilasBarta 01 June 2011 11:09:03PM 1 point [-]

That's one of the reasons why you try to mitigate bad side effects: so that people who'll suffer on net from the efffects will STFU.

In theory, yes. And I'd much prefer a one-time ("extortion") payment to a domestic industry to allow cheaper imports, than allow the global economy to remain in a perpetual rut just so a few people don't have to change jobs.

But the fact that this alternative is Pareto-efficient doesn't mean the potential sufferers will STFU -- rather, it costs the alternative its public support, probably because the average person, sympathetic to the domestic industry, still sees it as extortion. And the people in the domestic industry don't want to see themselves as extortioners either! (Relevant Landsburg post.)