= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gjm comments on Policy Debates Should Not Appear One-Sided - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (179)
I found this post particularly ironic. The statement that a mother of five would drink sulfuric acid but for government regulation is not "a simple factual observation." How could it be? Since we are imagining an alternative world and the statement is not based on any universal law of human action (nor even historical precedent, in which case it would be a probabilistic statement, not a statement of fact), it is speculation. And a very debatable speculation at that. That is, why would anyone bother to market such a product? Surely it would not be profitable, as there is no demand for such a product (indeed, if one were intent on swallowing poison they are not going to be stopped by product safety regulation). Furthermore, they would practically be begging for a gigantic tort judgment against them. It is curious that the author does not mention tort law, which has a much greater effectiveness in regulating commercial behavior than codified regulations enforced by bureaucrats. Such a judgment would most likely be the case in her speculatory hypothetical, since it sounds as if the mother of 5 is totally unaware that she is drinking poison. But, even if it were the case that the author's hypothetical were likely (which I contend it is not), it is not in any way a "factual observation."
No, but I'm pretty sure it's shorthand for something like this:
which is a simple factual observation, plus this:
which, while in principle it's "speculation", seems about as speculative as "if we set up a stall in the street offering free cake, some people would eat it".
(I take it it's obvious that "Sulfuric Acid Drink" was intended as hyperbole, to indicate something not quite so transparently harmful, masquerading as a cure. If it isn't, you might want to consider why Eliezer called it "Dr Snakeoil's".)
Apparently you disagree on the grounds that actually no one would be selling such things even if such shops existed. I think they very decidedly might.
Selling fake cures for real diseases (or in some cases fake diseases) has historically been very profitable for some people, and some of those fake cures have been poisonous.
That's a stronger argument. I think Robin may have been envisaging -- and, whether or not he was, Eliezer may have taken him to be envisaging -- that selling in the Banned Products Store exempts you from more than just standard-issue regulatory red tape. I am not an expert on US tort law, so I'll take your word for it that Dr Snakeoil would not be able to get out of trouble just by protesting that he honestly thought his Sulfuric Acid Drink was good against arthritis; if so, then indeed the Banned Products store might be substantially less dangerous than Eliezer suggests.