= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
V_V comments on Rationality Quotes February 2014 - 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 (482)
Uhm, are you sure you are not succumbing to the false-consensus effect?
Adultery was harshly punished in the past. Even in the recent past, before the 70s, adultery was one of the few admissible reasons to obtain divorce, and lead to unfavourable settlement for the adulterous party. In the 70s, no-fault divorce laws were passed in most Western countries, and adultery was demoted to having little or no role in divorce settlements.
Keep in mind that no-fault divorce laws weren't imposed by dictators trying to destroy the fabric of society or something (*), they were passed with popular support by democratically elected governments, and there is no noticeable political pressure today to revise them, or even to make the type of pre-nup agreements you are referring to enforceable.
Your position largely used to be the default one in the past, and public opinion has been moving consistently away from it for the last decades.
Holding an unpopular political position is legitimate, but what makes you think that public opinion would move back to it?
(* Well, the Soviet divorce law of 1918 arguably was.)
Quite sure. To quote from another post I made in this thread:
Basically, I think people radically and consistently underestimate the effects of institutional constraints and incentives, and assume that aggregate societal results are somehow "chosen." So people tend to think that:
If you enabled people to make binding commitments in marriage, I don't think most people would leap out and take advantage immediately. Most people would just keep on with whatever they're doing. But a small number of people would, and their marriages would be more successful and happier and long-lasting, and over time (decades) their behaviour would be imitated, and so on.
Disagree about the popular support thing. In Britain, certainly, the Divorce Reform Act was passed with neither popular support nor opposition, just a public who didn't particularly care. The people pushing for it were a small number of activists, who were also in favour of these social "liberalisations" like abolition of the death penalty, etc. Many of these "lilberalisations" were in fact quite unpopular. I think you greatly underestimate the institutional leeway available to politicians/regulators.
I don't think my position is so much unpopular as it is low-demand. I think the UK government, at least, could easily pass the kind of law I favour, and no-one much would care. In fact I don't think my position is ever likely to be in high demand, because most people don't think incentives are particularly important.
It seems to me that you are arguing that some small groups of activists somehow managed to manipulate the democratic governments of multiple countries in a short span of time, without the general public taking notice, despite the fact that this alleged manipulation affected in substantial (and significantly negative, in your opinion) ways the family life of many people.
Sorry, but I don't think this is a rationally tenable position.
Yes. This is indeed the whole point of activism.
I never said anything of the sort. Perhaps I should take it as a compliment that people are determined to put words into my mouth, as it indicates they feel unable to argue with my actual position. In fact, of course, the public did take notice, but didn't much care.
Yes, because the effect was attenuated, and was not seen as causally linked to the activity.
I'm afraid your model of political activity in democratic governments is rather faulty.