Nice points. Can I offer one editorial quibble: When making good points like you do, try to avoid the phrase “harm reduction” to refer to harm aversion. “Harm reduction” is a term of art that many of us use to refer to a moral philosophy of providing people with safer alternatives, and educating them about them, so that they can make lower risk choices. E.g., syringe exchanges or vaping instead of smoking. A key aspect of this is individual empowerment and autonomy, making it like what you are calling for rather than what you are criticizing.
Good piece. I think one cause of safetyism is that when some kind of major harmful event occurs then everyone sees it and blames regulators for not being stringent enough, whereas when over-regulation leads to opportunity costs, people don't see the lost opportunities, and as a result don't blame regulators for being too restrictive. Compare e.g. the "invisible graveyard" caused by the FDA's slowness in approving drugs.
I understand your point is that reducing harm can reduce positive activity such as exercise or parenting, but there is a much more insidious outcome to regulating behavior: who sets the norms?
For example, we could start by preventing active drug addicts. Seems reasonable. But what about narcissists? Should people like Trump or Netanyahu be allowed to reproduce - or more importantly, Trump’s dad, when there is so much evidence of the psychological damage caused by this form of sociopathy?
And some might argue that only those with faith create families (not me), or those in heterosexual unions.
I reckon that further reducing the birth rate is the least objectionable part of “parenting licenses.” Our stark inability to predict the future is a more critical concern. When we have police arresting parents for letting a ten year old walk to school alone while ignoring the massive damage done to children through emotional abuse and unstable personalities, we are showing how incompetent at policing parenting even now.
FWIW, LaFollette revisited licensing in 2010 with a much tamer view. One of the ways he modified the view is by having the state incentivize licensing with tax breaks, rather than punishing those who avoid licensing with penalties. So, ironically enough, he sort of turned the view into a pro-natalist, incentivizing policy.
This was short and sweet, and outrageously easy to understand for a non-philosopher. I find myself in complete agreement , although I personally feel I would have arrived at the same conclusion by a different path, i.e., the value of individual freedom and agency (including for making bad decisions) and the very negative effects that overregulation, bureaucracy and state intervention have repeatedly been shown to produce.
The problem to me is the people making these suggestions, considering themselves the "experts" and were don't need anything else regulated by self anointed experts. And look at licensing. It doesn't stop drunk drivers or those with money and connections from being excused for very great jarms. So seems like a foolish idea, and for everything you said as well.
Nice points. Can I offer one editorial quibble: When making good points like you do, try to avoid the phrase “harm reduction” to refer to harm aversion. “Harm reduction” is a term of art that many of us use to refer to a moral philosophy of providing people with safer alternatives, and educating them about them, so that they can make lower risk choices. E.g., syringe exchanges or vaping instead of smoking. A key aspect of this is individual empowerment and autonomy, making it like what you are calling for rather than what you are criticizing.
Ok, should be fixed now!
Good piece. I think one cause of safetyism is that when some kind of major harmful event occurs then everyone sees it and blames regulators for not being stringent enough, whereas when over-regulation leads to opportunity costs, people don't see the lost opportunities, and as a result don't blame regulators for being too restrictive. Compare e.g. the "invisible graveyard" caused by the FDA's slowness in approving drugs.
I understand your point is that reducing harm can reduce positive activity such as exercise or parenting, but there is a much more insidious outcome to regulating behavior: who sets the norms?
For example, we could start by preventing active drug addicts. Seems reasonable. But what about narcissists? Should people like Trump or Netanyahu be allowed to reproduce - or more importantly, Trump’s dad, when there is so much evidence of the psychological damage caused by this form of sociopathy?
And some might argue that only those with faith create families (not me), or those in heterosexual unions.
I reckon that further reducing the birth rate is the least objectionable part of “parenting licenses.” Our stark inability to predict the future is a more critical concern. When we have police arresting parents for letting a ten year old walk to school alone while ignoring the massive damage done to children through emotional abuse and unstable personalities, we are showing how incompetent at policing parenting even now.
Yeah, I agree we should also be very concerned about the potential for abuse of power on the part of the regulators.
FWIW, LaFollette revisited licensing in 2010 with a much tamer view. One of the ways he modified the view is by having the state incentivize licensing with tax breaks, rather than punishing those who avoid licensing with penalties. So, ironically enough, he sort of turned the view into a pro-natalist, incentivizing policy.
This was short and sweet, and outrageously easy to understand for a non-philosopher. I find myself in complete agreement , although I personally feel I would have arrived at the same conclusion by a different path, i.e., the value of individual freedom and agency (including for making bad decisions) and the very negative effects that overregulation, bureaucracy and state intervention have repeatedly been shown to produce.
The problem to me is the people making these suggestions, considering themselves the "experts" and were don't need anything else regulated by self anointed experts. And look at licensing. It doesn't stop drunk drivers or those with money and connections from being excused for very great jarms. So seems like a foolish idea, and for everything you said as well.
Another excellent illustration of the perniciousness of harm reduction.