Ship of Fools: The petty tyrannies of the high minded?

Thread: The petty tyrannies of the high minded? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029538

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

There are two threads running at the moment which are on the theme 'I think something is a bad thing; therefore other people should be stopped from doing it'. Both, I hope, are motivated not so much by the desire to interfere with other peoples' lives for its own sake as by 'this is the better way; so it is good for people to be made to follow it'. One is on what are called 'helicopter parents', who are told to 'stop it'. The other is on sex robots. 'should they be banned?'

There was another, a few weeks ago, on bottled water, should that be banned too?

A local MP (Member of Parliament, the UK legislature) here who has recently become Shadow Environment Secretary (an opposition role without actual responsibility) with an agriculture portfolio and is a vegan, has said that she would like eating meat to become as socially unacceptable as smoking.

As it happens, I don't think helicopter parenting is a good thing, and I think sex robots are grubby and rather disgusting. I don't buy bottled water but don't see this as an ethical issue. I've no intention of becoming a vegetarian, yet alone a vegan.

That though isn't my question. I'm much more concerned about the legitimacy or otherwise of 'banning', 'compulsion', 'stopping' etc.I've expressed my reservations on some of those threads, but no one has risen to them.

If we think something is a bad thing, does that mean we should want to stop other people doing it? Are we entitled to impose, or campaign to impose, our foibles on other people? Is it a sign that we lack conviction about our own opinions if we don't seek to make others follow them? When are we entitled to compel rather than seek to persuade? When are we entitled to reorganise other people's lives for their own good, against their will? When aren't we? Is there a presumption that it is our business or that it isn't?

The churches have had a bad reputation in the past for this sort of meddling. The temperance movement is the most obvious example, culminating in the US with what some people have called 'the noble experiment'. Until well within my lifetime, most people, whether churchgoers or otherwise accepted it as entirely appropriate that the state should prosecute those who indulged in certain carnal activities of a dead horse nature. It is still accepted that the state should prosecute those who do that sort of thing with a live horse!

Is there some qualitative difference that makes prohibiting some activities right and proper, and others an illegitimate intrusion. If so, what is it? Can that change over time? If so what criteria does one use for deciding this?

Shipmates can probably tell by the way I'm phrasing this, that my bias is against interfering, but that bias is not unlimited. What's your view?

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

I think you've failed to note, here, the important distinction between "I think this is bad, and I'd prefer that people didn't do it" and "I think this is bad and therefore other people should be stopped from doing it." The helicopter parenting, thread, in particular, doesn't exactly call for people to be forced not to helicopter parent. The sex robots thread poses the question of whether they should be banned, but I don't think anyone has argued for this position (although I don't think I'm up to date on that thread, so someone might have pitched in).

So no, we don't really have threads that call for people to be stopped from doing what they want to do.

Obviously if you think something is bad or harmful you're probably going to prefer that other people don't do it.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
That though isn't my question. I'm much more concerned about the legitimacy or otherwise of 'banning', 'compulsion', 'stopping' etc.I've expressed my reservations on some of those threads, but no one has risen to them.

If we think something is a bad thing, does that mean we should want to stop other people doing it? Are we entitled to impose, or campaign to impose, our foibles on other people? Is it a sign that we lack conviction about our own opinions if we don't seek to make others follow them? When are we entitled to compel rather than seek to persuade? When are we entitled to reorganise other people's lives for their own good, against their will? When aren't we? Is there a presumption that it is our business or that it isn't?

You missed one more thread along this line; the one about the prohibition against selling salmonella-tainted peanut products. I think this gets to one of the defining characteristics of which activities are amenable to legal sanction and which are not, namely the effect such activities have on unwilling and/or unknowing third parties. What economists refer to as "externalities".

Sexbots: Not seeing a lot of externalities here. The only parties involved are the end users and the sexbot manufacturers. There doesn't seem to be any need for regulation beyond the usual laws applied to manufacturing interests (e.g. don't dump toxic byproducts in the river, follow workplace safety codes, etc.)

Parenting: By definition parenting involves third parties. States have been reluctant to regulate parenting for fairly good practical and traditional reasons, but this reluctance is not unlimited. Parenting actions are typically regulated in situations where harm to the children involved is immediate and unambiguous (e.g. abuse, neglect, cruelty, etc.). Although "helicopter parenting" is viewed by some as harmful (see related thread title), the harm alleged is usually hypothetical rather than immediate.

Bottled Water: Like any business, this should be assessed according to its externalities. In this case, I suspect the the economics are mis-aligned to a degree that allows water bottling concern to offload a lot of the cost of their industry to the general public (particularly post-consumption pollution). Similarly, regulatory capture may prevent curtailment of such businesses during drought conditions, essentially privatizing what had previously been a public good (groundwater) during emergency conditions. I can see justification for an outright ban in some circumstances (like the aforementioned drought), or steep taxes to cover the externalities (like pollution clean up) foisted on the general public.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

Bracketing out the sex robots question which I haven't thought about at all, and don't want to if I can avoid it, the other issues aren't just about

quote:
'this is the better way; so it is good for people to be made to follow it'

or at least not only about that.

ISTM the argument about bottled water is that it is wasteful of the earth's resources for, in many cases, no real benefit. If everyone who could reasonably drink tap water did so there would be a huge saving on plastics and unnecessary water treatment costs/resource usage.

Similarly the argument about eating meat is not just about it being bad for the people who do it, or perhaps bad for the animals, but also about the fact that meat production as widely practised involves feeding human edible foodstuffs to creatures in red to produce less 'food value' than is in the original foodstuffs - leading to greater food shortage and/or higher food prices affecting those who can't even afford to eat meat in the first place.

Finally the argument about helicopter parenting is not just that it is foolish or bad behaviour, but that it is also harmful to the 'innocent' children, and thereby also damaging to society at large.

I'm not necessarily saying that I agree with/accept these arguments, but in each case it is argued that the behaviour criticised is harmful not just for the individuals involved, but also for wider society/ the wider world.

[ 28. September 2015, 16:10: Message edited by: BroJames ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:

ISTM the argument about bottled water is that it is wasteful of the earth's resources for, in many cases, no real benefit.

But that's the point. That thread was full of people saying "I use bottled water occasionally / sometimes / all the time for reasons X, Y and Z", other people saying "you should buy a water filter and some reusable bottles: it would be better for your use" and the first group saying "actually, I don't think so."

The second group here are basically arguing that they know better than a member of the first group what that person's needs and desires are. Which is pretty much the root of the petty tyranny mentality.

quote:

I'm not necessarily saying that I agree with/accept these arguments, but in each case it is argued that the behaviour criticised is harmful not just for the individuals involved, but also for wider society/ the wider world.

Well, of course it is. Even the most inveterate petty tyrant knows to make that case.

But the thing is, almost every activity that people undertake has an effect on wider society, because people are part of that society.

Want to have kids? Overpopulation is putting too much strain on our planet's limited resources.

Don't want kids? Who's going to look after us in our old age? You need to maintain the demographic balance.

Conform with some kind of expected behaviour? You're complicit in social tyranny.

Don't conform? You're causing unrest and upset in society.

In most cases, the "harm" to society / the world / whatever from the particular activity is no larger than the "harm" caused by a million other activities. In this case, singling out that particular harm as a reason for banning X is lying.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I actually find it interesting how people can read "I don't think it's a good idea to do X as "They want to stop me from doing X!"

[ 28. September 2015, 16:51: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I actually find it interesting how people can read "I don't think it's a good idea to do X as "They want to stop me from doing X!"

I agree and I sometimes see that as a problem toward free discussion here. For example I said I probably wouldn't vote for a Muslim and I was quickly told how it was unconstitutional to prohibit someone to run for president based on religion. Well, duh, who wanted to?

I wish we could discuss ethical dilemmas we have within ourselves, "Should I give up eating meat in response to the cruelty inherent in factory farming?" Without someone saying, "I eat meat and resent you trying to stop me!

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

As the originator of at least three of the threads in question (bottled water, sexbots, heli-parents), I meant with the titles to the threads to stimulate discussion of the issues because I think its important. We might have an unrelated discussion about the best ways to entitle threads?

FWIW, I am very much against authoritarian approaches to pretty near everything, and have marvelled that societal discussions have caused people to floss their teeth, eat less saturated fats, wear seatbelts, avoid driving when drunk, exercise more. Only the car driving ones have resulted in laws.

If people have information, I think more often than not they will make prudent decisions. On their own. I don't believe anyone really wants to harm their child via parenting style, likes the idea of pollution, or wants to date a human-sized smartphone with a silicone naughty part.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

I wish we could discuss ethical dilemmas we have within ourselves, "Should I give up eating meat in response to the cruelty inherent in factory farming?" Without someone saying, "I eat meat and resent you trying to stop me!

I think we can and, for the most part, we do. Yes, there will always be those who are quick to go too far in the accusatory direction and those too quick to take offence.* But in large part, I think we are open to this.
What I think truly is a common fault is lumping people together. Someone who has a dilemma such as you mention can become grouped with those who might have a more militant stance and can feel trampled as a result. So, in the balance of a thread, the issue can be properly discussed, but individual encounters within might not be so balanced.

*In fairness I must admit to being, at least, a temporary member of both these groups.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

LeRoc:

quote:
I actually find it interesting how people can read "I don't think it's a good idea to do X as "They want to stop me from doing X!"

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me.

If I followed all the (often contradictory) advice on how to be a good mother, my head would explode. Plus a lot of it is lazy rhetoric - eg 'helicopter parent' is a label frequently applied to parents with legitimate concerns about their offspring by people with a vested interest in getting them to back off, as several people have already pointed out.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

In most cases, the "harm" to society / the world / whatever from the particular activity is no larger than the "harm" caused by a million other activities. In this case, singling out that particular harm as a reason for banning X is lying.

Logical fallacy much?
Because there exist other things which harm is not a case for ignoring something which does.
Presenting a case for controlling that harm is not "petty tyranny". We are fucking over the planet. If we work out how to change this, people will be at minimum inconvenienced. "petty tyrant" is the label thrown around by those wishing to avoid said inconvenience.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I think you've failed to note, here, the important distinction between "I think this is bad, and I'd prefer that people didn't do it" and "I think this is bad and therefore other people should be stopped from doing it." The helicopter parenting, thread, in particular, doesn't exactly call for people to be forced not to helicopter parent. The sex robots thread poses the question of whether they should be banned, but I don't think anyone has argued for this position (although I don't think I'm up to date on that thread, so someone might have pitched in).

So no, we don't really have threads that call for people to be stopped from doing what they want to do.

Obviously if you think something is bad or harmful you're probably going to prefer that other people don't do it.

I'm quite aware of the distinction, but 'stop it!' with an exclamation mark and 'should they be banned?' both read to me as calls for action to intervene.

As Twylight has put it,

quote:
... I said I probably wouldn't vote for a Muslim and I was quickly told how it was unconstitutional to prohibit someone to run for president based on religion. Well, duh, who wanted to? ...

The questions I'm asking are to do with when are we - or society corporately - entitled to interfere with other people's freedom to make their own ethical or quasi-ethical decisions, when it is unwarranted interference, and how do we decide?

Even dragging in a concept such as 'externalities' doesn't actually solve the problem. It's a useful tool. It gives some guidance. But there has to be some sort of sense of proportion about this. Where does it lie?

Are there fundamental principles for working out this balance, or does it ultimately depend on whether one has an instinctive presumption in favour of trusting the state or against doing so?

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

In a welfare state, nothing is your own private business anymore, if one of your fellow taxpayers can point out that your doing it will cost him money-- no matter how trivial or far-fetched his case might be. Except sexual conduct, of course. Regulating that by law is now frowned upon, the public expense of contraception, sexually transmitted diseases, and accidental pregnancies notwithstanding.

I'm not a meddler by nature, and IMHO a welfare state like Sweden is a heck of a lot better than the corporate welfare state the U.S. has become.
But the freedom-- increased freedom-- we now enjoy to have sex, contrasted with the decreased freedom for everything else, is curious, no?

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

But the freedom-- increased freedom-- we now enjoy to have sex, contrasted with the decreased freedom for everything else, is curious, no?

We are all libertarian in some areas, and insistent on state controls in others, and some of these attitudes are determined by fashion as much as principle and logic.

For example, like most people, I find the idea of a return to laws against adultery unthinkable, but considered objectively, it would be possible to make a strong argument for criminalising it, in view of the enormous misery, disruption and expense which it causes.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

Indeed, Kaplan. The trendiness rather than the logic of these inconsistencies is what I had in mind. I'd lean towards libertarianism across the board as to the law and wish others would, as well.

Re adultery, agreed again. My old friend who is a Mr. Chips off the old block worked for a secular boys' school, but one that appreciated the importance of religious issues in education. Perhaps because the administration was aware of his fervent faith, he was called upon to teach about the Ten Commandments. He did so with his usual great depth and insight, spending well over an hour on the subject. After the instruction, he asked the students which of the Commandments they considered the most important. Their usual answer may be surprising, but heartbreakingly logical: the most important Commandment to them was "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Either first-hand or through friends, they were well aware of the consequences.

Incidentally, he would note that the Ten Commandments arose among a people who had just fled tyranny, and elucidate their role in promoting limited government. Too few Christians realize, for instance, that "taking the Lord's name in vain" means perjury. This Commandment calls for due process instead of "arbitrary" despotic edicts. ("Arbitrary" is one of the greatest oxymorons in the dictionary, the way we usually use it.) We can therefore see an argument, at least in theory, for posting the Ten Commandments in court houses. As long as we ask witnesses to swear to tell the truth "so help me God" with a hand on a Bible, it is quite in order to remind the public of the source of this obligation.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Because there exist other things which harm is not a case for ignoring something which does.
Presenting a case for controlling that harm is not "petty tyranny".

Well, that depends. Are we talking about one of a few leading problems, or one of a hundred thousand? Because that's different. If whatever reduction in harm you're going for isn't actually going to make a significant change because there's some bigger source of the problem somewhere that you're ignoring, it is exactly "petty tyranny" to try to ban it.

Those proposing such bans would be well advised to address the beams in their own eyes first.

quote:

We are fucking over the planet. If we work out how to change this, people will be at minimum inconvenienced. "petty tyrant" is the label thrown around by those wishing to avoid said inconvenience.

No - "petty tyrant" is a label thrown at those whose first resort is banning things. Banning water bottles will make no difference at all to the level at which we are "fucking over the planet".

I have no problem with people attempting to account for the externalities - introducing a tax on plastic bottles to pay for their clear-up is reasonable (but should apply to all "portable" drinks - water, soda, small bottles of milk and juice as sold in vending machines, etc.)

Gallon-size plastic milk jugs are usually not discarded randomly around the place, but remain in kitchens, so they wouldn't attract a clean-up charge (but would attract any tax on the production of plastics).

All this stuff has uses associated with it, and it all has costs associated with it. My case is that incorporating the external costs into the price of the item will allow me to decide whether or not it's worth it for me.

Your case, if you choose to align yourself with this view, seems to be that you know better than me what my needs are, and you're just going to tell me that I don't need thing X, because you don't think it's that important.

The first is a liberal approach. The second is petty authoritarian tyranny.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Whenever I see someone on here proposing banning things the thought runs through my mind "Who died and left you in charge?" There seems no shortage of people who want to run other peoples lives.

So it may be a provocative thread title, but it really muddies the issue of what things one wants to discourage and what things you want to prohibit.

On the radio today, I heard a report from Oregon. The state has legalized the sale of recreational marijuana, but has allowed towns and cities to vote if they want to allow it. The result is reminiscent of local temperance option in parts of the South. You can't buy it in one town, but can across the street. They had an interview with someone who runs a medical marijuana store. They asked if people would go to the nearest big city and she pointed out that people will just continue to buy it on the street, where it is likely to be laced with much stronger drugs. Someone else predicted that these towns will eventually cave when they notice how much potential tax revenue is going to the next town.

Stupid laws weaken the laws as they are evaded. Don't ask me if I wash my recyclable plastic containers before throwing them out, as the city would like.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Banning water bottles will make no difference at all to the level at which we are "fucking over the planet".

Actually, it would. Including other plastic waste would further help.

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

I have no problem with people attempting to account for the externalities - introducing a tax on plastic bottles to pay for their clear-up is reasonable

It would be a hefty tax as the figure I have heard is 75 billion per year.

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

(but should apply to all "portable" drinks - water, soda, small bottles of milk and juice as sold in vending machines, etc.)

It is not that simple. Water is a seperate case. As to the others; cost of manufacture and cost to the environment, recycling potential and recycling frequency affect material choice. The US is atrocious in its peoples participation in recycling.

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

Gallon-size plastic milk jugs are usually not discarded randomly around the place, but remain in kitchens,

Yeah, except they don't. They end up in landfills which contributed to a different problem.

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

will allow me to decide whether or not it's worth it for me.

Your case, if you choose to align yourself with this view, seems to be that you know better than me what my needs are, and you're just going to tell me that I don't need thing X, because you don't think it's that important.

This is ludicrous. You are saying your comfort and convenience outweighs its effect on resources we all must share. That is much more tyrannical.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

There are groups of people who insist they need a large building that they only use once a week for a few hours. Does their comfort, convenience and enjoyment allow them to use "our" shared resources?

And then there's us selfish people who live in separate houses with more than one room...

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

School classrooms are full of petty tyrannies. Mainly, I think, because 36 people are stuck together in a small space with no choice but to get on with each other.

So a good teacher keeps the peace by being a strict yet benevolent dictator. Children who conform enjoy the experience. Non conformists (like me and both my sons) simply suffer and rebel or suffer and wait it out 'till they are 18 and free. (I rebelled, my sons waited it out).

Over crowding brings petty tyrannies imo. If you live out in the sticks with your own water and energy sources - like my brother does - you have much more freedom to do as you like. Not total freedom, obviously, but more than your average city dweller.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is not that simple. Water is a seperate case.

No it bloody isn't.

If the problem is plastic bottles being thrown away, it is exactly as much of a problem for soda bottles, fancy flavoured vitamin water bottles, hipster single-orchard hand-pressed lemonade, and all the other single-serving bottles sold in vending machines and the like.

Trying to treat them differently because you don't think bottling water is defensible is exactly the problem I have with your petty authoritarianism.

quote:

This is ludicrous. You are saying your comfort and convenience outweighs its effect on resources we all must share. That is much more tyrannical.

I heat my house in the winter, and I cool it in the summer. I do this for my comfort and convenience, despite the fact that it consumes precious resources. Everything I consume uses "resources we all must share", and by virtue of the fact that I have consumed it, you can figure out that I decided that my comfort and convenience was more important. Everybody does this, all the time.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Fascinating discussion.

I ask myself whether or not I should be doing something all the time. Most of the time when I feel compelled to ask myself that question the answer is - NO. Otherwise the question would not come up.

Most of the time I ask myself that question involves me wanting someone else to behave in a way that I want that person to behave. At that point I try to step back from my feelings and ask myself why I want someone else to behave in a certain way. I try to think what is it about me that needs/wants that and what role I have in it.

If my answer is that it is about ego driven need to be the fairy king who makes the world just the way it is supposed to be I try to switch internal gears back to pretty much anything else. Let me confess right here and now that this is the case well over 90% of the time.

If my answer is that the want/need is general societal behavior like plastic/helicoptering, I try to act in a positive manner of not doing the behavior and supporting efforts to change attitudes. I say attitudes because unless attitudes change behavior will always seek a way around rules.

At the same time I recognize that I am just a fallible human being and that I am often wrong, so I try to minimize my interventions into other people's behaviors to situations where I have had help to understand what the next right thing is and where I can make an impact. It is my belief that spreading myself over too many issues dilutes my impact on any and all of the issues. So, I choose a few where I feel that I am called upon to act.

That being said, unless you voice your opinions about stuff on a discussion board, there is not going to be much going on in the discussion board. Keeping this a safe place to trot out our opinions while not taking our opinions, or the opinions of anyone else, too seriously seems to be a good idea. I myself treasure a place where I can (and do) make an ass of myself in front of my friends without fear of real consequence. So, thank you, all of you.

And, if it is any help, while I do not feel that I need to tell other people what to do with their robots, I neither own a robot, nor do I feel compelled to fuck a robot.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The questions I'm asking are to do with when are we - or society corporately - entitled to interfere with other people's freedom to make their own ethical or quasi-ethical decisions, when it is unwarranted interference, and how do we decide?

Even dragging in a concept such as 'externalities' doesn't actually solve the problem. It's a useful tool. It gives some guidance. But there has to be some sort of sense of proportion about this. Where does it lie?

Not just that, it's a useful corrective to those trying to pass off harmful activities as "freedom" or some kind of difference of opinion.

To take an extreme and unfair hypothetical, let's say you enjoy beating elderly women with a large stick. I find this morally reprehensible. Framing this as a question of "freedom", you might argue that you respect my opinion that beating old women with a large stick is immoral, while demanding that I extend you the same courtesy and recognize you find such actions both moral and fun. We should simply agree to disagree, so you can continue the beatings and I can continue to express my disapproval.

Of course, the "externality" in this case is the opinion (and physical safety) of the series of elderly women you've severely clubbed. The framing of their various beatings as a question of "freedom" disputed between two other parties seems an effort to deliberately conceal an important (one might say the most important) aspect of the activity involved.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

I heat my house in the winter, and I cool it in the summer. I do this for my comfort and convenience, despite the fact that it consumes precious resources. Everything I consume uses "resources we all must share", and by virtue of the fact that I have consumed it, you can figure out that I decided that my comfort and convenience was more important. Everybody does this, all the time.

Yes, we are all consumers of the planet's finite resources. And we do consume mostly for comfort and convenience. Of course, the planet will be fine when the human race is long gone, just as it has with all other extinctions.

So the question should be "do we really want to make ourselves extinct?"

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

So the question should be "do we really want to make ourselves extinct?"

We have finite resources and have to manage their use - I don't think anybody would argue with that. I don't think banning things that some people consider unnecessary is a sensible or particularly effective way of doing that.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
We have finite resources and have to manage their use - I don't think anybody would argue with that. I don't think banning things that some people consider unnecessary is a sensible or particularly effective way of doing that.

Plastic in the oceans is becoming an enormous problem. We need to deal with how plastic is disposed of. How do you suggest we do this.

I would use a carrot rather than a stick. I would set up plastic collection centres in every town and pay anyone who brings it in so much a kilo. That would gather most of the unwanted plastic in towns imo. There must be plenty of other carrots which could be used to stop industrial pollution.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I don't think banning things that some people consider unnecessary is a sensible or particularly effective way of doing that.

I think the word you're looking for there is "harmful". Petty tyrants aren't banning manufacturers from dumping their industrial waste in the town water supply because they consider it "unnecessary", but because they consider it harmful.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Plastic in the oceans is becoming an enormous problem. We need to deal with how plastic is disposed of. How do you suggest we do this.

So the first question is "what is the plastic, and where does it come from?"

Is it bottles? bags? what else? Is it detritus that has been discarded on coastlines by people going about their daily business, is it lost from ships, or it it garbage dumped at sea by the unscrupulous?

For the sake of argument, let's assume that plastic bottles randomly discarded about the place are a significant component. The first thing to note is that this isn't a water-bottle-specific issue, so any "solution" that goes after water bottles but not other bottles is cherry-picking nonsense.

You suggest:

quote:

I would use a carrot rather than a stick. I would set up plastic collection centres in every town and pay anyone who brings it in so much a kilo.

Why not? I might suggest so much per single-serving size bottle (gallon milk jugs leave the house to go to the landfill or the recycling centre, but people don't tend to carry them around and toss them, so they're not a problem for this particular issue). Charge a 10 cent per bottle tax on single-serving plastic bottles, and pay 5 cents for each one turned in to a collection point.

This might or might not be the best idea in practice, but it's plausible, and doesn't contain petty cherry-picking tyranny.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Petty tyrants aren't banning manufacturers from dumping their industrial waste in the town water supply because they consider it "unnecessary", but because they consider it harmful.

No, I chose the word on purpose. Banning the dumping of toxic waste in the town's water supply isn't petty tyranny at all. The town requires a supply of decent drinking water. Possible solutions would include preventing people from contaminating a lake or reservoir, or installing sufficient filtering / processing to remove the heavy metals, PCBs and whatever else that the manufacturers are producing. The costs would be borne by the manufacturers, of course - they don't get to pass off their costs on everyone else.

The costs of filtering out toxic waste from the water supply are sufficiently large that the only thing that makes sense is not dumping the waste in the first place (also, filtering the water supply doesn't help the rivers full of dead fish etc.)

Banning plastic bottles of water whilst not banning very similar plastic bottles of non-water, on the other hand, is exactly the kind of petty tyranny that I'm talking about.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The first thing to note is that this isn't a water-bottle-specific issue, so any "solution" that goes after water bottles but not other bottles is cherry-picking nonsense.

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Petty tyrants aren't banning manufacturers from dumping their industrial waste in the town water supply because they consider it "unnecessary", but because they consider it harmful.
No, I chose the word on purpose. Banning the dumping of toxic waste in the town's water supply isn't petty tyranny at all. The town requires a supply of decent drinking water.

Does a town need a supply of decent drinking water? You seem to regard all bottled liquids as inter-changeable, at least to an extent that private, for-profit plunder of a public good (like drinkable water) during a time of drought bears no influence on your calculus of what constitutes tyranny.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

This thread looks way too much like my day job.

When you've all worked out what laws are actually for and when it's okay to have them, when they become "tyranny", and when they're necessary to prevent anarchy, drop me a note.

Right now, it certainly looks like we have some irregular verbs: I support sensible regulation, you support a police state, they are petty tyrants.

[ 30. September 2015, 22:22: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Is banning smoking in cars a petty tyranny?

How about enforced seatbelt wearing?

No going topless on the beach? If men can then why can't women, breasts are not genitals after all.

Is it OK to enforce us not to damage the health of others/ourselves?

Is it right to make laws on 'decency'? Who decides what decent means?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Although I don't like smoking, on balance I think it probably is.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Does a town need a supply of decent drinking water? You seem to regard all bottled liquids as inter-changeable, at least to an extent that private, for-profit plunder of a public good (like drinkable water) during a time of drought bears no influence on your calculus of what constitutes tyranny.

But surely most bottled drinks - which I assume is what most of the other bottles were for - mostly contain water? It seems odd to argue that a bottle containing only water is a threat to the water table, whereas a bottle containing mostly water into which sugars, esters and E-numbers have been dissolved somehow isn't.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Oy. Water bottle are a focus because most people don't have juice, milk or soda plumbed into their homes.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Well yes, but taking a pint of water out of the tap is going to deplete the water table just as much as putting the same pint of water in a bottle with a fancy label on.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

That is a seperate issue. Disposable Plastic water bottles are a problem because they are unecessary. Users are adding to the polution and waste disposal issues with an unnecessary product.

Oh, missed time of drought. That is a problem in places like California because many of those bottles are shipped to ther states.

[ 01. October 2015, 14:10: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Yebbut, the issue for this thread isn't the details of which sort of bottles are OK. There is a thread for that. People who still want to argue about it should reactivate that thread. The question for this thread is, when are we collectively entitled to take decisions for other people that we regard as moral issues, but they don't?

To put it another way, is there a presumption that it is, or that it isn't, any of our business?

I happen to think that the urge to take other people's moral decisions for them is a much more serious question than how they bring up their semi-adult children or whether they use plastic bottle, smoke in cars, or eat meat.

[ 01. October 2015, 14:57: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Well, trying to drag it back to relevance. ... to my mind, I am indulging in petty tyranny if I want to ban something you do when my rationale for doing so should also require me to ban similar things that I do.

So singling out plastic bottles of water as a means of tackling plastic waste, or of mitigating water overuse, without applying equivalent measures to other plastic or water waste, is petty tyranny.

Taxing or banning all forms of unnecessary plastic or water use may or may not be excessive, but it would not be petty tyranny.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Moral. There's your problem.
Bottles water isn't a moral problem, it is a practical problem.
Eating meat is also a practical problem, though more complicated and very situation dependent.
Raising children is more complicated and problematic, but not without consequence to society as a whole.
Yes, they all can have moral components, but one needn't give a monkey's about that for an issue to still exist.
When one's pleasure, choice or convenience negatively affects other people, it is not a petty tyranny to voice complaint.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Well, trying to drag it back to relevance. ... to my mind, I am indulging in petty tyranny if I want to ban something you do when my rationale for doing so should also require me to ban similar things that I do.

So singling out plastic bottles of water as a means of tackling plastic waste, or of mitigating water overuse, without applying equivalent measures to other plastic or water waste, is petty tyranny.

Taxing or banning all forms of unnecessary plastic or water use may or may not be excessive, but it would not be petty tyranny.

I do not completely agree.
First, Petty Tyranny
Second, banning or requiring a practice because I Don't Like It, fits the OP's premise. Regulating a practice because of demonstrable harm is not.
Third, water bottles are a quick, obvious and easy step in the process of reduction of the overall problem. It should be a no-brianer. Instead, it highlights why we have the ecological and resource disaster that we do. It is silly to posit that those who wish to reduce the consumption of reusable plastic water bottles think this is the only necessary step.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Well yes, but taking a pint of water out of the tap is going to deplete the water table just as much as putting the same pint of water in a bottle with a fancy label on.

Nope. Water is also used in the production of bottled water, so a "pint of water in a bottle with a fancy label on" actually depletes the water table by 1.63 pints. (See myprevious link.)

Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :

This is of course a very topical issue at the moment. Does the fact that some people have wanted to change the ancient definition of marriage mean that those who disagreed should be unable to express their opinion (such as in the baker case) or that those who express a conscientious objection should be jailed (the registrar case)? This seems to me an extraordinary incursion on liberty. A court can now change the law without the consent of the people and citizens can be jailed even though they had no opportunity to consent to that law. That is tyranny.

I also have a friend whose wife obtained an interim injunction based on no evidence whatsoever that was extremely oppressive. I was shocked I had no idea that the courts had the power to, albeit temporarily, restrict someone's liberty in this manner. This is a thorny one because I understand why the courts might want to avoid tragedies in domestic situations but doesn't treating someone like they are an animal often become a self fulfilling prophecy?

At the heart of liberty is trust. When a government ceases to trust its citizens it deprives them of liberty. It ceases to trust them when it stops communicating with them and tries to govern without their consent.

[ 01. October 2015, 20:56: Message edited by: Makepiece ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
This is of course a very topical issue at the moment. Does the fact that some people have wanted to change the ancient definition of marriage mean that those who disagreed should be unable to express their opinion (such as in the baker case) or that those who express a conscientious objection should be jailed (the registrar case)? This seems to me an extraordinary incursion on liberty.

"Express their opinion" is a pretty fancy term for discrimination. You could argue that refusing to serve inter-racial couples is just as extraordinary an incursion on liberty. Though I should point out that while Mr. Bardwell wasn't jailed, he did feel pressured to resign. In fact, giving a public official the power to exercise their personal prejudices about which members of the public are entitled to the services of his office actually seems like a much more problematic "incursion on liberty" than insisting the state treat all its citizens equally.

quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
I also have a friend whose wife obtained an interim injunction based on no evidence whatsoever that was extremely oppressive.

"No evidence whatsoever"? Not even testimony from his wife? I find that hard to believe. Did the court simply pick his name out of a hat or something? I find it easier to believe that for some reason you're discounting testimony by the (alleged) victim as counting as "evidence".

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

There are behaviors/things that are (mostly) outlawed -- murder, theft, rape, running red lights on the highway, false witness against another person, failing to keep the sabbath holy -- with more or less success on actually affecting behavior.

There are things I would ban if it were possible -- nuclear weapons, for example, although some people would disagree with me.

There's an endless list of things some people insist should be forbidden/banned while others think desirable -- genetically modified foods, voluntary assisted suicide for the late stage terminally ill, watching porn, letting little kids stay up as late as they want, corporations pursuing short term profits, we could probably come up with a thousand common disagreements just among Shipmates.

I agree with the OP in the observation sometimes these beliefs come across as petty tyrannies. But which are the petty tyrannies - yours beliefs or mine? - and which ones are so important to the health of society they should be enforced, not just suggested?

Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
This is of course a very topical issue at the moment. Does the fact that some people have wanted to change the ancient definition of marriage mean that those who disagreed should be unable to express their opinion (such as in the baker case) or that those who express a conscientious objection should be jailed (the registrar case)? This seems to me an extraordinary incursion on liberty.
"Express their opinion" is a pretty fancy term for discrimination. You could argue that refusing to serve inter-racial couples is just as extraordinary an incursion on liberty. Though I should point out that while Mr. Bardwell wasn't jailed, he did feel pressured to resign. In fact, giving a public official the power to exercise their personal prejudices about which members of the public are entitled to the services of his office actually seems like a much more problematic "incursion on liberty" than insisting the state treat all its citizens equally.

quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
I also have a friend whose wife obtained an interim injunction based on no evidence whatsoever that was extremely oppressive.
"No evidence whatsoever"? Not even testimony from his wife? I find that hard to believe. Did the court simply pick his name out of a hat or something? I find it easier to believe that for some reason you're discounting testimony by the (alleged) victim as counting as "evidence".

There is certainly a tension between equality and liberty. At the moment there are some high minded people who believe that equality should override liberty where there is a conflict. I would tend to lean more towards liberty because I think that the state is too imperfect to exact these high moral standards on people. Of course there are cases where both equality and liberty need to be upheld as was the case with slavery and in such cases the position is unequivocal.

With regards to the injunction point, this was an 'interim' injunction. The Judge did not grant a permanent injunction due to the lack of evidence. The fact that the court has the power to take an interim measure without evidence causes me concern.

I do not only value liberty on conservative issues I also object to detaining suspects without evidence and Guantanomo Bay made the world wonder whether USA is still the land of the 'free'. Liberty can be attacked from either the right or the left but in any case, as asserted above, tyranny is caused by a breakdown of trust and communication.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
There is certainly a tension between equality and liberty. At the moment there are some high minded people who believe that equality should override liberty where there is a conflict. I would tend to lean more towards liberty because I think that the state is too imperfect to exact these high moral standards on people. Of course there are cases where both equality and liberty need to be upheld as was the case with slavery and in such cases the position is unequivocal.

How so? Isn't abolishing slavery an infringement on the liberty of slave owners and their liberty to profit from the labor of their human property? That was certainly an argument advanced by a great number of slaveholders. Why doesn't their liberty enter into your calculations?

quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
With regards to the injunction point, this was an 'interim' injunction. The Judge did not grant a permanent injunction due to the lack of evidence. The fact that the court has the power to take an interim measure without evidence causes me concern.

Lack of sufficient evidence to sustain a permanent injunction is not the same as "no evidence whatsoever". And you still haven't explained how the court got your "friend's" name if no one accused him of anything.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

A lot of slave owners were paid large amounts of compensation for their loss of property.

Which is pretty much an affirmation that the slaves WERE property.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Oy. Water bottle are a focus because most people don't have juice, milk or soda plumbed into their homes.

Doesn't matter at all. The damage caused by bottled soda is not smaller than the damage caused by bottled water. Bottled soda must take at least as much water to produce as bottled water. Any kind of tax to account for the environmental harm must apply equally to both.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Second, banning or requiring a practice because I Don't Like It, fits the OP's premise. Regulating a practice because of demonstrable harm is not.

We agree that bottled water causes non-zero harm. Plastic bottles are discarded in various places (harm), plastic itself is made from oil, used once and put in a landfill (harm), and water might be shipped form somewhere without much to somewhere with lots (harm).

It remains the case that other bottled drinks cause at least as much harm. You wish to discriminate against water (and in favour of soda etc.) in legislation. I claim that this discrimination puts you in the first category - you're banning something because you don't like it.

Treat water bottles on a par with bottles of juice, milk and soda, and I'll have no complaints.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Second, banning or requiring a practice because I Don't Like It, fits the OP's premise. Regulating a practice because of demonstrable harm is not.
We agree that bottled water causes non-zero harm. Plastic bottles are discarded in various places (harm), plastic itself is made from oil, used once and put in a landfill (harm), and water might be shipped form somewhere without much to somewhere with lots (harm).

It remains the case that other bottled drinks cause at least as much harm. You wish to discriminate against water (and in favour of soda etc.) in legislation. I claim that this discrimination puts you in the first category - you're banning something because you don't like it.

Treat water bottles on a par with bottles of juice, milk and soda, and I'll have no complaints.

Do you have a juice tap in your home? and a lactating cow? If so, do many Americans? If you would drink juice or milk, they need a container.
Water, on the other hand, comes from the tap in your home. You can purchase a reusable container that need never see a landfill
Reusable glass containers that you take to refill are the most environmentally friendly container in the long run. However, we know this will not happen. So plastic is actually the least damaging, as far as production and transportation, of the alternatives.
And you missed this line in my post:

quote:
It is silly to posit that those who wish to reduce the consumption of reusable plastic water bottles think this is the only necessary step.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Oy. Water bottle are a focus because most people don't have juice, milk or soda plumbed into their homes.
Doesn't matter at all. The damage caused by bottled soda is not smaller than the damage caused by bottled water. Bottled soda must take at least as much water to produce as bottled water. Any kind of tax to account for the environmental harm must apply equally to both.

Yes, it does matter. And here's why. I'm sure I've pointed this out to you before, but here goes anyway.

Deciding on forms of regulation is fundamentally about a cost/benefit analysis. You keep making claims that the cost of 2 things are the same. That's not a proper cost/benefit analysis. Other people keep responding to you that the benefit is not equal.

I could provide you with a long list of things that cost the same - either in the sense that they are worth the same amount of money, or in the sense that they take up the same amount of resources. That doesn't actually prove anything about the value of anything on the list, because value doesn't just depend on what something costs, it depends on whether the benefits of the thing are worth that cost.

As long as you (or anyone else for that matter) continues to discuss a particular element in isolation as if it's conclusive proof, this discussion will just go round and around in circles.

[ 02. October 2015, 02:43: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

Actually I think there are solid arguments for taxing soda as well. Except as an occasional treat, it is extremely bad for one’s health. Taxation of milk strikes me as harder to justify.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Actually I think there are solid arguments for taxing soda as well. Except as an occasional treat, it is extremely bad for one’s health. Taxation of milk strikes me as harder to justify.

There are solid arguments for banning just about all the good stuff: red meat, locally produced non-native fruit and veg, chocolate, tobacco, booze (OK, a ration of one box of decent red per person per month), anything with nuts in (cf, the Great Satay Sauce Incident 2004), processed fruit juice, cereal, sugar, rice (heck, anything processed is probably full of shit), ready meals are usually unhealthy and be careful with that BBQ.

The aspect of the OP I have to take issue with is the concept of "petty" tyrannies. A lot of them aren't petty at all. Still doesn't justify them.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

Deciding on forms of regulation is fundamentally about a cost/benefit analysis. You keep making claims that the cost of 2 things are the same. That's not a proper cost/benefit analysis. Other people keep responding to you that the benefit is not equal.

I could provide you with a long list of things that cost the same - either in the sense that they are worth the same amount of money, or in the sense that they take up the same amount of resources. That doesn't actually prove anything about the value of anything on the list, because value doesn't just depend on what something costs, it depends on whether the benefits of the thing are worth that cost.

Isn't that the whole point?

If the costs of plastic bottles are manipulated to reflect the externalities created by plastic bottles, consumers can then decide *for themselves* whether the benefits justify the costs, and act accordingly.

If you decide we will penalise water bottles but not lemonade bottles, that implies you have already decided that the benefits of lemonade are greater than the benefits of water. But that is not a decision for you to make, because you cannot possibly know all the circumstances of all the lemonade and water consumers under your jurisdiction.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

Deciding on forms of regulation is fundamentally about a cost/benefit analysis. You keep making claims that the cost of 2 things are the same. That's not a proper cost/benefit analysis. Other people keep responding to you that the benefit is not equal.

I could provide you with a long list of things that cost the same - either in the sense that they are worth the same amount of money, or in the sense that they take up the same amount of resources. That doesn't actually prove anything about the value of anything on the list, because value doesn't just depend on what something costs, it depends on whether the benefits of the thing are worth that cost.
Isn't that the whole point?

If the costs of plastic bottles are manipulated to reflect the externalities created by plastic bottles, consumers can then decide *for themselves* whether the benefits justify the costs, and act accordingly.

If you decide we will penalise water bottles but not lemonade bottles, that implies you have already decided that the benefits of lemonade are greater than the benefits of water. But that is not a decision for you to make, because you cannot possibly know all the circumstances of all the lemonade and water consumers under your jurisdiction.

Your last sentence contains a massive non sequitur. If you're going to argue that no-one can make a law or other regulatory decision until they have perfect knowledge and can perfectly predict the outcome of a regulatory change, then close parliament now. It's an impossible standard.

And the price of bottles is never, EVER going to be set to reflect all the externalities. No manufacturer of anything, ever is going to reflect all the true costs of the product, unless (gasp!) there is a law, imposing the costs on them.

[ 02. October 2015, 10:37: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Actually I think there are solid arguments for taxing soda as well. Except as an occasional treat, it is extremely bad for one’s health. Taxation of milk strikes me as harder to justify.

There may well be solid arguments for it. What I'm objecting to is an approach that says "oh look, there's one thing in the costs column that matches" and treating that as if it's the end of the whole matter.

The fact that two drinks both come in bottles is just one relevant factor. Another relevant factor include whether there is an alternative form of supply available - there's no point in taxing a product in bottled form as a means of persuading people to take up an alternative form unless there IS an alternative. Nutritional value is another relevant factor.

The exercise involved is a weighing up of various factors. What Leorning Cniht keeps trying to do is argue that if two beverages have something in common, they are identical for all purposes.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Your last sentence contains a massive non sequitur. If you're going to argue that no-one can make a law or other regulatory decision until they have perfect knowledge and can perfectly predict the outcome of a regulatory change, then close parliament now. It's an impossible standard.

And the price of bottles is never, EVER going to be set to reflect all the externalities. No manufacturer of anything, ever is going to reflect all the true costs of the product, unless (gasp!) there is a law, imposing the costs on them.

I'm not sure why you think I would disagree with your second paragraph.

Your first paragraph is a fair cop insofar as I missed out a whole chunk of thought.

The point of concentrating on the costs is that the cost of plastic bottles does not reflect the externalities, whereas the benefits of them are already accruing in full to the consumers and therefore don't need manipulation.

Manipulating the benefits would suggest that we know better than the lemonade-drinker what the benefits of drinking lemonade are. If you want a principle to generalise from, I suppose I would say that my drinking lemonade has no social benefits, has only a private benefit, and is therefore not a matter for the law.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

All this argument about the relative costs and benefits of various sorts of bottles is missing the point.

Everything has something wrong with it for someone. On that basis, because some people have an allergy to nuts, one would ban nuts.

To what extent, though, am I? are you? entitled to stop other people doing things they want to do, but you think are bad either for them or for society as a whole?

Is it enough, that it could be bad? If so, then ban nuts.

I might be keen to stop people littering the world with plastic bottles. You might be keen to see everyone become vegan. Another might want the risk of exposure for those with allergies to nuts to be eradicated, at whatever cost to the diet of those who are not allergic to them. Someone else might want to see the scourge of adultery, and its effects on children, removed from family life. How do we decide which ones we act on ourselves, and might seek to persuade, and which ones we might want the law to compel?

I don't think a simple 'harm' test is enough. It seems to me that that can and is used to justify all manner of unwarranted meddling.

I read on a bit from this morning's reading to Ecclesiasticus 15:14. I know that's the Apocrypha and some people don't approve to it, but it says (this is from the REB).
"When in the beginning God created the human race, he left them free to take their own decisions"

When do we take other peoples' decisions for them, and when is it none of our business, even if we think they've got it wrong?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

When do we take other peoples' decisions for them, and when is it none of our business, even if we think they've got it wrong?

How is it none of our business when the ocean floor is beginning to clog up with plastic?

National Geographic link.

Something must be done. The only question is 'what?' As I said earlier, I would use huge incentives, not taxes or bans.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

Enoch. People generally don't force feed other people nuts.

On the other hand people are spraying poison around over the planet that people including future children can't avoid.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I just went for a walk along the Thames, and there'd been a high tide yesterday, and the banks are covered in washed up plastic bottles and other chunks of plastic. Undoubtedly, various creatures are eating this shit, and it's killing them.

Yes, something must be done, and quite quickly, or the damn stuff will choke us to death. I know that there are groups who go out picking the stuff up, but that's not enough.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Everything has something wrong with it for someone. On that basis, because some people have an allergy to nuts, one would ban nuts.

Ridiculous example. Plastic has an effect on the entire planet. The amount of meat we eat has an effect on the entire planet.
It really isn't about what I think is right for me should be right for you.
You are engaging in your definition of petty tyranny saying your preference is worth destroying our resources.
Using a line of not accepted scripture to justify your point? Wow, takes proof texting to a new level.

[ 02. October 2015, 14:10: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I don't get the example of nuts. I'm intolerant of milk, but I don't demand that milk is banned, that would be, well, narcissistic.

But plastic is different, the damn stuff is everywhere, and is poisoning many different creatures, and will probably poison us.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

OTOH there are circumstances in which nuts are banned, and rightly so, because they present a real danger of death by anaphylactic shock to someone.

It is, as has been said, a matter of cost/benefit. Normally the benefit of banning nuts is low and the cost in terms of restricting everyone is very high; if you work in a small office with someone who can die if they touch a surface that's had nuts on it and then touch their mouth, then the benefit is very high.

[ 02. October 2015, 14:28: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
OTOH there are circumstances in which nuts are banned, and rightly so, because they present a real danger of death by anaphylactic shock to someone.

It is, as has been said, a matter of cost/benefit. Normally the benefit of banning nuts is low and the cost in terms of restricting everyone is very high; if you work in a small office with someone who can die if they touch a surface that's had nuts on it and then touch their mouth, then the benefit is very high.

I assume some families will do this, to avoid one member having any contact with nuts. Presumably a state would do it, if large numbers were in danger of death. For example, some insecticides have been banned, and also some sheep dips, as possibly dangerous, to humans and other animals.

[ 02. October 2015, 15:08: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You are engaging in your definition of petty tyranny saying your preference is worth destroying our resources.

I wonder exactly what your preferred solution would be. Perhaps a situation where the State decides exactly how much of each resource each individual can consume?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Everything has something wrong with it for someone. On that basis, because some people have an allergy to nuts, one would ban nuts.
Ridiculous example. Plastic has an effect on the entire planet. The amount of meat we eat has an effect on the entire planet.
It really isn't about what I think is right for me should be right for you.
You are engaging in your definition of petty tyranny saying your preference is worth destroying our resources.
Using a line of not accepted scripture to justify your point? Wow, takes proof texting to a new level.

LilBuddha, with all due respect, I don't think you're getting my point. I think the strength of your feelings on this particular example is getting in the way.

You may be right about plastic bottles. You may not be. What I'm asking is how should power, governments etc decide which things should be prohibited?

Or to put it differently -
if I think something is a bad thing,
a. when am I entitled to campaign - even if nobody is listening - that everyone should be stopped from doing it?

And when, in stead, should I either,
b. do or abstain myself but regard this as something that is just important to me? or
c. try to persuade others to do or abstain?

This has an important practical application. If I do a. when most other people haven't even reached the point of being persuaded at the c. level, the chances are that my effort will be wasted. I will be written off as an interfering crank. The cause I feel strongly about will fail, and will probably deserve to.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Surely it's a lot to do with scientific research. For example, some chemicals have been banned, because of mounting evidence that they are harmful, either to humans and/or to other animals.

Case in point - pyrethroids were finally banned, because of evidence that they were harmful to wildlife. But this isn't based on somebody just thinking it:

"Studies coordinated by the Environment Agency and Veterinary Medicines Directive then revealed that the chemical was even more deadly than had been feared. It was found that just a single sheep walking through a 9 cm deep stream two days after it had been dipped released so much Cypermethrin that it would cause a pollution event in a stream."

http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/sheep-dip.html#cr

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

That should be some pyrethroids, I don't think they have all been banned.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
You may be right about plastic bottles. You may not be. What I'm asking is how should power, governments etc decide which things should be prohibited?

Or to put it differently -
if I think something is a bad thing,
a. when am I entitled to campaign - even if nobody is listening - that everyone should be stopped from doing it?

And when, in stead, should I either,
b. do or abstain myself but regard this as something that is just important to me? or
c. try to persuade others to do or abstain?

This has an important practical application. If I do a. when most other people haven't even reached the point of being persuaded at the c. level, the chances are that my effort will be wasted. I will be written off as an interfering crank. The cause I feel strongly about will fail, and will probably deserve to.

I actually think you've answered your own question to a fair degree, in that I think that it ends up being not about a theoretical position but about what's achievable.

Take slavery for example. The first step of people who thought slavery was wrong was simply to not own slaves themselves.

It does also depend, I think, on how much objective evidence there is to back up your opinion that something is bad.

Another major factor is whether you can offer an alternative. Certainly one of the things I've learned over time in my own work is that telling someone that what they want is a bad idea/can't be done is really only one part of the battle; it's far easier if you can offer a different option that still provides the things they really want.

For example, the world did relatively well at phasing out chloroflurocarbons (CFCs) because it wasn't that difficult to find alternatives for most applications.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
LilBuddha, with all due respect, I don't think you're getting my point. I think the strength of your feelings on this particular example is getting in the way.

I don't think I am. I am using a specific example to illustrate, though and perhaps this clouds things for you.
So, in the abstract, government regulation is a positive good when it regulates things which a bad for the general polulation. Such as polution, pesticides, food safety, traffic laws.
Let us walk through the examples from your OP.
Helicopter parenting. We have laws affecting how one parent's their children. So, applying laws to this subject are not the issue, but degree. Ethical to have limits, debatable to where those limits should be.
Sex robots. No general ban. They may or may not be icky and gross, but the harm they do would not be to the general public, but the user.
Plastic water bottles. Plastics have a negative effect on our oceans, clog our landfills and pollute the air in production.
They do, however, reduce shipping weight and therefore fuel usage. However, much of the plastic kit we buy we don't need.
So, yes, we need to reduce our consumption and soon.
But it is a complicated thing as plastics are woven into our lives and economy.
Disposable water bottles, on the other hand, are largely unnecessary and therefore an objective target of regulation.
Battery low, will address meat in a moment on another device.

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :

My area's tap water is very hard; I use a CPAP with reservoir. Easiest for me is to use Buxton to fill it and drink.

The Brita filter handles the kettle.

I don't care what some SJW thinks - I will continue using bottled for my CPAP so it doesn't get furred up.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Continuing.

Meat. A much tougher one. First, it is part of our evolution we have been eating it for longer than we have been human. It is a compact source of nutrients and relatively cheap.
The arguments for the rights of animals and the religious proscriptions I will leave alone for the moment and address the impact of current consumption on the planet.
This is an area where awareness needs to be raised. Consumption should be reduced, we do not need the amounts we eat, to reduce the impact. However, legislation would negatively affect the poor because we do not adequately provide for them. So building awareness is the ethical thing at the moment.

If I were in favour of regulations to please me, smoking would be illegal. It is a stupid, unnecessary habit. However, I do not support a complete ban. And would not if it were in offer. I support bans on smoking where it affects children and where it affects adults who donor wish to breathe it in.
This is ethical, objective legislation.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
What Leorning Cniht keeps trying to do is argue that if two beverages have something in common, they are identical for all purposes.

Not quite. I am arguing that if two beverages have something in common, and that thing in common is a problem, then you should treat them the same way as regards that thing.

So soda and water, for example, share the same environmental problems as regards their bottles (actually, soda might be worse because the bottles are heavier). I assume that a soda bottling plant uses as much water as a water bottling plant for the soda itself and for cleaning etc., so as regards use of water in drought areas, they're the same.

People with a grudge against "empty calories" would dislike soda but not water.

Apparently this board is full of people who consider a Brita filter an acceptable substitute for bottled water, but do not consider a Soda Stream an acceptable substitute for bottled coke.

That's fine. I'm happy for you to feel like that, but I'm not happy for you to force those feelings on everyone else through legislation.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
My area's tap water is very hard; I use a CPAP with reservoir. Easiest for me is to use Buxton to fill it and drink.

The Brita filter handles the kettle.

I don't care what some SJW thinks - I will continue using bottled for my CPAP so it doesn't get furred up.

First, SJW is a rubbish pejorative term typically used to avoid dealing with issues.
Second, Buxton has minerals in it, that is the whole point. Whether they affect your CPAP, I don't know.
A reverse osmosis system would be a more economical setup in the long run, but I realise the initial cost would be prohibitive for many people.
Obviously, there are situations where a bottled water might be the most reasonable solution.
However, this does not change the fact that the overwhelmingly vast majority of use is unnecessary.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Originally posted by LC:

quote:
Apparently this board is full of people who consider a Brita filter an acceptable substitute for bottled water, but do not consider a Soda Stream an acceptable substitute for bottled coke.

Silly and ridiculous. First, I've said more than once that bottled water is an initial target, not the only one.
Second, according to one calculation I saw, one would need to drink 1.62 litres of soda per day to break even in a year's time.
Yes, you would reduce use of plastics, but the economics are tougher than with bottled water.
So, not quite a same comparison.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
What Leorning Cniht keeps trying to do is argue that if two beverages have something in common, they are identical for all purposes.
Not quite. I am arguing that if two beverages have something in common, and that thing in common is a problem, then you should treat them the same way as regards that thing.

Explain to me exactly how you think it's possible to tax a thing "as regards to one of its qualities", rather than tax the actual thing.

You either treat two people the same way or you don't. Sure, the answer might depend on circumstances, but you run into problems if you say you're treating a person's race or sex or hair colour or muscle mass rather than treating the person in a way because of their race or sex or hair colour or muscle mass.

And that just points to the same trap: of saying that one particular factor about them is relevant, to the exclusion of other factors.

The only way your approach works is if each and every factor of these beverages is considered, and each and every factor has a potential tax component, and the final tax actually imposed on the beverage is based on the sum of taxes for factors (and possibly discounts for certain good factors).

In which case, sure, the component of tax for environmental damage from the bottle is the same on both beverages in the same kind of bottle. But the amount of tax on the bottled product being the same? No.

[ 02. October 2015, 18:22: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

The only way your approach works is if each and every factor of these beverages is considered, and each and every factor has a potential tax component, and the final tax actually imposed on the beverage is based on the sum of taxes for factors

Yes, that's exactly what I mean - I thought it was obvious, but apparently it wasn't. But it's not as complicated as you make out, and you have to consider all those factors anyway to determine an equitable tax.

So instead of producing the "We hate Bottled Water Bill 2016" levying a tax on bottled water, you produce a "Plastic Bottles are Harmful Bill 2016" levying a charge on plastic bottles. Possibly you also introduce a "Excess Water Use Levy (Drought Areas) Bill", a "Sugar Tax on Food and Drink Bill 2016" and so on.

Each individual tax is applied in a way which is reasonable and non-discriminatory...

[ 02. October 2015, 19:10: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

(Because I need distraction this afternoon just before I go off to wrestle with my soul and some others at the first of two funerals....)

The level of fee for bottles doesn't seem to affect consumption, it only affects whether the containers are returned or not.

The Canadian province of Saskatchewan's program for handling bottles etc is to charge two fees when any plastic bottle is purchased, which varies depending on the size. The fees for plastic bottles are 16¢ up to 1 litre and 26¢ for larger. These are listed when you buy things as "enviro charge" and "container deposite" When you return the container to a recycling centre you get a refund, but they keep 6¢ per container to run the program*. The fees and deposit refunds are about the same for aluminum cans and glass bottles, except for glass beer bottles where you get 100% refund. Link.

This means that some 87% of beverage containers are returned for recycling (I don't know the exact level but it is high). Which is lovely. Less bottles, cans etc lying around. There has been talk of upping the enviro charge on some containers, but the experience with glass beer bottles where there is no such charge indicates that it probably won't matter re choice of container nor what people choose to drink. Refillable glass is the better environmental choice, so they have told us.

So if you want to discourage bottles of water, you'd have to come up with another angle. Otherwise you're left with recycling, which is a tertiary level intervention. (Primary would be to stop consumption. Secondary would be refilling bottles.)

*Sarcan (Sask Association of Rehabilitation Centres) employs people with physical and intellectual deficits, providing supervised, normal employment for some 600 people in a province of just 1 million, who would otherwise not be employed. And don't try to smuggle out of province containers in. You sign when you return containers and it's fraud to return containers not bought in province.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Well, here are some other thoughts on water...

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

In other news;
soda industry struggles as people switch to water Much of that water is bottled. This will probably make people unhappy who think that bottled soda is ok, but bottled water isn't.
[Devil]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0