Comments | quikchange: Why giving ignorant people the freedom to screw up is bad for society

quikchange

Why giving ignorant people the freedom to screw up is bad for society

Dec 12, 2005 07:16

I'd been thinking about putting this argument into words for several days now after discussing the issue with several people recently but this blog entry finally prompted me to actually do it. I'm a big proponent of individual freedoms, generally ranking them higher than other desirable goals like financial security, professional recognition, ( Read more... )

psychology, politics, economics, lifestyle, culture, philosophy

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

adamspitz December 12 2005, 18:14:44 UTC

I don't remember what I said in our conversation a few months ago. It's certainly possible that my opinions have changed significantly since then. Today, I don't think I'd "decree" that parents or other people "should" anything. I'd say that I might (depending on the specifics of the law) be willing to vote for a law that reasonably-clearly specifies certain conditions under which it would be legal to take a child away from his parents. (But it'd probably be pretty easy to convince me to change my mind about this ( ... )

quikchange December 12 2005, 18:36:30 UTC

Alright, so it seems that the implementation details of testing people would make my proposal unworkable. I think I shall concede this point. Let me see if I can suggest a better approach.
Instead of trying prevent people form screwing up, we just make a reasonable effort to educate them (using things like public service announcements). Again, this may lead to people assuming that they can rely upon the government for all their critical information. I'm not sure whether that trade-off is bad enough to avoid trying to improve the problem in this manner altogether or not.

ramou December 12 2005, 18:45:41 UTC

We need to encourage the society (as a whole) to embrace education. If people actually wanted to learn, it wouldn't be an onerous task on our poor government, we all just grow up thinking that learning was the right thing to do... how do we do this? Well, certainly not be giving tax breaks for having children (which is what giving cash directly to parents amounts to).

However, if the government starts trying to educate people, I don't think the argument can be made, outside of a Huxleyan distopia, that people would start to rely on the government as the only source for useful information.

adamspitz December 12 2005, 21:32:31 UTC

Sure, that sounds better to me than making people write tests.

In which subjects do you think these kinds of public service announcements would help?

My guess is that it's pretty easy, and not even particularly expensive, to learn most of the things that I can imagine you wanting the government to tell people. Are there subjects that you think are so expensive to learn about, or that private information sources (books, magazines, news organizations, word-of-mouth) do such a bad job of covering, that it'll make a big difference if the government steps in?

ramou December 12 2005, 23:21:43 UTC

I think that, by the end of highschool, every child should have a formal understanding of mathematics (not just arithmetic), a basic understanding of the concept of calculus, a basic physics/chemistry/biology/geology education, a basic education about the various religions, a moderate education regarding ethics, a basic education about health and sex, a basic education about economics, a very basic understanding of programming, a moderate understanding of computers, a strong grasp of at least two spoken languages, a moderate education in music and theatre, a brief introduction to debate and a moderate education in literature and history. A well rounded knowledge of physical gym-type stuff would be good as well ( ... )

adamspitz December 12 2005, 23:37:31 UTC

I'm a bit confused. My comment was meant as a reply to Tony's comment, not to yours. And I'm not sure whether yours was meant as a reply to mine or not. I was imagining Tony's "public service announcements" as being about subjects like gambling and alcohol poisoning (like he mentioned originally - "protecting people from themselves" kinds of things, rather than education in general), and so I was wondering if he thought government announcements would really make much of a difference in helping people be aware of stuff like that - my guess is that it's pretty easy even without government announcements (which would imply that making more announcements won't help much), but maybe he had some particular subjects in mind that private sources aren't covering very well.

quikchange December 12 2005, 23:44:07 UTC

I haven't seen any privately sponsored ads warning people about the dangers of gambling, although I have seen some about staying active. It's pretty hit-or-miss.

adamspitz December 13 2005, 01:58:51 UTC

This is so weird for me. You're saying that you think a lot of people who gamble aren't aware that they'll probably lose money, and that a lot of those people would change their behaviour if they knew?

I think that anybody who put up ads saying, "Public Service Announcement: If you gamble, you'll probably lose money," would be ridiculed, and rightly so. Do you really think so many people are that stupid? (A few, sure. But enough to make this kind of ad campaign worthwhile?)

I think that most people who gamble in casinos do it because they enjoy the experience. They lose money, but they have fun.

quikchange December 13 2005, 04:06:04 UTC

Most do, yes; but a significant minority gamble chronically and lose far more than they can afford to.

Haven't you seen the ads that warn against drunk driving? I've always thought they was a tad blatant too - but apparently they make a considerable difference!

Yes, many gamblers actually believe that they can make money. I worked at the CNE for 4 years and I've seen this first-hand. You have no idea!

adamspitz December 13 2005, 05:15:17 UTC

Sure. Now, how many of the chronic gamblers (or potential chronic gamblers) do you think would trust the Public Service Announcements and be persuaded by them?

My point here is just that the smaller the number of people we're talking about, the less worthwhile it seems to me to try to protect them from themselves. If only a small percentage of people gamble without realizing that they'll probably lose money, and only X% of those lose so much that they become desperate for money, and only Y% of those would actually turn to crime and cause significant costs to other people, and only Z% of those would actually be swayed by these Public Service Announcements... I dunno. My gut feeling is that there just isn't much to gain by making these announcements. So this doesn't seem to me like a good example of a failure of private information channels.

quikchange December 13 2005, 05:19:52 UTC

You make a convincing argument. But it's all starting to sound rather bleak now :-(

adamspitz December 13 2005, 06:27:48 UTC

Why? I don't think the situation is bleak. I think it's wonderful.

You say that you value freedom. What I'm trying to say here is that letting people keep the freedom to make their own choices isn't just important to me because I value freedom for its own sake, but also because it's the best way I know for people to learn. Let people make their own choices. Let them bear the natural consequences of those choices. Some of their choices will turn out to be mistakes. Hopefully they'll learn from them. Sometimes they won't. That's life. You can choose to feel frustrated because there's not much you can do, or you can choose to accept it and feel glad when you meet people who do learn. Without the freedom to "screw up," I think success is a lot less meaningful. So I'm glad that giving people the freedom to screw up is the best way I know of encouraging them to succeed ( ... )

quikchange December 13 2005, 15:07:04 UTC

There are some mistakes from which it is practically impossible to recover. If you don't instill an appreciation of education in your child then it's going to be quite the task to fix that later on, for instance.

adamspitz December 13 2005, 16:22:51 UTC

So make sure to instill an appreciation of education in your child. :)

quikchange December 13 2005, 16:26:08 UTC

I will. But some people won't. And their kid is likely to end up dropping out out high school, joining a gang and shooting somebody. That's what I'd like to prevent.

adamspitz December 13 2005, 17:38:26 UTC

OK. So it sounds to me like you're saying that the main reason why this is important to you really is just the costs-of-crime thing. If that's true, it may be that more police is the most effective way to get what you want. (But it may not. I certainly don't know all the possible options.) I'd just caution against thinking that it's somehow up to you to "allow" or "disallow" the parents to fail to instill an appreciation of education in their children. I think there's just no way to force parents to raise their kids "right." (And you can do a lot of damage trying, and make yourself crazy in the process ( ... )

Back to all threads