Read on Twitter
1/ Sometimes the question shouldn't be "how do we eliminate X?" (where X is some societal ill), but rather "how much X are we willing to tolerate in a free society?"
For some bad things, we need to consider the costs associated with reducing them to zero.
For some bad things, we need to consider the costs associated with reducing them to zero.
2/ Take murder for instance. Murder is bad. We should all *want* murder rates to be zero. But what would that require? In short, the complete elimination of individual freedoms.
Most of us would (rightfully, IMO) likely deem this too costly.
Most of us would (rightfully, IMO) likely deem this too costly.
3/ What this means is that we need to view low background rates of some bad things as not *necessarily* evidence that a system is faulty and needs to be revamped.
Now it's important not to go overboard and assume that current rates of bad things is the best we can do.
Now it's important not to go overboard and assume that current rates of bad things is the best we can do.
4/ But we should always consider the potential trade-offs associated with new laws and policies, and rid ourselves of any utopian fantasies of total peace and harmony.
