Abortion Legislation - is it truly pro-choice?

[Collin Li]

What do you mean? How did you draw such a conclusion? If it is your loss, then it is in your interest to seek new information.

Hence, the doctor situation is self-regulating, and the police situation is not.

[enwiabe]

If minorities getting fucked over isn't accounted for in the legislature, then that is a failure in a democracy. Simple as that.

[Collin Li]

These 'minorities' have an interest to look out for themselves (private costs resemble social costs), while in the police situation, corruption laws are necessary because private costs do not resemble social costs - no individual has the interest to look out for public funds that they own a tiny proportion of.

Use numbers to imagine why this works:

People self-regulate about medicine and can protect themselves by 100 (some unit of protection).
Unenforceable legislation improves it by 1.
1% increase in protection at some cost.

People don't care about public coffers being plunged due to 'split-the-bill' problem, the self-regulation is minimal: 1
Unenforceable legislation improves it by 1.
100% increase in protection at some cost.

It is easy to see why the benefits outweigh the costs in the police situation, and not the doctor situation.

[enwiabe]

Argh, this isn't economic. I know it's a far out concept, but some things do not involve economics.

"The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government it is possible for the rights of a minority to be abused by the 'tyranny of the majority'."

Is what democracy is all about. No, minorities should NOT be left to their own devices when they have been wronged by an external party.

[enwiabe]

These 'minorities' have an interest to look out for themselves (private costs resemble social costs), while in the police situation, corruption laws are necessary because private costs do not resemble social costs - no individual has the interest to look out for public funds that they own a tiny proportion of.

Use numbers to imagine why this works:

People self-regulate about medicine and can protect themselves by 100 (some unit of protection).
Unenforceable legislation improves it by 1.
1% increase in protection at some cost.

People don't care about public coffers being plunged due to 'split-the-bill' problem, the self-regulation is minimal: 1
Unenforceable legislation improves it by 1.
100% increase in protection at some cost.

It is easy to see why the benefits outweigh the costs in the police situation, and not the doctor situation.

The cost of protecting the minority is borne by democratic society and should not be a factor when deciding to protect the minority.

[Collin Li]

So you would accept legislation that would have near-zero effectiveness, but extremely high costs, just to cover the protection of minorities a bit more? Don't you think the market system would do a far better job? (i.e.: some consultant that wants your attention and offers great advice and help to those seeking it)

And I'm well aware of the tyranny of the majority. I've never condoned it, it's a straw-man to suggest I'm a part of such a scheme.

[enwiabe]

But this legislation does not have extremely high costs.

And, no, I would not trust an unregulated market consultant. The service could be available to those who wish to seek it out, sure, but I would not endorse it in lieu of government intervention.

[Collin Li]

But the ratio of effectiveness to cost is a waste of money. You can seek better returns elsewhere with the money.

It would be a sin against efficiency (which means less resources to more needy avenues, less conservation of resources) to do so.

[enwiabe]

And I'm well aware of the tyranny of the majority. I've never condoned it, it's a straw-man to suggest I'm a part of such a scheme.

No it isn't, you JUST made an argument about the needs of the few being irrelevant to government.

JUST then.

[enwiabe]

But the ratio of effectiveness to cost is a waste of money. You can seek better returns elsewhere with the money.

It would be a sin against efficiency (which means less resources to more needy avenues, less conservation of resources) to do so.

But if it's a market consultant, then it would be out of that person's coffers. And then it would be the government saying "You're on your own", basically.

[Collin Li]

No, I was talking about how an individual would only feel a proportion of the loss in the case of police corruption - there was nothing said about ignoring the needs of few. But I am talking about efficiency, and getting the most you can with money.

So while a majority tyrant might advocate the same policy, it comes from different principles. One is morally questionable and arbitrary, the other is morally sound and pragmatic. They coincide by coincidence.

Re: market consultant. I wasn't talking about that - I'm talking about a whole host of other information improving legislations that offer better return on other social needs. But that could include providing medicine vouchers (for these kind of services).

[Collin Li]

BTW, I am only debating an abstraction with you - about police corruption laws versus doctor information laws. If you noticed when cardiovascular pointed out the particulars of the legislation, that I backed down, stating that the costs and benefits are minimal - and would think it trivial and pragmatic for political purposes to accept it. I would quote it but I am capped.

My advocacy of self-reliance was offered as a must-have, regardless of the passing of the unenforceable legislation regarding the doctor. That is, in any case, you should seek self-responsibility, because that is really your best hope at guaranteeing sound advice for yourself. (Moral hazard #2 in my signature)

[enwiabe]

I agree with you that self-reliance is ideal, however it cannot be assumed in situations where soundness of mind is known to be compromised. As it cannot be assumed, there must be precautions and safeguards put in place by the government to ensure that no harm comes to these people.

There are numerous laws with deal with this exact concept. I think this notion applies here.

[ninwa]

Rule of Coblin:
Any debate with coblin in it must eventually turn to economics.


I have now realised that it is a more complex issue than I originally envisaged. The doctor entered into this profession knowing what was in store and taking a (legally-recognised) duty of care. The woman has been placed into the position unwillingly the majority of the time. The doctor is legally and morally in a position of power and trust. It is not a simple issue of freedom of choice. In certain circumstances, the patient's rights override those of the doctor's.

So my position is now neutral and I won't contribute to this debate anymore (but will watch with interest!)

[rhjc.1991]

I agree with you that self-reliance is ideal, however it cannot be assumed in situations where soundness of mind is known to be compromised. As it cannot be assumed, there must be precautions and safeguards put in place by the government to ensure that no harm comes to these people.

There are numerous laws with deal with this exact concept. I think this notion applies here.

I agree with coblin's idea of self-reliance for a number of reasons:
1. You cannot guarantee that the government will be correct. Many will remember many racist laws (eg. "Two Wongs don't make a White") of the government, and recently of the Stolen Generation.
2. Even if in an idealistic government, you cannot expect them to enforce their ideas

Self-reliance is important, because dissent is important in order to ensure that our society functions in a proper manner.