Comment by s1artibartfast
7 months ago
Cardiovascular disease imposes costs society, both direct costs through the medical system, and opportunity cost in lost taxes when workers die.
If we apply the logic above, those costs provide justification for mandating and criminalizing diet and exercise.
If you can't see the difference in the practicality between a massive effort to police everyone's diet and exercise regime and telling commercial saw manufacturers that they can't continue to sell a specific highly dangerous product, I cannot help you.
If the criteria and principle used for justification is social cost, the case is far stronger for criminalizing diet.
If you don't think the logic holds true, that means you think there are other relevant factors besides cost. What are they and why don't they apply to saws?
I think the huristic most people use for most laws is if it impacts them or not. People object to diet police because impacts them. They are fine with saw police, because it impacts someone else. Saw users already have a choice, and can freely buy safety saws if the want.
In short, people like telling others what to do, but not being told what to do.