Comment by kragen
2 months ago
I wasn't saying we shouldn't have such laws. I was saying that we should consider the possible enactment of such laws in the light of the knowledge that people will try to circumvent them and will sometimes succeed, rather than assuming that, if advertising is prohibited, there will be no advertising. You seem to agree with this, which means you disagree with the original article, which does make that assumption.
Separately, I was saying that we can't usefully debate the pros and cons of such a vague proposal. You can postulate that some sort of vaguely defined prohibition would have no drawbacks, but any concrete policy proposal will in fact have drawbacks, and in some cases those will outweigh their advantages.
Ok, in this case we do seem to be in broad agreement. I'm unclear of the value of your ideas though.
> I was saying that we should consider the possible enactment of such laws in the light of the knowledge that people will try to circumvent them and will sometimes succeed
That should always be the case when discussing any laws. If you don't consider that people will try to circumvent them, there is no point in considering punishment for when they do, and ultimately there is no point to the law.
> rather than assuming that, if advertising is prohibited, there will be no advertising.
As above, I would expect no one to make such assumptions.
> Separately, I was saying that we can't usefully debate the pros and cons of such a vague proposal.
I don't see why not. I suspect most proposals and ideas start vague, and by discussing their pros and cons and further refining them, we get to more concrete, more actionable ones.
> but any concrete policy proposal will in fact have drawbacks, and in some cases those will outweigh their advantages.
This is a truism, I'm not sure what value it adds to the discussion.