A Societal Good Allegory

Page 1 of 2 [ 20 posts ] Go to page 1, 2 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

29 Dec 2011, 9:33 am

A modest proposal: Let's ban all sports!

Quote:

Isn't it about time America banned soccer? Not because of British hooligans or the vuvuzela that has now made it into your local dollar store, although Heaven knows soccer has plenty to answer for on both those scores. No, the question at hand is whether soccer should be banned because of the other costs it imposes on society.

This comes up thanks to a little story from a few weeks back about a new study finding that "heading" a soccer ball can lead to traumatic brain injury. The damage is not so severe that players will need to be institutionalized. At worst, some of them will end up talking like George W. Bush. This is still not something to be wished on anyone.

Okay, so perhaps we don't need to ban soccer outright. Perhaps we should only require players to wear helmets. But what about sports in general? In the aggregate, they cost society a tremendous lot of money.

According to the National Center for Sports Safety, more than 3.5 million children receive medical treatment for sports injuries every year. Sports and recreation account for a fifth of traumatic brain injuries among young people, which the CDC says have increased 60 percent in the past decade. Overall injury rates for various sports are surprisingly high: 28 percent of youth football players get hurt. So do a quarter of all youth baseball players, more than a fifth of all youth soccer players, and even 15 percent of all youth basketball players. Even gymnastics is responsible for tens of thousands of injuries a year.

And those are just children's injuries; we haven't gotten to the middle-aged players of handball, tennis and golf who wind up in the emergency room. But the CDC reports that "more than 10,000 people receive treatment in the nation's emergency departments (ED) each day for injuries sustained in" sports, recreational and exercise activities. "At least one of every five ED visits for an injury results from participation in sports or recreation."

Obviously, this imposes huge costs on society. Those injured players who are insured drive up premiums for everybody. Those who are not insured receive charity care, which drives up hospital rates. People who play sports are engaging in risky behavior that hurts us all, for their own selfish enjoyment. Somebody needs to put a stop to this.

If you think the preceding paragraph is a barrel of 180-proof rot, good for you. But this is precisely the sort of argument that is being made in other areas of what is subversively known as public health.

We are told, for example, that obesity costs in the U.S. now stand at about $170 billion, second only to the social cost of smoking. Obesity is commonly referred to as an "epidemic" and is being used to justify all sorts of intrusions into personal life. Matters have now reached the point that an Ohio social-services department has taken a boy from his family because he is too fat.

The federal government also is trying to reduce the amount of salt Americans consume. In September the FDA requested comments "relevant to the dietary intake of sodium as well as current and emerging approaches designed to promote sodium reduction." Too much salt is bad for you, but not all salt is bad for you. Not long ago Scientific American reported, "In just the past few months researchers have published seemingly contradictory studies showing that excess sodium in the diet leads to heart attacks, reduces your blood pressure or has no effect at all."

And regardless of whether salt is good or bad for you, people like it. When various prepared-food makers, needled by busybodies, have reduced the sodium content of soups, frozen foods, and condiments the changes have been met by — literally — consumer distaste.

Nevertheless, proponents of government meddling are eager to see Washington dictate people's dietary choices because those choices have the potential to affect other people, however indirectly. Government's job used to be (and still properly is) to protect our rights, leaving us free to do as we please up to the point that we violate someone else's rights. But if government can regulate whatever merely affects someone else, then — since anything can be said to affect someone — government can regulate absolutely everything.

To many, this is a feature, not a bug. But those who would like government to dictate more of your personal choices have another reason for doing so as well: They think you're an idiot. As one email correspondent put it recently, "Why shouldn't our leaders, whom we have elected, choose to do what is actually best for us, even if we don't have sense enough to realize it?"

Why not? One reason has already been stated: It is not government's job to decide what is best for us. Second, you cannot give politicians the power to impose good choices alone. When you give politicians the power to impose good choices, you necessarily give them the power to impose bad ones as well. Nobody has proposed banning soccer and other injury-inducing sports, at least not yet. But there are those who think government should have the power to do so if it wanted, and that is bad enough.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/rtd- ... r-1569441/

Now admittedly this author is a bit more conservative than I, but I do like some of the allegorical comparisons he makes and some of the reversed rhetoric he uses as a device. I think I've made a number of posts on my opposition to many state programs based on what I see as potential for invasiveness, but I thought this was a particularly elegant way of making the point.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

29 Dec 2011, 4:30 pm

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Liberal (capital "L") which puts me pretty much smack in the middle on the political spectrum in this country.

I think it's important for us to know and understand the risks that we undertake, what the costs of those risks are, and to mandate mitigation where that mitigation is minimally intrusive and directly beneficial.

So, mandatory seat belts and motorcycle helmets? No brainer. Exemption for religious headgear? No way.
Mandatory helmets in contact sports? No brainer.
Mandatory "no one works alone" regulations? Sure.
Mandatory workplace health and safety standards? Well, let's look at them individually before we salute uncritically.
Banning smoking? Now we're moving into dicier areas. In confined spaces, sure. Workplaces, I'll live with it. In the open or in private spaces? No way.
Banning transfats? Even dicier.
Mandating sodium reduction? Now I'm really having a hard time.

The reality is that like so many public policy options, things lie on a continuum. What I am prepared to tolerate as a member of a society that insures each and every person's medically necessary care might well be different from what I would be prepared to tolerate if I lived in your society.

At root there is no simple answer. Extreme positions are useful for framing the debate. The "nanny state" is a nonsensical meme--but it does serve to underline an important question about what kinds of risk mitigation are appropriate. The "government experts" approach is equally nonsensical--but it also serves to make an important point about the public costs of choices that we make.

But the debate should happen in the middle. Recognizing that some regulation is necessary for a functioning society, but overregulation becomes a beast of its own creation, feeding off itself.

_________________
--James

peebo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

29 Dec 2011, 8:39 pm

interesting, i believe we most likely have fairly disparate points of view on many issues, but a ban on sports, especially of a commercialised nature, is something i wouldn't complain much about.

_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,571
Location: the island of defective toy santas

29 Dec 2011, 11:16 pm

some jejune thoughts-
if an activity has societal costs beyond individual expenditure, i believe such activity should be taxed to pay for those costs. alcohol and tobacco products are taxed with this [at least partially] in mind, so why not tax sugar, salt and fat as well? sports at all levels might also be taxed, or regulated via li¢en$ing $cheme$ with fine$ for scofflaws, something our already overburdened police will surely just love, which would mean that the little folk for once would be the beneficiaries of an [un]official blind eye, but schools and clubs would be legal-eagle-eyed for compliance with revenue-enhancing licensing regimens. almost none of those things would bother me personally, but tax my salt and i will squawk- unless somebody invents nutrasalt [salt equivalent of nutrasweet].

Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 877

30 Dec 2011, 12:02 am

Hi Dox47,

A. Barton Hinkle certainly made an error in his sentence concluding: "They think you're an idiot".

A moderately famous "Cost benefit analysis" involves the value of a human life versus the cost of protecting that value, and uses large actuary tables/statistics to obtain the highest profits with the greatest margins.

One "Mom & Pop" business involved is listed at: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -gulf.html

I use the phrase "Mom & Pop" because the propaganda value of dealing with sweet rattlesnakes seems much better than that of dealing with deadly poisonous dragons, often wrapped in the pretty paper of the "Free Marketplace", with the "or take your business 'elsewhere'" scenario.

Ronald Reagan did parrot much the same as in the article you posted, and once his parroting had the desired results, he soon signed the proclamation for mandatory seat-belt usage. http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbQojTKxb_c
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbQojTKxb_c[/youtube]

For the statistical median of "John Q. Public", studied by the statisticians and numerical analysts, A. Barton Hinkle should have stated: "They know you're an idiot". Everyone needs "Super-Sized", then "rendered" for the market.

If you're tired of "Colonel Sanders" and "Mr. Whippell", with the New Newt still seeming slimy, try some limited edition Gold Tablets autographed by some Paul or so (Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan,...) recommending blaming the local feudal lord for allowing the free choice of freedoms being lynched at 8:45, or 15-till-9, whichever the prisoner so freely chooses.

Tadzio

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

30 Dec 2011, 2:55 am

peebo wrote:

interesting, i believe we most likely have fairly disparate points of view on many issues, but a ban on sports, especially of a commercialised nature, is something i wouldn't complain much about.

I'd rather ban excessive computer usage.

peebo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

30 Dec 2011, 5:22 am

AceOfSpades wrote:

peebo wrote:

interesting, i believe we most likely have fairly disparate points of view on many issues, but a ban on sports, especially of a commercialised nature, is something i wouldn't complain much about.

I'd rather ban excessive computer usage.

at least excessive computer usage can expand ones knowledge, depending on the use it's being put to.

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

30 Dec 2011, 8:28 am

AceOfSpades wrote:

peebo wrote:

interesting, i believe we most likely have fairly disparate points of view on many issues, but a ban on sports, especially of a commercialised nature, is something i wouldn't complain much about.

I'd rather ban excessive computer usage.

ohh yes because that is not the one singular subject that is tied in to absolutely every facet of modern life.
to the point of a requirement for this kind of society to even remotely exist.

_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

30 Dec 2011, 11:49 am

peebo wrote:

AceOfSpades wrote:

peebo wrote:

interesting, i believe we most likely have fairly disparate points of view on many issues, but a ban on sports, especially of a commercialised nature, is something i wouldn't complain much about.

I'd rather ban excessive computer usage.

at least excessive computer usage can expand ones knowledge, depending on the use it's being put to.

If you're sitting all day and thinking then there isn't a whole lot of doing. And is there not a significant mental aspect to sports?

Oodain wrote:

AceOfSpades wrote:

peebo wrote:

interesting, i believe we most likely have fairly disparate points of view on many issues, but a ban on sports, especially of a commercialised nature, is something i wouldn't complain much about.

I'd rather ban excessive computer usage.

ohh yes because that is not the one singular subject that is tied in to absolutely every facet of modern life.
to the point of a requirement for this kind of society to even remotely exist.

Most excessive computer usage is about playing WoW 10 hours a day and not doing anything useful really. Most of the useful stuff doesn't need a lot of time to be wasted on them.

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

30 Dec 2011, 12:00 pm

true 10 hours of wow wont help anyone but those that live off it,
i used to play eve online and spent all my free time doing it,
that and my general interest in videogames means i have a much firmer grasp of computers than many others,
allowing me to be self sufficient and quite well off.

to say it is generally a bad thing is as stupid as saying sports is generally a bad thing,
difference is our society couldnt function without computers as it stands today and it is at least imaginable with sports, despite its unifying(and splitting properties)

_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

30 Dec 2011, 12:29 pm

Oodain wrote:

Heh I'm still pretty computer illiterate but CS has introduced me to the concept of configs and customization and those who know absolutely nothing about computers figured I was some sort of a computer genius because I can bind some keys :lol:

Oodain wrote:

to say it is generally a bad thing is as stupid as saying sports is generally a bad thing,
difference is our society couldnt function without computers as it stands today and it is at least imaginable with sports, despite its unifying(and splitting properties)

Well I think it's a bad thing because it's what I used to do all the time. CS all day and all night, what a life. I could've at least read a damn book instead of playing video games all day. I really don't care about what other people do with their time, but I replied with that smart ass remark because that elitism gets on my nerves. I remember there was this dude in my class who thought of me as bright until he heard me talking to others about the last UFC fight I saw on PPV/in a bar or the last hockey or basketball game. Since then he was talking slower to me and stopped hurting my poor little brain with big words :roll:

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

30 Dec 2011, 2:51 pm

auntblabby wrote:

I'm not a big fan of targeted taxation.

Naturally, I put premiums in a different category--my CPP and EI premiums go into dedicated funds that provide for pension benefits and employment insurance benefits, respectively. These funds should properly be treated as investment trusts rather than government revenue.

I also like user fees--you pay a fee when you apply for a passport and the fees collected pay for the cost of providing passport services. But the number of government services for which we can be assessed on a fee for service basis is limited. At the end of the day, there must be general taxation, that goes into consolidated revenues to meet approved expenditures.

But when we start carving out taxes and putting fences around their use we create two problems. First, we artificially reduce the general tax burden required for a certain program. If tobacco excise taxes are targeted to health spending, then we only need to spend, say, 14% instead of 15% of other revenues on health. But if tobacco excise taxes evaporate, then are we prepared to restore the general tax exposure? Second, we create the possibility of little pools of unused revenue. Say you target all professional sport tax revenue at youth fitness programs. What happens if you raise $100M but you only spend $98M? In an ideal world that money collects investment income and gets used in subsequent years. But in a world of fiscal policy deficits, is this responsible?

_________________
--James

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

30 Dec 2011, 6:56 pm

You know, as soon as I posted this I started thinking that perhaps sports wasn't the best subject for an allegory on an AS board as they probably would happily ban them...

The idea was just to hold a mirror up to the "if it imposes any costs on society we're justified in banning/taxing/regulating it" school of thought that seems to have come into vogue recently. I'm not saying no such actions are justifiable or desirable, more that they seem to have gotten particularly out of hand lately.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

30 Dec 2011, 7:12 pm

Boxing and football demonstrably cause significantly more brain damage than soccer. Hell, just running leads to knee problems.

Recently I have been more and more frustrated with the rules and regulations beign imposed, mostly at the hospital: a storage facility we've used for decades is suddenly 'not up to code' because it's not heated or equipped with sprinklers. It's STORAGE! Nothing there to be harmed by the lack of heat or sprinklers but mice, but because it's hospital storage, we either have to renovate or tear it down. Likewise, if a bulletin board is in a 'hallway,' all notices either have to be laminated, in plastic sleeves, or tacked on all 4 corners. because otherwise it's a 'fire risk.' Also, we recently had to *remove* the eye-washes in our micro/pathology departments because they were over the only sinks there, and (despite the sinks being very deep, 'the water from the eye-wash might splash back up from the sink and get something in the victim's eyes.' So, I guess, it's better to NOT HAVE AN EYEWASH AT ALL.

No matter how much we love our family, they will not live forever - and trying to make it so will just lead to their suicide from boredom. There's a growing fad called 'free-range parenting,' and I think that's the kind of parent I'd be if I had kids. Children are *supposed* to be wild.

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

30 Dec 2011, 9:00 pm

So, in this storage facility, do the records magically appear there? Are they retrived by machine? Someone has to work in that facility--boxes of records get pulled and returned daily.

If you are going to rubbish a set of regulations, at least rubbish them in their full context.

Oh, did you happen to notice whether there's eyewash bottles in your micro/path lab?

_________________
--James

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,571
Location: the island of defective toy santas

30 Dec 2011, 11:35 pm

visagrunt wrote:

I'm not a big fan of targeted taxation. Naturally, I put premiums in a different category--my CPP and EI premiums go into dedicated funds that provide for pension benefits and employment insurance benefits, respectively. These funds should properly be treated as investment trusts rather than government revenue. But when we start carving out taxes and putting fences around their use we create two problems. First, we artificially reduce the general tax burden required for a certain program. If tobacco excise taxes are targeted to health spending, then we only need to spend, say, 14% instead of 15% of other revenues on health. But if tobacco excise taxes evaporate, then are we prepared to restore the general tax exposure? Second, we create the possibility of little pools of unused revenue. Say you target all professional sport tax revenue at youth fitness programs. What happens if you raise $100M but you only spend $98M? In an ideal world that money collects investment income and gets used in subsequent years. But in a world of fiscal policy deficits, is this responsible?

you mentioned premiums, so why not treat the question of risky activities as something which can be insured? people who do things which have a high risk of costing society $$$$$ could take out public [official] insurance policies against the dangers involved. let this be part of the licensing scheme. this money could be invested prudently, so that in the event of a "rainy day," the monies accrued beyond a certain amount could be useful someplace else in some other way. it is no more irresponsible than what my state's rainy day fund has done for god knows how long now- these funds aren't just sitting in a safe, they're being prudently invested someplace somehow. just a thought.

Page 1 of 2 [ 20 posts ] Go to page 1, 2 Next

Jump to:

A Societal Good Allegory Post Reply New Topic

A Societal Good Allegory