The way you apply “Chesterton’s Fence” is bordering a fully general argument against any change. This is not how it’s supposed to be used. Chesterton’s Fence is an argument against getting rid of things, without having knowledge why they existed in the first place. We do have a good model why alcohol consumption coincided with civilization. Therefore, there is no strong argument of this form that can be made here.
You also seem to confuse voluntary teetotaling with government enforced prohibition. All the bad secondary effects are results of the latter, not the former.
I read this post as making a motte and bailey style argument. Perhaps it’s just how I’m interpreting the author’s somewhat (to me!) vague words, but for example the final sentence:
I understand that for many people giving it up would be more of a sacrifice, but it seems clear that the sacrifice is worth it to protect the people alcohol would otherwise kill and harm.
I interpret the second half to be saying that “the sacrifice” of giving up alcohol is a general statement that applies to everyone, and the author is making a bid here that everyone should make that sacrifice, at which point this is not really voluntary.
Maybe the author meant to say something more precise like “I think more people should voluntarily stop drinking” and some of their post implies this is what they mean, but then other parts seem to me to be written in favor of prohibition. I’m not sure.
Also, I’m far less confident than you that we actually understand the function of alcohol in society, even if we are familiar with its history.
The way you apply “Chesterton’s Fence” is bordering a fully general argument against any change. This is not how it’s supposed to be used. Chesterton’s Fence is an argument against getting rid of things, without having knowledge why they existed in the first place. We do have a good model why alcohol consumption coincided with civilization. Therefore, there is no strong argument of this form that can be made here.
You also seem to confuse voluntary teetotaling with government enforced prohibition. All the bad secondary effects are results of the latter, not the former.
I read this post as making a motte and bailey style argument. Perhaps it’s just how I’m interpreting the author’s somewhat (to me!) vague words, but for example the final sentence:
I interpret the second half to be saying that “the sacrifice” of giving up alcohol is a general statement that applies to everyone, and the author is making a bid here that everyone should make that sacrifice, at which point this is not really voluntary.
Maybe the author meant to say something more precise like “I think more people should voluntarily stop drinking” and some of their post implies this is what they mean, but then other parts seem to me to be written in favor of prohibition. I’m not sure.
Also, I’m far less confident than you that we actually understand the function of alcohol in society, even if we are familiar with its history.