Vindictive rules that destroy value rather than protect it are not good. A rule makes sense if and only if it creates sufficient value by creating safer spaces and controlling spread. Justifying a rule by saying that the threat to destroy value will cause vaccinations should be out of bounds.
This template is a good heuristic for rules in general.
Zvi, you are loved like a milkshake… not in like a reckless obesogenic way, but a like a thoughtful anabolic consumption of milkshake way.
Yeah, I was pretty bothered a couple years ago when we were doing the “kids in cages” news cycle, and the red tribe people kept saying stuff along the lines of, “it’s good that our policy is unpleasant, because it’s a deterrent against future infractions”.
Any degree of cruelty can be (correctly!) framed as a deterrent. So in general we should be really wary of those kinds of policies.
This template is a good heuristic for rules in general.
Zvi, you are loved like a milkshake… not in like a reckless obesogenic way, but a like a thoughtful anabolic consumption of milkshake way.
Yeah, I was pretty bothered a couple years ago when we were doing the “kids in cages” news cycle, and the red tribe people kept saying stuff along the lines of, “it’s good that our policy is unpleasant, because it’s a deterrent against future infractions”.
Any degree of cruelty can be (correctly!) framed as a deterrent. So in general we should be really wary of those kinds of policies.
The problem with the principle is there are often pre-commitments to not make the sensible rules, so they have to find workarounds.