You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Do people think about the rules they impose? Do they consider how they would react to such rules?
Economic incentives and desincentives usually work better.
Economic incentives and desincentives usually work better.
And actually these types of incentives only stop Legal methods... they tend to create lucrative criminal markets. When you prohibit a thing you increase interest, which increases demand, and if you then make it difficult to provide those things legally it opens the market for a lucrative criminal venture.
That doesn't stop the interest. Just makes it harder to acquire. The only real way is if it is so expensive that most people cannot get it. The Rich people that are willing to share suddenly become VERY popular. :)
I don't know a true solution other than being open and educating. We would prefer you don't drink until you are older for this reason? Drinking a glass of wine with dinner is okay but excess is stupid.
Another thing kids learn is that if you tell them something is WRONG but for YOU it is okay then it doesn't seem to fly well. The entire lead by example thing. If you drink responsibly with your meal, and don't binge and act like an idiot then talking to your children about responsible drinking would have more impact than say talking to them about responsible drinking while you often get smashed in their presence.
The mind is a complex thing. I don't have all of the answers, but the methods that society uses don't seem to actually have the desired impact. They seem to do the opposite in many cases.
Would you say, society tries to find a one size fits all. As you pointed out in your example, there are nuances.
Yes, I do think society tries to do that. Someone does something bad, rather than focus on the negative actor they attempt to generalize and pass some law to stop such events from happening again. This generally seems to be ineffective. Generalization is a logical fallacy, so the fact that we produce laws often based upon generalizations would indicate we are kind of already building the law upon a generalization fallacy.