Hacker News Reader

Comment by yodelshady | Hacker News Reader

Contract killers are responding to demand, but we don't let them legally practice their trade.

So people who hire contract killers are not to blame? I don't understand this argument - saying "it's not our fault the cattle/hardwood logging/mining companies cut down the Amazon" is nonsense, that's been widely known about for decades and we (collectively) just bought more and more of this stuff. It's their fault and ours.

Public policy is always the greatest factor for change at this scale. It’s extremely unlikely that you’ll effect change by individual action, even if you enlist a church-like following.

Sure, and (in countries with functioning democracies) public policy responds to pressure from the public. It doesn't tend to change in the face of public apathy.

And in countries with functioning mass media systems, the public responds to pressure from the tv.

Indeed; isn't life wonderful. We can still choose to ignore the noise, or treat it with skepticism, do our own investigation etc. We're not forced to listen. But yeah, sure, the media also share some of the blame - they're people too. These are problems of humanity's making.

What good does blame do if the only thing that can potentially change the course is public policy?

I find it a lot harder trying to convince everyone to change versus forcing everyone to change through policy and enforcement through government.

Well, how will that public policy and enforcement come about? We live in a democratic society, so the only way the government will enforce anything is if people demand it. And for people to demand it they need to be aware of the issue and what's causing it.

If buying makes you an accomplice, wouldn't buying, say, Chinese or Israeli goods make you an accomplice to those regimes' human rights abuses? How far do you think customer responsibility goes?

If you know that the product you're buying was built through human rights abuses, then absolutely that would make you an accomplice.

If the production of those goods entails human rights abuses then yes, that's an analogous situation and buying those goods signals tacit acceptance of those crimes. I think applying that to buying anything (for example) Chinese-made is a bit more of a grey area (not to mention almost impossible to avoid now) but I personally try not to because a proportion of any money going in that direction ends up in the hands of the Chinese government.

Blame whoever you like. If we agree an activity is harmful, we usually pass laws to stop people doing it.

Other options can be applied, but only really if we don't agree, usually due to personal choice being relevant (some drugs, prostitution, seatbelts and helmets) or non-linear effects in both the utility and externalities (most pollution). Or both (cigarettes, alcohol, sugar).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com