måndag 30 maj 2011


Usel dotterfilosofi, från annars ofta intressante Steven Levitt (argumentet är uråldrigt och har sågats otaliga gånger, men David Henderson kommenterar just Levitts inlägg):

It wasn’t until the U.S. government’s crackdown on internet poker last week that I came to realize that the primary determinant of where I stand with respect to government interference in activities comes down to the answer to a simple question: How would I feel if my daughter were engaged in that activity?

If the answer is that I wouldn’t want my daughter to do it, then I don’t mind the government passing a law against it. I wouldn’t want my daughter to be a cocaine addict or a prostitute, so in spite of the fact that it would probably be more economically efficient to legalize drugs and prostitution subject to heavy regulation/taxation, I don’t mind those activities being illegal.

Betydligt bättre dotterfilosofi, från Stefan Molyneux (hela klippet rekommenderas):

My rule of thumb as a parent is to say:  "Will my daughter thank me for this in 10 or 15 years?"

1 kommentar:

jeppen sa...

Jag vill inte att min dotter ska bli en städtant, så jag har inget emot att kriminalisera städning. (Värdelös princip, uppenbarligen.)