Comments on: Slippery slope watch: sometimes paternalists make it too easy

By: t1

t1 — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 04:41:45 +0000

“But I agree with you that this reversing of the burden of proof is constantly observed among paternalists. I would at least like them to admit “ok THIS was a slide down the slippery slope, but seriously it stops here”. At least that would be better than constant denial of what just happened.”
==================
You’re fond of making slippery slope arguments. You posit that a legislator (or someone in the Chicago City Council) proposing legislation taking banning mixing alcohol and caffeine drinks are a step down the slippery slope that you would have predicted after the FDA ban. I point out that neither of those proposals are going to go anywhere. They will fail.

Then a commenter, and you, assert that _I_ am attempting to shift the burden of proof? Hardee har har.

Tell you what, let me know if any of these proposed bans pass. Then you might have some factual support for your assertion that there is a slippery slope in effect here.

And, by the way, I’m not a paternalist. I’m just oppose simplistic assumptions masquerading as argument.

By: Adam Ozimek

Adam Ozimek — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 14:35:16 +0000

I think t1 will argue that in this case, until the law passes there has not been any movement down the slope. But I agree with you that this reversing of the burden of proof is constantly observed among paternalists. I would at least like them to admit “ok THIS was a slide down the slippery slope, but seriously it stops here”. At least that would be better than constant denial of what just happened. The case with Happy Meal bans is the perfect example.

By: sardonic_sob

sardonic_sob — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 14:26:03 +0000

t1:

Your last point indicates that you don’t understand where the burden of proof lies in this kind of thing. If a person predicts that some act will not have the intended consequence, and that when it fails to some further act which is more stringent will be viewed as required, and it happens, that’s it. You’re on a slippery slope. After that first one, the burden of proof is on people claiming that either the slope has a definite end, or that the ongoing actions are unrelated and there’s really no slope at all.

By: Adam Ozimek

Adam Ozimek — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 03:54:31 +0000

This very well may not pass. But it suggests that a law like this is more likely than people probably expected, and the Four Loko ban has made it more likely. Of course not all paternalism will lead to more paternalism, but it increases the probability of it. I think there is a very good possibility that some states or cities will move to ban caffeine in mixed drinks within the next few years, and I think that steps like banning Four Loko make that easier for legislators. “Look, the FDA already bans some drinks on account of the fact that mixing caffeine and alcohol is dangerous”, is a useful argument for politicians to be able to make…. especially one who receives campaign contributions from, say, beer makers.

Here is a story on Chicago’s City Council say they are open to a ban like this: http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/11/caffeinated-alcoholic-drinks-banned-in-chicago.html

By: Adam Ozimek

Adam Ozimek — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 03:45:09 +0000

This is my point exactly. Things which would previously seem too like regulation gone to far are not quite so far once regulation moves you in that direction. I agree with commenter t1 that this probably won’t happen in Iowa, but this is an example of a regulator trying to pass a law that is just that much more plausible now that Four Loko has been banned. It shows the logic of how the slippery slope works. The Four Loko ban can be pointed to, just exactly as you’ve done, as an argument for why all caffeinated drinks should be banned, after all that’s just consistent with existing laws. Thus Four Loko makes it easier to take that next step. Many people who are for the Four Loko ban would oppose a ban on all caffienated drinks. The slippery slope is a warning to them that once we take this step others will want to go further, and it will be easier for them.

The point is not that the next step is terrifying, it’s that the gradual process of paternalism eventually leads us to a stronger level of paternalism than many of the initial supporters would want. Initial supporters need to keep that inertia in mind as a cost of paternalism. Because each step is marginally more paternalistic it allows us to get to undesirable levels of regulation without ever having to take a big scary step. A proposal to ban rum and cokes seems less scare now that we have a Four Loko ban. That’s part of the reason why the Four Loko ban was a bad idea.

By: t1

t1 — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 02:09:16 +0000

That would be a logical result if there were, in fact, a slippery slope at play here. I just think the proposed ban is dead in the water so we’ll never go down that slippery slope.

This whole episode underlines the weakness of the “slippery slope” style of argument. “Gosh if we outlaw premixed alcohol/caffeine drinks, its just a matter of time before people are trying to ban rum and cokes.” Okay, let’s see what happens shall we? There’s not a snowball’s chance in hell that this proposed legislation will pass. So, in this instance, the slippery slope argument is B.S. And, generally speaking, the slippery slope allows people to avoid addressing the pertinent issues and instead, argue about all of the bad things that they imagine will happen in the future. It’s just a soft-headed style of argumentation.

By: t1

t1 — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 02:02:01 +0000

I know that you’ve written about this before but you consistently fail to address or even recognize the weakness in your argument.

If the new proposed ban is rejected, then your theory fails in this instance, doesn’t it? You just said “every time we slide down the slippery slope the defense is exactly what you said: well where could we possibly slide next.” Well, no. The point is that we are _not_ sliding down the slope. There was Point A (the ban on caffeinated alcohol beverages.) If the Slippery Slope argument was valid ther would be a point B and a Point C and so on. You know, a slippery slope. But, here, is no Point B. There is no slide. It hasn’t happened. TThe law about banning mixing of alcohol/caffeine drinks will not be enacted. That is the most important point.

The secondary point is not, where could we possibly slide next. It is what points do you think have to occur for your theory to be confirmed?

By: jason

jason — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 23:40:44 +0000

To continue…..the problem here is that this is the best slippery slope argument you can come up with. Slippery slope arguments work when the current step sounds reasonable but you cannot allow it to proceed because the next step is scary.

Jumping from pre-bottled caffeine/alcohol drinks to caffeine/alcohol drinks made in a bar is not really a scary next step. If you are ok with banning these pre-bottled drinks, its hard to not agree with banning the drinks made in a bar. After all, its the caffeine+alcohol combination that people object to and is thought to be dangerous. It isnt the bottle. If you object to banning pre-bottled drinks, you probably object to bar made drinks.

This is a pretty terrible example of a scary slippery slope.

By: jason

jason — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 23:30:45 +0000

The problem with slippery slope arguments is that the b

By: corey

corey — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 02:27:53 +0000

White russians contain Kahlua
Kahlua has caffeine
The Dude will not abide

By: sardonic_sob

sardonic_sob — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 02:10:26 +0000

How about a ban on serving and/or selling caffeinated beverages and alcoholic beverages in the same place? Would that seem a bit slopey to you, or would you just argue that since the previous bans failed to make everything perfect forever, there’s nothing paternalistic at all about it?

Not saying it will happen. Not saying it *won’t.* Just trying to figure out where your boundary is.

By: Adam Ozimek

Adam Ozimek — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 01:05:02 +0000

I’ve written about this before here: http://modeledbehavior.com/2010/11/08/the-future-of-paternalism/ and here:
http://modeledbehavior.com/2010/11/03/were-always-at-the-bottom-of-the-slippery-slope/

Every time we slide down the slippery slope the defense is exactly what you said: well where could we possibly slide next??? We’re always at the bottom of the slop according to paternalists.

By: t1

t1 — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 00:49:19 +0000

To test your theory, where do you see this so-called “slippery slope” heading? What is the ultimate horrible result that is going to flow from the banning of pre-made caffeinated drinks? Is it going to be a ban on alcohol? A ban on caffeine? Or is it just the banning of caffeinated alcohol drinks, period? If so, that’s not a very long or a very slippery slope, is it?

But, more importantly, if the lawmakers reject the ban on the selling of non-premade caffeinated drinks then that will _disprove_ your slippery slope theory here, won’t it? I mean, there are all sorts of idiotic proposals made in legislatures every day. Just because something is proposed, that doesn’t mean that there is a slippery-slope effect at all.

By: sardonic_sob

sardonic_sob — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 00:00:55 +0000

Are you seriously saying that banning rum and Cokes is somehow overly repressive and paternalistic? Everybody knows kids love Coke! Why don’t you just set up a “Free Heroin and Handguns” booth outside your local kindergarten, you sicko?

By: Max Kaehn

Max Kaehn — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 23:57:36 +0000

Hopefully someone will have the sense to label it the “Prohibition of Irish Coffee Act” and it will die in committee.