Blue or Green on Regulation? — LessWrong

lesswrong.com · 6,757 words · saved by 1 readers

In recent posts, I have predicted that, if not otherwise prevented from doing so, some people will behave stupidly and suffer the consequences: "If people have a right to be stupid, the market will respond by supplying all the stupidity that can be sold." People misinterpret this as indicating that I take a policy stance in favor of regulation. It indicates no such thing. It is meant purely as guess about empirical consequences - a testable prediction on a question of simple fact. Perhaps I would be less misinterpreted if I also told "the other side of the story" - inveighed at length about the reasons why bureaucrats are not perfect rationalists guarding our net best interests. But ideally, I shouldn't have to go to such lengths. Ideally, I could make a prediction about a strictly factual question without this being interpreted as a policy stance, or as a stance on logically distinct factual questions. Yet it would appear that there are two and only two sides to the issue - pro-

x Blue or Green on Regulation? — LessWrong Politics Blues & Greens (metaphor) Frontpage 92 Blue or Green on Regulation? by Eliezer Yudkowsky 15th Mar 2007 4 min read 40 92 In recent posts, I have predicted that, if not otherwise prevented from doing so, some people will behave stupidly and suffer the consequences: "If people have a right to be stupid, the market will respond by supplying all the stupidity that can be sold." People misinterpret this as indicating that I take a policy stance in favor of regulation. It indicates no such thing. It is meant purely as guess about empirical consequen

Blue or Green on Regulation? — LessWrong

related reading