Click It Or Ticket
Sure, slippery slope arguments are too easy. Anything can be overdone. Why not just take decisions one at a time? But still, there's a grim satisfaction when a slope you predicted years ago slips down to the bottom. (Incidentally, Eugene Volokh has written a paper on slippery slopes well worth reading if you have the time.)
I recall when the first seatbelt laws were passed (for drivers, not manufacturers). The authorities said not to worry, no one will be pulled aside merely for non-compliance--it will only be noted if you've already committed some other violation. I snorted (all alone while reading the paper), saying (to myself) the day will come, and it won't be long, when merely not being belted will get you a ticket.
In the last few weeks, two of my friends have gotten tickets for not wearing a seatbelt. This is now the national standard. I just heard an ad on radio warning drivers about it. While I usually belt up, it's still probably a matter of time before I get my ticket.
The authorities, needless to say, are proud of this new standard. It raises revenue and saves lives--a win-win. There's really nothing to do but wait for them to set their sights on some other way our lives can be improved.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:21 AM
4 Comments:
"Slippery slope" is merely what intellectuals say when they can't articulate a principle.
Columbus Guy did you read the Eugene Volokh article. Volokh would probably be leery of the phrase but seems to understand that there are mechanisms of slipery slope (though not necessarily those we would at first think). It should be said that sometimes (perhaps often)the phrase is a shortcut for a full reasoned analysis. Still it is often true that from a variety of mechanisms, there is a slippery slope.
If you don't believe in slippery slope, then how can you defend civil liberties? Why not just, say, prevent Nazis from marching, but let others march. Or not allow the obviously guilty to have the rights of the accused. Etc. etc.
I knew a guy who said, "We write not so that we can be understood, but so that we cannot be misunderstood." I'm not quite sure, but I think I've been misunderstood.
I think I've read the Voloh article some time ago, if I'm thinking of the right one. Regardless, my point was that "slippery slope" is a fine argument, even a necessary one.
It's the intellectuals who reject the slippery slope argument who cannot articulate a principle. "We'll deal with that later," they seem to be saying, but on what basis will they deal with it?
As Skip says, though, the problem on the other side is that all of these questions end up being a balance. Important Right A here and Important Right B there, and they conflict, so you have to draw the line between them. But if you can't answer the slippery slope argument, then what you're really saying is you're favoring one over the other, not balancing them.
Post a Comment
<< Home