Steven Levitt's 'daughter test' fail
|
Quote:
|
As a writer, few things annoy me more than penning something favourable about a public figure who later says something so asinine that I feel compelled to mumble excuses for my prior support: "Um, yeah, about that
"
So, yeah, about Freakonomics economist Steven Levitt
last time I mentioned him here, it was partially to applaud his matter-of-fact analysis of prostitution (summary: the laws of economics remain even when sex rears its attractive head), and partially as an excuse to tell this funny story about my days working in strip clubs.
Whenever I write about the clubs or anything else in favour of sex work, my detractors here among the commentariat, and elsewhere on the internet often let parental "think of the children" panic override their logical faculties: "If you had a daughter, would you want her doing that? If not, how can you say it should be legal?"
Now Levitt's making the same argument.
In his latest blog entry, he says that when deciding whether government should ban certain activities, he applies "the daughter test": if he doesn't want his (cute young) daughter doing it, anyone who does belongs in prison:
"Almost no one thinks that theft or violence against innocents is socially acceptable. There are, however, a few activities that fall into a gray area, like illicit drugs, prostitution, abortion, or gambling [
] A common feature of these gray-area activities are that they are typically "victimless" in the sense that, unlike a theft or murder, there is no easily discernible victim of the activity. When a drug dealer sells to an addict, both are happy to have carried out the transaction.
"I've never really understood why I personally come down on one side or the other with respect to a particular gray-area activity."
Funny, I never had any trouble: unless your actions cause active harm to the life or property of another, they're none of my business and none of the government's, either. Whether I "approve" of such actions is immaterial.
"It wasn't until the US government's crackdown on internet poker last week that I came to realise that the primary determinant [
] 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 legalise drugs and prostitution subject to heavy regulation/taxation, I don't mind those activities being illegal."
Levitt says nothing about reviving Prohibition, yet I guess it would be wrong to presume, by logical extension, "since Steven Levitt wouldn't ban booze, he won't mind if his daughter becomes an alcoholic." Perhaps he has sense enough to realise that "If she does grow up a problem drinker, entangling her in America's criminal justice system will only make matters worse." At any rate, Levitt mentioned his "daughter test" not to justify such bans, but to illustrate the idiocy of others:
"The 'daughter test' makes it clear why I find the US government's stance against internet poker so ridiculous. When I imagine my daughter growing up to be a professional poker player, my reaction is to think that would be a great outcome!"
Assuming she's any good at it. I guess it would be wrong to presume, then, that "since Steven Levitt wouldn't ban gambling, he won't mind if his daughter grows up heavy in debt to Russian mobsters." Perhaps he simply has sense enough to realise: "If my daughter does get involved in gambling or any other currently illegal business entangling her in America's criminal justice system will only make matters worse."
Of course, both the daughter test and its corollary solipsism test "If you think [fill the blank] should be legal, why not do [ditto] yourself, huh?" ask the wrong question. It's not "Do you want your daughter doing it", but "If she does, for whatever reason, do you want her to view the police as threatening figures out to arrest her and ruin her life, or as friends and protectors to whom she can fearlessly turn if ever she's in danger?'"
Still, I admit: despite my support for legalising drugs and prostitution, I wouldn't want my own (hypothetical) child growing up to be an addict. "Prostitute" and "porn star" don't make my ideal list either, and I wouldn't even want her to be the "stripper in desperate need of money" I used to be, or "respectable but dirt-poor pizza chef" I was before that. No: my ideal fantasy daughter has parents rich enough to pay her university costs. And she and her gorgeous family would live in the countryside, with rolling green mountains and rock-bottomed springs and a lovely magical unicorn that eats negativity and poops rainbows.
Alas, not everyone can afford this ideal, not even in a rich country like mine. I'm sure Levitt's daughter will do fine, and be an inspiration to anyone who ever doubted whether the progeny of a successful celebrity economist can make it in America. As for those children blessed with fewer options, or making different choices just toss them to the nonexistent mercies of our draconian legal system. After all, Steven Levitt doesn't want his daughter growing up like "those people", anyway. Yuck.
|
Steven Levitt's 'daughter test' fail | Jennifer Abel | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
|
.gif "Laughing (2)")
Linear Mode
