So the reason why “train more police” counts as a solution is that, as soon as the statement and the evidence supporting the statement reaches the right person, the problem will be solved.
I think we need to get more meta that this- due to public choice theory, we can’t even have ‘Government Policy’ as a freely-adjustable node. If Bryan’s right, public opinion is the most important node, so ‘Binge drinkers should change their minds’ may infact be no harder to achieve.
Also, I think the women’s letter could be interpreted as “Binge drinkers could behave responsibly if they wanted to. As they do not, this is not a bad enough problem for the Government to intervene.
Also, I think the women’s letter could be interpreted as “Binge drinkers could behave responsibly if they wanted to. As they do not, this is not a bad enough problem for the Government to intervene.
That is a position that a letter writer could take but I don’t think that this one can be interpreted that way reasonably.
I think we need to get more meta that this- due to public choice theory, we can’t even have ‘Government Policy’ as a freely-adjustable node. If Bryan’s right, public opinion is the most important node, so ‘Binge drinkers should change their minds’ may infact be no harder to achieve.
Also, I think the women’s letter could be interpreted as “Binge drinkers could behave responsibly if they wanted to. As they do not, this is not a bad enough problem for the Government to intervene.
That is a position that a letter writer could take but I don’t think that this one can be interpreted that way reasonably.
Maybe a slightly more moralistic version- they should sort themselves out, and it’s entirely their own fault if they don’t.
Alternatively, her letter is helping to (slightly) raise the social stigma associated with Binge Drinkin.
This one seems close.