this seem like a fully general argument, any law change is going to disrupt people’s long term plans,
e.g. the abolishment of slavery also disrupt people’s long term plans
In this case, I was simply identifying one additional cost of the policy in question: namely that it would massively disrupt the status quo. My point is not that we should abandon a policy simply because it has costs—every policy has costs. Rather, I think we should carefully weigh the benefits of a policy against its costs to determine whether it is worth pursuing, and this is one additional non-trivial cost to consider.
My reasoning for supporting the abolition of slavery, for example, is not based on the idea that abolition has no costs at all. Instead, I believe slavery should be abolished because the benefits of abolition far outweigh those costs.
In this case, I was simply identifying one additional cost of the policy in question: namely that it would massively disrupt the status quo. My point is not that we should abandon a policy simply because it has costs—every policy has costs. Rather, I think we should carefully weigh the benefits of a policy against its costs to determine whether it is worth pursuing, and this is one additional non-trivial cost to consider.
My reasoning for supporting the abolition of slavery, for example, is not based on the idea that abolition has no costs at all. Instead, I believe slavery should be abolished because the benefits of abolition far outweigh those costs.