The statement [...] is not a “simple factual observation”
No, but I’m pretty sure it’s shorthand for something like this:
Experience has shown many, many instances where (in the absence of paternalist regulation with real teeth) charlatans and cranks persuade people to do things that are very much not in their best interests, and those people end up harmed.
which is a simple factual observation, plus this:
If there were “banned products stores” within which the rules against selling dangerous products were suspended, there’s no reason to suppose that they would be a unique exception to that pattern; so, almost certainly, sooner or later (and probably sooner) someone would buy something dangerous in one of those stores and come to serious harm.
which, while in principle it’s “speculation”, seems about as speculative as “if we set up a stall in the street offering free cake, some people would eat it”.
(I take it it’s obvious that “Sulfuric Acid Drink” was intended as hyperbole, to indicate something not quite so transparently harmful, masquerading as a cure. If it isn’t, you might want to consider why Eliezer called it “Dr Snakeoil’s”.)
Apparently you disagree on the grounds that actually no one would be selling such things even if such shops existed. I think they very decidedly might.
Surely it would not be profitable
Selling fake cures for real diseases (or in some cases fake diseases) has historically been very profitable for some people, and some of those fake cures have been poisonous.
begging for a gigantic tort judgment
That’s a stronger argument. I think Robin may have been envisaging—and, whether or not he was, Eliezer may have taken him to be envisaging—that selling in the Banned Products Store exempts you from more than just standard-issue regulatory red tape. I am not an expert on US tort law, so I’ll take your word for it that Dr Snakeoil would not be able to get out of trouble just by protesting that he honestly thought his Sulfuric Acid Drink was good against arthritis; if so, then indeed the Banned Products store might be substantially less dangerous than Eliezer suggests.
Maybe we need a banned products store and a tort-proof banned products store, both.
Some libertarians might say that if you go into a “banned products shop”, passing clear warning labels that say “THINGS IN THIS STORE MAY KILL YOU”, and buy something that kills you, then it’s your own fault and you deserve it. If that were a moral truth, there would be no downside to having shops that sell banned products. It wouldn’t just be a net benefit, it would be a one-sided tradeoff with no drawbacks.
I don’t quite follow. Even when people “deserve” what they get, if what they “deserve” is death, their loved ones see that as a negative. Does this mean there are no moral truths, since every choice has a downside? Or am I overgeneralizing when I interpret it as “moral truths have no downside.”
I’m not certain I understand Eliezer’s argument there, but I think he simply made a mistake: I agree with you that if you do something that deserves a bad outcome and the bad outcome happens, it can still be bad that that happened and that can be a downside to whatever may have made it easier for you to do the bad thing.
No, but I’m pretty sure it’s shorthand for something like this:
which is a simple factual observation, plus this:
which, while in principle it’s “speculation”, seems about as speculative as “if we set up a stall in the street offering free cake, some people would eat it”.
(I take it it’s obvious that “Sulfuric Acid Drink” was intended as hyperbole, to indicate something not quite so transparently harmful, masquerading as a cure. If it isn’t, you might want to consider why Eliezer called it “Dr Snakeoil’s”.)
Apparently you disagree on the grounds that actually no one would be selling such things even if such shops existed. I think they very decidedly might.
Selling fake cures for real diseases (or in some cases fake diseases) has historically been very profitable for some people, and some of those fake cures have been poisonous.
That’s a stronger argument. I think Robin may have been envisaging—and, whether or not he was, Eliezer may have taken him to be envisaging—that selling in the Banned Products Store exempts you from more than just standard-issue regulatory red tape. I am not an expert on US tort law, so I’ll take your word for it that Dr Snakeoil would not be able to get out of trouble just by protesting that he honestly thought his Sulfuric Acid Drink was good against arthritis; if so, then indeed the Banned Products store might be substantially less dangerous than Eliezer suggests.
Maybe we need a banned products store and a tort-proof banned products store, both.
I don’t quite follow. Even when people “deserve” what they get, if what they “deserve” is death, their loved ones see that as a negative. Does this mean there are no moral truths, since every choice has a downside? Or am I overgeneralizing when I interpret it as “moral truths have no downside.”
I’m not certain I understand Eliezer’s argument there, but I think he simply made a mistake: I agree with you that if you do something that deserves a bad outcome and the bad outcome happens, it can still be bad that that happened and that can be a downside to whatever may have made it easier for you to do the bad thing.