Is it? You apparently didn’t take “most regulation is not stifling” into account when you made your original post. And you gave the impression that you think the relative cost benefit is somewhere in the realm of reasonable (by even making the post), which implied that you might not be accounting for all the costs of “using corruption”
I didn’t spent time talking about how the sky is blue either.
There was no intent in this post into accounting for all the costs of corruption but whether or not corruption is benefitial for a specific purpose.
When a topic is quite charged by preconceptions it’s very useful to focus on the part that’s unclear to gather more understanding and not on the parts that aren’t.
It’s important to explicitly say that at the top of your post.
That goes for any morally questionable discussion. If you don’t put a disclaimer like:
“Notwithstanding the facts that 1) the first order effects of regulations are to save lives and improve the physical and mental health of the people protected by them 2) allowing corruption for some things weakens protections against corruption in other areas; let us consider …”
As the first part of your post, reasonable people might think you either didn’t know those things (because nobody knows everything, and nothing is known by everyone) or didn’t believe it (because millions of people act in a way consistent with believing the opposite, and you could be one of them.)
Pointing that out is pretty worthless as it’s already general knowledge.
Is it? You apparently didn’t take “most regulation is not stifling” into account when you made your original post. And you gave the impression that you think the relative cost benefit is somewhere in the realm of reasonable (by even making the post), which implied that you might not be accounting for all the costs of “using corruption”
I didn’t spent time talking about how the sky is blue either.
There was no intent in this post into accounting for all the costs of corruption but whether or not corruption is benefitial for a specific purpose.
When a topic is quite charged by preconceptions it’s very useful to focus on the part that’s unclear to gather more understanding and not on the parts that aren’t.
It’s important to explicitly say that at the top of your post. That goes for any morally questionable discussion. If you don’t put a disclaimer like:
“Notwithstanding the facts that 1) the first order effects of regulations are to save lives and improve the physical and mental health of the people protected by them 2) allowing corruption for some things weakens protections against corruption in other areas; let us consider …”
As the first part of your post, reasonable people might think you either didn’t know those things (because nobody knows everything, and nothing is known by everyone) or didn’t believe it (because millions of people act in a way consistent with believing the opposite, and you could be one of them.)