This kind of argument is what I like to call “motivated majoritarianism”. You’re essentially assuming that public opinion is rational—something that most LWers would be loath to do in the general case.
I don’t assume public opinion is rational, but that it is sufficiently predictable that with an issue where in one case it is discussed very heavily it would be in a contrary case if the benefits were comparable. When what should be a double sided issue is not being discussed you require an explanation for that behaviour.
This kind of argument is what I like to call “motivated majoritarianism”. You’re essentially assuming that public opinion is rational—something that most LWers would be loath to do in the general case.
I don’t assume public opinion is rational, but that it is sufficiently predictable that with an issue where in one case it is discussed very heavily it would be in a contrary case if the benefits were comparable. When what should be a double sided issue is not being discussed you require an explanation for that behaviour.