Logic from Which Legislation Does Not Follow
So it’s snowing outside, and I haven’t really felt like walking down the street in part because of the conditions, so when I got hungry I thought I might order a pizza. But then I felt a twinge of guilt, and decided to just make something at home. The guilt? That my decision to order a pizza might increase the poor driver’s risk of harm.
Do you think I’m being absurd? That the pizza driver knew what he was getting into by accepting the job in the first place? That I’m actually denying him a tip (and I’m an excellent pizza driver tipper) he’d willingly drive to my house to collect? That it’s stupid of me to assume changing my behavior will really do more good than harm for the average pizza driver in the long run?
To be honest, it probably is stupid. Most people would assume that if the pizza driver feels driving around so much is too risky, it’s up to him to decide to change. And I seriously doubt there would be much support for me proposing anti-delivery legislation to the city council. I doubt most people would even support legislation banning pizza delivery in inclimate conditions because of the excessive risks delivery boys, in their hurry to deliver warm pizzas and maximize tips, pose to other drivers. So I guess it’s good that I’m not in a position to impose my behavior today — however well intentioned — on everyone else. Instead, better that I just try to persuade everyone of my kooky behavior, or let them try to persuade me to abandon it.
The moral of this post? If you didn’t agree with my reasoning for not ordering a pizza, or at least don’t think I should be forcing my reasoning on others legislatively, I sure hope you’re not in favor of a smoking ban in private establishments – or that if you are, that you’re not proving yourself hypocritical by using worker or customer health as your argument.
