Later today (I hope), I will post am analysis of the “Do Something!” phenomenon, its roots, political history, and ethical failings. As a precedent, however, I am introducing this new tool that I will rely on in my analysis today and going forward: The Ethics Alarms “Do Something!” Scale. It has ten levels that describe proposed policy solutions to perceived societal threats, crises and problems. #1 is the most responsible and thus the best, and #10 is the most emotion-based and irrational, and therefore the “bottom of the barrel.”
As always, I welcome suggestions and refinements. The scale will be used to measure the status of current and future “Do something!” demands. This week, we are mostly hearing them in the context of the shootings in Nashville and Louisville. Here is the new scale, as currently constituted:
The “Do Something” Scale
1. There are clear and verified actions to take that unquestionably will significantly ameliorate or eliminate the problem.
2. There are clear and verified actions to take that have a reasonable chance of reducing the negative consequences of the problem without unacceptable risk or expense.
3. There may be clear and verified actions to take that have a reasonable chance of reducing the negative consequences of the problem, but there is not sufficient data or research to justify taking such action yet.
4. The are proposed actions to take that credible authorities believe will significantly ameliorate or eliminate the problem, but equally credible authorities disagree.
5. The are proposed actions to take that some credible authorities believe will significantly ameliorate or eliminate the problem, but more equally credible authorities disagree, and the actions involve great risk, uncertainly, and expense.
6. The is a proposed course of action that only one or a small minority of experts believes will significantly ameliorate or eliminate the problem, but it is the only proposed solution there is.
7. The problem has no apparent or available practical, rational, affordable solutions, but it is deemed important to try something anyway, even if there is scant chance of success.
8. The problem has no apparent or available practical, rational, affordable solutions, but it is deemed important to try something anyway, even if there is no chance of success.
9. The problem has no apparent or available practical, rational, affordable solutions, but it is deemed important to try something anyway, even if there is no chance of success and there are real and significant risks of taking the proposed action.
10. The problem has no apparent or available practical, rational, affordable solutions, but it is deemed important to try something anyway, even if there is no chance of success even though there are real and significant risks that taking the proposed action will cause other devastating problems, and though the possibilities for unanticipated negative consequences are extensive.
Ethics Alarms 
11. The problem has no apparent or available practical, rational, affordable solutions, but it is deemed important to try something anyway, even if there is no chance of success even though there are real and significant risks that taking the proposed action will cause other devastating problems, and though the possibilities for unanticipated negative consequences are extensive but that only one side will acknowledge and that the other side dismisses for political expediency and because they do not value what could be damaged or lost as a result.
Yup—I was just thinking about that one on my walk with Spuds just now. Is it properly #11,or should it be earlier on the list?
I’d combine 7 & 8 into one and add the last as #10. Cleaner number.
No “it goes to 11” reference?
Nice Spinal Tap reference.
jvb
It belongs last because it is the most escalated unreasonable one of all. At least the one before it can claim sincere but unrealistic motives.
12. The problem has apparent and available practical, rational, affordable solutions, but this problem can be used to further an agenda that a majority of the population would not agree to if they had time to think about the consequences.
13. The problem has apparent and available practical, rational, affordable solutions, but this problem can be used instead to funnel money to political and/or personal friends. (see: Flint Water Crisis)
14. Same as 12 but without a ready solution. (see: gun control)
15. Same as 13, but without a ready solution
16-20. Same as 10-15, but without an actual problem.
Today, our governor signed into law a gun control measure that bans carry even if licensed in most public places.
This is one of those do something laws that will have little impact on those bound and determined to inflict mayhem on society.
Virtually every proposed gun control measure is aimed at legal gun owners resulting in endless litigation over Constitutional issues. What if a law was passed to reduce violence that allowed police to enter a home on mere suspicion that an illegal firearm may be present. Given that the majority of gun crime originated in lower income areas it would make sense to focus on households in those areas.
Obviously, this would violate the 4th amendment and I am sure activists in those areas would probably incite riots if such a law was passed.
It seems to me if you are ok with yelling put kids over guns then we could easily argue we should put kids over privacy. The Constitution specifically enumerates a protection for having arms but privacy is only implied in the others.
This raises the question that if an unconstitutional law that could limit the number of homicides had to compete against another unconstitutional law that has no projected impact on the problem which should be chosen? If neither because both are presumptively unconstitutional, then why are we focusing our efforts only on methods that restrict lawful use? Where does this fit in your rating scale?
Warrantless searches of public housing projects has been proposed before.
http://archive.is/mgil3
But wholesale bans on certain semi automatic firearms based on cosmetic issues is just as problematic.
I would not support either but my point is if we must abridge constitutional liberties to “do something”, doesn’t it make more sense to abridge the rights of the appropriate population? There is no right that I know of that guarantees the ability to live in public housing. If you request help from the government you have o live by the landlords rules.
Before I get hammered I am simply using the arguments the left uses.
Is that law similar to the last New York gun control law that promptly got struck down as unconstitutional?
I believe it is Johnathan Turley who called the New York legislature the greatest gift to Second Amendment rights — they keep doubling down on unconstitutional gun control laws and basically force the Court to rule more and more on the Second Amendment rights of citizens.
The last one I read about patently absurd — the Supreme Court says you may not ban this, and New York promptly runs out and bans it.
The gift that keeps on giving…..
What a great exercise. Finally, reasonable people are doing something about all the various hysterias in circulation, particularly climate hysteria and poverty hysteria. Tools are wonderful things.
There’s also a variable which can be changed to create: there is actually no problem here, so no need for a solution. However, pretending there is one will create an opportunity to gather enormous political power, so many people will opt to pretend there is a problem.