Why not both? Feels like only doing one is like only putting airbags in cars when seat belts are also effective. I don't get why there has to be only one approach to solve societal problems.
Well, I knew someone would eventaully ask this... I should have addressed it in my orginal comment. I kind of hinted at it.
"I'm a big fan of using the least restrictive (and most effective) means to achieving those goals."
That is perhaps the best reason to follow my recommended course. Another reason is simply opportunity cost. Society faces many challenges, and we can't pursue every possible solution to all of them, so it is best to focus first on the best options that are likely to have the greatest impact on the highest priority problems. For the problems noted above, the solution I proposed is more likely in my estimation to have a greater impact, and at a lower cost.
"I'm a big fan of using the least restrictive (and most effective) means to achieving those goals."
That is perhaps the best reason to follow my recommended course. Another reason is simply opportunity cost. Society faces many challenges, and we can't pursue every possible solution to all of them, so it is best to focus first on the best options that are likely to have the greatest impact on the highest priority problems. For the problems noted above, the solution I proposed is more likely in my estimation to have a greater impact, and at a lower cost.