[pmarreck]

This is a quintessential example of not basing policy on evidence of harm. Any decision that affects others (such as policy) should be empirically-based, or risks being simply wrong/bad (as I would surmise it is, in this case).

[jamesrcole]

I agree with the spirit of what you say, but I think those requirements are too stringent. It's very difficult to get evidence before-the-fact for a lot of public policy type issues.

I think it would be better to be seek out and take heed of evidence, but not block things because of lack of prior evidence. What you need to be able to do is experiment -- try out policies -- and gather evidence from that. This will lead to some number of failed policies but ought to lead to better overall outcomes in the long-run.

[pmarreck]

The problem with operating laws-as-experiments are that laws are extremely difficult to change, while actual experiments are not.

> It's very difficult to get evidence before-the-fact for a lot of public policy type issues.

Yeah, and this is exactly where I constantly see mistakes made and where I'd want some data or at least secular ethical rationality first, indicating at least a direction to take with policy. For example, treatment of sexual issues was terrible decades ago (and depending on where you are in the world, still is) due to lack of basing it on secular ethics ("who is actually harmed by this behavior? and in what capacity? and how much, by some objective measurement? and for how long?") or evidence ("wow, sure seems like a lot of animals are reproducing just fine despite having a percentage of gay members, maybe it's not so bad after all"). Or look at drug laws or prostitution laws- all based on big old dusty religious books or Victorian-era repressed sensibilities instead of rigorous data or secular ethical discussion.

You might argue that prostitution/oral sex (remember sodomy laws?) are an "affront to nature" instead of perhaps a "necessary evil," but without evidence as to actual objective harm (physical/emotional pain, long-term negatives, societal negatives at an institutional level, etc.), you should only be able to act in accordance with that by yourself and without being able to impose it on others.

In court, you cannot convict someone ("act against them and their interests") unless you prove harm has been done. Creating laws that curtail anyone's freedom should be treated equally.

I am 100% certain that China has absolutely NO good empirical basis to support their banning of 68 things off the Internet other than a flawed perception of reality.