zlacker

> In the US/Canada anything but full support for "Think of the children" will result in all out ad hominem.

The other side of this is, "What's an acceptable number of crimes against children?" Implicitly, there's a choice, "This remedy is projected to reduce crimes against children by X%, but we're not going to do it because Y." The projected marginal reduction is justified using the consequences of Y.

I'm perfectly ok with this calculus. If someone wants to say that right to privacy is more important than a projected reduction in crimes against children, more power to them.

What I'm asking for is honesty regarding this calculus. For some reason it short circuits peoples' brains and the consequences of taking whichever action end up making them unable to say, "Yes, the [projected] marginal reduction is the what I'm willing to spend by not doing Y." Just say it.

>>kelsey+(OP)
The issue is that there's little research being conducted on the topic. There's just multiple factors that make research extremely difficult, making progress in understanding the issues harder, thus undermining any policymaking.

>>ranyum+ke
That's a good point; it's not a very scientific field. The baserate for "trying something no one has tried before," is definitionally zero.

Any thoughts on the use of prediction markets, especially ones where predictor performance is tracked, in order to make better predictions on the results of legislative action?

>>kelsey+sp
I find it an interesting idea. In my humble opinion I'd just add a consideration: the returns/results of legislative action might not be objective, even for well-defined issues. It might not be as objective as money because the results (data) have to be interpreted by participants.