“The Stones naively hire Hell’s Angels”
Rent control causes developers to stop building new housing because it isn’t profitable thereby exacerbating a long-term shortage of affordable housing.
**When philosophy and reality meet in tragic and unintended, unexpected circumstances **
So in keeping with the OP, I’d say that the London School of Economics differs philosophically from the Chino Youth Correctional Center, and mutual undertakings between alumni should proceed with as few unexamined assumptions as possible.
People who die because they follow quack medicine. Anti-vaxxers.
It’s one thing to argue ancillary effects like corruption or an increase in organized crime, but I’m not sure what you mean by saying they had the opposite effect. The first three reduced the incidents of the illegal thing, as bans tend to do. Americans used to drink like fish. Imagine how many people would smoke up if it were legal. There were some prohibitionists who thought it would turn the country into a utopia, so I guess they missed the mark.
I’m not sure if abstinence advocates generally care if there’s more STDs or pregnancies. Theirs is usually a moral or religious argument, not anything based on practical effects, IME (ditto prostitution - they don’t care if legalizing it would have X or Y effect). It’s like how someone can be against abortion and birth control. There’s no cognitive dissonance, it’s just different priorities than their opponents.
Yeah, it’s hard to have a gun free zone when your country is swimming in guns.
American thrift store companies shipping their unsold secondhand clothing to Africa is a well-intentioned charitable gesture that has had the unfortunate side effect of killing the local textile industry, thus contributing to keeping the very people they are trying to help cripplingly poor.
That reminds me of the old days, when explorers encountered stone age people, they would give them gifts, like metal tools (like a machete or ax), which seemed like a good idea, but later they found, to their horror, such rare and valuable things caused massive social unrest, problems with neighboring tribes, all kinds of conflict. It was like if aliens showed up, and the first people they met, they gave them billions of dollars of gold, casually, as a gift.
Or, more to the point, they casually handed them some hand held nuclear weapons.
The philosophy was “lets show them we are friendly, we can benefit them”, but in reality they upset the social order by handing them rare and powerful weapons and tools of immense value.
I don’t think this was unintentional though. The explorers wanted to upset the existing economic and social order which they weren’t a part of and they wanted to introduce products which they controlled the supply of. Basically they were tearing down the old order so they could replace it with a new order in which they held a favorable position.
The USA’s entire prolonged middle eastern adventure hasn’t been mentioned yet?
I was thinking of the anthropologist in South America. Certainly many other instances were deliberate. But I was considering the unintentional effects they caused.
Actually prohibition increased the problem with alcohol abuse just as the war on drugs has increased the problem with abuse of narcotics.
On the contrary–it’s quite easy. If you count up all the schools, malls (virtually every mall in the US has a corporate policy banning weapons), government offices, etc., I’m sure that there are well over 100,000 gun-free zones in the nation.
Enforcing that when a criminal decides to go on a spree is the hard part.