Blanket bans
Politicians sometimes rush to propose a blanket ban of something because a few people abuse it. We don’t ban parenting because a few parents treat their children badly. Instead of blanket bans, isn’t it better to concentrate of locating, thwarting or punishing the miscreants?
This happens because simplicity sells, and a total ban is easy to explain. “This is dangerous, so we’ll forbid it” is easier to put across than nuanced policies such as like targeted enforcement or regulatory tweaks, which are harder to communicate quickly, especially under public pressure.
The media amplifies problems. When a few abuses attract high visibility, they can appear more common than they really are. Politicians then feel compelled to be seen to do something fast.
Some proposals are more about signalling values than about designing the most effective policy. If a politician doesn’t act and something bad happens again, they risk being asked “Why didn’t you stop this?” And sweeping bans can function as a form of risk-avoidance. They can punish every user of a tool, behaviour, or a technology, even when 99% do no harm. In practice, tools such as encryption, drones, AI systems, or chemicals, all have both legitimate and abusive uses.
Bans can block legitimate research, industry, or personal freedoms. Instead of banning a tool, it is better to locate the abusers, to intervene early, perhaps to improve monitoring systems, to increase penalties for harmful misuse, or to add rules that reduce risks without eliminating benefits.
Preventing misuse is often more efficient than a blanket ban. A focus on miscreants is typically cheaper, fairer, less disruptive, and more effective, and well-crafted rules allow the majority to continue legitimate activitieBlanket bans can make sense when abuse is extremely common or unavoidable, when the harm is catastrophic, or when targeted enforcement is nearly impossible, as might be the case with certain chemical weapons or extremely dangerous pathogens. But these cases are rare.
The bottom line is that blanket bans are often a blunt instrument and can punish everyone for the actions of a few. In many contexts, targeted enforcement against actual wrongdoers is both more effective and more fair.
Madsen Pirie