When did "legally can" and "should" become equivalent? I don't mean to focus on this particular instance of using them interchangeably; I feel like Reagan gave an executive order that I missed.

> When did "legally can" and "should" become equivalent?

They didn't; e.g. playing the lottery as an adult is both legal and insanely idiotic. (Don't misunderstand me; I do like it that the insanely idiotic are able to self-select themselves away from their money with such ease.)

But on the other hand, "legally can and causes more utility gain per unit time than any other course of action" ... does indeed imply "should".

(And unless you're really silly, "utility gain" simplifies to "monetary gain".)

Of course, I'm not trying to imply that sabotage-of-beliefs is that powerful an action; indeed, my ultimate conclusion is that neither tire-slashing nor sabotage-of-beliefs present a compelling benefit-per-cost.

> And unless you're really silly, "utility gain" simplifies to "monetary gain".

Yeah, that's why I always turn down my friends when they ask if I want to go see a movie. Monetarily, it's nothing but a loss, and I would have to be "really silly" to value an entertaining experience.

>Don’t do it to anyone unless you’d also slash their tires.

I really do not understand the reasoning behind this statement.

Sabotage of the belief system and slashing tires are very different. Fundamentally different I would say.

Slashing tires leads to an outcome that becomes very quickly obvious to the victim and is easily repairable.

Sabotage of the belief system goes very likely unnoticed to a person and can last for hundreds generations and is very difficult to repair.

All the more convenient, then, that sabotage-of-beliefs is not per se a crime.

I would word it more carefully.

Sabotage of beliefs is not understood to be a crime.

If people understood how much damage it could cause then they perhaps would reconsider it.

> sabotaging someone's beliefs is illegal iff the "someone" is a court of law or government official, or if the belief-being-sabotaged is about a living person such that a falsehood constitutes slander.

Or if you're doing it for personal gain, in which case it may be fraud.

The point here is intent. Don't promote less than maximally accurate beliefs unless you hate someone so much you'd be willing to go and slash their tires.

Also, in terms of real-world consequences, sabotaging someone's thinking can be very, very much worse than just breaking their car.

> The point here is intent.

I see.

> Don't promote less than maximally accurate beliefs unless you hate someone so much you'd be willing to go and slash their tires.

Yet is it not conceivable to hate someone thoroughly, but not enough to be willing to sacrifice one's entire career/reputation/criminal-record by committing any kind of actual crime?

Of course it is. The quote is just pointing out that promoting inaccurate belief is doing actual harm to others.