Understanding Slippery Slopes - How little changed become big

Came across a fascinating article “In Defense of the Slippery Slope” which outlines how apparently good decisions can have undesired bad consequences – ie how the initial decision becomes a slippery slope. (read the whole article here http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/slipperymag.pdf)

The author proposes the following mechanisms:

- When the initial decision changes the economics for implementing the undesirable outcome. This can happen by making it cheaper to do the undesirable thing (and therefore making it easier to achieve financially and politically) because it also removes that portion of the objectors who objected on cost alone
- When it changes enforceability of the undesirable consequence by changing the economics and ease of enforcement
- When the initial decision might lead to a change in attitude that would make the undesirable consequence more likely
- When applied to a law as the is/ought rule applies which posits that people attribute rational, pragmatic and moral attributes to laws that may not have those basis in fact. The fact that it is law may build support for more sweeping versions of the policy.
- When the proposal changes the balance of power among political groups – either by giving voice, money or both to a group that didn’t have it before.

The author argues that both law and politics are heavily influenced by precedent and that watching for these mechanisms helps determine whether a proposal really is the first part of a slippery slope or not.