"In the medical profession and at the NIDA the rule is: drug taking is a symptom. i.e. drugs do not cause addiction."
Well that's a fatuous bit of oversimplification. Of course drugs by themselves don't cause addiction, or everyonw who tried drugs would become addicted. At the same time, if someone with a predilection for addiction never tries the the recreational pharmaceutical to which they may be addicted--then they aren't addicted either.
The point it, is is unjust, unconstitutional for the feds, and a waste of resources besides, for recreational drugs to be prohibited to all when it's just a few people who shouldn't get them, but who should be under a physician's care for their issues.
The Trouble With Libertarians
People in pain seem to have a knack for finding pain relievers. It turns out that prohibition - the unregulated distribution of drugs is one of the best vectors for seeing that everyone who has a need will get what they need. At the maximum price the market will bear. It seems that pain has a very high negative value.At the same time, if someone with a predilection for addiction never tries the the recreational pharmaceutical to which they may be addicted--then they aren't addicted either.
We also see that in fact the gateway drug in this realm is alcohol. i.e. I drank this - it made me feel better, is this the best there is? Which is why addicts tend to be polydrug users. What is also seen is that people tend to use the least powerful drug that will solve their problem. Which is why pot is more popular than heroin.
Now when you look at users - the traumatized - it becomes not just a political problem but also a moral one. Is punishing the traumatized the right use of law and the power of government?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
We're doing that, it's called the Free State Project and the "town" we've chosen is the state of New Hampshire. http://www.fsp.orgchoff wrote:There used to be a political party in the 30's called the Technocracy Party, they claimed to have created an experimental village run on their system as a test. Might I suggest a similar experiment for the Libertarian party. Gather a few hundred Libertarians in one town for a few years run entirely on Libertarian principles and see how it works.
So, sorry, we had this idea ten years ago, and its moving along at a pace. NH is the only state in the entire northeastern US with positive economic and population growth.
Having trouble with the link, it would be interesting to see if the local government has produced more rules, less rules, or about the same as a control population, and how they're comparing in other areas.IntLibber wrote:We're doing that, it's called the Free State Project and the "town" we've chosen is the state of New Hampshire. http://www.fsp.orgchoff wrote:There used to be a political party in the 30's called the Technocracy Party, they claimed to have created an experimental village run on their system as a test. Might I suggest a similar experiment for the Libertarian party. Gather a few hundred Libertarians in one town for a few years run entirely on Libertarian principles and see how it works.
So, sorry, we had this idea ten years ago, and its moving along at a pace. NH is the only state in the entire northeastern US with positive economic and population growth.
CHoff
What seems obvious to me is probably not even considered by most Libertarians. Libertarian ideas share a common trait with Kenysian ideas. They work until you run out of other people's money.IntLibber wrote:We're doing that, it's called the Free State Project and the "town" we've chosen is the state of New Hampshire. http://www.fsp.orgchoff wrote:There used to be a political party in the 30's called the Technocracy Party, they claimed to have created an experimental village run on their system as a test. Might I suggest a similar experiment for the Libertarian party. Gather a few hundred Libertarians in one town for a few years run entirely on Libertarian principles and see how it works.
So, sorry, we had this idea ten years ago, and its moving along at a pace. NH is the only state in the entire northeastern US with positive economic and population growth.
Libertarian ideas will work until you run out of dominant Judeo/Christian culture.
In other words, a short term experiment (years to a decade.) is completely meaningless. It must be a generational experiment without influence from nearby Judeo/Christian based society which would "steer" opinion in the Libertarian society.
What's more, this experiment has already been done countless times throughout human history. Moral rules resulted from the failures of these experiments, and people attached them to religion in an effort to convey them to their progeny.
Just my perception.
You mean they lied when they said the Drug War is costing us $50 bn and the murders of 2,000 innocents a year? You mean it is free? No innocents killed?Libertarian ideas share a common trait with Kenysian ideas. They work until you run out of other people's money.
Dang. And here I was against it because it was wasting money and lives.
Do they have special schools for Conservative Economics? I'd like to audit a class.
BTW study after study shows that Rehab is 7X as efficient as Law Enforcement when it comes to dealing with the Drug Problem. And I've studied Rehab and it is no dang good. Which just goes to show how bad the Drug War really is.
Ah. I get it. You do not actually want to solve the drug problem. You want an outlet for your feelings of moral superiority. Very expensive habit. That. But it is all right. I know a LOT of people with the addiction.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
MSimon wrote:You mean they lied when they said the Drug War is costing us $50 bn and the murders of 2,000 innocents a year? You mean it is free? No innocents killed?Libertarian ideas share a common trait with Kenysian ideas. They work until you run out of other people's money.
Dang. And here I was against it because it was wasting money and lives.
Do they have special schools for Conservative Economics? I'd like to audit a class.
BTW study after study shows that Rehab is 7X as efficient as Law Enforcement when it comes to dealing with the Drug Problem. And I've studied Rehab and it is no dang good. Which just goes to show how bad the Drug War really is.
Ah. I get it. You do not actually want to solve the drug problem. You want an outlet for your feelings of moral superiority. Very expensive habit. That. But it is all right. I know a LOT of people with the addiction.
MSimon, i'm sorry, but I cannot even comprehend what you write anymore. You are going to have to write in much simpler terms if you are going to expect me to understand what you are trying to say.
Answers like "Yes." and "No." are extremely helpful.
You want $50 bn a year of other people's money for your hobby. Do irony much?Diogenes wrote:MSimon wrote:You mean they lied when they said the Drug War is costing us $50 bn and the murders of 2,000 innocents a year? You mean it is free? No innocents killed?Libertarian ideas share a common trait with Kenysian ideas. They work until you run out of other people's money.
Dang. And here I was against it because it was wasting money and lives.
Do they have special schools for Conservative Economics? I'd like to audit a class.
BTW study after study shows that Rehab is 7X as efficient as Law Enforcement when it comes to dealing with the Drug Problem. And I've studied Rehab and it is no dang good. Which just goes to show how bad the Drug War really is.
Ah. I get it. You do not actually want to solve the drug problem. You want an outlet for your feelings of moral superiority. Very expensive habit. That. But it is all right. I know a LOT of people with the addiction.
MSimon, i'm sorry, but I cannot even comprehend what you write anymore. You are going to have to write in much simpler terms if you are going to expect me to understand what you are trying to say.
Answers like "Yes." and "No." are extremely helpful.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Well, see there, you and I disagree. Law enforcement is not a "Hobby" it is a necessary part of civilization. You seem to have an Orwellian manner of describing things you don't like. You continually allege that this equals that, or that equals something else, and then using the results of your fallacious assumptions as the basis for your erroneous conclusions. The reason others sometimes cannot understand what you are trying to say is that we don't share your subjective perspective.MSimon wrote:You want $50 bn a year of other people's money for your hobby. Do irony much?Diogenes wrote:MSimon wrote: You mean they lied when they said the Drug War is costing us $50 bn and the murders of 2,000 innocents a year? You mean it is free? No innocents killed?
Dang. And here I was against it because it was wasting money and lives.
Do they have special schools for Conservative Economics? I'd like to audit a class.
BTW study after study shows that Rehab is 7X as efficient as Law Enforcement when it comes to dealing with the Drug Problem. And I've studied Rehab and it is no dang good. Which just goes to show how bad the Drug War really is.
Ah. I get it. You do not actually want to solve the drug problem. You want an outlet for your feelings of moral superiority. Very expensive habit. That. But it is all right. I know a LOT of people with the addiction.
MSimon, i'm sorry, but I cannot even comprehend what you write anymore. You are going to have to write in much simpler terms if you are going to expect me to understand what you are trying to say.
Answers like "Yes." and "No." are extremely helpful.
Cost isn't the issue. If we just executed drug dealers, we wouldn't need to spend $50 billion (A rounding error on our national finances.) per year fooling around with them. The costs are entirely the result of our screwed up legal system. Had we used the legal system pre-Roosevelt, we would not only not have a drug problem, but we wouldn't be spending anything like that amount of money.
I just read an article written by Gabriel Malor (Ace of Spades blogger) as to why he opposes capitol punishment. It amounts to money. He claims it's cheaper to imprison people for life than it is to execute them.
This is only true in the bizarro world of the post Roosevelt legal system. Back when the system functioned correctly, execution was magnitudes cheaper than confinement. Recidivism rate was ZERO.
Well, see there, you and I disagree. Justice is a necessary part of civilization. "Law Enforcement" is the perversion of THAT requirement by people who can't think in more abstract terms like "justice"!Diogenes wrote: Well, see there, you and I disagree. Law enforcement is not a "Hobby" it is a necessary part of civilization.
Au contraire, mon frère! Omitting mention of justice does not malign it's importance. Most people regard "Justice" as a self evident component of "Law Enforcement." (and vice versa.)KitemanSA wrote:Well, see there, you and I disagree. Justice is a necessary part of civilization. "Law Enforcement" is the perversion of THAT requirement by people who can't think in more abstract terms like "justice"!Diogenes wrote: Well, see there, you and I disagree. Law enforcement is not a "Hobby" it is a necessary part of civilization.
You are putting forth a sophist quibble about the meaning of words as opposed to attacking my point which I think is probably impregnable.
?
And this is the perfect illustration of what I can't stand about Libertarians. In theory it claims lots of things are good, but at the same time it rejects every practical application thereof. What is law enforcement but application of justice? I understand having problems with a particular implementation of law enforcement, I don't understand having a problem with the general principal of justice requiring application by force. Simply put, you can not have justice within a society without using some degree of force to apply that justice. Which is the generally understood principal of "law enforcement".KitemanSA wrote:Well, see there, you and I disagree. Justice is a necessary part of civilization. "Law Enforcement" is the perversion of THAT requirement by people who can't think in more abstract terms like "justice"!Diogenes wrote: Well, see there, you and I disagree. Law enforcement is not a "Hobby" it is a necessary part of civilization.
My other problem with Libertarianism as a concept is that it is no more consistent a principle than Atheism. Ask 3 different Libertarians if power, water and emergency services should be centrally controlled and you'll get 3 different answers. If the motto "Your rights end where my rights begin" is all that Libertarianism is then an enormous portion of America's card carrying Democrats and Republicans can claim membership.
What I see Libertarianism boiling down to is more often than not whining about wanting fewer taxes and the elimination of laws that people don't personally like. With no uniting theme to it though, it's just so much populist discontent.
Au contraire, mon frère! Justice is often the practice of "Law NON-enforcement" by informed juries. Law and Justice are two completely DIFFERENT concepts except to those who have an authoritarian mind-set. Such moral reprobates think that if a law is made then "the people have spoken" and somehow a few folks who actually are involved in making the law are "the people" and that makes the law sacrosanct. Yuck!Diogenes wrote: Au contraire, mon frère! Omitting mention of justice does not malign it's importance. Most people regard "Justice" as a self evident component of "Law Enforcement." (and vice versa.)
Re: ?
Is this a real question? Do you ACTUALLY think this way?bcglorf wrote: And this is the perfect illustration of what I can't stand about Libertarians. In theory it claims lots of things are good, but at the same time it rejects every practical application thereof. What is law enforcement but application of justice?
Look at the words. "LAW enFORCEment"; "Justice". The first is the application of FORCE to make sure that a LAW; good, bad, or indifferent; is upheld. Justice is the judgement of the people that a law is "just" (aka righteous) as well as on the FACT in a case. It was intended to provide the "consent of the governed" that was so basic in the call to arms against the injustice of the "LAW ENFORCEMENT" by King George's goons. Our jury system was intended to assure that justice prevailed. That went away about 1880 when the Supremes decided it was alright for a "judge" to lie to the jury about the law and their role in justice.
Oh whell!