3 ms·

... you really took "Honestly, faced with two evils, yes." and ran with it, didn't you? If you want to misinterpret my remarks so I'm a better straw man to argu

by ethbro 11y ago

... you really took "Honestly, faced with two evils, yes." and ran with it, didn't you? If you want to misinterpret my remarks so I'm a better straw man to argue against, not sure there's much more to discuss.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
My objections are a) there is so much more to a drug than how addictive it is, b) no one said anything about deregulation per se (you can have a regulated legal market), c) your analysis has an implicit anti-capitalistic and snobbish bias against the public to make its own decisions, d) it isn't even true that only huge corporate players will have a hand, especially in drugs that have a very low barrier to entry in cultivating such as cannabis, e) your argument from the ill-defined "medical utility" ignores that illegality hampers medical research to lesser or greater extent, f) you are ignoring regulatory capture is a significant issue in pharma company troubles and g) you clearly do not understand public choice theory. Though I think it's clear you believe in copious use of intervention against individuals and have a hatred or fear of capitalism and free association in order to make such a batshit argument as arguing for cartel violence and regional destabilization because the prospect of corporate profits terrifies you so much. EDIT: Scanning your post history, you make a reference to "the final solution to the capitalist bourgeoise swine". You might have been facetious at that time, but I believe it reflects a general attitude you hold that is spiteful. I hope you at least do not believe in discredited economic doctrines such as tendency for the rate of profit to fall, or labor theory of value. EDIT #2: You also believe that free market players are purely profit-maximizing "with behavior only moderated by applicable government regulations". This is plain false, even by a left-leaning Post-Keynesian analysis. You also again do not understand public choice theory in the slightest and how endogenous regulations emerge by transaction costs and private property (e.g. Coase theorem). You hold a lot of fallacies.

by ethbro 11y ago

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

My objections are a) there is so much more to a drug than how addictive it is, b) no one said anything about deregulation per se (you can have a regulated legal market), c) your analysis has an implicit anti-capitalistic and snobbish bias against the public to make its own decisions, d) it isn't even true that only huge corporate players will have a hand, especially in drugs that have a very low barrier to entry in cultivating such as cannabis, e) your argument from the ill-defined "medical utility" ignores that illegality hampers medical research to lesser or greater extent, f) you are ignoring regulatory capture is a significant issue in pharma company troubles and g) you clearly do not understand public choice theory. Though I think it's clear you believe in copious use of intervention against individuals and have a hatred or fear of capitalism and free association in order to make such a batshit argument as arguing for cartel violence and regional destabilization because the prospect of corporate profits terrifies you so much. EDIT: Scanning your post history, you make a reference to "the final solution to the capitalist bourgeoise swine". You might have been facetious at that time, but I believe it reflects a general attitude you hold that is spiteful. I hope you at least do not believe in discredited economic doctrines such as tendency for the rate of profit to fall, or labor theory of value. EDIT #2: You also believe that free market players are purely profit-maximizing "with behavior only moderated by applicable government regulations". This is plain false, even by a left-leaning Post-Keynesian analysis. You also again do not understand public choice theory in the slightest and how endogenous regulations emerge by transaction costs and private property (e.g. Coase theorem). You hold a lot of fallacies.