3 ms·

You are underestimating the number of libertarians on this site that just see the destructive effects of an incredibly addictive dangerous drug as a problem you

by Torgo 10y ago

You are underestimating the number of libertarians on this site that just see the destructive effects of an incredibly addictive dangerous drug as a problem you could solve using the free market.

pzone 10y ago
I think you're mischaracterizing people here. I think everyone would agree drug addiction is a problem that requries some government intervention. But clearly the policy we have right now is not great. The argument is that legalization + prevention + treatment would be, overall, better than prohibition. Not perfect, but better.
- jshevek 10y ago
  I absolutely agree that the parent didn't do justice to the range of opinions, and your post improves on the discussion. I'd like to nitpick the word "requires" (vs "is best served by") > everyone would agree drug addiction is a problem that requries some government intervention. Personally, I believe that it is absolutely theoretically possible to address our societies drug addiction problems without any government intervention, if only we as a culture were willing to do so.
- hasenj 10y ago
  Addiction is a personal psychological problem. How can the government intervene? The government cannot make you happy. Look at obesity rates. People get addicted because their life sucks. How can the government make their life not suck?
  - pzone 10y ago
    Sometimes government can solve problems, other times it can't. Even in the case of obesity, the government at least tries to educate people. But addiction is not so similar to obesity, because it's much easier to monitor and control people's drug use through regulation than it is to monitor and control people's food intake. I think drug use is more like payday lending. Payday lending a shady industry, people who take advantage of it are often not too well off, and sometimes people make terrible decisions and screw up their lives, to the profit of the lenders. (or drug dealers.) But people are always going to want to borrow money for short periods of time just like people are always going to want to use drugs. No government policy is going to make everyone in the world happy, but we can try to minimize the number of miserable outcomes with some careful intervention.
    - hasenj 10y ago
      The only viable intervention is education. Case in point: school lunch in Japan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vwC51FxP10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vwC51FxP10 I have an eery feeling that something like this will never fly in the US. People will complain about 'muh freedom'.
squeaky-clean 10y ago
> You are underestimating the number of libertarians on this site that just see the destructive effects of an incredibly addictive dangerous drug as a problem you could solve using the free market. Nobody has said that here. So until one of those libertarians comes in and comments, let's keep the discussion to what has actually been said?
mindcrime 10y ago
You are underestimating the number of libertarians on this site There's two or three of us left, yeah. that just see the destructive effects of an incredibly addictive dangerous drug as a problem you could solve using the free market. That's not really an accurate view of what (most) libertarians believe. I don't feel like writing a huge monologue here, but I'll say this: 1. Libertarians are, in general, opposed to the initiation of force to achieve social/political/whatever ends, because we consider initiation of force/violence to be immoral. 2. Within that framework, most libertarians also support a free market approach to economic issues for a variety of reasons, both moral and consequentialist. 3. The goal of libertarian approaches isn't to "solve problems" like drug addiction using free market techniques, or anything else. The goal is to eliminate the use of initiation of violence. Whatever else happens as a result of removing initiation of violence from the equation is seen as being either a. acceptable, and/or b. a problem that needs solving through whatever means can solve it without initiating force/violence. Now, libertarians will argue, quite rightly, that the free market does provide the best solutions to many issues. But we don't actually claim that the free market is the be-all end-all that magically solves all problems. We just think a world based strictly on voluntary cooperation, despite whatever other problems might endure, is a better world than world predicated on use of force/violence.

by Torgo 10y ago

You are underestimating the number of libertarians on this site that just see the destructive effects of an incredibly addictive dangerous drug as a problem you could solve using the free market.

pzone 10y ago

I think you're mischaracterizing people here. I think everyone would agree drug addiction is a problem that requries some government intervention. But clearly the policy we have right now is not great. The argument is that legalization + prevention + treatment would be, overall, better than prohibition. Not perfect, but better.

jshevek 10y ago
I absolutely agree that the parent didn't do justice to the range of opinions, and your post improves on the discussion. I'd like to nitpick the word "requires" (vs "is best served by") > everyone would agree drug addiction is a problem that requries some government intervention. Personally, I believe that it is absolutely theoretically possible to address our societies drug addiction problems without any government intervention, if only we as a culture were willing to do so.
hasenj 10y ago
Addiction is a personal psychological problem. How can the government intervene? The government cannot make you happy. Look at obesity rates. People get addicted because their life sucks. How can the government make their life not suck?
- pzone 10y ago
  Sometimes government can solve problems, other times it can't. Even in the case of obesity, the government at least tries to educate people. But addiction is not so similar to obesity, because it's much easier to monitor and control people's drug use through regulation than it is to monitor and control people's food intake. I think drug use is more like payday lending. Payday lending a shady industry, people who take advantage of it are often not too well off, and sometimes people make terrible decisions and screw up their lives, to the profit of the lenders. (or drug dealers.) But people are always going to want to borrow money for short periods of time just like people are always going to want to use drugs. No government policy is going to make everyone in the world happy, but we can try to minimize the number of miserable outcomes with some careful intervention.
  - hasenj 10y ago
    The only viable intervention is education. Case in point: school lunch in Japan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vwC51FxP10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vwC51FxP10 I have an eery feeling that something like this will never fly in the US. People will complain about 'muh freedom'.

squeaky-clean 10y ago

> You are underestimating the number of libertarians on this site that just see the destructive effects of an incredibly addictive dangerous drug as a problem you could solve using the free market. Nobody has said that here. So until one of those libertarians comes in and comments, let's keep the discussion to what has actually been said?

mindcrime 10y ago

You are underestimating the number of libertarians on this site There's two or three of us left, yeah. that just see the destructive effects of an incredibly addictive dangerous drug as a problem you could solve using the free market. That's not really an accurate view of what (most) libertarians believe. I don't feel like writing a huge monologue here, but I'll say this: 1. Libertarians are, in general, opposed to the initiation of force to achieve social/political/whatever ends, because we consider initiation of force/violence to be immoral. 2. Within that framework, most libertarians also support a free market approach to economic issues for a variety of reasons, both moral and consequentialist. 3. The goal of libertarian approaches isn't to "solve problems" like drug addiction using free market techniques, or anything else. The goal is to eliminate the use of initiation of violence. Whatever else happens as a result of removing initiation of violence from the equation is seen as being either a. acceptable, and/or b. a problem that needs solving through whatever means can solve it without initiating force/violence. Now, libertarians will argue, quite rightly, that the free market does provide the best solutions to many issues. But we don't actually claim that the free market is the be-all end-all that magically solves all problems. We just think a world based strictly on voluntary cooperation, despite whatever other problems might endure, is a better world than world predicated on use of force/violence.