3 ms·

This article is the "they're all just plants" argument of technologists? I thought Wikipedia articles didn't have a point of view... Anyway... what's wrong wit

This article is the "they're all just plants" argument of technologists? I thought Wikipedia articles didn't have a point of view... Anyway... what's wrong with the "they're all just plants" argument with regards (I'm assuming) to the completely absurd "War on Drugs"? How is that goofy? I don't think it's goofy at all. I think it's a fairly common-sense, level-headed reaction to the absolutely ridiculous idea that people need be protected from putting whatever they want into their own bodies.

tedunangst 10y ago
First time reading Wikipedia?
- WayneBro 10y ago
  Nope. But I didn't see any argument put forth in this article that equates to the "they're all just plants" argument... Care to point it out?
  - swhipple 10y ago
    They're both appeal to nature arguments. "Tobacco should never be regulated because it grows in nature" and "Cryptography should never be regulated because it uses math". There are plenty of reasons to be anti-DRM or pro-user privacy, but the "it uses numbers" argument is not a particularly good one.
    - WayneBro 10y ago
      OK, just to be clear: the Wikipedia article does not state this argument or really represent in any way. I'm just not sure who the criticism was directed towards.
DannyB2 10y ago
I am perfectly fine with people putting whatever substances they want into their own bodies . . . As long as their subsequent actions do not impose significant costs upon everyone else. Some of those people will continue to be productive citizens. Others will not. And that's fine too, as long as they don't expect everyone else to feed and care for them. Now I could raise the issue of crime. Everyone else should not have to deal with crime caused by people trying to get their next fix. But that problem (mostly) goes away by not making the substances illegal in the first place. The crime problem only continues to exist if some people become unemployable but have to commit crime in order to get their next fix.

tedunangst 10y ago

First time reading Wikipedia?

WayneBro 10y ago
Nope. But I didn't see any argument put forth in this article that equates to the "they're all just plants" argument... Care to point it out?
- swhipple 10y ago
  They're both appeal to nature arguments. "Tobacco should never be regulated because it grows in nature" and "Cryptography should never be regulated because it uses math". There are plenty of reasons to be anti-DRM or pro-user privacy, but the "it uses numbers" argument is not a particularly good one.
  - WayneBro 10y ago
    OK, just to be clear: the Wikipedia article does not state this argument or really represent in any way. I'm just not sure who the criticism was directed towards.

DannyB2 10y ago

I am perfectly fine with people putting whatever substances they want into their own bodies . . . As long as their subsequent actions do not impose significant costs upon everyone else. Some of those people will continue to be productive citizens. Others will not. And that's fine too, as long as they don't expect everyone else to feed and care for them. Now I could raise the issue of crime. Everyone else should not have to deal with crime caused by people trying to get their next fix. But that problem (mostly) goes away by not making the substances illegal in the first place. The crime problem only continues to exist if some people become unemployable but have to commit crime in order to get their next fix.