5 ms·

>there's lots of good research associating ease of access and low prices with alcoholism Do you believe that you'd be an alcoholic, were it not for the high pr

>there's lots of good research associating ease of access and low prices with alcoholism Do you believe that you'd be an alcoholic, were it not for the high prices on alcohol, or the monopolies controlling sales in most provinces? This likely says more about you than it does those who are merely annoyed by the high prices.

fwip 8y ago
Whether or not that individual person would have been an alcoholic is irrelevant. We have data to prove that raising alcohol prices reduces the number of alcoholics. Do you believe you are immune to addiction? Because that says a lot about you, too.
- noarchy 8y ago
  >Do you believe you are immune to addiction? Because that says a lot about you, too. Well I'm not an alcoholic, and it probably does say something about me. A lot of these kinds of discussions come down to what one thinks the role of the state should be in trying to engineer behaviour. Even if you could prove that government-imposed higher prices lead to a reduction in dependency, some would prefer a freer society to such controls.
  - anoncake 8y ago
    An alcoholic is not free not to drink alcohol in any meaningful sense. Restricting access to alcohol can actually make society freer if it reduces the number of alcoholics.
    - noarchy 8y ago
      >Restricting access to alcohol can actually make society freer if it reduces the number of alcoholics. That's a pretty scary way of thinking. I don't want to attack a strawman here, but it looks like you're trying to reverse the definition of "freer" to be the opposite of what most would think it is.
      - fwip 8y ago
        All regulations or laws reduce some measure of freedom, but are enacted to protect freedom on the whole. For an obvious example, banning slavery restricts the freedom of slavers, but vastly increases the freedom of freed slaves.
        noarchy 8y ago
        The example you've cited, while good food for thought, is an example of replacing one horrendous law (slavery was once backed by the force of law in the US) with an admittedly much better law.
        anoncake 8y ago
        You dont need a separate law for slavery to exist. If 1. freedom of contract is unrestricted and 2. parents are allowed to make decisions for their children and enter contracts in their name, then: * Someone can sell themselves into, or otherwise enter, slavery. * When that slave has a child, the owner can order them to enter a contract in the childs name that makes the child a slave. Serfdom started in a similar manner, at least in some places: A free peasant agreed to become a serf in exchange for protection, then their descendants inherited that status.
      - anoncake 8y ago
        Arguments tend to get weaker if you omit half of them. In what useful sense does an alcoholic have the freedom not to drink?
        noarchy 8y ago
        >Arguments tend to get weaker if you omit half of them. You made two arguments, of which I responded to one as I considered them to be quite separate. >In what useful sense does an alcoholic have the freedom not to drink? If alcoholics have no agency (which is a matter of some dispute as I understand it), then freedom (as most would understand it) isn't an issue for them anyway. It is for the rest of us (society).

fwip 8y ago

Whether or not that individual person would have been an alcoholic is irrelevant. We have data to prove that raising alcohol prices reduces the number of alcoholics. Do you believe you are immune to addiction? Because that says a lot about you, too.

noarchy 8y ago
>Do you believe you are immune to addiction? Because that says a lot about you, too. Well I'm not an alcoholic, and it probably does say something about me. A lot of these kinds of discussions come down to what one thinks the role of the state should be in trying to engineer behaviour. Even if you could prove that government-imposed higher prices lead to a reduction in dependency, some would prefer a freer society to such controls.
- anoncake 8y ago
  An alcoholic is not free not to drink alcohol in any meaningful sense. Restricting access to alcohol can actually make society freer if it reduces the number of alcoholics.
  - noarchy 8y ago
    >Restricting access to alcohol can actually make society freer if it reduces the number of alcoholics. That's a pretty scary way of thinking. I don't want to attack a strawman here, but it looks like you're trying to reverse the definition of "freer" to be the opposite of what most would think it is.
    - fwip 8y ago
      All regulations or laws reduce some measure of freedom, but are enacted to protect freedom on the whole. For an obvious example, banning slavery restricts the freedom of slavers, but vastly increases the freedom of freed slaves.
      - noarchy 8y ago
        The example you've cited, while good food for thought, is an example of replacing one horrendous law (slavery was once backed by the force of law in the US) with an admittedly much better law.
        anoncake 8y ago
        You dont need a separate law for slavery to exist. If 1. freedom of contract is unrestricted and 2. parents are allowed to make decisions for their children and enter contracts in their name, then: * Someone can sell themselves into, or otherwise enter, slavery. * When that slave has a child, the owner can order them to enter a contract in the childs name that makes the child a slave. Serfdom started in a similar manner, at least in some places: A free peasant agreed to become a serf in exchange for protection, then their descendants inherited that status.
    - anoncake 8y ago
      Arguments tend to get weaker if you omit half of them. In what useful sense does an alcoholic have the freedom not to drink?
      - noarchy 8y ago
        >Arguments tend to get weaker if you omit half of them. You made two arguments, of which I responded to one as I considered them to be quite separate. >In what useful sense does an alcoholic have the freedom not to drink? If alcoholics have no agency (which is a matter of some dispute as I understand it), then freedom (as most would understand it) isn't an issue for them anyway. It is for the rest of us (society).