4 ms·

That interpretation of prohibition looks past the very reasons why it was advocated for and ultimately instituted. You mention yourself that drinking caused re

brianmc21 7y ago
As someone who lives in Massachusetts, I can wholeheartedly agree. The MA governor just banned vapes for 6 weeks or so then the legislature created some new laws and a hefty 75% tax. They banned menthol cigarettes and flavored vape juice. We are literally right where we started but with a bigger tax on vaping products. Now we can have a menthol cigarette and flavored vape black market. So much "progress"... Edit: I don't vape so I have no personal skin in the game just willing to call out politicians.
save_ferris 7y ago
I'm not downplaying anything in regards to how they saw it, there's incredible documentary evidence backing up the idea that Teetotalers didn't see this as a public health crisis, they saw it as a moral failure of society. They believed that they could make America a more moral place by legislating away alcohol, which only wound up creating one of of the most powerful black markets in US economic history. Had the Teetotalers treated the situation like the public health crisis that it was instead of a collective moral failure, they could've accomplished the reduction in alcohol consumption without creating some of the most powerful organized crime outfits in US history.
stcredzero 7y ago
That interpretation of prohibition looks past the very reasons why it was advocated for and ultimately instituted. You mention yourself that drinking caused real harmful societal issues, and it was these issues which prohibitionists sought to confront The overall lesson, is that it's far better to convince than to coerce. Coercion often causes a backlash, especially when it runs counter to market forces. On the other hand, when one convinces, backlash is greatly reduced, and the change sticks. The Left is just as willing and eager to legislate its own morality in pursuit of creating a world that is more consistent with its own moral vision. Not just legislation. Basically anyone who controls a "platform" is willing to use that power to push their own political agenda. (Not just owners, but their technicians and hired help.) Back when such platforms were newspapers, markets could control the worst abuses. Now, platforms have much more interaction and much greater reach. If computer networks are as deep and far-reaching a change to culture as the printing press was, then it should be expected that the conception of human rights should have to change to accommodate such change. In 2020, we need our own version of "freedom of the press" which applies to platforms.
- corporate_shi11 7y ago
  Completely agree that we need to update how we think about freedom in regards to big platforms. In the age of newspapers there were thousands across the country and major markets were often served by many popular newspapers, giving a home in print to many different political views. The market forstered (political) diversity in ownership. Contrast this with today, where major social networks and tech companies have absolute control over what we see and interact with, and because network effects are more powerful in social media than print media, there are just a few social networks which reduces competition and the possibility for diversity of ownership in the industry. The existence of a small set of corporate overlords who in secrecy can powerfully influence how people think, behave and react is very scary for those of us who value a free and open society. The behavior of social networks and platforms therefore must be regulated to ensure the immense power that comes with operating a social network at scale is not abused for private ends. Their power is too great to avoid a political solution.
danans 7y ago
> drinking caused real harmful societal issues, and it was these issues which prohibitionists sought to confront. Caused? I doubt it. Exacerbated? In many cases yes. But taking away the alcohol didn't solve any of the underlying problems.

brianmc21 7y ago

As someone who lives in Massachusetts, I can wholeheartedly agree. The MA governor just banned vapes for 6 weeks or so then the legislature created some new laws and a hefty 75% tax. They banned menthol cigarettes and flavored vape juice. We are literally right where we started but with a bigger tax on vaping products. Now we can have a menthol cigarette and flavored vape black market. So much "progress"... Edit: I don't vape so I have no personal skin in the game just willing to call out politicians.

save_ferris 7y ago

I'm not downplaying anything in regards to how they saw it, there's incredible documentary evidence backing up the idea that Teetotalers didn't see this as a public health crisis, they saw it as a moral failure of society. They believed that they could make America a more moral place by legislating away alcohol, which only wound up creating one of of the most powerful black markets in US economic history. Had the Teetotalers treated the situation like the public health crisis that it was instead of a collective moral failure, they could've accomplished the reduction in alcohol consumption without creating some of the most powerful organized crime outfits in US history.

stcredzero 7y ago

That interpretation of prohibition looks past the very reasons why it was advocated for and ultimately instituted. You mention yourself that drinking caused real harmful societal issues, and it was these issues which prohibitionists sought to confront The overall lesson, is that it's far better to convince than to coerce. Coercion often causes a backlash, especially when it runs counter to market forces. On the other hand, when one convinces, backlash is greatly reduced, and the change sticks. The Left is just as willing and eager to legislate its own morality in pursuit of creating a world that is more consistent with its own moral vision. Not just legislation. Basically anyone who controls a "platform" is willing to use that power to push their own political agenda. (Not just owners, but their technicians and hired help.) Back when such platforms were newspapers, markets could control the worst abuses. Now, platforms have much more interaction and much greater reach. If computer networks are as deep and far-reaching a change to culture as the printing press was, then it should be expected that the conception of human rights should have to change to accommodate such change. In 2020, we need our own version of "freedom of the press" which applies to platforms.

corporate_shi11 7y ago
Completely agree that we need to update how we think about freedom in regards to big platforms. In the age of newspapers there were thousands across the country and major markets were often served by many popular newspapers, giving a home in print to many different political views. The market forstered (political) diversity in ownership. Contrast this with today, where major social networks and tech companies have absolute control over what we see and interact with, and because network effects are more powerful in social media than print media, there are just a few social networks which reduces competition and the possibility for diversity of ownership in the industry. The existence of a small set of corporate overlords who in secrecy can powerfully influence how people think, behave and react is very scary for those of us who value a free and open society. The behavior of social networks and platforms therefore must be regulated to ensure the immense power that comes with operating a social network at scale is not abused for private ends. Their power is too great to avoid a political solution.

danans 7y ago

> drinking caused real harmful societal issues, and it was these issues which prohibitionists sought to confront. Caused? I doubt it. Exacerbated? In many cases yes. But taking away the alcohol didn't solve any of the underlying problems.