3 ms·

> Turned out to be a contract-killing, drug-dealing, law breaking psychopath. Libertarians like myself generally don't have a problem with the drug-dealing and

by VMG 13y ago

> Turned out to be a contract-killing, drug-dealing, law breaking psychopath. Libertarians like myself generally don't have a problem with the drug-dealing and law-breaking part. The contract-killing is unfortunate, I agree.

dredmorbius 13y ago
If you're going to go around getting people hooked on highly physically addictive (and quite possibly deadly) substances (cocaine, heroin, meth), not just ganja, My book of business ethics says you're around to pick up the pieces afterwards. Criminalizing drug usage is the wrong way to go. Making sure the market is very, very, very highly regulated, including producer and retailer liabilities for consequences, is required if you're going to address the tremendous negative externalities of drug use. And yes, I hold tobacco, alcohol, and (lawful) pharmaceutical industries to the same standard, noting that they largely fail to meet it. Ulbricht's utter hypocrisy regards nonviolence is particularly telling.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- VMG 13y ago
  What about sugar? Caffeine? Computer games? If you legalize drug usage and still criminalize distribution, there will be black markets and the associated externalities of militarized gangs. But fundamentally, I think we have different assumptions about free will and personal responsibility.
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    What about sugar ... Your tu quoque fallacy doesn't make the negative consequences of addictive and life-threatening drug abuse any less severe. I was actually hoping to head off such a response with my observation that I'd include other harmful but legal substances among my list of those for which producers and merchants would be considered liable for consequences. Naturally, I'd include other harmful substances, and there's ample evidence that sugar is one (diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and other consequences) among them. The jury's largely out on caffeine, but should it come in I'd add it. Though I'm not a gamer, I've actually got a bit of respect for the extent to which both gaming and CGI have advanced the state of information technology. I've written before on the general problem of the dopamine-industrial complex: https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/8doc5ZPuGgg https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/8doc5ZPu... https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/TfoQaboPBpx https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/TfoQaboP... https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/L6rNWuFojQf https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/L6rNWuFo... criminalize distribution You are intentionally misrepresenting my explicit statement: "Criminalizing drug usage is the wrong way to go. Making sure the market is very, very, very highly regulated, including producer and retailer liabilities for consequences, is required". I appreciate honest representation of views, though sadly, it seems to be a persistently lacking trait in conversations I've had with Libertarians, as a simple observation of fact. My own views of free will and responsibility are informed by considerable research and investigation on the matter. It's a complex phenomenon not particularly amenable to a priori assumptions "not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts" http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Austrian_school#Even_they_admit_they_just_pulled_this_stuff_out_of_their_asses http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Austrian_school#Even_they_admit...
    - VMG 13y ago
      > You are intentionally misrepresenting my explicit statement I don't think I am -- in a very (very, very) regulated environment, the cost of substances which have perceived high externalities and are available on the regulated market will be much higher than the cost of the same substances on the black market. Or people will shift to alternatives and start sniffing glue. Another difficulty is measuring the harm of drugs against the benefits -- how much do you factor in the subjective pleasure of the individual? What about the art, music and literature that was created by people under the influence of drugs? > My own views of free will and responsibility are informed by considerable research and investigation on the matter. I infer that you reject the notion of free will in certain circumstances, for example when the individual is under the influence of mind-altering substances. Does this also shape your opinion on free speech? (This is purely out of curiosity and completely tangential to other issues)
      - dredmorbius 13y ago
        Re: costs on regulated markets are higher than on black market. Decriminalization of pot has decreased marijuana prices. One of the reasons it's been opposed. To the extent of causing concerns among producers, if I recall stories correctly. Re: glue sniffing. Who's producing that glue? Yes, under dire and bleak circumstances people will resort to all sorts of destructive distractions. Wood alcohol and Krokodil are other examples. For cases in which there isn't a commercial provider, clearly, the manufacturer / merchant responsibility approach wouldn't apply. You'd still treat the addiction element as a health issue, not a criminal one. Parents drugging their kids might be another matter. Re: creatives and drugs I'm specifically talking about negative effects. If it turns out someone's not incurring a negative consequence, then fine. But the alcoholic author who rots their liver while gilding their prose should have a significant portion of health costs covered by the alcohol industry. You can spin your angels on pinheads and generate hypotheticals all you want, but at root what I'm talking about is a clearly articulable net social cost and a responsibility for that cost. You soil your social nest, you pay to clean it up. You know: accepting persona responsibility. I infer that you ask vaguely leading questions without taking a clear stand on your own position. State yours.

by VMG 13y ago

dredmorbius 13y ago

If you're going to go around getting people hooked on highly physically addictive (and quite possibly deadly) substances (cocaine, heroin, meth), not just ganja, My book of business ethics says you're around to pick up the pieces afterwards. Criminalizing drug usage is the wrong way to go. Making sure the market is very, very, very highly regulated, including producer and retailer liabilities for consequences, is required if you're going to address the tremendous negative externalities of drug use. And yes, I hold tobacco, alcohol, and (lawful) pharmaceutical industries to the same standard, noting that they largely fail to meet it. Ulbricht's utter hypocrisy regards nonviolence is particularly telling.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
VMG 13y ago
What about sugar? Caffeine? Computer games? If you legalize drug usage and still criminalize distribution, there will be black markets and the associated externalities of militarized gangs. But fundamentally, I think we have different assumptions about free will and personal responsibility.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  What about sugar ... Your tu quoque fallacy doesn't make the negative consequences of addictive and life-threatening drug abuse any less severe. I was actually hoping to head off such a response with my observation that I'd include other harmful but legal substances among my list of those for which producers and merchants would be considered liable for consequences. Naturally, I'd include other harmful substances, and there's ample evidence that sugar is one (diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and other consequences) among them. The jury's largely out on caffeine, but should it come in I'd add it. Though I'm not a gamer, I've actually got a bit of respect for the extent to which both gaming and CGI have advanced the state of information technology. I've written before on the general problem of the dopamine-industrial complex: https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/8doc5ZPuGgg https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/8doc5ZPu... https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/TfoQaboPBpx https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/TfoQaboP... https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/L6rNWuFojQf https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/L6rNWuFo... criminalize distribution You are intentionally misrepresenting my explicit statement: "Criminalizing drug usage is the wrong way to go. Making sure the market is very, very, very highly regulated, including producer and retailer liabilities for consequences, is required". I appreciate honest representation of views, though sadly, it seems to be a persistently lacking trait in conversations I've had with Libertarians, as a simple observation of fact. My own views of free will and responsibility are informed by considerable research and investigation on the matter. It's a complex phenomenon not particularly amenable to a priori assumptions "not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts" http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Austrian_school#Even_they_admit_they_just_pulled_this_stuff_out_of_their_asses http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Austrian_school#Even_they_admit...
  - VMG 13y ago
    > You are intentionally misrepresenting my explicit statement I don't think I am -- in a very (very, very) regulated environment, the cost of substances which have perceived high externalities and are available on the regulated market will be much higher than the cost of the same substances on the black market. Or people will shift to alternatives and start sniffing glue. Another difficulty is measuring the harm of drugs against the benefits -- how much do you factor in the subjective pleasure of the individual? What about the art, music and literature that was created by people under the influence of drugs? > My own views of free will and responsibility are informed by considerable research and investigation on the matter. I infer that you reject the notion of free will in certain circumstances, for example when the individual is under the influence of mind-altering substances. Does this also shape your opinion on free speech? (This is purely out of curiosity and completely tangential to other issues)
    - dredmorbius 13y ago
      Re: costs on regulated markets are higher than on black market. Decriminalization of pot has decreased marijuana prices. One of the reasons it's been opposed. To the extent of causing concerns among producers, if I recall stories correctly. Re: glue sniffing. Who's producing that glue? Yes, under dire and bleak circumstances people will resort to all sorts of destructive distractions. Wood alcohol and Krokodil are other examples. For cases in which there isn't a commercial provider, clearly, the manufacturer / merchant responsibility approach wouldn't apply. You'd still treat the addiction element as a health issue, not a criminal one. Parents drugging their kids might be another matter. Re: creatives and drugs I'm specifically talking about negative effects. If it turns out someone's not incurring a negative consequence, then fine. But the alcoholic author who rots their liver while gilding their prose should have a significant portion of health costs covered by the alcohol industry. You can spin your angels on pinheads and generate hypotheticals all you want, but at root what I'm talking about is a clearly articulable net social cost and a responsibility for that cost. You soil your social nest, you pay to clean it up. You know: accepting persona responsibility. I infer that you ask vaguely leading questions without taking a clear stand on your own position. State yours.