4 ms·

I'm quite aware of the global temperance movement. However, you've missed my point completely. My sigh was because every time somebody brings up something in th

I'm quite aware of the global temperance movement. However, you've missed my point completely. My sigh was because every time somebody brings up something in the US that needs to be changed or reformed, you can bet that some European will come in and say, "As a European, I'm shocked this is like this!" As if we all got in a room and decided that whatever the thing is was the right thing to do, and it all sounded like a good idea at the time. In reality, these things, especially laws, go through complex histories, compromises, concessions, and interests. I gave an overly brief history of the alcohol laws in the US, or at least their influences. Just to give a little context. In reality, this discussion should be around regulatory capture. But that's too hard, so instead, we get into a Europe vs US pissing match. It's stupid. It's foolish. So, instead of discussing how to better fight regulatory capture, we just try to show off how special we are. I say again: sigh.

alexeisadeski3 12y ago
The fact that Europe doesn't have these regulations yet the sky hasn't fallen is in fact relevant to the discussion, is it not? Just like when one looks at the much maligned US gun laws: Washington State has a similar murder rate to that of British Columbia, thus the gun laws probably don't have much impact on murder rates.
- imgabe 12y ago
  The whole point behind regulatory capture is that "whether or not the sky has fallen" is not necessarily a deciding factor in creating or keeping a law. So, no, it's not really relevant that the lack of a law in another country has worked out all right.
- endersshadow 12y ago
  No, it's not. And it saddens me that you think it is. This is an issue of regulatory capture, not "Should we have these laws." The entire article is about regulatory capture, and how special interest groups are able to effectively block changes to these laws. The fact that Europe (or at least some of Europe) doesn't have these laws is completely irrelevant.
dalke 12y ago
My reply, however, was to point out that those who argue that the "laws, customs, and cultural traditions in western Europe are much more rational/intelligent/better/whatever than those in America" are actually ignorant of the actual history of Western Europe. More specifically, lvh's comment about "As a (western) European" is an incorrect generalization. There are western European countries where it's impossible to buy alcohol from convenience store. I believe that your response should not have been to bring up any special history of the US - thus inviting a pissing war - but instead highlight the parochialism in lvh's observation.

alexeisadeski3 12y ago

The fact that Europe doesn't have these regulations yet the sky hasn't fallen is in fact relevant to the discussion, is it not? Just like when one looks at the much maligned US gun laws: Washington State has a similar murder rate to that of British Columbia, thus the gun laws probably don't have much impact on murder rates.

imgabe 12y ago
The whole point behind regulatory capture is that "whether or not the sky has fallen" is not necessarily a deciding factor in creating or keeping a law. So, no, it's not really relevant that the lack of a law in another country has worked out all right.
endersshadow 12y ago
No, it's not. And it saddens me that you think it is. This is an issue of regulatory capture, not "Should we have these laws." The entire article is about regulatory capture, and how special interest groups are able to effectively block changes to these laws. The fact that Europe (or at least some of Europe) doesn't have these laws is completely irrelevant.

dalke 12y ago

My reply, however, was to point out that those who argue that the "laws, customs, and cultural traditions in western Europe are much more rational/intelligent/better/whatever than those in America" are actually ignorant of the actual history of Western Europe. More specifically, lvh's comment about "As a (western) European" is an incorrect generalization. There are western European countries where it's impossible to buy alcohol from convenience store. I believe that your response should not have been to bring up any special history of the US - thus inviting a pissing war - but instead highlight the parochialism in lvh's observation.