Ask the Practical Libertarian

[Jonathan_Chance]

*Originally posted by Priceguy *
**When I look at history I see luck and chance, and a few brains making a few inventions while, around them, other people do their best to annihilate the human race (and using those few inventions to their fullest for that purpose, by the way).
**

Before I get into the other issues you’ve raised I want to address this.

My degree and post-grad work is in history. And I think you’re mis-reading historical fact.

Yes, a great many inventions and concepts are the work of specific individuals. But the widespread application of those concepts and inventions come about because of a billion decisions that are made by those people you’re somewhat paternalistically calling ‘stupid’. People will, by and large, make decisions in their own best interest (as they perceive it) and the sum total of these decisions leads to progress.

If it was, in fact, 10 ‘smart’ people vs 10000 ‘stupid’ people we’d still be feudal in nature. Or worse.

[Jonathan_Chance]

I knew we’d get back to drugs (can we discuss something else…how 'bout them Yankees?)

Priceguy, think about what you’re saying when you write:

I’d vote for it. Beer has no positive effects whatsoever and causes both direct and indirect damages. I see no reason to have it available. Yes, I like it, and yes, I’d miss it, but avoiding its detrimental effects is worth drinking orange juice at the pub, and being healthier for it.

I could easily point out the detrimental effects of…the automobile, tract housing, fast foods, clear cutting of forests, petroleum-based economies, air travel and others ad nauseum. Would you really want to do away with all of those?

My point is that it’s not effective nor proper for government to regulate one type of drug without regulating all of them (I hate inconsistency) and if the government can regulate (or ban) a drug because it’s ‘damaging’ or ‘bad’ why not everything else that’s bad?

And that leads to excessive regulation.

[Dunderman]

*Originally posted by Jonathan Chance *
**Yes, a great many inventions and concepts are the work of specific individuals. But the widespread application of those concepts and inventions come about because of a billion decisions that are made by those people you’re somewhat paternalistically calling ‘stupid’. People will, by and large, make decisions in their own best interest (as they perceive it) and the sum total of these decisions leads to progress.

If it was, in fact, 10 ‘smart’ people vs 10000 ‘stupid’ people we’d still be feudal in nature. Or worse. **

I have a feeling we’re never going to get around this. For starters I’m not a neophile and do not automatically see inventions or progress (whatever that is) as something positive. Furthermore, you seem to assume that those billions of decisions were correct, when in fact they are what got us here. Other decisions may have gotten us somewhere different, and heaps better. That decisions were made doesn’t mean they were good.

But whatever. Let’s say that the masses always make sure that next year is slightly better than this one, on a grand scale. I’d need quite a bit of study before being convinced, but let’s assume it is so. This still doesn’t account for individual, destructive stupidity like people taking harmful drugs and destroying themselves and others in the process, which is what I was talking about. Even if most people aren’t stupid (and I think they are), those that are pose a danger to those that aren’t. Should we risk that by feeding them psychoactive drugs and giving them submachine guns?

[Dunderman]

*Originally posted by Jonathan Chance *
I could easily point out the detrimental effects of…the automobile, tract housing, fast foods, clear cutting of forests, petroleum-based economies, air travel and others ad nauseum. Would you really want to do away with all of those?

Damn straight. Automobiles destroy the environment. Fast foods cost untold sums in health care. Deforestation is just evil. Etc. I don’t know what tract housing is (that whole non-Native English speaker thing again), but I think you get the general idea.

**My point is that it’s not effective nor proper for government to regulate one type of drug without regulating all of them (I hate inconsistency) and if the government can regulate (or ban) a drug because it’s ‘damaging’ or ‘bad’ why not everything else that’s bad?

And that leads to excessive regulation. **

I disagree, 's all. I wish to reiterate that I don’t want to just ban these things outright, because it just wouldn’t work. But I do want to, some day, have a world without them, and moving in the opposite direction by, for example, legalizing drugs, is just wrong.

But if you don’t want to talk about drugs (and I don’t want to talk about the Yankees), let’s talk about something else. You mentioned the legalization of drugs as the one big change you’d like to make. Name another and let’s fight about that instead.

[nogginhead]

On your reply regarding antibiotics… I’d have to say that I don’t see it working now. The last thing I read about it (in The Washington Post a year or so ago, as I recall) indicated that while some physicians were prescribing antibi’s less frequently those patients who still wanted them were capable of getting them from another doctor. Therefore if the use of such are truly declining then I believe it’s from education of the patients that leads to reduced demand. And I think that shows evidence in my favor that education leads to more rational choices by the public.

I believe your logic is flawed. Most patients do not seek treatment they believe is needed, but rely on their doctor’s advice. They go to the doctor for expert evaluation, not for a rubber stamp on the prescription they wrote for themselves. While it is often true that a demanding and patient patient (sorry) can probably find a doctor who will sign the prescription they want, the proportion of prescriptions made up by this contingent is so small that it wouldn’t affect the overall trend either way if they were removed from the population entirely. There’s a growing literature on this, so I’m not quite making it all up. If you care to see refs, I can put some time into it.

BTW, I find the comments on the advertising of heroin pretty troubling. You?

[Jonathan_Chance]

No more so than advertising alcohol or cigarettes. Yes, there would be abuses. But I’d rather have an honest abuse than dishonest inconsistencies.

Contrary to popular belief, I don’t consider addiction, if not stigmatized, to be a horrific thing. It’s right to treat it as a sickness and provide support for those trying to beat it.

Disclaimer: I speak as a man who’s been there. And done time for it.