Your drug war at work

[kt421]

[ QUOTE ]



Although I don't do drugs either, and would favor at least the legalization of marijuana, there is a benefit to controlling many things when you can't eradicate them, to reduce the societal effects, similar to pest control.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is correct, and a great argument for legalization. Right now, our prohibition policies cede control over drug production and distribution to criminal enterprises. By legalizing the currently illegal substances, we can begin to exert control over them. Regulate, tax and educate.

One thing we should keep in mind is that legalization is not a solution to our drug problem. Legalization is a solution to our prohibition problem.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing we should keep in mind is that legalization is not a solution to our drug problem. Legalization is a solution to our prohibition problem.

[/ QUOTE ] In order to solve the drug problem, insofar as it can be done, we are going to have to use demand-side policies instead of supply side i.e. use policies that directly or indirectly decrease the likelihood of drug use like increasing upward social mobility, opportunity and educational quality for impoverished people, as well as addiction and treatment plans.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One thing we should keep in mind is that legalization is not a solution to our drug problem. Legalization is a solution to our prohibition problem.

[/ QUOTE ] In order to solve the drug problem, insofar as it can be done, we are going to have to use demand-side policies instead of supply side i.e. use policies that directly or indirectly decrease the likelihood of drug use like increasing upward social mobility, opportunity and educational quality for impoverished people, as well as addiction and treatment plans.

[/ QUOTE ]

What drug problem?!?!

You mean the fact that people use drugs? That's because most of them LIKE doing drugs. They're fun. My old roommate had to go to the hospital because he played World of Warcraft for three days straight and didn't eat or sleep, and a few other people have done that too. Does that mean that there's a WoW problem?

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
No, you have a right to a fair share of resources and opportunites just like everybody else.

It is simply a reply to a common vulgar objection to egalitarianism, not a positive theory. The positve theory has been argued for elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about you start by hiring a few people to sweep your office and give them a UBI. You can fund it yourself and then right a grant for it's continued funding. You will be the hero of the UBI movement if you only have the courage to move into the action phase like this.

[moorobot]

People may like doing drugs, and insofar as there behavior is self-regarding they can should be legally free to do whatever they want in my book. But people don't like getting into accidents with drunk drivers, or getting attacked by a drug addict who needs money to try to get his fix. Kids don't like being beat up by their dad, who only gets violent when on a certain drug.

I'm not talking about paternalism here. Only spillover effects, and providing treatment for people who want it but can't afford it.

You have to think about scale here as well; a couple people will get angry when they see plastic bags, or addicted to buying expensive jewelry, or from anything; but that doesn't mean jewlery and plastic bags should be made illegal, or there use curbed! Drug use is on a whole other scale (for some drugs only). People use drugs and then drive dangerously, people using drugs heavily can have devastating effects on the people who care about them, some people become violent on some drugs, etc. Massive drug use could badly damage the economy. One person's actions often have consequences for other people, sometimes massive ones. I think alcholism is a problem right now. But that doesn't mean we should try alcohol prohibition again!!!

I don't support the drug war because it is ineffective; the medicine is far worse than the disease. As this thread has said, drug use is not always harmful for non-users. But it is in other cases. The drug war is the wrong means for curbing these things in the few cases were there use should be curbed.

So the short version is: the drug problem is the problem of externality effects from drug use on non-users; and these effects are only for some drugs in some cases.

[canis582]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The US government has brainwashed its citizens for so long about the evils of drugs, that it is impossible for it to reverse its position now.

[/ QUOTE ]


Since those citizens are the ones who elect the legislators, are you sure it isn't the other way around?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a major misconception about our whole system. The government does not bend to the will of the people, its the other way around.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
No, you have a right to a fair share of resources and opportunites just like everybody else.

It is simply a reply to a common vulgar objection to egalitarianism, not a positive theory. The positve theory has been argued for elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

You still haven't answered the question. If I have no right to "pretax income" (exactly what portion of my income is "pretax income," anyway?), and I have a right to a fair share of resources and opportunities, why are you not taking 100% tax and making equal distributions to everyone?

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
You still haven't answered the question. If I have no right to "pretax income" (exactly what portion of my income is "pretax income," anyway?), and I have a right to a fair share of resources and opportunities, why are you not taking 100% tax and making equal distributions to everyone?

[/ QUOTE ] Why would you need a 100% tax to get equal results?

Equal results is a possible long, long term goal, but in the short term incentives are important, so in order to maximize the minimum outcome, I suggest we just start by having a UBI of 50% of the median income, along with various universal social progrmas e.g. universal health care. But, generally speaking, incentives are a compromise between justice and pragmatism, not something required by justice.

In any case my reply does indeed respond to this comment. ALl I'm saying is that 'I earned my pretax income' or 'I have a right to it' is not a valid objection to any theory of distributive justice, be it utilitarianism, prioritarianism, or egalitarianism. Nor is it an objection to taxation. It doesn't prove those theories are correct necessarily, but I have argued that a combination of liberal prioritarianism and egalitarianism should form the basis of our public policy elsewhere.

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would you need a 100% tax to get equal results?

[/ QUOTE ]

If someone else has and makes more money than me, then we do not have equal economic opportunity, and thus we do not have equal freedom, or am I wrong?

And so without completely equal distribution of money, which FIRST requires 100% confiscation of money followed by completely equal redistribution of money, then no equality of opportunity and thus unequal freedom exists, or am I wrong?

[ QUOTE ]
equal results is a possible long, long term goal, but in the short term incentives are important

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are incentives not important in the long run?

Also, are you admitting that, since people acting based on an incentive are demonstrating a preference, that people's preferences are to resist violent interference into their life? That the incentives driving human action fly completely in the face of your entire scheme?

[ QUOTE ]
But, generally speaking, incentives are a compromise between justice and pragmatism

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is justice not practical?

If people have no right to their property, then why should it be so very difficult to convince them of this?

[ QUOTE ]
ALl I'm saying is that 'I earned my pretax income' or 'I have a right to it' is not a valid objection to any theory of distributive justice

[/ QUOTE ]

What does the word "earn" mean in a UBI society? How does someone "earn" something? Must you redefine the word "earn" and "property" in order to justify violent interference into people's lives?

In the "theory of distributive justice", how does the government have a right to anything? Is that just assumed?

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]

Why would you need a 100% tax to get equal results?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If someone else has and makes more money than me, then we do not have equal economic opportunity, and thus we do not have equal freedom, or am I wrong?

[/ QUOTE ] Not neccesarily true, but I'll indulge:

We don't need a 100% tax on all income to get an equal income distribution. I hope you realize why.

[ QUOTE ]

Why is justice not practical?

If people have no right to their property, then why should it be so very difficult to convince them of this?


[/ QUOTE ] Its not difficult to convince them that they don't own 'their property' in the way you believe they do; 90% plus believe in taxation in this and other democracies.

Justice isn't necessarily practical or unpractical as a concept. It all depends on contingencies.

[ QUOTE ]

ALl I'm saying is that 'I earned my pretax income' or 'I have a right to it' is not a valid objection to any theory of distributive justice


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What does the word "earn" mean in a UBI society? How does someone "earn" something? Must you redefine the word "earn" and "property" in order to justify violent interference into people's lives?

In the "theory of distributive justice", how does the government have a right to anything? Is that just assumed?

[/ QUOTE ] I have no idea why you ask any of these questions at all. I didn't imply any of the things which you are attributing to me at all. I didn't redifine words; Acists use the highly eccentric definition of property, not me. I have no idea where the 'earn' comment comes from. I don't think government has a right to these things, government, in almost all theories of DJ, is the agency which redistibutes them to the rightful owners. 'It' gives it to the rightful owners, then they use it how they want, within certain limits. I've explained this before.

If some other agency could make it happen better than gov't can then it would be that agency, not gov't, which would have the imperative duty to ensure DJ was achieved.

But that has never been the case, nor will it ever be.