How should a society deal with drugs?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If that were true, then we'd elect representatives who would enact laws making it legal to lynch drug dealers.

[/ QUOTE ] You come off as a pretty intelligent guy, so I'm sure you see how that does not follow at all. Let me try to spell out some of the differences.

We do vote for politicians who enact laws that make sure drug dealers are punished. We don't have a binary choice. If we did have a binary choice of either letting people who deal drugs to children go about their own business or legalizing their lynchings, then yes, I believe representatives that wanted to legalize lynching would be elected.

That doesn't have to be true, though. If 25% of the population (well, we're not talking 25% of the people. 25% of dollars obviously. In ACland) were for lynchings, 55% against and 20% didn't care, it might very well not be worth it for the insurance company or whoever to deal with the mob. Prosecuting a whole mob sounds like expensive business.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wouldn't be worth it as long as the remaining 75%, the ones who did not favor lynchings, had no problem associating with those who did. Or at least, if they valued other things, like cheaper prices or something, at a higher level.

And if they do, then what is the problem? You seem to be presuppozing that roving gangs of lynchers is bad. I happen to agree, and agree strongly. So I would put a VERY high priority on not supporting or giving my business to anyone who deals with these horrible lynchers.

But what if pvn or Boro don't mind these lynchers so much? Why am I trying to impose my preferences on them? They can live in their own little world, replete with random lynchings, and I'll hang out with the rest of the anti-lynching crowd. I'd like to think I'm in the majority, but who knows. And more importantly, who cares. We'll find out pretty quickly which preference leads to the most stability, safety, happiness, customer satisfaction, whatever.

Prosecuting a mob is expensive, sure, and from time to time incidents of mob violence are bound to happen. Just like now. But if we put a high priority on eliminating mob violence, we're bound to be willing to pay that price. I know I would be.


EDIT: Important clarification. I'm not saying that in an AC world random lynchings are somehow acceptable, since they go strictly against the main premise of AC. I'm merely saying that the preference of whether to associate with these random lynchers is something that would be accomodated in AC land. If we all decided we wanted to impose no penalty for murder, then sucks for us.

[wtfsvi]

I think a lot of people would sympathize with the 5 fathers and mothers who got together and killed the drug dealer who had dealt heroin to their 6 year olds. (And planned to continue to deal. In fact he probably had to, since nobody would employ him or serve him since he is "excluded from society".) And yes, that is a problem to me. I bet both the lynch mob and the people supporting them (and the drug dealer) would rather have some organization, be it the state or someone else, lock the guy up and make him do forced labour. But that seems to not be an acceptable solution in ACland, mainly because it would cost money (you probably couldn't earn enough from his labour to offset the costs), while beating him to death with a baseball bat is free.

Of course, only a small number of donations to this organization who rounds up drug to children dealers would be needed for it to turn a profit. But if I got you right it's not an acceptable solution in ACland?

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
If we all decided we wanted to impose no penalty for murder, then sucks for us.

[/ QUOTE ] Also, this is a silly statement. All killing is not penalized, nor should it be. As an ACist I'm sure you love self defence, for example.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a lot of people would sympathize with the 5 fathers and mothers who got together and killed the drug dealer who had dealt heroin to their 6 year olds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where are the six-year-olds getting the money?

This is just like that guy I heard about who deals cigarettes and beer to the six-year-olds in my neighborhood! Oh, right, he doesn't exist because legitimate businesses outcompete him so much that he couldn't eat trying to sell beer and smokes door-to-door to kids. Whew, I was worried for a minute there.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a lot of people would sympathize with the 5 fathers and mothers who got together and killed the drug dealer who had dealt heroin to their 6 year olds. (And planned to continue to deal. In fact he probably had to, since nobody would employ him or serve him since he is "excluded from society".) And yes, that is a problem to me. I bet both the lynch mob and the people supporting them (and the drug dealer) would rather have some organization, be it the state or someone else, lock the guy up and make him do forced labour. But that seems to not be an acceptable solution in ACland, mainly because it would cost money (you probably couldn't earn enough from his labour to offset the costs), while beating him to death with a baseball bat is free.

Of course, only a small number of donations to this organization who rounds up drug to children dealers would be needed for it to turn a profit. But if I got you right it's not an acceptable solution in ACland?

[/ QUOTE ]

So your point is that most people like these lynch mob people, but you don't. I think this is a myopic view, because I don't think most people really DO like these lynch mob people, at least when they consider the implications of what their tolerance gets them. But hey, so what. They like it, you don't, and you know whats best, right? You know lynch mobs are wrong, even though most people like them. So, lets do what you say.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If we all decided we wanted to impose no penalty for murder, then sucks for us.

[/ QUOTE ] Also, this is a silly statement. All killing is not penalized, nor should it be. As an ACist I'm sure you love self defence, for example.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont get the point of your rebuttal. I didnt say killing, I said murder. My point was that we can consider murder wrong and still consider not punishing murderers to be acceptable without being inconsistent. It was sort of a throwaway point at the end of my post, and probably isnt worth the distraction.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
So your point is that most people like these lynch mob people, but you don't. I think this is a myopic view, because I don't think most people really DO like these lynch mob people, at least when they consider the implications of what their tolerance gets them. But hey, so what. They like it, you don't, and you know whats best, right? You know lynch mobs are wrong, even though most people like them. So, lets do what you say.

[/ QUOTE ] I don't know why you think I wouldn't be one of the people supporting the lynch mobs. If it was a binary choice between killing the guy and letting him keep dealing drugs to children, I think I'd go with kill the guy. At least I wouldn't want to punish the parents who took action to save their children, even if I weakly disagreed with what they did.

[ QUOTE ]
I dont get the point of your rebuttal. I didnt say killing, I said murder. My point was that we can consider murder wrong and still consider not punishing murderers to be acceptable without being inconsistent. It was sort of a throwaway point at the end of my post, and probably isnt worth the distraction.

[/ QUOTE ] My point was that the only reason killing in self defence is "just killing" while killing because someone is dealing drugs to your children is "murder", is that one is legal today and the other is illegal and not widely accepted. If that changed, you wouldn't be justified in saying "we don't impose any punishment for murder" more than a pacifist saying that about self defence today. Or a pro lifer saying it about abortion.

pvn: I agree that it won't be very common to see drug dealing to 6 year olds. Cocaine is not completely like cigarettes or alcohol, though. The instant gratification is much bigger, and 6 year olds don't like the bitter taste of alcohol or the pain in their lungs of smoking. In any case, a much more plausible scenario is someone dealing drugs to a bunch of 10-12 year olds (very cheap or free), getting them hooked - voila, they have made themselves a small army.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
pvn: I agree that it won't be very common to see drug dealing to 6 year olds. Cocaine is not completely like cigarettes or alcohol, though. The instant gratification is much bigger, and 6 year olds don't like the bitter taste of alcohol or the pain in their lungs of smoking. In any case, a much more plausible scenario is someone dealing drugs to a bunch of 10-12 year olds (very cheap or free), getting them hooked - voila, they have made themselves a small army.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) get a "small army" of 12-year-old drug zombies
2) ???
3) PROFIT!!!

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So your point is that most people like these lynch mob people, but you don't. I think this is a myopic view, because I don't think most people really DO like these lynch mob people, at least when they consider the implications of what their tolerance gets them. But hey, so what. They like it, you don't, and you know whats best, right? You know lynch mobs are wrong, even though most people like them. So, lets do what you say.

[/ QUOTE ] I don't know why you think I wouldn't be one of the people supporting the lynch mobs. If it was a binary choice between killing the guy and letting him keep dealing drugs to children, I think I'd go with kill the guy. At least I wouldn't want to punish the parents who took action to save their children, even if I weakly disagreed with what they did.

[ QUOTE ]
I dont get the point of your rebuttal. I didnt say killing, I said murder. My point was that we can consider murder wrong and still consider not punishing murderers to be acceptable without being inconsistent. It was sort of a throwaway point at the end of my post, and probably isnt worth the distraction.

[/ QUOTE ] My point was that the only reason killing in self defence is "just killing" while killing because someone is dealing drugs to your children is "murder", is that one is legal today and the other is illegal and not widely accepted. If that changed, you wouldn't be justified in saying "we don't impose any punishment for murder" more than a pacifist saying that about self defence today. Or a pro lifer saying it about abortion.

pvn: I agree that it won't be very common to see drug dealing to 6 year olds. Cocaine is not completely like cigarettes or alcohol, though. The instant gratification is much bigger, and 6 year olds don't like the bitter taste of alcohol or the pain in their lungs of smoking. In any case, a much more plausible scenario is someone dealing drugs to a bunch of 10-12 year olds (very cheap or free), getting them hooked - voila, they have made themselves a small army.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason I assumed you were against the lynch mobs is because I figured you would realize that these lynch mobs are only going to be lynching the right guy like 80% of the time. If they get it right every time, then fine, go to it. This is why thinking people do not support vigilantism...they know they might be wrongfully accused some day.

[wtfsvi]

Yes. That's mostly why I'm against the lynch mobs. But I'm also against just letting the guy go about his own business. I don't like the false dilemma I feel you give me.

edit: and pvn: yes