Athens burns - is this a citizens' revolt against the corporatist EU elite?

[purpleoscar]

Because I, unlike you, believe that I should have control over my own body; hypothetically, if I was to take drugs, I wouldn't be hurting anybody or causing harm; it can be a victimless crime committed by a private criminal.

I would agree with you accept that when addicts run out of money and can't hold a job they resort to theft. Also many families rely for their livelihood on those people who are starting to take drugs so I don't think it's possible to look at it as a victimless crime. Also those who are addicted to drugs demand money from taxpayers for treatment since they can't pay anything for themselves when they are far gone. Individuals have responsibilities.

Even if you think that all drugs must be eradicated, surely the "war on drugs" is the wrong way to go about it, it consolidates power with the worst elements of the drug trade, gives the government carte blanche to abuse citizens rights (no-knock warrants that end up killing old ladies because they have the wrong address), and harming users (no safe-injecting rooms etc).

Errors in policing is not a good enough excuse for me to stop the war on drugs anymore than arresting the wrong person should be a reason to eliminate the justice system. Errors on policing is a matter for lawyers and lawsuits.

Unless your goal is to militarise the police, declare war on the public and hurt a lot of people you shouldn't be supporting the war on drugs. If you want minimal statism then supply your junkies with clean drugs, hand them $20,000 a year in welfare, and leave them to either kill themselves or get functional; it would be a lesser evil and it would reduce some of the horrible consequences of the black market.

You may have some points on the cost but I have to look at the pros and cons to drug legalization in the Netherlands before I make up my mind. Many libertarians argue what you do. My current opinion is that legalizing drugs will make them cheaper and more people will start. If the government costs are overall less by cancelling the war on drugs and less people start taking in the first place then I would agree. I haven't come upon evidence that convincing yet.

Its the very idea that gay rights, or cognitive liberty, are things which you get to veto that I find repellent. I have no right to use state force to stop people believing in God, nor would I want to; you, however, advocate the same type of violent action, only against people who use drugs which aren't alcohol, nicotine, caffeine and painkillers.

I would like to ban the shit out of nicotine, but alcohol and caffeine can be injested safely and some studies say moderate red wine drinking is healthy. Painkillers are prevented from being used unless prescribed by a doctor. If Pot is prescribed from a doctor then so be it. Though I think smoking pot is bad for your lungs so they should find a way to make it into a pill format.

When it comes to abortion I have problems with the fact that abortion methods can lead to lots of pain for fetuses that haved more developed nerve cells. I also don't like post-birth abortions. That's like aborting a life after it's developed into a baby. I think that life is precious and abortions should be done in extreme situations like the mother will die from giving birth or there is incest or rape. Outside of that adoption is certainly better than death. Also men and women could practice more safe sex to reduce the number of abortions. When women abort multiple times I find it hard to believe that serial pregnancy is an accident or under rape situations. Certainly an all out ban on all abortions or no restrictions on abortions are too extreme for me.

 

[purpleoscar]

Evidence based policy is a good thing, but your claim of laissez-faire economics being "scientific" is fallacious.

It would be fallacious if I said I believe in laissez-faire economics. My argument is not to get rid of all government. My argument is against those who think we should have 60% or more of the GDP in the hands of the government. I think 40% could be trimmed a bit without removing basic health, education, military services etc. I certainly don't want what John Locke wanted in terms of private paving of streets with tolls everywhere.

The use of the word "scientific" to describe political theories is a pseudoscientific badge of honour with a long history (scientific socialism for instance); there may well be a point where we can say that certain social conditions make people unhappy, or are not conducive to flourishing, but we should never make the mistake of claiming a scientific justification of these types of political theories.

I think we agree that evidence based policy is a good thing. Evidence based policy to me is following a scientific method. If you compare Marxist theory with reality you would have to conclude as a theory it would have to be replaced. Those who don't are ignoring the results. The big debate right now is between social liberal vs. social conservative and democratic socialism vs neo-conservative economics. Those are two clear options. I'm more neo-conservative on average though I have a social liberal opinion on gay marriage now that I got some better studies to peruse.

 

[purpleoscar]

expropriation doesn't require a state apparatus.

Taxation doesn't require a state apparatus? Please explain.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I would agree with you accept that when addicts run out of money and can't hold a job they resort to theft. Also many families rely for their livelihood on those people who are starting to take drugs so I don't think it's possible to look at it as a victimless crime. Also those who are addicted to drugs demand money from taxpayers for treatment since they can't pay anything for themselves when they are far gone. Individuals have responsibilities.

And that was the point of my post, it is better to give them a clean supply of drugs (robbing dealers of income) and welfare than carting them off to prison when they harm other people to feed their addictions.

Errors in policing is not a good enough excuse for me to stop the war on drugs anymore than arresting the wrong person should be a reason to eliminate the justice system. Errors on policing is a matter for lawyers and lawsuits.

The war on drugs turns kids into criminals, it isn't a question of not locking up enough people; it is that too many are locked up, creating more violent individuals. The collateral damage may be acceptable to you, but I think it is another negative consequence of the policy.

The black market functions because of the war on drugs, it makes it very profitable to traffic drugs and ensures that the most ruthless elements dominate the trade.

Just look at how the puritanical attitudes to drugs have stifled research into hallucinogens, drugs which are finally being studied with proper oversight for the treatment of anxiety disorders and understandings of consciousness.

You may have some points on the cost but I have to look at the pros and cons to drug legalization in the Netherlands before I make up my mind. Many libertarians argue what you do. My current opinion is that legalizing drugs will make them cheaper and more people will start. If the government costs are overall less by cancelling the war on drugs and less people start taking in the first place then I would agree. I haven't come upon evidence that convincing yet.

You should read more Reason magazine.

I would like to ban the shit out of nicotine, but alcohol and caffeine can be injested safely and some studies say moderate red wine drinking is healthy. Painkillers are prevented from being used unless prescribed by a doctor. If Pot is prescribed from a doctor then so be it. Though I think smoking pot is bad for your lungs so they should find a way to make it into a pill format.

I take caffeine and nicotine pills when I study, I would have no problem taking ritalin or other nootropics

When it comes to abortion I have problems with the fact that abortion methods can lead to lots of pain for fetuses that haved more developed nerve cells. I also don't like post-birth abortions. That's like aborting a life after it's developed into a baby. I think that life is precious and abortions should be done in extreme situations like the mother will die from giving birth or there is incest or rape. Outside of that adoption is certainly better than death. Also men and women could practice more safe sex to reduce the number of abortions. When women abort multiple times I find it hard to believe that serial pregnancy is an accident or under rape situations. Certainly an all out ban on all abortions or no restrictions on abortions are too extreme for me.

Everybody wants to reduce abortion, apparently. But as long as people are stupid when it comes to sex there will always be a demand. This issue is not related to cognitive liberty.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I think we agree that evidence based policy is a good thing. Evidence based policy to me is following a scientific method. If you compare Marxist theory with reality you would have to conclude as a theory it would have to be replaced. Those who don't are ignoring the results. The big debate right now is between social liberal vs. social conservative and democratic socialism vs neo-conservative economics. Those are two clear options. I'm more neo-conservative on average though I have a social liberal opinion on gay marriage now that I got some better studies to peruse.

It is social policy and politics, not science.

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't agree with Stephen Jay Gould and the entire NoMa argument, there is a role for science in informing debates in the humanities but you can't just say I observe this tax cut caused this boom ergo tax cuts are scientifically justified.

There is a divorce between my positions on social issues and my understanding of science, I think it falls back to the is-ought dilemma.

 

[purpleoscar]

you can't just say I observe this tax cut caused this boom ergo tax cuts are scientifically justified.

I agree but where measurements and tests can be made you could at least inform people so they can decide on their own values. Social issues will be harder to find scientific grounding on but I think economics is easier to gather data and report. Science is constantly moving forward and many theories are challenged all the time so I don't think we will get to point where debate based on some form of evidence or another will stop. If anything it will probably get more complicated and detailed.

Yeah I'll take a look at reason magazine and see what they offer on the subject of drugs.