I remember when the drug legalization crowd hounded on pot full time, finally got what it wanted, and the problems with drugs didn't go away. At least South Park can admit pot makes you a dumb layabout.
Opioids were so legal you got a prescription for them and your doctor fell over himself to get you to take them. This has led into the fe…
I remember when the drug legalization crowd hounded on pot full time, finally got what it wanted, and the problems with drugs didn't go away. At least South Park can admit pot makes you a dumb layabout.
Opioids were so legal you got a prescription for them and your doctor fell over himself to get you to take them. This has led into the fentanyl problem.
And I don't know if you've noticed, but it's very easy to get drugs in this country. Even things that are illegal are cheap and available without much hassle. We have open air drug markets where people go unharassed by the law.
You know who doesn't have a problem with drugs, Singapore. Turns out the war on drugs can be a success.
But let's forget the law for a second. If all drugs were legal that wouldn't be enough. We also couldn't judge people for doing drugs either, that would be puritanical. And when their drug use predictably harmed themselves and their loved ones and society well that's just the price of freedom I guess.
"People are no less religious."
If we are going to define religion as "anyone who believes in anything" then this is an unfalsifiable claim.
People stopped going to church. They stopped believing in tradition church teachings. What happened. They got married less. Had fewer children. Used more drugs. Became less attached to work. Etc
It's almost like this religion that preached moderation, family, fecundity, industry, thrift, kindness, and self improvement had like a positive effect on those things versus "do whatever the fuck you want."
Pot makes you a dumb layabout. The War on Drugs makes you a felon with a record, who can't work even when you decide you want to - and makes you cost the rest of us a fortune in incarceration costs. And that's if you're not dead. Dumb layabout is a better result.
I'm deeply puzzled by the idea that executing people for possessing drugs is a better, more conservative idea than letting them experience the consequences of using the drugs. Many - most - people who experiment with drugs get over the thrill and go on to live productive lives; why not let them? And some people who experiment with drugs destroy their lives; that's why a kind conservative advises them not to do that. But a conservative does not impose a moral vision through violence.
What is the need to judge people? "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" and, of course, "Judge not, lest you be judged."
Yes, people get married less. Marriage imposes extraordinary financial penalties on anyone who marries someone who earns less than they do; in practice, the penalties are generally only imposed on men. Not surprisingly, it's harder than ever to find men who want to sign up for it; look at any dating website that tracks interest in marriage/kids and look at the male/female split. Marriage - like society - is no patriarchy and hasn't been for 60+ years. Modern marriage is a legal - not religious - institution that responds to the needs of an era long, long gone - if it ever existed. It needs to change or disappear. It will change, but it's a conservative institution so it will take time - and it will fade as it waits.
Yes, people have fewer children. Children used to benefit the family, but because we as a community care about children, we prohibit them from working and generating income. Heck, we won't even let their parents take their eyes off them until they're over 14 these days. We value children as a public benefit but impose the vast majority of the cost on their parents, to whom they increasingly look like incredibly expensive pets. Visit a vet's office and listen to all the single women there talk about the "fur babies" and understand: if we make child-raising really expensive, people will substitute human pets with (much cheaper) animal substitutes. If we, as a society, need more children, we need to pay for them; we can't rely on nature and lust to provide them anymore. That's a consequence of technology and economics, not loss of religious faith.
If the old religions are dying, whose fault is that? Like any other dying business, they have failed to keep up with the needs of their customers. New religions are emerging before our eyes. Old religions will claim the new religions aren't "real religions" - as they always have. New religions tend to be nutty at first, and wind up as old religions, because the only way a religion - or a country - can long prosper is if its members practice reasonable moderation, family, fecundity, industry, thrift, kindness and self improvement.
Finally, on "do whatever the fuck you want"... That's what people have ALWAYS done. What's changed is a willingness to let people discover better behaviors by accepting that some experiments will not be better and will have natural consequences, rather than simply condemning people with unusual lifestyles as heretics and witches. And if you don't understand the connection between that and the wonders that make life so much better, you haven't been paying attention.
"The War on Drugs makes you a felon with a record"
The concept of the "non violent drug offender felon" is basically propaganda. Nearly everyone in prison is a violent felon, even when in on a drug charge plea down (the statistics are clear on this and just go talk to a DA or sit on a jury in Baltimore). People who smoke pot (and only smoke pot, not violent criminals who also do drugs) very rarely get prosecuted and it counts as a misdemeanor. I've known people who smoke pot and none have ever had a problem with the law.
Libertarians embrace this myth because they don't really want to get tough on crime. If crime is because of the war on drugs rather then say low IQ black youths doing their natural thing in the absence of authority then the state of our inner cities isn't something they have to get down and dirty dealing with (and pissing off their liberal colleagues with such mean talk).
In general the pot contingent of the libertarian party is a huge liability. Back in 2016 there was big talk about it being the libertarian moment when they could break through vs Trump and Hillary, instead people at the convention spent their time talking about what kind of pot they smoked and acting like a bunch of pot heads.
"Many - most - people who experiment with drugs get over the thrill and go on to live productive lives; why not let them? "
It depends on the person and the drug. If you mean that someone smokes pot once at a party and moves on then yeah. If you mean meth then yeah it fucks up your live really fast. That's why different drugs get treated different ways. Even legal drugs can have contexts where they can cause problems and are thus regulated.
Marriage and children are a superior good necessary for civilization, this is an objective fact. I'm sorry that your butt hurt and choose to die off. I agree that we could reform family law and dramatically increase child subsidies to recognize the cost to the parent and value to society. These are technocratic changes that are possible once we recognize the superior good.
People often don't accept the consequences of their actions. They do what they can to get theirs at the expense of whoever they can. In the context of drug addicts they will do basically anything almost regardless of the consequences, hence why so much crime is driven by drug users. Only outside forces can prevent this.
And even if they did accept them they are often accepting them for other people (the husband who spends his paycheck on drugs and leaves his family out in the cold, etc).
It's time to accept that the welfare state is here to stay and crime is a persistent problem. That's the political equilibrium for reasons anyone could spell out, and I see no reason why it's going to change radically. Under such circumstances this "take responsibility for your own self destruction" stuff is just a fantasy, and it is about time to recognize it as such.
Thanks for the reply. So, you agree that drug legalization is largely harmless with regard to certain drugs and people who use them responsibly. You agree that we could reform family law and dramatically increase child subsidies once we recognize the superior good. And I think you believe that people can be - forcefully - held to account when their actions significantly injure innocent third parties.
You disagree, I think, with the idea that letting people experience the natural consequences of their own actions. I think this is not so much because you care about them as people - if that was the motivation then making the consequences even worse would be inconsistent - but rather because you believe that their rejection of certain codes of behavior makes them much more likely to injure others, so that holding them to account after they injure others will effectively be too late. In other words, that the likelihood that they will injure others is so high, that significant loss of liberty to engage in behavior that does not - in itself - harm others, is justified.
More or less. I don't know if a "minority report" level of pre-cog punishment is possible or desirable, but certain contexts are inevitably sub optimal and don't pass a cost/benefit analysis.
Do I care about people as people? I think that is tough. I think we should extend Christian charity in varying degrees to the widest degree of individuals possible, but I'm unconvinced that true universalism and managerial solutions to Christian charity are net good in many contexts.
And I must confess a genuine revultion to the underclass. I think in the pre-modern world 90% of the population was underclass and as such there were many diamonds in the rough. In the modern context I think they are a bottomless pit where love and resources go to die.
I remember when the drug legalization crowd hounded on pot full time, finally got what it wanted, and the problems with drugs didn't go away. At least South Park can admit pot makes you a dumb layabout.
Opioids were so legal you got a prescription for them and your doctor fell over himself to get you to take them. This has led into the fentanyl problem.
And I don't know if you've noticed, but it's very easy to get drugs in this country. Even things that are illegal are cheap and available without much hassle. We have open air drug markets where people go unharassed by the law.
You know who doesn't have a problem with drugs, Singapore. Turns out the war on drugs can be a success.
But let's forget the law for a second. If all drugs were legal that wouldn't be enough. We also couldn't judge people for doing drugs either, that would be puritanical. And when their drug use predictably harmed themselves and their loved ones and society well that's just the price of freedom I guess.
"People are no less religious."
If we are going to define religion as "anyone who believes in anything" then this is an unfalsifiable claim.
People stopped going to church. They stopped believing in tradition church teachings. What happened. They got married less. Had fewer children. Used more drugs. Became less attached to work. Etc
It's almost like this religion that preached moderation, family, fecundity, industry, thrift, kindness, and self improvement had like a positive effect on those things versus "do whatever the fuck you want."
Pot makes you a dumb layabout. The War on Drugs makes you a felon with a record, who can't work even when you decide you want to - and makes you cost the rest of us a fortune in incarceration costs. And that's if you're not dead. Dumb layabout is a better result.
I'm deeply puzzled by the idea that executing people for possessing drugs is a better, more conservative idea than letting them experience the consequences of using the drugs. Many - most - people who experiment with drugs get over the thrill and go on to live productive lives; why not let them? And some people who experiment with drugs destroy their lives; that's why a kind conservative advises them not to do that. But a conservative does not impose a moral vision through violence.
What is the need to judge people? "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" and, of course, "Judge not, lest you be judged."
Yes, people get married less. Marriage imposes extraordinary financial penalties on anyone who marries someone who earns less than they do; in practice, the penalties are generally only imposed on men. Not surprisingly, it's harder than ever to find men who want to sign up for it; look at any dating website that tracks interest in marriage/kids and look at the male/female split. Marriage - like society - is no patriarchy and hasn't been for 60+ years. Modern marriage is a legal - not religious - institution that responds to the needs of an era long, long gone - if it ever existed. It needs to change or disappear. It will change, but it's a conservative institution so it will take time - and it will fade as it waits.
Yes, people have fewer children. Children used to benefit the family, but because we as a community care about children, we prohibit them from working and generating income. Heck, we won't even let their parents take their eyes off them until they're over 14 these days. We value children as a public benefit but impose the vast majority of the cost on their parents, to whom they increasingly look like incredibly expensive pets. Visit a vet's office and listen to all the single women there talk about the "fur babies" and understand: if we make child-raising really expensive, people will substitute human pets with (much cheaper) animal substitutes. If we, as a society, need more children, we need to pay for them; we can't rely on nature and lust to provide them anymore. That's a consequence of technology and economics, not loss of religious faith.
If the old religions are dying, whose fault is that? Like any other dying business, they have failed to keep up with the needs of their customers. New religions are emerging before our eyes. Old religions will claim the new religions aren't "real religions" - as they always have. New religions tend to be nutty at first, and wind up as old religions, because the only way a religion - or a country - can long prosper is if its members practice reasonable moderation, family, fecundity, industry, thrift, kindness and self improvement.
Finally, on "do whatever the fuck you want"... That's what people have ALWAYS done. What's changed is a willingness to let people discover better behaviors by accepting that some experiments will not be better and will have natural consequences, rather than simply condemning people with unusual lifestyles as heretics and witches. And if you don't understand the connection between that and the wonders that make life so much better, you haven't been paying attention.
"The War on Drugs makes you a felon with a record"
The concept of the "non violent drug offender felon" is basically propaganda. Nearly everyone in prison is a violent felon, even when in on a drug charge plea down (the statistics are clear on this and just go talk to a DA or sit on a jury in Baltimore). People who smoke pot (and only smoke pot, not violent criminals who also do drugs) very rarely get prosecuted and it counts as a misdemeanor. I've known people who smoke pot and none have ever had a problem with the law.
Libertarians embrace this myth because they don't really want to get tough on crime. If crime is because of the war on drugs rather then say low IQ black youths doing their natural thing in the absence of authority then the state of our inner cities isn't something they have to get down and dirty dealing with (and pissing off their liberal colleagues with such mean talk).
In general the pot contingent of the libertarian party is a huge liability. Back in 2016 there was big talk about it being the libertarian moment when they could break through vs Trump and Hillary, instead people at the convention spent their time talking about what kind of pot they smoked and acting like a bunch of pot heads.
"Many - most - people who experiment with drugs get over the thrill and go on to live productive lives; why not let them? "
It depends on the person and the drug. If you mean that someone smokes pot once at a party and moves on then yeah. If you mean meth then yeah it fucks up your live really fast. That's why different drugs get treated different ways. Even legal drugs can have contexts where they can cause problems and are thus regulated.
Marriage and children are a superior good necessary for civilization, this is an objective fact. I'm sorry that your butt hurt and choose to die off. I agree that we could reform family law and dramatically increase child subsidies to recognize the cost to the parent and value to society. These are technocratic changes that are possible once we recognize the superior good.
People often don't accept the consequences of their actions. They do what they can to get theirs at the expense of whoever they can. In the context of drug addicts they will do basically anything almost regardless of the consequences, hence why so much crime is driven by drug users. Only outside forces can prevent this.
And even if they did accept them they are often accepting them for other people (the husband who spends his paycheck on drugs and leaves his family out in the cold, etc).
It's time to accept that the welfare state is here to stay and crime is a persistent problem. That's the political equilibrium for reasons anyone could spell out, and I see no reason why it's going to change radically. Under such circumstances this "take responsibility for your own self destruction" stuff is just a fantasy, and it is about time to recognize it as such.
Thanks for the reply. So, you agree that drug legalization is largely harmless with regard to certain drugs and people who use them responsibly. You agree that we could reform family law and dramatically increase child subsidies once we recognize the superior good. And I think you believe that people can be - forcefully - held to account when their actions significantly injure innocent third parties.
You disagree, I think, with the idea that letting people experience the natural consequences of their own actions. I think this is not so much because you care about them as people - if that was the motivation then making the consequences even worse would be inconsistent - but rather because you believe that their rejection of certain codes of behavior makes them much more likely to injure others, so that holding them to account after they injure others will effectively be too late. In other words, that the likelihood that they will injure others is so high, that significant loss of liberty to engage in behavior that does not - in itself - harm others, is justified.
Is that a fair playback?
More or less. I don't know if a "minority report" level of pre-cog punishment is possible or desirable, but certain contexts are inevitably sub optimal and don't pass a cost/benefit analysis.
Do I care about people as people? I think that is tough. I think we should extend Christian charity in varying degrees to the widest degree of individuals possible, but I'm unconvinced that true universalism and managerial solutions to Christian charity are net good in many contexts.
And I must confess a genuine revultion to the underclass. I think in the pre-modern world 90% of the population was underclass and as such there were many diamonds in the rough. In the modern context I think they are a bottomless pit where love and resources go to die.