Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-02-2013, 10:07 AM
RE: Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
(27-02-2013 10:00 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  "There you go with your silly 'words on paper' argument."

There's nothing silly about shedding euphemisms.

"Of course the laws prevent further wrongdoing. The evidence is all around you."

I see the evidence around me. There is wrongdoing in the form of dangerous, unproven drugs gaining FDA approval, recalls on products that have caused harm, environmental damage caused by manufacturing plants, etc. When the state passes laws against the latter, manufacturers simply do an economic analysis and often come to the conclusion that dumping wasted is less expensive than proper disposal, because the fines can be included in the cost of doing business... if they are in fact caught. If they had something real to lose, such as insurance coverage, that economic analysis would always prove proper disposal to be the lesser cost.

"UL (or other) certification is not, in any real sense, voluntary. Try
getting insurance or an import/export license without safety
certification."


You're conflating free market, voluntary agreements with compulsory, government mandates. There is nothing involuntary about an insurer refusing to insure a client unless certain provisions are met. Regarding imports and exports, the state may require UL listing for export licensing but that doesn't stop domestic sale of a product that isn't UL listed. Moreover, there are a lot of instances wherein dangerous, unlisted products have passed customs and been sold.
And those are the exceptions. Just think of the cases that would have occurred without regulation.

And exactly how is coercion by the insurance companies substantively different than coercion by the 'state'?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 10:27 AM
RE: Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
"And those are the exceptions. Just think of the cases that would have occurred without regulation."

Who told you I was against all forms of regulation?


"And exactly how is coercion by the insurance companies substantively different than coercion by the 'state'?"

First you'll have to give me an example of insurance companies coercing someone. If I own a manufacturing plant and I want to buy insurance, I call insurance companies and request bids. They send inspectors to my facility, do a survey and return a quotation along with a proviso. It might say for instance, if we are to insure you, you must put hand rails on all stairs with more than four steps and you must provide us with a comprehensive waste disposal plan. The next quote may not require those things or, all of them may require those things for a certain rate but still offer to insure without them at a much higher rate.

The bottom line is that I can choose to comply with the proviso(s) or not. I can self insure if I like or I can just roll the dice. No coercion, no threats, no guns. I don't think I have to explain how the state attempts to get its requirements met.

And just a side bit of anecdotal evidence.... I've worked within the commercial electronics field and have met with many insurance inspectors and government inspectors. The insurance inspectors have a lot to lose if they miss something dangerous, where government inspectors don't. An insurance inspector who misses something can lose not only his job, but he can also be held personally liable for damages to life and property.. Government inspectors cannot be held liable for missing anything, it's near impossible to fire them and, it's even harder to sue the state for negligence.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 10:31 AM
RE: Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
(27-02-2013 10:27 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  "And those are the exceptions. Just think of the cases that would have occurred without regulation."

Who told you I was against all forms of regulation?


"And exactly how is coercion by the insurance companies substantively different than coercion by the 'state'?"

First you'll have to give me an example of insurance companies coercing someone. If I own a manufacturing plant and I want to buy insurance, I call insurance companies and request bids. They send inspectors to my facility, do a survey and return a quotation along with a proviso. It might say for instance, if we are to insure you, you must put hand rails on all stairs with more than four steps and you must provide us with a comprehensive waste disposal plan. The next quote may not require those things or, all of them may require those things for a certain rate but still offer to insure without them at a much higher rate.

The bottom line is that I can choose to comply with the proviso(s) or not. I can self insure if I like or I can just roll the dice. No coercion, no threats, no guns. I don't think I have to explain how the state attempts to get its requirements met.

And just a side bit of anecdotal evidence.... I've worked within the commercial electronics field and have met with many insurance inspectors and government inspectors. The insurance inspectors have a lot to lose if they miss something dangerous, where government inspectors don't. An insurance inspector who misses something can lose not only his job, but he can also be held personally liable for damages to life and property.. Government inspectors cannot be held liable for missing anything, it's near impossible to fire them and, it's even harder to sue the state for negligence.

Please reconcile for me how you can be anti-state but not anti-regulation. A regulation is meaningless without the means of enforcement.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 10:41 AM
RE: Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
(27-02-2013 10:31 AM)Chas Wrote:  Please reconcile for me how you can be anti-state but not anti-regulation. A regulation is meaningless without the means of enforcement.

To add, it would also be a good idea to reconcile being pro-capitalism and anti-state.

Right-wing libertarianism/anarchism is probably the most baffling, hypocritical, seemingly contradictory view, that I think people could hold.

I don't understand it, so it would be nice if some person could explain the logic behind the ideas.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 10:44 AM
RE: Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
"Please reconcile for me how you can be anti-state but not
anti-regulation. A regulation is meaningless without the means of
enforcement."


Consumer advocacy groups provide a form of regulation in that they test products and report their findings. A lot of them exist today and in the absence of the state a lot more of them would exist. Insurance companies provide a form of hard regulation, in the manner I spoke of above. Law courts can exist in the absence of the state and in fact, law courts worked very well in England, without the state, for about six hundred years after the Magna Carta was accepted by the monarchy.

So no, I'm not against regulation at all. I'm not against government either. What I'm against is the initiation of violence and coercion.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 10:46 AM (This post was last modified: 27-02-2013 10:50 AM by Chas.)
RE: Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
(27-02-2013 10:44 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  "Please reconcile for me how you can be anti-state but not
anti-regulation. A regulation is meaningless without the means of
enforcement."


Consumer advocacy groups provide a form of regulation in that they test products and report their findings. A lot of them exist today and in the absence of the state a lot more of them would exist. Insurance companies provide a form of hard regulation, in the manner I spoke of above. Law courts can exist in the absence of the state and in fact, law courts worked very well in England, without the state, for about six hundred years after the Magna Carta was accepted by the monarchy.

So no, I'm not against regulation at all. I'm not against government either. What I'm against is the initiation of violence and coercion.

Regulation is coercion.

What is violence? Is assessing a fine violence? Is putting someone in jail violence?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
27-02-2013, 01:27 PM
RE: Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
Perhaps we need to define prohibition? In a country like Portugal where drugs have been decriminalized there is still technically a prohibition. Does that make a difference? I expect organized criminals still supply drugs in Portugal.

Should arguments for/against prohibition be based on morality or pragmatism?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 02:40 PM
Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
(27-02-2013 07:54 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(27-02-2013 07:38 AM)I and I Wrote:  Porn industries have had representatives sent to lobby government.
Got any examples? Consider

The porn industry has penetrated many entities.... I will be here all night.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes I and I's post
27-02-2013, 02:49 PM
Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
(27-02-2013 09:46 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  "You wrongly assumed I was pro-capitalist state."

Fair enough. So you're an anarcho-syndicalist?

No. I am a communist. The bourgeois state is the tool that capitalists use to wield power so I am against both the bourgeois state and capitalism. The idea that they ever were separate is a historical myth. I am for the workers overthrowing the bourgeois state and capitalism. Many of the regulations that liberals and conservatives ask for do nothing but further restrict the working class.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 05:03 PM
RE: Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
(26-02-2013 09:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(26-02-2013 06:57 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  The problems are with that are "Who decides what is excess?", "How did those people get appointed to determine the what is excessive?", "How do you keep these appointed people honest?". Historically we haven't been so good at answering these questions to the peoples satisfaction.
What we have is better than no restraint. What we have has checks and balances.

If you are waiting for perfect, good luck with that.
I ain't looking for perfect, but I am looking for improvement. Can't fault me for that can you?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: