Reclaiming Liberalism

[Truronian]

Four, if you don't have to grow the crops overseas anymore, those innocent bystanders can be employed by Nike et al, instead.

Or alternatively, fair trade marijuana...

 

[IglooDame]

Or alternatively, fair trade marijuana...

If marijuana is half as easy to grow as tomatoes, I suspect that there'll be enough in neighborhood gardens to make importing marijuana like... importing tomatoes.

 

[Samson]

One, drug use impairs your judgement far more than even alcohol. Try driving, or perhaps just getting into an argument, when you are drunk, then multiply by 10

I have to wonder how much experience you have of this. I suspect none.
Halucanagens make driving very hard. Other drugs (marijuana, cocaine and herion for example) I belive are much less of an issue. Driving on these drugs would of course have to be legislated against in the same way as drink driving is.

Two, I am sure I can find statistics showing how many drug users turn to crime to support their habits, and how large a portion of all robbery is drug-related. I suspect that statistics will not be good.

The thing is that the prohibition makes them very expensive, so the means to maintain even a moderate habit are far beyond what can be gained from most jobs. If Heroin was available to registered addicts at close to cost price it would be next to nothing.

Three, as I already said, US-backed counter-drug operations, since they are in reality carried out by other countries, tend to be very bloody. As an alternative I proposed trying to attack the problem from the supply end.

Legalisation of drugs would have to involve legalisation of supply, so this would not be an issue.

Four, those innocent bystanders conscripted by a drug cartel and then killed in a raid? They were basically enslaved for the 10 years prior to that because their coca farms can't refine the drug, and they sell it for next to nothing to the cartels, who refine it and make millions.

Legalisation of supply would solve this problem.

Five, they cause massive amounts of money and police attention to be wasted trying to uproot the problem. The police are thus unavailable to deal with other threats to civilians.

At the moment, yes. Legalisation would solve this problem.

Only two of these (3 and 5) could be stopped, or slowed, by legalizing drug use. The others will get worse, more than make up the difference. The third one will probably continue as 3rd world countries try to wrest control back from the cartels. More people will die.

There would need to be some help for producer countries to convert there production into a legal industry, or we could just do the production ourselves. I belive far fewer people would die.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

As pointed out, if drugs are legalized, they will be manufactured by pharmaceutical companies or other corporations. You may think these are bad, but they beat drug cartels.

 

[Richard Cribb]

I have about 367 things that is more important and useful to do today, so I am not going to waste any more time on this except for the following few remarks.

Come down, of course I know it's a quote, but still you're using it as your signature.

And so what? I just explained the difference, it is really not difficult to understand.

You should, considering historians and politicians are on the same stance in front of *biasing* is problematic.

No I shouldn't.
Politics is about conflicts of interest, "the struggle for scarce commodities" is one good definition.
What is really worrying, are people who are representing the interests of a certain group/ class/segment while pretending to be "objective".
And those who sheepishly believe this.

Mega corporations, hostile takeovers, speculation ...
Let's -both- come down off our high horses. Advocating free market in today's world is not preaching for these.
In my country, there are 2.000.000 small businesses, they represent the essence of our economy and employment, freemarket is the right to start a business without beeing over-charged (check the percentage of small business that fail after 2 years of existence), the right to buy the beer you like at your perfered bar, I think you can agree with any evil free market fetishist like me one that without reclimbing on your high horse "vendeting" against mega corporations.

I never called anybody who advocated another political ideology than my own evil, and I am not on any "vendetta", my problem is that while I am not particulary fond of the state, I see said corporations as the biggest threat to freedom in our societies. Unfortunately few of the free market protagonists seems to worry too much about that, being typically ABC-thinkers, they seem to devote most of their energy to attack the evil government.
Furthermore, I think I don't even have a horse in the metaphorical sense. My political activities are located far away from any sort of elite or loftiness, it is more about making people joining the struggle for their right themselves.
Finally, about the free market and its implementation. I can hardly see how such a thing would work given the existing property structure, and to my knowledge nobody has ever proposed a serious redistribution of wealth before letting the floodgates open. Furthermore, I fail to see the benefits of this for the property-less, those who through their labour are the real creators of wealth. I am more concerned about free people than free markets, and so far I am not convinced that those two are compatible, to put it mildly.

 

[MamboJoel]

I have about 367 things that is more important and useful to do today [...].

Idem. Didn't bother reading the rest.

 

[JerichoHill]

I would like to say that freedom cannot be constrained to one type of freedom. Free trade=free labor=free speech=freedom. The problem today is that we do not have a free market (we never have). Where we have the closest thing to a free market, the people thrive. (new development zones in india/china, for example, of the millenium villages in Africa)
I would also like to say thanks to everyone for the great disscussion that ws had here.

 

[Che Guava]

I just gave a big presentation on my thesis, so I thought i would reward mself with a post

Sure, both Canada (where I live) and the US have a "Libertarian Party," but nobody hears from them. But the reason is obvious: such a party cannot survive even within the next 20 years.

Here is the reason:

The richest people in the world (who support economic liberalism) tend also to be very socially closed minded to new schools of thought (acceptance of homosexuality, etc).

Whereas, the only individuals who will accept these sorts of social liberalist thought tend to be rather poor, thus support government economic intervention..

I'm going to have to disagree with your analysis here: the modern conservative movement, in the US and Canada, was built on support from the mid- to lower class. Take a look at somehwere like Nova Scotia (which has a little less 'region' bias to it, unlike the west or ontario/quebec), where the Conservatives rule the (generally poorer) countryside, while the NDP, the major left-party in Canada (sad but true...). Rural rural NS'ers are generally more socially conservative, and ambiguous when it comes to economics. Urban NS'ers, generally more wealthy, will vote more to the left to support progressive social atitudes, and support the welfare state. I think that you'll find that this trend is found across Canada and the US as well.

The problem is, liberals and lefties used to have the monopoly on 'people power': US democrats and Can. liberals, for eg, were big on investing in society back in the 60s and 70s, which pleased rural and lower-class people, and were generally progressive on social issues, which pleased urbanites and upper-class folk who think of themselves as intellectuals.

Now the phenomenon seems to have flip-flopped: conservatives are the heroes of the people because they are battling 'big government' and lowering taxes for common folk (at least they say that they do), coupled with the fact that they stand for conservative social values, which also strikes a chord with rural and lower-class folk. Democrat/liberals are left with die-hard supporters and the socially-progressive upper-class, giving rise to the image of the wealthy liberal, tampering with society by supporting causes like gay marriage, afirmative action, and pro-choice groups. Liberals have effectively cut out half of thier former demographic by fighting thier battles over social values, instead of economic ones.

It is going to be another 20 or 30 years at least (if we're lucky), when open-minded people are the richest in the world, and true liberalism can dominate. Republicans and Conservatives all shout Freedom! Freedom! but they aren't the real freedom. The freedom exists in controlled libertarianism - the future of society.

I sitll maintain that the most open-minded people do find themselves in the mid-to-upper class, and that all we're missing to start a new liberal revival is the right combination of social and economic values to capture broader support (Hillary Clinton may have stumbled on to something like this, but I think her name is going to hurt her too much to get the presidency). I think that if the stigma of the word 'liberal' were removed, most north americans would consider themselves liberals, they just don't like what our 'liberal' parties have to say...

 

[ComradeDavo]

I would like to say that freedom cannot be constrained to one type of freedom. Free trade=free labor=free speech=freedom. The problem today is that we do not have a free market (we never have). Where we have the closest thing to a free market, the people thrive. (new development zones in india/china, for example, of the millenium villages in Africa)
I would also like to say thanks to everyone for the great disscussion that ws had here.

Whilst I agree in principle that freedom should not be restricted, I believe in tax and spend wealfare states because money people make from one another and so forth, and it is often based on luck or oppurtunity ratehr than people's own ability and skill, so thats why I economically am left whilst on issues such as drugs and sex am very pro-freedom.

 

[Mastreditr111]

nah... everyone now earns money based on the amount of work they have put into their lives, through education and careers. Even those whose jobs rely somewhat on luck (stock brokers and the like) fulfill important roles in managing our economy. Frankly, I have no desire to share my money with someone who was too lazy to go get an education themselves and get a good job... it is their fault, and their responsibility, not mine.

 

[tomsnowman123]

nah... everyone now earns money based on the amount of work they have put into their lives, through education and careers. Even those whose jobs rely somewhat on luck (stock brokers and the like) fulfill important roles in managing our economy. Frankly, I have no desire to share my money with someone who was too lazy to go get an education themselves and get a good job... it is their fault, and their responsibility, not mine.

Except for kids born extremely poor into innercities, maybe with only one parent, who have to do everything they can to make money right away, or get into trouble with the law right away. These kids don't have much opportunity.

 

[ComradeDavo]

nah... everyone now earns money based on the amount of work they have put into their lives, through education and careers. Even those whose jobs rely somewhat on luck (stock brokers and the like) fulfill important roles in managing our economy. Frankly, I have no desire to share my money with someone who was too lazy to go get an education themselves and get a good job... it is their fault, and their responsibility, not mine.

So, your telling me that someone born in a poor suburb of Manchester in the UK to a single mother has as much chance at suceeding and becoming wealthy has someone born to a highly succesful stockbroker in an wealthy area of New York?

Sorry...don't really buy that.

 

[Mastreditr111]

I have to wonder how much experience you have of this. I suspect none.
Halucanagens make driving very hard. Other drugs (marijuana, cocaine and herion for example) I belive are much less of an issue. Driving on these drugs would of course have to be legislated against in the same way as drink driving is.

The thing is that the prohibition makes them very expensive, so the means to maintain even a moderate habit are far beyond what can be gained from most jobs. If Heroin was available to registered addicts at close to cost price it would be next to nothing.

Legalisation of drugs would have to involve legalisation of supply, so this would not be an issue.

Legalisation of supply would solve this problem.

At the moment, yes. Legalisation would solve this problem.

There would need to be some help for producer countries to convert there production into a legal industry, or we could just do the production ourselves. I belive far fewer people would die.

I doubt that it would work in practice, and there is no way in h**l that I will want my children thinking that drug use is OK, in the event that I have any. Drugs cause far more problems (more people on welfare, wohoo! & many others) than their legalization would solve. Also, you claim that these drugs would be sold at "cost price," but who in God's name will do that? Merck, perhaps, or maybe GlaxoSmithKline? HA!

 

[Mastreditr111]

also, legislation of supply will solve nothing... the drug cartels will merely have to compete with legal suppliers in the US... we will be fighting the same wars against them in the same places, because they will never sacrifice the money and influence the drug trade gives. These wars will have the same results. (innocent villiagers in S America killed, just as much smuggling)

 

[IglooDame]

I doubt that it would work in practice, and there is no way in h**l that I will want my children thinking that drug use is OK, in the event that I have any. Drugs cause far more problems (more people on welfare, wohoo! & many others) than their legalization would solve. Also, you claim that these drugs would be sold at "cost price," but who in God's name will do that? Merck, perhaps, or maybe GlaxoSmithKline? HA!

Your children have trouble distinguishing between "legal" and "moral"?

Check out the prices for drugs once their patents have expired, called 'generics'. No patent on cocaine/crack/whatever, thus everything gets sold at the generic price levels. Definitely not "at-cost" but also not at the prices you see on patented name-brand pharmaceuticals.

 

[JerichoHill]

also, legislation of supply will solve nothing... the drug cartels will merely have to compete with legal suppliers in the US... we will be fighting the same wars against them in the same places, because they will never sacrifice the money and influence the drug trade gives. These wars will have the same results. (innocent villiagers in S America killed, just as much smuggling)

Let's discuss drugs in the RL: Drug Thread.

 

[Mastreditr111]

Well the drug thread has officially killed this one... noone wants to talk about anything else.

 

[shortguy]

Proceeding from this base, one must recognize that, Freedom to perform acts that harm other individuals necessarily is harmful to society as a whole. The base must be revised.

"Man should be free to act as he pleases, so long that his actions do not cause harm to others (and others abide by the same rule).

This is Pragmatic Freedom. This concept will get you to an interesting place, politically.

I think this concept is fuzzy. What does it mean to hurt someone else? Is some sort of tangible damage necessary? What about emotional damage? What if emotional damage you cause manifests itself in a tangible way (e.g.., you cheat on your wife, and she's driven to hurt herself)?

 

[JerichoHill]

I already stated this. It is fairly easy nowadays to assess the impact of others actions by assigning monetary values and using economic analysis.

And generally speaking, it works very well.

If I were to conceptualize this, I would say that this involves analyzation of externalities. I would rather not go into a speech on them, but they're easily readable on wiki or other places.