Saturday, February 19, 2005
drugs and prohibition - how should a libertarian think about it
hmmm
I think we are in a cleft stick here. Libertarians should believe that people can poison themselves in peace as long as it doesnt harm others - fine by me.
but what where there are externalities - ie., societal costs not bourne by the user - well this is where I for one feel that some form of societal sanction is justified.
BUT. These sanctions don't really work, they create monsters (cf prohibition) and can severely harm the less dangerous idiot (code for drug user incidentally).
Tricky. I am with the anarchist friend noted in Gordon's comments. To live in a true anarchist, or libertarian world requires considerable maturity and a real sense of self responsibility. If you don't have these things then the anarchist commune, libertarian state - or for that matter your socialist welfare state, is going to be open to exploitation by your standard social psychopath. I recall the author of Citizen Shweyk (sp?) who was expelled from his anarchist commune for stealing their bicycle and selling it to buy beer.
What i think is the solution is a sliding scale - one that reinforces personal responsibility. Yes liberalise dope - but use it on the job, accept you get sent home and your pay docked. Yes Meth is seriously bad news and perhaps education is the key here- as with crystal in the 80s the epidemic in the States died off because the kids could see what it did to the shrivelled 25yr olds ahead of them. Maybe if you use meth, compulsory education and drying out centres are needed. If you sell meth or P or whatever, then I think you need to be hunted down and dealt to, and for this i think hard labour not sitting around in a cell watching DVDs and planning your next business venture.
But i do think we are in a conundrum here.
Personally I agree with banning meth, and with educating people about it. I know this causes me dissonance with my beliefs, the above is an attempt to reason it through. I guess if you have to have a state - and clearly you do, you might as well put it to some good use. I'd rather it was educating people to be responsible about drugs than hassling me about obesity or smoking, or driving too fast, or not being nice enough to the tangata whenua...some of whom seem to fit well into the social psychopath category themselves. Step forward Messrs Iti, Tamaki, Wetere et al. (To be honest Mr Tamaki doesnt fit here, he is an entrepeneur not leaching off the state's tit and good luck to him- except for the creepy blackshirt bit).
I think we are in a cleft stick here. Libertarians should believe that people can poison themselves in peace as long as it doesnt harm others - fine by me.
but what where there are externalities - ie., societal costs not bourne by the user - well this is where I for one feel that some form of societal sanction is justified.
BUT. These sanctions don't really work, they create monsters (cf prohibition) and can severely harm the less dangerous idiot (code for drug user incidentally).
Tricky. I am with the anarchist friend noted in Gordon's comments. To live in a true anarchist, or libertarian world requires considerable maturity and a real sense of self responsibility. If you don't have these things then the anarchist commune, libertarian state - or for that matter your socialist welfare state, is going to be open to exploitation by your standard social psychopath. I recall the author of Citizen Shweyk (sp?) who was expelled from his anarchist commune for stealing their bicycle and selling it to buy beer.
What i think is the solution is a sliding scale - one that reinforces personal responsibility. Yes liberalise dope - but use it on the job, accept you get sent home and your pay docked. Yes Meth is seriously bad news and perhaps education is the key here- as with crystal in the 80s the epidemic in the States died off because the kids could see what it did to the shrivelled 25yr olds ahead of them. Maybe if you use meth, compulsory education and drying out centres are needed. If you sell meth or P or whatever, then I think you need to be hunted down and dealt to, and for this i think hard labour not sitting around in a cell watching DVDs and planning your next business venture.
But i do think we are in a conundrum here.
Personally I agree with banning meth, and with educating people about it. I know this causes me dissonance with my beliefs, the above is an attempt to reason it through. I guess if you have to have a state - and clearly you do, you might as well put it to some good use. I'd rather it was educating people to be responsible about drugs than hassling me about obesity or smoking, or driving too fast, or not being nice enough to the tangata whenua...some of whom seem to fit well into the social psychopath category themselves. Step forward Messrs Iti, Tamaki, Wetere et al. (To be honest Mr Tamaki doesnt fit here, he is an entrepeneur not leaching off the state's tit and good luck to him- except for the creepy blackshirt bit).
Friday, February 18, 2005
swedish rounding?
and in hindsight so might I, one or two not usually equalling three!
oops
oops
made an impression already
looks like http://norightturn.blogspot.com/ deletes comments from people who don't slavishly agree - either that or this interwebtechnology thingy is beyond my limited skills to comprehend!
all i did was suggest that Sweden had one or two natural advantages not shared by NZ, namely
1. its located in Europe very close to major markets
2. it had reasonable resources of oil and gas to fund its welfare state; and
3. it was probably the only major european industrial economy not devastated by WW2 and thus had a real advantage in terms of selling things into Europe after the war.
i then went on to comment that as our shared traditions, culture, laws and economic systems had more in common with Australia and the US than Northern Europe, perhaps the idea of emulating Sweden wasnt really so smart afterall.
But anyway, lets deny history and geography - not to mention logic and commonsense (the rest of the screed was moonbattery of the highest order) and become sweden. but more swedish and with less of that messy private sector getting in the way of the income redistribution.
excellent clear thinking.
my guess is that Idiot must have all the benefits of a liberal arts education.
all i did was suggest that Sweden had one or two natural advantages not shared by NZ, namely
1. its located in Europe very close to major markets
2. it had reasonable resources of oil and gas to fund its welfare state; and
3. it was probably the only major european industrial economy not devastated by WW2 and thus had a real advantage in terms of selling things into Europe after the war.
i then went on to comment that as our shared traditions, culture, laws and economic systems had more in common with Australia and the US than Northern Europe, perhaps the idea of emulating Sweden wasnt really so smart afterall.
But anyway, lets deny history and geography - not to mention logic and commonsense (the rest of the screed was moonbattery of the highest order) and become sweden. but more swedish and with less of that messy private sector getting in the way of the income redistribution.
excellent clear thinking.
my guess is that Idiot must have all the benefits of a liberal arts education.
On being the Swedes of the South Pacific
this will be a relatively infrequent exercise I expect. Still its good to be here. This blog will from time to time allow me to vent various bits of spleen about life and politics in unzud, land of the wrong white male, and home to those well known "swedes" of the southern hemisphere the New Zealand Labour Party and its humourless minions.
Considering NZ as the Swedes of the South Pacific is really quite laughable, not least because NZ already has a series of cultural traditions surrounding the mighty swede, best prepared in a mutton pie, but also eaten raw as a sign of manhood at various Southern university parties. That is when its not being used as cheap stockfood.
So, New Zealand the flavourless stockfood vegetable, i guess its better than a rather stringy flightless bird that has to be casseroled for hours to get any decent flavour out of it?
Considering NZ as the Swedes of the South Pacific is really quite laughable, not least because NZ already has a series of cultural traditions surrounding the mighty swede, best prepared in a mutton pie, but also eaten raw as a sign of manhood at various Southern university parties. That is when its not being used as cheap stockfood.
So, New Zealand the flavourless stockfood vegetable, i guess its better than a rather stringy flightless bird that has to be casseroled for hours to get any decent flavour out of it?
