Why are most politicians in Western Democracies lawyers?

[DaShi]

The problem is that the choices of one person almost certainly will affect others.

[Al B. Sure!]

It's not just that though that's a big deal, as well. Maybe some of us are not fans of voluntary suicide through stupidity.

[giblets]

'Nuff said. That is the entirety of the argument against letting people do whatever the hell they want or that individuals know best about what's good for them. People are ****ing stupid and behave like children.

People behave like children, so let's put them in charge of other people... right, I'm sure a child knows what's in my best interest better than I do.

Or I guess we can have a committee of experts make decisions for everyone. I'm sure they won't be corrupt and self-serving.

[giblets]

What's so bad about recreational drug use, anyway. It's kind of arrogant to assume you know how much someone else enjoys using crack and can decide for them whether it's in their interest to use it.

[Hauldren Collider]

The problem is that the choices of one person almost certainly will affect others.

The fact that our choices can have some marginal effect on other people is a pathetic argument for eliminating that choice, or having someone make that choice for us.

When I choose to buy eggs, the market responds by raising price and over the long term producing more eggs. This decision has directed resources away from other things, which affects other people. Yet the fact that my decision to buy eggs is affecting others is nothing more than the observation of supply and demand. It's not an externality. Who cares?

People behave like children, so let's put them in charge of other people... right, I'm sure a child knows what's in my best interest better than I do.

Apparently, these children even know how much health insurance I need to buy and how much sodium I should eat.

[Hauldren Collider]

What's so bad about recreational drug use, anyway. It's kind of arrogant to assume you know how much someone else enjoys using crack and can decide for them whether it's in their interest to use it.

Addictive drugs are a bit different than most products, grib. Consider that almost nobody ever gets addicted to cigarettes over the age of 20. So the people who get addicted to drugs are often well within the age range where it is established (legally, anyway) that they actually can't make their own decisions.

[GePap]

The problem is that the choices of one person almost certainly will affect others.

DING DING DING, we have a winner!

People do not live alone. I have never seen an economic study on hermits, mainly because the issue is irrelevant since economics applies to interactions between people. One person's "rational choice" might very well lead to negative consequences for another. Simplest argument, lets say I want a piece of land and the most cost effective manner for me to get it is homicide - an extreme case for sure, but not improbable or impossible.

This I also why I say that all economics are politics. If one person stakes a singular title to some piece of land, they are obviously excluding others - why should person B respect person A's claim? You need a social order (which comes naturally for humans, as social apes) to make such a system work without constant violence being necessary.

Yes, people may know what they want better than anyone else, but it does not mean the understand the consequences to others, immediate or long term, better than anyone else. I also am not at all sure that they always understand the complete cost or understand the full possibility of rewards - plenty of behavioral economics out there that shows that people have a poor sense of risk based on out evolution. In some ways, we are not much better than monkeys at making certain risk-cost analysis.

[giblets]

Addictive drugs are a bit different than most products, grib. Consider that almost nobody ever gets addicted to cigarettes over the age of 20. So the people who get addicted to drugs are often well within the age range where it is established (legally, anyway) that they actually can't make their own decisions.

I accept that children should be treated as children. Incarcerating an adult for recreational drug use is just stupid.

[Hauldren Collider]

I'd make a few exceptions there. Drugs that cause insanity/make people violent (not like alcohol, more like PCP) are legitimate threats to public safety, in my opinion.

[Al B. Sure!]

What's so bad about recreational drug use, anyway. It's kind of arrogant to assume you know how much someone else enjoys using crack and can decide for them whether it's in their interest to use it.

Wow. Just wow. Who cares about arrogance? What's right is right; what's wrong is wrong.

Maybe I should also have you speak with some children of crack cocaine addicts and what they think is arrogant about it.

[Kuciwalker]

The problem is that the choices of one person almost certainly will affect others.

DING DING DING, we have a winner!

And that's why we have laws against stabbing people. What's youre point?

[Al B. Sure!]

This thread isn't going to go anywhere. There is a fundamental difference in values here that is irreconcilable. We mightaswell be arguing about the divinity of Christ.

[giblets]

Wow. Just wow. Who cares about arrogance? What's right is right; what's wrong is wrong.

It's arrogant to assume you are right about total strangers and they are wrong.

Maybe I should also have you speak with some children of crack cocaine addicts and what they think is arrogant about it.

That's a different issue because parents are being entrusted with making decisions for others, rather than simply making decisions for themselves. There is nothing wrong with the government taking children away from cocaine addicted parents who are not taking proper care of their children. Running a "war on drugs" will just make cocaine more expensive so the cocaine addicted parents will spend even less on caring for their kids.

[Kuciwalker]

This thread isn't going to go anywhere. There is a fundamental difference in values here that is irreconcilable. We mightaswell be arguing about the divinity of Christ.

Yes, the value here is that you, just like curtiswhatshisname from a while back, would prefer that all of society be arranged according to your own design, over people actually being happy.

[Hauldren Collider]

It's arrogant to assume you are right about total strangers and they are wrong.



That's a different issue because parents are being entrusted with making decisions for others, rather than simply making decisions for themselves. There is nothing wrong with the government taking children away from cocaine addicted parents who are not taking proper care of their children. Running a "war on drugs" will just make cocaine more expensive so the cocaine addicted parents will spend even less on caring for their kids.

If cocaine becomes more expensive that implies that the supply has dropped and people on the margin will stop using cocaine or never start. So it's a balancing act.