Why are most politicians in Western Democracies lawyers?

[Jon Miller]

How is it a strawman when there is a direct 'parents use coke, kids born with terrible deformities'. Isn't this a huge happiness loss?

Doesn't this have to be solved before you argue that people can make choices about their own lives with respect to drugs/etc because they have minimal effects on others, and any 'bad behavior' can be 'dealt with'?

JM

[Jon Miller]

the fact that cocaine and heroin are illegal and we still have lots of babies being born addicted to drugs is hardly a convincing argument for drugs remaining illegal...

There is a non-zero number of people who don't do some activity due to it being illegal.

Because some people murder others despite murder being illegal, does not mean that we should make murder legal (that murder's legality has no effect).

Did you read this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coke_babies

Crack babies have a lot more issues than just being born addicted to drugs.

JM
(Note I am not arguing that all drugs should remain illegal. I am arguing against the arguments found in this thread as being generally true.)

[GePap]

Another obvious example where rational individuals could come to a conflict is "intellectual theft" like sharing a song or a movie. The very notion that a person can "own" intellectual property in the same manner they can own physical property is a government created and granted exclusive title and not everyone would agree with the idea that a person, upon buying some piece of entertainment, could be fined or imprisoned for making copies of it if they intend to sell it.

Thank you, GePap, for identifying a widely known market failure to which we apply the government remedy suggested by economic theory. This supports your argument... how?

The existence of market failures which justify government intervention doesn't mean government intervention is always justified. You have to explain where the market failure is first and then show that your remedy actually improves outcomes.

Jesus Christ, I've been through this same argument with you half a dozen times. When will you get a ****ing clue?

Because unlike you it seems, I understand that economic policies have significant consequences on people and are not just some academic thought experiment, which shouldn't be a surprise given your background versus mine (I having had experience dealing with people in politics, including doing constituent work).

Given that you understand that markets can fail, what the **** is your argument with what I said anyways? You agree that government intervention is sometimes necessary - we disagree on the amount necessary - you are not making an argument for why your vision (or KH's) is superior, mainly because it is a normative disagreement we have. But this is a thread about politics (or was) and in that sense, you seem to have zero ****ing clue about how economic theories end up working out there, with someones violent consequences. And this is because people are not rational automatons but creatures driven by emotions above all else.

[Kuciwalker]

How is it a strawman when there is a direct 'parents use coke, kids born with terrible deformities'. Isn't this a huge happiness loss?

You are missing the actual argument here.

People like GePap: "your economics assumes people are rational that's obviously ridiculous all your conclusions must be wrong"
People who know what they're talking about: "no, I just assume that I know what I want better than you know what I want"
People like GePap: "but that would suggest we should decriminalized drugs - but what about the children of druggies? they would get hurt if we decriminalize drugs, so your theory must be wrong."

The logical error being committed is that puppy et al first argue that drug use only affects yourself, and therefore by libertarian logic should be permitted, and then change their minds and claim "but no, here's a case where it hurts someone else! therefore it shouldn't be permitted and the libertarians are wrong".

[Jon Miller]

But isn't that what the argument about? What should people be allowed to choose themselves, what only affects themselves?

JM

[Kuciwalker]

Because unlike you it seems, I understand that economic policies have significant consequences on people and are not just some academic thought experiment,

This is idiotic on its face, GePap. Why the **** would I care about economic policy if it didn't have consequences? The consequences are the entire point.

Put some bare minimum though into your posts, please. This is pathetic.

Given that you understand that markets can fail, what the **** is your argument with what I said anyways?

The fact that markets can fail doesn't mean that they are always failing. You have to actually demonstrate the failure. Note that "people consistently choose to do X and I would prefer they do Y" does not, in general, constitute a market failure.

You agree that government intervention is sometimes necessary - we disagree on the amount necessary - you are not making an argument for why your vision (or KH's) is superior, mainly because it is a normative disagreement we have.

No, it's not, it's the fact that you are ****ing stupid.

GRANTED that the whole point of this **** is to make people happy
GRANTED that in general I know WAY BETTER THAN YOU what makes me happy (this is not a normative disagreement, this is a fact)
CONCLUDED that you should generally leave me the **** alone and not tell me how to be happy

And this is because people are not rational automatons but creatures driven by emotions above all else.

This is nonsense. You are the only person in the damn thread who has claimed that people are rational (not that you even understand what that means as economists use it) so stop fighting the dumbass strawman and actually address points someone has actually made.

[C0ckney]

There is a non-zero number of people who don't do some activity due to it being illegal.

Because some people murder others despite murder being illegal, does not mean that we should make murder legal (that murder's legality has no effect).

there is maybe a non-zero number but i'm not convinced it's significant. look at portugal's experience with decriminalisation and addiction rates.

there is also a much, much more significant number of people who could helped if drugs were treated as a public health problem, rather than a crime problem. i am saying that simply making something illegal does not solve the problem, and, in some cases, like with drugs, actually makes it worse.

the murder thing is a strawman.

[Hauldren Collider]

there is maybe a non-zero number but i'm not convinced it's significant. look at portugal's experience with decriminalisation and addiction rates.

You have just admitted that you need more data to achieve a conclusion. Anything you say now you admit to being no more than idle speculation. Don't try to falsify or verify anything once you've already admitted you don't know enough.

the murder thing is a strawman.

No, it's reductio ad absurdam. The generalized statement you made was "making things illegal doesn't reduce the amount people do it" which is blatantly false.

[Kuciwalker]

But isn't that what the argument about? What should people be allowed to choose themselves, what only affects themselves?

JM

Jon, did you read what I wrote?

Liberatarians don't think that I should be able to shoot you; the argument "well, libertarians believe in individual liberty, therefore they should believe in individual liberty to shoot people, oh wait! that must mean libertarianism is wrong" is obviously invalid. The thing about coke-addicted parents is exactly the same. The feature introduced into the scenario that makes the "libertarian answer" bad invalidates the logic they use to arrive at that solution.

[Kuciwalker]

HC, you're being an idiot.

[Kuciwalker]

Do you really want to defend the principle that in the absence of solid evidence, the correct solution is for the government to ban stuff?

[GePap]

People can care about a lot of things Kuci without them realizing the reality of that thing - just because you care about economics does no mean you grasp the real world effects of it.

As for your second assertion, its great that you have a caricature of my position, but I am not going to waste time arguing about it. Can you come up with an example?

And your childish tantrum aside, you know what you think will make you happier, but the question at hand is the effects of your actions on other people's happiness, of which you are as likely ignorant about as those other people are about your perceived happiness.

Sorry if I don't share your religious faith on the notion that if we leave everyone to chase their own happiness by whatever actions they think will get them there, that everything will come out smelling like roses. You remind me of those people in 1913 who said a general European War was just SO impossible.

[Jon Miller]

I did read what you wrote.
I know what libertarians think.

The central difference is that Libertarians think more things are more things only affect themselves while others think that less things only affect themselves.

A non-libertarian recognizes that people heavily influence eachother and are not independent rational actors. Because of this, non-libertarians favor more laws limiting the freedoms of individuals so that others are not harmed.

JM

[Kuciwalker]

As for your second assertion, its great that you have a caricature of my position, but I am not going to waste time arguing about it. Can you come up with an example?

GePap, here is your entire position, drawn from the posts of this thread:

#54:
KH, your position sucks because you assume individuals are always rational!

(No, he doesn't assume that, ****wit, particularly not in the sense you use it.)

#67:
It doesn't matter that people know what they want, because they can do things that harm other people!

(Yes, and THAT'S WHY WE HAVE LAWS AGAINST HARMING OTHER PEOPLE.)

#82:
Oh and did you know that sometimes the market doesn't work? Here's an example from econ 101!

(Yes, we all know that, the fact that the very problem you're talking about is identified and treated by economics doesn't seem to support your point very well.)



In conclusion, you think economics doesn't work because... um... oh wait, you haven't come up with a single reason why economics doesn't work.

[Kuciwalker]

I did read what you wrote.
I know what libertarians think.

The central difference is that Libertarians think more things are more things only affect themselves while others think that less things only affect themselves.

A non-libertarian recognizes that people heavily influence eachother and are not independent rational actors. Because of this, non-libertarians favor more laws limiting the freedoms of individuals so that others are not harmed.

JM

Jon, this is gobbledygook. In this very thread we have people arguing for restrictions on drug use because drug use harms the users. If the entire argument against individual liberty were "sometimes your friends and family become unhappy when you do certain things" then it would be incredibly weak.