I've suggested treating drugs after prohibition the way we treated alcohol after prohibition.
Does that not count as a third way because anybody who thinks that we changed the way that alcohol was treated after prohibition doesn't understand that people regularly died of alcohol poisoning and of alcohol tainted with wood alcohols in the 1700s?
We're not talking about "before the pure food and drug act", Blaise.
We're talking about government agents kicking down doors and shooting dogs in the name of prohibition.
Getting rid of prohibition is something that this country has done once before. Getting rid of it then was a good thing (though, granted, not an unqualified good).
Getting rid of prohibition a second time would also be a good thing. Focusing on the things that would make it not an unqualified good is one thing. Focusing on the days before the pure food and drug act when *NO ONE IS SUGGESTING WE GET RID OF THE PURE FOOD AND DRUG ACT* is weird.
For what it's worth, "Ye Olde Republicke" anagrams out to "Libeler Decoy Puke".
I mean, erm, yeah, I know. I was pretending to be irrationally opposed to whatever he wrote without regard to any particular truth regarding his current or previous positions.
I'll quote Thomas Sowell here. It seems appropriate enough.
No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: "But what would you replace it with?" When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?
The DEA is a fire at this point, Blaise.
Worse than nothing.
The bad things that will pop up after Prohibition is repealled are lesser evils to the bad things that Prohibition *CREATED*.
But, if you insist, I'd be down with drugs being treated similarly to beer/wine/liquor.
In the same way that we don't really worry about folks stealing rubbing alcohol from grocery stores, we'll be able to put Sudafed back on the shelves.
It does easy stuff for the first few years and *THEN* does the hard stuff. They can enact his plan and it's toothless... and then, two years later, they can enact an *IDENTICAL PLAN* which will do nothing. And again. And again.
A plan that doesn't kick in for a couple of years ain't a real plan.
So are there people who, AND PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THIS PART BECAUSE IT IS VERY MUCH THE PART THAT I SAW AS THE RELEVANT VACUUM BEING CREATED, kick down doors and shoot dogs?
Or does the government still do that there?
Or, given the lack of the equivalent of a DEA, does the door-kicking/dog-shooting vacuum languish unfilled by either government or corporation?
I honestly suspect that if we got rid of the DEA that there would not immediately be a vacuum created that would then be filled by corporations shooting my dogs for growing weed.
When Denmark legalized pot, did corporations start doing that there?
You appear to be suggesting that social contract principles (do you even know what that means?) are temporary and sustained only for as long as they have practical value.
We're back to the evolution vs. creationism thing.
It's like I say "life evolved over the course of millions of years" and you say "do you want to live in a godless world where death and decay are rampant and the only value is having sex before you die???"
Stillwater: The world is the way the world is.
Anything that cannot go on forever will, by definition, stop.
I'm sorry that my saying such things offends your sensibilities but you'd be better off opening your eyes to truths than hanging around your creationist friends talking about the eschaton that is, seriously, just around the corner if only we sqwinch our eyes tightly enough and *BELIEVE*.
I am reminded of the old arguments from back in the day about marijuana.
There is a matrix you can make from Smoked Marijuana and Thinks it should be Legal.
If you smoked marijuana and you think it should be legal, your opinion can obviously be dismissed because you just want your hobby to be legal.
If you smoked marijuana and you think it should be illegal, your opinion can obviously be dismissed because you're a hypocrite who wants other people thrown in prison for stuff that you did.
If you've never smoked marijuana and you think it should be legal, your opinion can obviously be dismissed because you have no idea about how dangerous the reefer is.
If you've never smoked marijuana and you think it should be illegal, your opinion can obviously be dismissed because you have no idea about how much more harmless marijuana is than alcohol or any number of recreational substances.
The point of the exercise is to point out how the other side can, no matter what, point out how your position can obviously be dismissed because of your life experiences.
Make a matrix of "support public unions" and "have relatives who work for the public sector". You'll be able to quickly and easily come up with reasons why others have positions that can obviously be dismissed.
Jimminy Crickets, dude. If you didn't want to talk about how the Republicans haven't exactly crowned themselves in glory with regards to the DEA, you could have said so.
I'm a guy who considers himself fairly libertarian with anacap sympathies who, if he had to be pigeonholed, might shrug at the idea of Minarchism. Just a night watchman state.
What jobs ought Maribou not be allowed to take because I have this belief system?
If I believe in the personhood of chicks, does that go in conflict with my beliefs at all? Should I be more like the father in the story that Knapp talked about the other day and does it reflect poorly on me that Maribou is her own person (I originally wrote "allowed to be her own person" but I don't "allow" that... she *IS* one and that has nothing to do with any allowance of mine).
Should I have married someone more subserviant who would work for places that fit in better with my belief systems?
I'm a fan of "we won't pay for the statue, but we'll make room if we can".
Let the church shell out for the Crucifix, you can shell out for your Dragon cult abomination, and the Mormons can put a plaque on a block of stone and say "this block of stone is similar to a block of stone that held the gold plates once".
Everybody's happy and it takes no taxpayer dollars.
I think I do technically... but it'd involve a whole lot of irritating decisions to make. (One thing we do is pay all of our bills about a month beforehand, those that we know we can, anyway... this gives us at least a month of slack should anything awful happen.)
At the end of the day, the whole TEAM RED/TEAM BLUE/TEAM GOLD thing is bullshit. All that matters is you and yours and I hope that you and yours come out of this okay.
Given the part of the country in which you currently live, I can't imagine that your situation is anywhere near uncommon.
On “A Confession of Bias, Followed by a Bunch of Stuff You Should Probably Ignore”
I've suggested treating drugs after prohibition the way we treated alcohol after prohibition.
Does that not count as a third way because anybody who thinks that we changed the way that alcohol was treated after prohibition doesn't understand that people regularly died of alcohol poisoning and of alcohol tainted with wood alcohols in the 1700s?
"
We have to kick down doors and shoot dogs because, hey, the opposite is anarchy?
If only there were a third option!
"
We're not talking about "before the pure food and drug act", Blaise.
We're talking about government agents kicking down doors and shooting dogs in the name of prohibition.
Getting rid of prohibition is something that this country has done once before. Getting rid of it then was a good thing (though, granted, not an unqualified good).
Getting rid of prohibition a second time would also be a good thing. Focusing on the things that would make it not an unqualified good is one thing. Focusing on the days before the pure food and drug act when *NO ONE IS SUGGESTING WE GET RID OF THE PURE FOOD AND DRUG ACT* is weird.
On “Several Things That Aren’t Happening Here.”
For what it's worth, "Ye Olde Republicke" anagrams out to "Libeler Decoy Puke".
I mean, erm, yeah, I know. I was pretending to be irrationally opposed to whatever he wrote without regard to any particular truth regarding his current or previous positions.
On “A Confession of Bias, Followed by a Bunch of Stuff You Should Probably Ignore”
Let's have Obama try to figure a way out.
Right after he finishes the third war.
"
So do they kick down doors and shoot dogs or not?
I'll quote Thomas Sowell here. It seems appropriate enough.
No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: "But what would you replace it with?" When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?
The DEA is a fire at this point, Blaise.
Worse than nothing.
The bad things that will pop up after Prohibition is repealled are lesser evils to the bad things that Prohibition *CREATED*.
But, if you insist, I'd be down with drugs being treated similarly to beer/wine/liquor.
In the same way that we don't really worry about folks stealing rubbing alcohol from grocery stores, we'll be able to put Sudafed back on the shelves.
And, hey, not as many dead dogs.
On “Are the Ryan Budget’s Spending Cuts Credible?”
Here's my problem with Ryan's budget.
It does easy stuff for the first few years and *THEN* does the hard stuff. They can enact his plan and it's toothless... and then, two years later, they can enact an *IDENTICAL PLAN* which will do nothing. And again. And again.
A plan that doesn't kick in for a couple of years ain't a real plan.
(See Congress's Affordable Care Act.)
On “A Confession of Bias, Followed by a Bunch of Stuff You Should Probably Ignore”
So are there people who, AND PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THIS PART BECAUSE IT IS VERY MUCH THE PART THAT I SAW AS THE RELEVANT VACUUM BEING CREATED, kick down doors and shoot dogs?
Or does the government still do that there?
Or, given the lack of the equivalent of a DEA, does the door-kicking/dog-shooting vacuum languish unfilled by either government or corporation?
Because that was the question that I asked.
(I can quote it for you, if you'd like.)
On “Are the Ryan Budget’s Spending Cuts Credible?”
This is where we get to puff up and ask with trembling voice: "DO YOU WANT THE ELDERLY TO DIE???"
(If your answer is "no", I am afraid that I have some very, very bad news for you.)
On “A Confession of Bias, Followed by a Bunch of Stuff You Should Probably Ignore”
I honestly suspect that if we got rid of the DEA that there would not immediately be a vacuum created that would then be filled by corporations shooting my dogs for growing weed.
When Denmark legalized pot, did corporations start doing that there?
I ask because I suspect you'd know.
On “Why We Disagree About Taxes, Entitlements, and Economic Theory in General”
You appear to be suggesting that social contract principles (do you even know what that means?) are temporary and sustained only for as long as they have practical value.
We're back to the evolution vs. creationism thing.
It's like I say "life evolved over the course of millions of years" and you say "do you want to live in a godless world where death and decay are rampant and the only value is having sex before you die???"
Stillwater: The world is the way the world is.
Anything that cannot go on forever will, by definition, stop.
I'm sorry that my saying such things offends your sensibilities but you'd be better off opening your eyes to truths than hanging around your creationist friends talking about the eschaton that is, seriously, just around the corner if only we sqwinch our eyes tightly enough and *BELIEVE*.
On “A 4/20 Reminder”
It's copypasta.
On “A Confession of Bias, Followed by a Bunch of Stuff You Should Probably Ignore”
I am reminded of the old arguments from back in the day about marijuana.
There is a matrix you can make from Smoked Marijuana and Thinks it should be Legal.
If you smoked marijuana and you think it should be legal, your opinion can obviously be dismissed because you just want your hobby to be legal.
If you smoked marijuana and you think it should be illegal, your opinion can obviously be dismissed because you're a hypocrite who wants other people thrown in prison for stuff that you did.
If you've never smoked marijuana and you think it should be legal, your opinion can obviously be dismissed because you have no idea about how dangerous the reefer is.
If you've never smoked marijuana and you think it should be illegal, your opinion can obviously be dismissed because you have no idea about how much more harmless marijuana is than alcohol or any number of recreational substances.
The point of the exercise is to point out how the other side can, no matter what, point out how your position can obviously be dismissed because of your life experiences.
Make a matrix of "support public unions" and "have relatives who work for the public sector". You'll be able to quickly and easily come up with reasons why others have positions that can obviously be dismissed.
"
Jimminy Crickets, dude. If you didn't want to talk about how the Republicans haven't exactly crowned themselves in glory with regards to the DEA, you could have said so.
"
What do I think that they should have done differently when it comes to the DEA?
Well, there's Reagan and his "War on Drugs" (a term first used by Nixon).
Um, we're in topsy-turvy land, dude.
It wasn't the democrats who went nuts over Doug Ginsburg. It was the republicans. That's why we have Kennedy on the Supreme Court.
"
Team Red hasn't crowned themselves in glory when it comes to either, Koz.
And there are more options than Team Red or Team Blue.
"
I'm a guy who considers himself fairly libertarian with anacap sympathies who, if he had to be pigeonholed, might shrug at the idea of Minarchism. Just a night watchman state.
What jobs ought Maribou not be allowed to take because I have this belief system?
If I believe in the personhood of chicks, does that go in conflict with my beliefs at all? Should I be more like the father in the story that Knapp talked about the other day and does it reflect poorly on me that Maribou is her own person (I originally wrote "allowed to be her own person" but I don't "allow" that... she *IS* one and that has nothing to do with any allowance of mine).
Should I have married someone more subserviant who would work for places that fit in better with my belief systems?
These are important questions!
"
I was asking Stillwater if he paid the Clinton tax rates he wishes he had, rather than the lower Bush ones that he does.
"
I am unsurprised.
On “Closed Front Doors, Open Back Doors”
I'm a fan of "we won't pay for the statue, but we'll make room if we can".
Let the church shell out for the Crucifix, you can shell out for your Dragon cult abomination, and the Mormons can put a plaque on a block of stone and say "this block of stone is similar to a block of stone that held the gold plates once".
Everybody's happy and it takes no taxpayer dollars.
On “A Confession of Bias, Followed by a Bunch of Stuff You Should Probably Ignore”
Idaho? Hells yeah.
San Francisco? Meh.
"
They do enjoy their schadenfreude.
"
Do you pay the tax rates you think you ought to have?
I suspect the thing you notice in others is something that is closer to ubiquitous than not.
"
I think I do technically... but it'd involve a whole lot of irritating decisions to make. (One thing we do is pay all of our bills about a month beforehand, those that we know we can, anyway... this gives us at least a month of slack should anything awful happen.)
"
At the end of the day, the whole TEAM RED/TEAM BLUE/TEAM GOLD thing is bullshit. All that matters is you and yours and I hope that you and yours come out of this okay.
Given the part of the country in which you currently live, I can't imagine that your situation is anywhere near uncommon.
Best of luck to get through this.