X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |
|
Recent Comments by NetRunner
 | comment listing type: Top Sift for Mar 21st, 2010Friends O' the Sift Before Submitting to this Channel... Please have a Look at our Posting Guidlines.
Video Categories Further Resources...
Top New Waronterror Videos by Vote  Subscribe Top 15 Waronterror Sifters of All Time Top 4 Waronterror Sifters of the Past Week Newest Appreciated Comments           |
Real Time - New Rules - March 19th, 2010
Real Time New Rules 3/19/10
*politics
Legalizing Marijuana - Ron Paul and Jesse Ventura
It's the only part of the Cato study I'm thoroughly skeptical of, and I notice that in the Time article, that's what the skeptics they contacted found dubious as well.
I'm not arguing in favor of prohibition as good policy, I'm simply arguing that blunt use of laws, no matter how ill-advised, always have some level of efficacy.
I agree that criminalizing drug use isn't the right policy, but I do think if you make a concerted effort to go after dealers you can make the supply curve shift to the left, raise the price, and reduce consumption.
I'm inclined to think that we could have a legalization policy that increases drug consumption, but reduces addiction rates, health issues, and related crime, and therefore is worth supporting.
I'm not inclined to believe that there is some sort of universal truism that banning a product doesn't make a dent in the consumption of it.
Does the State make money on Prisons/Prisoners? (Law Talk Post)
Said profiteer can and will spend a lot of the money he makes lobbying government (otherwise known as performing salesmanship on the customer) to expand the use of their service.
Isn't the solution here to cut the privateer out of the loop, and stick to public prisons?
Nightly News: Republicans Are Hypocrites
They choose not to let that happen.
Rachel Re: They're Not Embarassed
I spend more time trying to convince right of center people to come left though.
Legalizing Marijuana - Ron Paul and Jesse Ventura
Try a non-partisan study, please!
As for my murder legalization example, I don't think it's hard to see that there would be more murders.
Let's try some other silly hypothetical. Let's say that during the halcyon days of the Bush administration they placed an embargo on all French cheeses, just because they wanted to stick it to the French for not going along with the whole invade Iraq thing.
Would that immediately increase the amount of French cheese into the United States, and ultimately make those snooty Saddam-loving French get even higher export revenue from the US because of the embargo?
Wouldn't it stand to reason that if the world really worked that way, that much of foreign trade policy would center around trying to provoke other nations into placing an embargo on US goods?
Bret Baier Interviewing Obama Vs. Bret Baier w/Bush
Legalizing Marijuana - Ron Paul and Jesse Ventura
Let's take one step back. Let's say 1st degree murder stays like it is, but we legalize 2nd degree murder (i.e. paid assassins and hit men). Now we've brought the existing assassins into the light of day, and we can regulate and tax them -- make them take training classes, and give them literal licenses to kill. Maybe set up some rules about contracts (e.g. any assassin must honor their original contract, none of this "I'll pay you double what he's paying you" shit, or you lose your license), put together a regulatory enforcement agency, maybe a little interdisciplinary agreements between local law enforcement so hits can be done without harming innocent bystanders, let the CIA privatize some of their wetwork, etc. Oh, and we'll need to set up some laws that give hitmen contractor-assassin privilege so they can't be compelled to rat out their clients, otherwise they won't have a sustainable business model.
Now, if we did all that, would the total number of murders go down, because we legalized a type of murder, or would it go up because we massively increased the ease with which murder can be supplied?
Same with banning drugs. If you force providers to live outside the law, supply will shrink, even if demand stays the same. The shift in the supply curve means the price increases (especially if demand doesn't reduce!), and that means fewer people will actually make a purchase, and you end up with less drugs in the hands of people, and less drugs being used.
You still get all the other negative effects, such as lost tax revenue, no government regulatory oversight, a new contraband market for criminals to make a profit on (which leads to more people being drawn into the enterprise), and the secondary effect of more violent crime related to the production, transportation and sale of drugs.
Reducing the incidence of people smoking marijuana isn't even close to being worth all that. Reducing the incidence of murder is.
Maddow: Real Deficit Hawks Would Vote FOR Health Care Reform
Maddow: Real Deficit Hawks Would Vote FOR Health Care Reform
Nightly News: Republicans Are Hypocrites
[S]aying that once the measure has passed, you'd be willing to request money for your district is not hypocritical. It is entirely reasonable to worry about debt repayment and oppose the policy but eventually request funds if it goes through, because otherwise the taxpayers in your district simply end up subsidising everyone else while receiving no benefit.
If your complaint is, as Gingrey's was, that the bill has "too much pork", meaning "too much Federal funding for local projects" you really shouldn't be filing requests to get Federal funding for your local project.
Furthermore, if your appeal to voters is "I vote against spending in Washington" your next plank shouldn't be "I bring lots of Washington spending to our district", at least not if you're going to play the no vote as being based on principle.
If your complaint is that it raises the deficit too much, then you should ask that your share of the stimulus money not be spent, not make sure you get as big a slice of pie as you can and wolf it down, all the while bitching about how awful government pie is.
If it's just about maximizing your individual (or individual district's) gain from government spending, and not a principled opposition to the idea of government spending itself, then you're not a fiscal conservative, you're a welfare queen.
60 Minutes: Inside the Collapse, Part 2
Netrunner: Capitalists can feel morally outraged about taxation, because no matter how little they worked for the money, taking it by coercion is more despicable still, and in addition leads to ill effects like corrupt politicians and counterproductive incentives.
Also, I may be over-analyzing here, but when you say: "...convincing them that they got something of equal value out of the transaction." i actually disagree slightly.
If i have $15 in my pocket, and the seller has a CD that i like, i make an exchange because, to me, the CD is worth MORE than $15. Otherwise I'd keep my money instead. The possibility of mutually benefiting from a transaction is something you don't often hear about from the liberal side of the debate, to put it mildly.
Eh, I'm somewhat tired of the coercion argument. Think of it this way: if I build a condominium, and sell out the individual units, do I have the right to compel the residents to pay a maintenance fee for the common areas of the condo that I'm responsible for?
You're not really over analyzing, I think we're just trying to highlight different aspects. I agree that when markets work right, both parties gain from the transaction. I would even argue that this happens with a lot of things people buy.
However, I think there's a lot of emphasis in the modern corporate culture on "creating demand" and finding "new markets", and essentially spending a lot of time and money convincing people that they need/want things they don't need, or at least try to boost their perception of the value of a product so that they can jack up the price.
For example, take brand-name OTC drugs. They're not really any different than generic substitutes, but companies spend a lot of money on marketing to convince people it's a product worthy of its price premium, when often it's not.
Rachel Re: They're Not Embarassed
You're also acting as though you and I have radically different goals, and I can't actually recall ever seeing you say something I thought was "too radical."
I think if you're voting against incremental steps to the left on the basis of them "not going far enough" you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Look at Alan Grayson and Sherrod Brown. I think I'm about where they are ideologically -- I haven't seen either one say or do anything I disagree with yet.
The Daily Show: Conservative Libertarian