🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Dec16.231128.3723@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> chloupek@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
>
>I don't like guns.  I have never owned one and probably never will.

I don't really like guns either.  But guns are, in and of themselves,
merely a tool (very dangerous in the wrong hands).  But you should be
careful not to color your general view of guns by your own personal view.
I'll bet you would not be willing to support a constitutional amendment
that read something like this:

  Guns and explosive devices are patently illegal.  No person, corporation,
  organization, or local, state, or federal government, or political
  subdivision thereof, or officer thereof, is permitted to manufacturer,
  own, use, buy, sell, transport, share in the procedes from the sale of,
  or otherwise participate in the promotion of any firearm or explosive
  weapon.

You would immediately start making lots of exceptions, and everytime you
make an exception, you are achieving a compromise solution.

>I don't necessarily buy the "the state can do what it wants on its own
>property" point since I would contend that the state is a reflection of the
>populace and that property of the state is actually that held in common by the
>individuals.

It still follows that the populace, in general, can make whatever rules
it desires, through the state, for conduct on and use of public facilities.
That's why the FCC regulates (overregulates in my opinion) the airwaves
but you can transmit whatever data you want over a private fiber link
traversing your own contiguous property (well, the police would probably still
attempt to confiscate your comm equipment if they believed you were
transmitting something obscene).  Similarly, that's why there is a 55 MPH
speed limit on in-town expressways but there isn't a speed limit on the
Indianapolis racetrack.

>
>....  If you hold the 
>freedom of the individual as sacrosanct then so long as no other person 
>is hurt, all actions must be allowed.   ....

And what is wrong with that?  Remember the key here is _so long as no other
person is hurt_.  Now, in an absolute sense, the event cone from any event
on Earth very quickly envelopes everyone else on the planet, hence the old
scientific/philosophical lemma "You can't fart without affecting the Universe."
So the real question is how far out from the vertex of the event cone do you
legally define "affect".  This probably would differ depending on what you
were trying to regulate.  I suspect that our real difference of opinion is
how we define the extent of the legal event cone.

>
>What other principles do you use in your lawmaking?

1.  Identify common goods and put them in the public domain.  Some super-
    libertarians would limit this to national defense of our borders and
    possibly some public transportation infrastructure.  Conservatives
    would expand this to include law enforcement and would extend the
    concept of national defense to include "long-arm" extensions.  Moderates
    would throw in additional government services, including education, and
    some social programs, and various regulatory activities connected with
    health and safety.  Liberals would add additional things.  Socialists
    would add certain major means of production.  Communists would say that
    almost everything is a public good.

    Note:  I speaking in generalities.  I fully realize any particular
           individual or group might label themselves one thing but believe
           differently than I have stated above.

    Why do these different groups view things so differently?  It all depends
    on where they draw the end of that legal event cone.

    Then, after you have identified your public goods, the populace (through
    the state) is permitted to regulate these goods.

2.  Prohibit activities that are clearly harmful to others individually or
    collectively.  The key phrase here is _harmful_, and how it is defined
    is all important.  It can range from a minor inconvenience to death, and
    it can be direct or have multiple levels of indirection.

3.  Allow a system, through law, to address those grievances that somebody
    thinks is harming them but have not been prohibited the paragraph 2.
    This corresponds to civil law.

4.  Everything else is allowed.

>and I still think that that is not a legitimate reason to look at legalization.
>

We should first consider the reasons that most drugs are kept illegal.  If the
reason was to keep everybody healthy, and thus relieve the burdon on the health
care system (something that is basically a public good), then alcohol and
tobacco should definitely be illegal.  If the reason was to keep the citizens
alert and rational, so as not to be a nuisance or danger, then alcohol should
be illegal.  I believe these were the major reasons for making drugs illegal,
but because of societal custom, alcohol and tobacco were exempted, and since,
by far, these are the major drugs of use (I'll ignore caffene because there
doesn't seem to be any really harmful side effects), the health and safety
problems are all still there.  Plus, you have the health and safety problems
associated with the illegal drugs.  Plus, you have the safety problems connected
with the fact the illegal drugs must be obtained on the black market.


Mathematically, its like this:

                                   NOW       LEGALIZATION
Health Cost Alcohol                High      Not quite as high                 
Health Cost Tobacco                High      High
Health Cost Other                  Moderate  High
Safety Cost Alcohol                Moderate  Moderate
Safety Cost Tobacco                Low       Low
Safety Cost Other Drugs            Moderate  Higher
Safety Cost Black Market           High      Near Zero
$ spent on Alcohol                 High      Not quite as high
$ spent on Tobacco                 High      High
$ spent on Other Drugs             Moderate  Lower
===================================================================
Total Social Cost                  X         Y

Now, if Y is greater than X, then don't legalize!  If Y is less than
or equal to X, then why not legalize?  I'm not really sure how to
measure this social cost. but it needs to be converted to dollars
somehow (deaths can be converted to dollars by using the average actuarial
value of a human life [for this purpose anyway :-)].  Illness can be
converted to dollars by using number of sick days, etc.