Thomas wrote:That depends on your definition of "applied". I have no problem that there exists an FDA testing new drugs for safety and efficacy. I have no problem when it approves or disapproves of drugs based on its findings. But I do have a problem that it's illegal to consume drugs the FDA hasn't approved of, and I do have a problem that there is a DEA enforcing the criminalization of non-approved drugs.
So, on the one hand, you approve of the FDA's work, and yet, on the other hand, you oppose laws that require approval of new drugs by the FDA. I suppose that, under a libertarian regime, the FDA would act as a non-governmental advisory body, sort of like Underwriters Labs, granting its "seal of approval" to drugs. For a variety of reasons (many of which we have discussed in other threads, and which I will not repeat here), I think that's bad policy in theory and unworkable in practice.
Thomas wrote:I'm sure this is a profound and devastating critique of libertarianism, but I don't understand it. If the laws were permissive, as I wish they'd be, and if the people were risk-averse, as you think they are, then nobody would consume a drug the government deemed un-kosher. You and I would have no problem to discuss. But that's not the way it is. Laws against drugs exist precisely because without them, the people would take more risks with them than the government wants them to.
As I explained above to
Cycloptichorn, people are rather bad at evaluating risk when it comes to their own desires. As we have seen in this thread, people who really, really want to smoke marijuana will downplay or ignore any evidence that shows that it may be potentially harmful. That's not surprising. I'm sure that there's not much talk of cirrhosis in the local tavern, either.
In calmer, more reflective moments and freed from those kinds of personal biases, the legislature makes laws that are supposed to protect people from those kinds of risks -- risks that the people themselves are often unable or unwilling to evaluate effectively. And the people, in general, accept that the legislature will act in what it perceives to be their best interests, even if they don't want the state to intervene. That's the democratic compromise in a nutshell. The people have accepted that, on occasion, the state will intervene to protect them from themselves (and that's also indicative of how people, in general, are risk-averse rather than risk-acceptant).
Thomas wrote:I guess what I'm asking is: when you say that you view people as risk-averse, whom do you mean by "people"?
When I say "people" I mean "people." Surely there are a few examples of them in Germany too.
Thomas wrote:What can I say? Admittedly, I don't have as much faith in the overall rationality of lawmakers as you enlightened absolutists do. But then I also haven't bought into the grand socioeconomic theory that is based on that assumption.
"Enlightened absolutists?" That's a good one.
Thomas wrote:And when a conduct is potentially harmful, enlightened absolutists resort to the argument "when in doubt, criminalize it" -- because they think that people will gladly accept the risk that the government will imprison them for no good reason whatsoever. I refer you to the experience of blasphemers, sodomists, and trade unionists in 19th century America. Or exporters of wool (who committed a hanging crime) in 18th century England.
Yes, and some day we'll all find out that smoking is good for you and that spinach is a deadly killer. I'll just add that making the export of wool a capital crime was the result of a misguided economic theory. Times have changed so little over 300 years.
