I don’t think this post applies to all policy debates, but I do think that very few policy debates are between fascists and non-fascists.
E.g. prohibition. I think there’s an exception to permissiveness: “if a behaviour is sometimes harmful, and we can’t easily permit only the non-harmful instances, then it may be okay to prohibit all instances of it”. Now people can disagree about how harmful the behaviour is, how often it is harmful, how easy it is to permit only the non-harmful instances, how much people gain from the behaviour when it isn’t harmful, and how much each of those factors should be weighed. Some people will think that the exception applies to drug use, and some people will disagree.
I agree there are people who have incentives to keep drugs criminalized even if they think society would be better off without prohibition, and even if they think society thinks society would be better off without prohibition, but I don’t think they’re the only reason prohibition exists.
I’m not speaking of the very principle, I am speaking of the implementation that leads to prison population 8x that of other countries of comparable wealth.
edit: just google about prison guard unions lobbying for harsher sentencing. Do they think harsher sentencing is a net social benefit? No they don’t, they think it is a net benefit to prison guards.
A lot of debates boil down simply to different groups pushing for things that benefit said group at someone else’s great expense.
I don’t think this post applies to all policy debates, but I do think that very few policy debates are between fascists and non-fascists.
E.g. prohibition. I think there’s an exception to permissiveness: “if a behaviour is sometimes harmful, and we can’t easily permit only the non-harmful instances, then it may be okay to prohibit all instances of it”. Now people can disagree about how harmful the behaviour is, how often it is harmful, how easy it is to permit only the non-harmful instances, how much people gain from the behaviour when it isn’t harmful, and how much each of those factors should be weighed. Some people will think that the exception applies to drug use, and some people will disagree.
I agree there are people who have incentives to keep drugs criminalized even if they think society would be better off without prohibition, and even if they think society thinks society would be better off without prohibition, but I don’t think they’re the only reason prohibition exists.
I’m not speaking of the very principle, I am speaking of the implementation that leads to prison population 8x that of other countries of comparable wealth.
edit: just google about prison guard unions lobbying for harsher sentencing. Do they think harsher sentencing is a net social benefit? No they don’t, they think it is a net benefit to prison guards.
A lot of debates boil down simply to different groups pushing for things that benefit said group at someone else’s great expense.