The reality of market failures that some ‘contrarians’ like to ignore
The moral high ground of free markets is that those who produce that which others consume will be rewarded with greater power, since they have proved their worth by servicing or producing for others. However, in morally optimal economic system, the movement of wealth shouldn’t enrich those with an anti social agenda. This is allowed happens because of the simplistic understanding of preferences and consumption by small game fallacists who conjuring an evolution to serve you then once they’ve locked into their economic reasoning, become non empirical ideologies since truth seeking as an optimisation process. It could probably be solved by adopting the method of competing hypotheses, if you are one of these permissive free-marketeers, then observing any non-simulated market in operation.
The upside of markets for recreational drug abuse and other self harmful products is that it redistributes money away from self destructive short sighted people towards long sighted other destructive people...what a waste of human capital!
Next time you see some people light cigarettes, bring out the Nelson in you and point and laugh. Sure, it might hurt their feelings in the short term, but your practically saving the lives of countless future generations by influencing a culture-change. Drug abuse aren’t cool, and taking pussy foot approaches won’t help. Your local school bully can make my little pony uncool by beating up the MLP kid, but your government’s does’t care enough to do the same.
“[D]efeating tobacco was much harder than defeating tuberculosis, because tuberculosis bacteria don’t bribe politicians. They don’t rebrand themselves as ‘lite’ bacteria. They don’t hire movie stars to make it look cool to have tuberculosis.”
-Tom Frieden
There’s a sense in which drug abusers have a right to be teased or bullied out of their behaviour! It’s been said best by others:
In any case, the argument from first-generation to second-generation rights was never supposed to be a matter of conceptual analysis. It was rather this: if one is really concerned to secure civil or political liberty for a person, that commitment should be accompanied by a further concern about the conditions of the person’s life that make it possible for him to enjoy and exercise that liberty. Why on earth would it be worth fighting for this person’s liberty (say, his liberty to choose between A and B) if he were left in a situation in which the choice between A and B meant nothing to him, or in which his choosing one rather than the other would have no impact on his life?”[17]
-New York University School of Law professor of law Jeremy Waldron’s written in response to critics of the second-generation rights:
The reality of market failures that some ‘contrarians’ like to ignore
The moral high ground of free markets is that those who produce that which others consume will be rewarded with greater power, since they have proved their worth by servicing or producing for others. However, in morally optimal economic system, the movement of wealth shouldn’t enrich those with an anti social agenda. This is allowed happens because of the simplistic understanding of preferences and consumption by small game fallacists who conjuring an evolution to serve you then once they’ve locked into their economic reasoning, become non empirical ideologies since truth seeking as an optimisation process. It could probably be solved by adopting the method of competing hypotheses, if you are one of these permissive free-marketeers, then observing any non-simulated market in operation.
The upside of markets for recreational drug abuse and other self harmful products is that it redistributes money away from self destructive short sighted people towards long sighted other destructive people...what a waste of human capital!
Next time you see some people light cigarettes, bring out the Nelson in you and point and laugh. Sure, it might hurt their feelings in the short term, but your practically saving the lives of countless future generations by influencing a culture-change. Drug abuse aren’t cool, and taking pussy foot approaches won’t help. Your local school bully can make my little pony uncool by beating up the MLP kid, but your government’s does’t care enough to do the same.
-Tom Frieden
There’s a sense in which drug abusers have a right to be teased or bullied out of their behaviour! It’s been said best by others:
-New York University School of Law professor of law Jeremy Waldron’s written in response to critics of the second-generation rights: