The AEI have been adversing a debate whether libertarians are part of the conservative movement.
AEI Fellow Jonah Goldberg will argue that libertarians are part of the broader American conservative movement’s push for limited government. Matt Welch, editor in chief of Reason, will counter that libertarians offer a unique understanding of political life that makes libertarianism incompatible with conservatism.
The debate was held and the video is here. Arnold Kling’s take is here.
Both will say yes to either label when convenient.
.
10 Feb 12 at 11:07 am
Absolutely not. No conservative I know would ever label themselves a libertarian. They would certainly have sympathy for libertarian positions on various policy issues but they know it is a belief system for ideologues. The more interesting question is whether neoconservatives like Jonah Goldberg are part of the conservative movement.
New Gold Dream
10 Feb 12 at 11:22 am
most libertarians wouldn’t want to be labelled conservative either.
Conservative suggests you don’t really want to change the status quo, whereas liberatrians want to reduce the size an power of government to various degrees from substantially to radically.
There also the fact that we support some social freedoms like legalisation of recreational drugs, voluntary euthananasia, that are opposed to conservative positions.
papachango
10 Feb 12 at 11:57 am
Jonah Goldberg is terrific. Probably the most readable person outside Steyn at NRO.
Infidel Tiger
10 Feb 12 at 11:57 am
I agree with Dream and papa. Distinct groups for sue, but also natural political allies. Conservatives and libertarians are essentially the opposites of socialists, communists and fascists. As the unholy alliance between these latter three groups grows stronger in the West, conservatives and libertarians need set aside their differences and band together more than ever…otherwise, we might as well abandon democracy and liberty now…
Skuter
10 Feb 12 at 12:04 pm
…for sure…
Skuter
10 Feb 12 at 12:05 pm
…then there’s those people who call themselves ‘libertarian socialists’ or their more radical ‘anarcho communists’.
I (sort of) understand where they’re coming from, but their worldview is naive and frankly embarrassing. As far as I’m concerned libertariansm is tied to property rights, and I wish these guys would all themselves something else.
papachango
10 Feb 12 at 12:05 pm
Most American conservatives are libertarians with one or two deviations.
Even Reagan in a Reason interview was happy to label himself a libertarian. So if the mediocre Australian conservatives of NGD’s acquaintance turn up their nose at the term so bloody what?
jtfsoon
10 Feb 12 at 12:07 pm
Yes fair point skuter. We have distinct political positions, and disagree with conservatives on things like drug law reform, but should at least be unitied in our opposition to all the leftist big government ideologies like socialism, communism and fascism.
papachango
10 Feb 12 at 12:08 pm
A discussion for tonight, Skute!
Rabz
10 Feb 12 at 12:11 pm
jtfsoon –
where do these Amercian conservatives/liberatrians stand on voluntary euthanasia?
I think that’s a key test for making the distinction – you can’t call yourself a libertarian unless you strongly support it as a basic human liberty of self-ownership.
papachango
10 Feb 12 at 12:11 pm
don’t know about euthanasia but on legalisation of drugs for example, self proclaimed conservatives in the US have been streets ahead of the dopey bluerinse Libs we have here. William F Buckley and the National Review crew came out for legalised heroin ages ago, as did Reagan staffer George Schultz
jtfsoon
10 Feb 12 at 12:16 pm
Agreed. Goldberg is far more classically liberal than any Australian conservative and he’d be aghast at having some statist twerp like NGD trying pitch a tent near him.
Infidel Tiger
10 Feb 12 at 12:18 pm
Presumably the AEI were actually a-d-v-er-t-i-s-i-n-g
Goldberg is suberb essayist and his Liberal Fascism book is a must read.
JamesK
10 Feb 12 at 12:20 pm
The only difference as far as I can see between my belief system and William F Buckley’s for instance is that WFB cares more about abortion. But even then he just wants to overturn Roe v Wade not advocate federal criminalisation of it
jtfsoon
10 Feb 12 at 12:21 pm
James K you mean when I become a fan of Pepsi Cola on Facebook it won’t write me a letter back?
.
10 Feb 12 at 12:23 pm
Jonah Goldberg will argue that libertarians are part of the broader American conservative movement’s push for limited government.
Well he’s wrong. Libertarians are not part of such a broader push because no such push exists.
The more interesting question is whether neoconservatives like Jonah Goldberg are part of the conservative movement.
Yes, as evidenced by your statement. You characterize conservatism as a movement whereas it’s distinguishing feature from other ‘isms’ is that it’s more a disposition. Neo-conservatism has been characterized as an ‘insurgency’ against the influence of the New Left. Its style is identical in type to that of the Trotskyites against whom it originally defined itself.
They started small and peripheral but by the time of Reagan they had become a mainstream presence in conservative intellectual circles and their style, rhetoric and foreign policy stance is now conservative policy.
It’s what’s cool in politics now. Get the worst bits of socialism and liberalism and combine them. 21st century salad just add Justin Bieber
Adrien
10 Feb 12 at 12:24 pm
Should I be r-e-v-e-r-s-i-n-g, dot?
JamesK
10 Feb 12 at 12:30 pm
There are delusions of relevance creeping in here on the part of libertarians. Why would conservatives want to align themselves with a small number of oddballs who provide the left with readily ignitable straw man free-market positions. How many libertarians are there in the country anyway, fifty? Compared to how many millions of conservatives.
Tell me about it, dang awful.
New Gold Dream
10 Feb 12 at 12:40 pm
The LDP, which does not represent all libertarians, got 230,191 votes in the Federal Senate last time.
.
10 Feb 12 at 12:49 pm
So you’re counting donkey voters amongst your supporters – good one.
New Gold Dream
10 Feb 12 at 12:54 pm
To distinguish between a conservative, a socialist, or a libertarian, simply have their boss ask them to procure a prostitute for the boss.
The conservative will refuse on the basis of the request’s immorality.
The socialist will refuse on the grounds of exploitation.
The libertarian will ask what the boss’ preferences are.
2dogs
10 Feb 12 at 12:58 pm
Conservative suggests you don’t really want to change the status quo, whereas liberatrians want to reduce the size an power of government to various degrees from substantially to radically.
This is rather a self-serving characterization. As if conservatives don’t really want to change states of affairs contrary to their beliefs, whereas libertarians would still want to substantially or even radically reduce an already limited mode of government.
There also the fact that we support some social freedoms like legalisation of recreational drugs, voluntary euthananasia, that are opposed to conservative positions.
Are these issue-positions analogous to being pro-abortion, anti-gun, and the like among left-liberals?
dover_beach
10 Feb 12 at 1:08 pm
Maybe not in Australia. But in America, belief in limited government and individual freedom are mainstream values.
This varies from the get-off-my-lawn, shotgun-and-rocking-chair style libertarianism through to hostility to Washington and ‘the Feds’, through to valuing entrepreneurialism, and other manifestations.
In the US, to be a constitutional conservative and a libertarian are almost tautologies. If you support ‘traditional American values’, that’s again going to have a lot of overlap with values of freedom.
Maybe it’s a curious happenstance that in America, libertarian values overlap a lot with conservative values.
As for euthanasia, since the ethics of the thing haven’t been solved in practice (e.g., how do you feel about the ‘euthanasia’ of those with Alzheimer’s or those in a coma or minors), then it’s a bit rich to wave it in the face of libertarians as a done deal in the name of freedom.
daddy dave
10 Feb 12 at 1:23 pm
I think NGD under estimates the libertarian tradition running through many Australians.
This manifests itself as the “I’ll shoot feral dogs where I like / I’ll fish where I like / I’ll drive my 4WD where I like / I’ll ride my trail bike where I like” so-called conservatives.
Token
10 Feb 12 at 1:30 pm
In the US, to be a constitutional conservative and a libertarian are almost tautologies.
Yes they are, America was founded by Whigs, so there’s no conflict ideologically as there is with, say, Tories in the UK. Nevertheless America’s federal government bears enormous apparatus most particularly in its military and intelligence services. Despite the disposition of American conservatism, the reality differs somewhat.
Adrien
10 Feb 12 at 1:42 pm
I love it when Jason brings up the legalisation of heroin as an example of a liberatrian position. Can you imagine the 1000′s of pages of regulation that any government would bring in if it were to ‘legalise’ heroin? There would be severe restrictions on manufacture and distribution, licensing laws, public education programs, crackdowns on illegal sales which would be cheaper that official market rates.. There would be massive taxes.
Leaving it illegal is far more libertarian.
And if you turn over Roe v Wade, Jason, you would allow US States make laws forbidding abortion.
However, I do agree that Conservatives and Libertarians are cut from the same cloth, though I think that the latter are just more immature. And one must admit that this a high nerdish quotient in the libertarian part of the alliance.
Conservatism is not a movement, but merely the default position of humanity. Mrs T put is best when she sad that the facts of life are Conservative.
Rococo Liberal
10 Feb 12 at 2:06 pm
I think another difference between Conservatives and Libertarians is a social one.
Conservatives probably think adultery is wrong, but don’t think that there should be any laws prohibiting it. Nevertheless, Conservatives believe that social stigma should attach to the sin of adultery, if not necessarily to the adulterer. Libertarians by contrast might believe that adultery is wrong, but would not speak out against it as being immoral.
Leftists favour both legislative and social condemnation of things (discrimination, free speech) they find morally repugnant. Except, the left very rarely use the word ‘moral’ because for them it either has unacceptable Christian overtones or refers to sex, which must always be left unregulated either by the law or society, with the exception of rape (whose definition is to be broadened as much as possible) and paedophilia (unless it is gay chld abuse by artists). That is why the left use the word ‘ethics’ often when they mean morals.
Rococo Liberal
10 Feb 12 at 2:18 pm
Libertarianism as the unpopular, dorky, younger brother of conservatism. I can live with that.
No girls again right?
New Gold Dream
10 Feb 12 at 2:41 pm
DD – in my example had the word ‘voluntary’ in front of euthanasia. It’s a massive distinction. Libertarians and conservatives would both be stridently opposed to involuntary euthanasia – probably only radical enviornmentalists would support that.
Grey areas can be debated and arguments had about checks and balances, plus erring on the side of life if there’s ever any doubt.
But – on pure priciple, a libertarian would always strongly support the right of an individual to choose to when and where end their own life, free from any coercion, and to engage the services of other to do so, again free from coercion. There’s no wiggle room there, as ownership of your own life is a fundamental tenet of liberatrianism.
A conservative may also do so, but some argue that the state should intervene to stop that choice being exercised.
papachango
10 Feb 12 at 2:42 pm
RL I don’t think libertarianism is immature, rather it’s consistent and fairly simple. You could mount an argument that ‘pure’ libertarianism is overly simplistic, possibly naïve, but in general libertarianism, though the word itself is not well known, is based on some core principles that have been around for a while.
I don’t really follow US politics that closely but others have made the observation that US conservatives are actually very libertarian. That’s entirely possible as parts of the US constitution is really a manifesto of libertarian principles, though it doesn’t explaint the bible bashing nutters and neo-cons with their PATRIOT Act. But the overall tone of the Tea Party did seem liberatrian from a distance.
On the other cliche I’ve heard that liberatarians are either nerdy Star Trek fans or ‘conservatives with bongs’. The latter give me a laugh, but I dunno about the former. If anything they seem to be econ geeks, constantly rabbiting on about Say’s Law or some such.
papachango
10 Feb 12 at 2:53 pm
So American conservatives who are closer to being libertarians are more nerdy and dorky and immature than Australian conservatives. Right
jtfsoon
10 Feb 12 at 3:02 pm
BTW RL ironic that you mention Thatcher. She actually made the first step in the UK towards taking a less law enforcement oriented approach towards heroin.
jtfsoon
10 Feb 12 at 3:05 pm
No – some relaxin’ ales and discussion of various matters socio-political.
Bring your own female friends if you’re that concerned about it.
Rabz
10 Feb 12 at 3:06 pm
What do those “bible bashing nutters” do that’s so un-libertarian?
I’ve asked several times why libertarians don’t claim Tea Party co-founding, pot-smoking, riflewoman and hunter Sarah Palin but I’ve never been given an answer.
C.L.
10 Feb 12 at 3:07 pm
NGD sounds like he doth protest too much.
For one thing he was so mindfucked by breaking up with an ex girlfriend who was a libertarian that he’s based his entire political philosophy on it. Real emotionally mature, that. Emotionally mature men don’t have such bad breakups.
And here he sounds so totally hen pecked that he feels obliged to spend every fucking night out with whoever he’s seeing.
jtfsoon
10 Feb 12 at 3:10 pm
Err, ‘state sanctioned killing’, in other words?
Rabz
10 Feb 12 at 3:13 pm
Soony,
NGD is hitting us up for some convenient female company.
There are no female members of the CCC, yet.
They are certainly welcome to join.
Rabz
10 Feb 12 at 3:15 pm
Oops – I meant ‘state sanctioned life extinguishment’.
To give it the appropriate gravitas…
Rabz
10 Feb 12 at 3:17 pm
I am an anti-euthanasia, anti-drugs, anti-pokies/gambling Libertarian
1) why “anti-euthanasia”? I believe that someone who wants another person to “flick the switch/pull the plug” on them one way or another is infringing upon the human rights of the “flickee”. Be they a Doctor or a family member, I dont thing anyone should be put in that situation.
2) why “anti-drugs”? The goal of the drug dealer is to create addicts. Having repeat customers come to your door is the most profitable / lowest risk form of dealing. However addicts by their very nature are not free actors.
3) why “anti-pockies”? Poker machines are designed to be addictive (using the lights / music and “free spins”) again 1 half of the transaction is addicted and not a free actor.
RodClarke
10 Feb 12 at 3:18 pm
Oh dear, you’re going to be crucified by 90% of the readership, including those who don’t necessarily identify as libertarians
jtfsoon
10 Feb 12 at 3:22 pm
I’m really sick to death of people pretending to understand the causes of addiction, to anything.
Pretty lights and music cause addiction now? For heaven’s sake, Rod, don’t go anywhere near nightclubs or pubs or amusement parks.LOL
Gab
10 Feb 12 at 3:25 pm
But – on pure priciple, a libertarian would always strongly support the right of an individual to choose to when and where end their own life, free from any coercion, and to engage the services of other to do so, again free from coercion.
A description of suicide not euthanasia; euthanasia enjoins other persons by creating a duty to perform a particular act). Rights have two faces: that person’s ‘right’ to euthanasia is another person’s duty to kill.
dover_beach
10 Feb 12 at 3:28 pm
When did you become an expert on the issue of addiction and poker machines, Gab?
Is this like your expertise on climate change?
People have done things called “scientific studies” (have you heard of them) on the topic.
Or does Delingpole have a view on this that you find more persuasive?
steve from brisbane
10 Feb 12 at 3:36 pm
I’m not going to bother with you Steve. You cannot even grasp the difference between Constitution and contraception.
Gab
10 Feb 12 at 3:38 pm
Not necessarily, DB. The other person may facilitate the ‘suicide’ of the ‘euthanased individual’.
I’ve always had a problem with state sanctioned euthanasia for the very reason that people will inevitably end up being euthanased against their will, with the state being in no position to prevent this and if anything, more likely to facilitate what is effectively murder.
It’s a slippery slope.
Rabz
10 Feb 12 at 3:38 pm
Of course a libertarian would support the right of the “flickee” to refuse on personal morality or anyother grounds, but if all parties are Ok with it as a compassionate exit, would you still be opposed to it? If so then sorry, you’re not a libertarian – no wiggle room at all.
See above. Duty doesn’t come into it, and people are free to refuse.
papachango
10 Feb 12 at 3:47 pm
I’m with Rabz in my discomfort with legalised murder (one citizen willfully – and legally – killing another). Look at Oregon: is it truly “voluntary” euthanasia when your insurance company tells you they won’t cover your chemo, but will pay to have someone kill you to put you out of your misery? Is it truly voluntary euthanasia when a son and his wife tell his mother that they won’t lift a finger to help get her into a decent nursing facility, but they will either see her put in the nastiest filthiest cheapest State facility and once there never bother to visit her …. OR … they could instead kindly kill her to save her all the horrors that will no doubt await her there?
There’s so much of a power imbalance involved. Most people who would be in a position to be “put down” are terribly vulnerable. They are NOT in a position to simply “refuse,” especially when it’s either a family member or an authority figure who has a vested interest in getting rid of them and who can manipulate the situation so that being put down is really the only choice.
spot
10 Feb 12 at 3:50 pm
Yeah OK, but now you’re making an argument that the state needs to intervene to protect the vulnerable and those with less power or wealth.
An argumet that’s stragely familiar…
papachango
10 Feb 12 at 3:56 pm
1)
thats cool, the Cat is a broad church.. no?
2)
Got a mate who used to work at Aristocrat, as a Quant / Programmer, they were trained in cognitive biases and programmed these into the games. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
3)
The dead person, by definiation would carry no regret for their decision. The flickee / plug puller may well do in the future. They may become religious in the future and carry deep regret for their decision made at a point in time, possibly under some sort of physological pressure / duress.
RodClarke
10 Feb 12 at 3:58 pm
now you’re making an argument that the state needs to intervene to protect the vulnerable and those with less power or wealth.
No I’m not.
I’m just saying, let’s not legalise murder. No one should have the power to kill anyone else. We’re better than that. Or we should be.
Go ahead and kill yourself if you want, but no-one else is going to kill you and get away with it, no matter who you are.
spot
10 Feb 12 at 4:02 pm
If there is such a thing as ‘addiction’ to gambling (modern parlance for the bad habit and foolishness of a loser), then we should also think of ‘climate change’ hysterics as an addiction.
Proponents of the carbon dioxide tax, for example, believe that if Australia spends billions of dollars, we’ll reduce the temperature of the planet. They also believe in ‘green energy’ schemes and renew balls. Despite the axiomatic idiocy and impossibility of these three lemons coming up trumps, Gillard, Flannery et alia sit there at the ‘global warming’ machine – wide-eyed, zombie-like and disengaged from reality – putting more and more money in the slots. They even steal money from respectable citizens to fund their addiction.
C.L.
10 Feb 12 at 4:03 pm
Your mate doesn’t impress me. Maybe he needs to consult with a behavioural psychologist.
Pretty lights and music are not the cause of addiction. Addiction is not external to the person, it is internal.
Gab
10 Feb 12 at 4:06 pm
that would make a great Bill Leak cartoon
RodClarke
10 Feb 12 at 4:06 pm
whatever toots, I have seen the code, its designed to addict.
RodClarke
10 Feb 12 at 4:09 pm
I’m fine with her and she’s easy on the eye too. I like Palin. HE has a ton of political courage.
JC
10 Feb 12 at 4:09 pm
JC why didn’t she run this time around – I really thought she’d win the GOP nomination.
RodClarke
10 Feb 12 at 4:10 pm
What if I want to kill myself, am of sound mind, but can’t phyically pull the switch myself. My loved one, or even a concerned health professional who has no moral objection to the whole thing want to help me go, and I want them to do it.
Would you have them charged with ‘murder’?
BTW you’re redefining murder, somthing the anti-abortionists and PETA do. Let’s call suicide ‘murder of oneself’ too, so if you try and fail you can be done for attempted murder.
papachango
10 Feb 12 at 4:13 pm
A person has to have an existing predisposition to addiction – whatever their poison – for it to manifest, pet. Otherwise every person who ever played the pokies would be addicted, which is what you are touting.
Gab
10 Feb 12 at 4:13 pm
lol damn Ipad. She.. not he.
JC
10 Feb 12 at 4:13 pm
She’s got some conservative views on religious matters, but as I understand it she doesn’t seek to have those imposed on others. So yeah, happy to ‘claim’ her, as all that other stuff does qualify her.
papachango
10 Feb 12 at 4:16 pm
I think she realized it may have been hopeless as the leftwing media would have made her the issue rather than Rev Wright’s old friend.
She was clever. She thought that she would have more influence in the background and help get rid of the Affirmative action president that way.
JC
10 Feb 12 at 4:16 pm
Thanks Spot.
Rabz
10 Feb 12 at 4:17 pm
JC I thought you were alluding to her rootin’ tootin’ pig shootin’ manliness…
papachango
10 Feb 12 at 4:18 pm
lol..papa.
She’s a real alpha chick. I dig that sort of spunk in a woman. She’s really taken a beating from the leftwing scum bags, but they can’t beat her up.
The shooting stuff is really sexy too I reckon.
JC
10 Feb 12 at 4:20 pm
Anti pokies I can understand, but anti gambling? They’re seaprate entities for mine.
Dear Lord, a man that doesn’t gamble could be walking around lucky and not even know it.
Infidel Tiger
10 Feb 12 at 4:23 pm
I don’t believe in luck, IT. And I don’t gamble either
jtfsoon
10 Feb 12 at 4:25 pm
Addictions are just enlarged habits. Some of them are very bad habits indeed. Individual moral judgements are necessary here for a person to decide regarding themselves what is bad and how bad it is. Individual moral will and the capacity to apply it is required if one wishes to cease bad habits.
Habits involve a cycle of stimulus, response, reward, which can be controlled and changed if a person gains good psychological insight. Bad thinking habits, like glowball warming, are the same sort of stuff, reinforced by an unreflective collective ‘groupthink’. Good thinking habits maintain a critical distance from any group’s ‘groupthink’.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
10 Feb 12 at 4:25 pm
Ron Paul would ahve more conservative views than Palin.
Infidel Tiger
10 Feb 12 at 4:26 pm
What if I want to kill myself, am of sound mind, but can’t phyically pull the switch myself.
So we should change our laws and our entire moral code, putting everyone else at risk, just because you’re suicidal but didn’t manage to pull it off in time?
No. I believe that everyone, no matter how rich or poor, no matter how sane or insane, no matter how ill or healthy, should be able to trust in the compact we make as a society that we’re not going to let someone get away with deliberately and willfully killing you.
spot
10 Feb 12 at 4:26 pm
Lol true.
RodClarke
10 Feb 12 at 4:27 pm
There’s just no way you can be Asian.
Infidel Tiger
10 Feb 12 at 4:27 pm
Too much info JC
.
Once quality in her I’m awestruck by is her ability to get the lefties so worked up into such a foaming lather, then bring out the worst in them.
She gets the most non-judgemental, bleeding heart, touchy feely leftie making mongoloid and teenage whore jokes in nothing flat. It’s awesome to watch.
papachango
10 Feb 12 at 4:30 pm
Yea, but she wouldn’t send the economy into a tailspin like Ron Paul.
JC
10 Feb 12 at 4:31 pm
WTF are you on about JC?
.
10 Feb 12 at 4:32 pm
An open letter to GOP primary voters from a libertarian
He nails it. He has stated previously that the best choice for libertarians at this point in time is Romney.
Alex Pundit
10 Feb 12 at 4:34 pm
spot you’re making conservative arguments again now, having previously argued from a quasi-socialist perspective about protecting the vulnerable. At least you don’t claim to be libertarian.
papachango
10 Feb 12 at 4:37 pm
One thing I admired incredibly about Palin was her defence of Ron Paul’s supporters a few weeks ago.
She said the GOP had to be careful not to mock and marginalise the more sane essence of what they advocate re smaller government.
It was a very unusual and astute intervention.
C.L.
10 Feb 12 at 4:38 pm
About 95% of it is sane and this shows Palin ought to have ran.
Treat em mean keep em keen I suppose.
.
10 Feb 12 at 4:39 pm
Papa
I finally understood the hatred for her. The left, these days is mostly comprised of nasty hens and beta males.
Palin was a good looking woman with an outdoorsy style about her and was fearless in defending her ideology.
The nasty hens felt threatened by her and beta males seemed to be afraid of her too.
The left’s Palinitis is hysterically funny to watch as she sends them fucking crazy.
You know, she was a first significant figure on the right stand against Odumbo. She in fact gave others the courage to do so as well.
She display an amazing ability to get to the core issues.
I reckon the two people that got the ball rolling on that score was Palin and Paul Ryan. Ryan stood up to him in a meeting and politely told the moron he was a fuckwit.
JC
10 Feb 12 at 4:40 pm
Lol. The amount of women I’m around whenever Palin comes on TV or is mentioned that start growling is hilarious.
Alex Pundit
10 Feb 12 at 4:42 pm
Took a while for a few of the Catallaxians to stand up, but they got there in the end.
Infidel Tiger
10 Feb 12 at 4:42 pm
For that alone she deserves a Nobel.
Gab
10 Feb 12 at 4:45 pm
It’s true that female lefties have a particularly savage hatred for a successful woman who’s not of the left. Look at the stuff that gets chucked at Sophie Mirabella (fat bitch etc) or Thatcher.
it it a ‘betrayal of the sisterhood’ thing?
papachango
10 Feb 12 at 4:47 pm
Is our multi-year love affair breaking down?
I think Paul’s monetary policy ideas are whacko. They would send the economy into another depression.
He wants to raise interest rates and harden up monetary policy.
I don’t believe you can do that unless the economy is made far, far more flexible than it is now.
i actually don’t disagree with him on monetary policy, but that reform would come last, not first. I don’t think it would be optimum, but possibly better than what there is now. Sumner sold me on NGDP targeting.
Personally i also don’t like him. He’s too much into conspiracy theories and it’s a long history with him
Seen that vid I put up where he accuses Bush snr and the CIA dealing in the drug trafficking? That was in the late 80′s, so this shit is not a new thing with him.
JC
10 Feb 12 at 4:47 pm
JC –
What stuck me is how they all put her down as a ‘dumb bitch’, then went nuts trying to counter her arguments and generally deride her at every opportunity.
If she was really so dumb, why waste time? She had them reallytwisted in knots and I wonder if it wasn’t half deliberate?
papachango
10 Feb 12 at 4:50 pm
having previously argued from a quasi-socialist perspective about protecting the vulnerable.
Bullshit. Read my 4:02pm reply from the first time you tried to level that accusation at me.
Hell, get some cyanide implanted in one of your teeth if you’re that hell-bent on being able to kill yourself on demand, but don’t demand that the rest of the civilised world toss out their very reasonable moral and legal taboo on murder just because you think you’d rather have someone else kill you than do it yourself.
spot
10 Feb 12 at 4:50 pm
Another Ron Paul truther connection.
http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/09/10358155-super-pac-supporting-ron-paul-is-operated-by-a-911-truther
In other news, dog bites man
jtfsoon
10 Feb 12 at 4:53 pm
-papachango
The simple truth is that conservatives aren’t just weak libertarians with aberrant views, any more than the reverse. There are people that need protecting. There are rights that need protecting.
Pragmatically no-one can defend a purely conservative society, since it could never overcome any foundational errors nor adapt.
At the same time libertarianism needs a stable basis to work from; a society where no member shares broad basic assumptions with any other is incoherent, and neutral laws cannot cover every instance of ethical interaction.
Even socialism is right in accepting that some people at any given time will not be capable of looking after themselves, but clearly incapable of generating the economic surpluses needed to care for such people if not leavened with strong individual freedom, ie.,libertarianism.
wreckage
10 Feb 12 at 4:53 pm
I hadn’t seen that video of Paul on the Downey show until JC posted the link.
He was quite beserk.
But, as often with Paul, there was a lot of truth to what he was saying about police home invasions becoming the norm in America thanks to the stupid war on drugs etc.
C.L.
10 Feb 12 at 4:56 pm
Gosh, CL, are you saying you can agree with SOME of what a person says?
Aren’t there rules about that?
wreckage
10 Feb 12 at 5:06 pm
Your counter argument consisted of ‘no I’m not’, which isn’t very convincing.
Your original argument was that we should outlaw any form of voluntary euthanasia because some vulnerable people might be pressured into doing it not entirely of their own free will.
It’s like a socialist saying that free markets should be restricted because some people will lose out.
BTW pressuring people into flicking the switch is a valid point – but I’d say the solution is strong checks and balances rather than outlawing voluntary euthanasia.
papachango
10 Feb 12 at 5:06 pm
Anyway, Papa, you and I are not going to agree on that issue. I don’t hold with State sanctioning the killing of its own citizens. I’ve protested against capital punishment in my home state and I’d protest against any other form of legalised homicide. You may trust the State enough to let it determine who gets to live and who gets killed, but I sure don’t. Finis.
spot
10 Feb 12 at 5:07 pm
Usually.
Paul pushes the boundaries, though, because however right he might be about the war on drugs, his penchant for wacky conspiracy theories debauches his utility as an instrument of saleable political change.
C.L.
10 Feb 12 at 5:11 pm
At least you’re consistent with opposing capital punishment. Opposuing voluntary euthanasia while supporting the death penalty is ridiculous.
Saying ‘the State enough to let it determine who gets to live and who gets killed…’ is misrepresenting my argument however. It must be always up to the individual, not the state.
papachango
10 Feb 12 at 5:13 pm
It’d be a pretty gresat world if it were made up of Libertarians and Conservatives. Unfortunately there are leftists ruining the party. Damn them to hell.
Infidel Tiger
10 Feb 12 at 5:13 pm
All gambling is addictive to some degree.
It’s designed to be a gambling machine. If it works, it’s addictive.
If you’re against “addictive” gambling, you’re against gambling.
daddy dave
10 Feb 12 at 5:21 pm
Yes I agree IT. Forget Left / Right, there’s really three basic positions, conservative, libertarian and statist.
Leftist is a bit meaningless these days – old school trots would disagree with watermelon eco socialists on plenty of stuff. besides nationalist/fascist types, though they’re called ‘far right’ are really in the same statist camp as Lee Rhiannon, Clive Hamilton etc.
papachango
10 Feb 12 at 5:22 pm
So Ron Paul and George Bush, 43 and 41, are part of the same big tent? The Republican Party is a broader church than the conservative movement.
The Democratic Party at one time was made up of progressives, social liberals, fiscal conservatives, Bourbon democrats and Southern racists. that was a big tent.
Jim Rose
10 Feb 12 at 5:28 pm
We almost had a two party system of Liberals in government with the Nationals as the opposition here in NSW last election. That would have been spectacular.
Alex Pundit
10 Feb 12 at 5:30 pm
So where are the libertarians? Sounds like conservatives vs conservative agrarian socialists
Papachango
10 Feb 12 at 6:47 pm
No, you can’t say that the goal of all drug dealers is to create addicts. They are subject to the profit motive, like all merchants. Considering this, did you know that many drug dealers refuse to sell to addicts because of the trouble they bring? Yet they still have customers. The reason is because many, many people use narcotics recreationally and have complete control over their consumption. Now, if the relative addictiveness of a substance is the yardstick you’ve seized upon to determine whether it should be legal or not, then where does your crusade end? You do realise that, psychologically speaking, ANYTHING can be addictive? And using your logic, there’s no sound reason why cigarettes, alcohol and caffeine shouldn’t be outlawed. Your rationale is one helluva slippery slope and would inevitably rely upon someone making arbitrary decisions about what to ban and what not to ban. Which is pretty much what we have today. It’s not a libertarian position you’re arguing from.
Oh come on
10 Feb 12 at 7:20 pm
Addictions are just enlarged habits.
I’m glad you know what addiction is because no-one else does. As for it being simply a matter of psychological adjustment, that’s just the old mentalism tirade again. It don’t work.
Habits involve a cycle of stimulus, response, reward, which can be controlled and changed if a person gains good psychological insight.
I’m a behaviorist of sorts but not a simple one. Extinction in behavior can be very difficult to achieve and even when achieved stress can re-activate old habits. Consider Rat Park, you can reverse addiction simply by changing the environment. But when people choose to perceive addiction as solely residing in the character of the individual, they have misunderstood the complexities of human behavior.
John H.
10 Feb 12 at 7:27 pm
No he doesn’t realise. Only pretty lights and music make people addicted – his mate told him so.
Gab
10 Feb 12 at 7:28 pm
Is trading of currency and equities included ?
Many are “addicted” – should we ban?
Or should we only ban losers betting at 15%+ overounds from their pastime?
Leave people alone to make their beds to lie in
Don
10 Feb 12 at 7:40 pm
The worst customer any barkeep can have is an alcoholic.
Infidel Tiger
10 Feb 12 at 7:41 pm
That depends on the drug I reckon. What is the percentage of weekend warriors to addicts in the heroin market?
sdfc
10 Feb 12 at 7:49 pm
No, you can’t say that the goal of all drug dealers is to create addicts
You mean like how the use of antidepressants can make one dependent on them forever? Recent studies point to this. Yet not so long ago it was common practice to prescribe these drugs over very long time frames and this in spite of now some very worrying evidence that the use of antidepressants during pregnancy may be upping the Aspie risk, that antidepressants *may* involve thicking the carotid arteries, that long term use can induce serotonin syndrome which is irreversible and involves facial tics. And let”s not forget the latest studies which on multiple occasions have found no evidence of efficacy above placebo except in the most severe cases of depression. Or that many psychiatrists think once a schizophrenic always a schizophrenic and so prescribe drugs that are known to cause obesity, diabetes, and heart failure even though there is abundance evidence in the literature that schizophrenia as diagnosed is not always a permanent condition. Or how about the latest DSM which is even including grieving and sadness as psychiatric maladies. Or tobacco manufacturers who deliberately include elements to make the tobacco more addictive? So I’d be more concerned about legal drug dealers.
Drug dealers don’t have to create addicts, nor can they do so anymore than we can successfully treat addiction. Drug dealers aren’t idiots, they aren’t going to destroy their market base.
John H.
10 Feb 12 at 7:50 pm
I think you’re probably right, sdfc. Nevertheless, the assertion that “the goal of drug dealers is to create addicts” cannot be used as a justification to criminalise certain substances, because it is not correct.
Oh come on
10 Feb 12 at 7:52 pm
What, we get conversations like this, do we? “nah, sorry Jimmy, I can’t sell to you tonight. Look at you, you’re a mess. You’ve got imaginary bugs under your skin, for crying out loud. Look, here’s a doc I know, he’ll help you. Then get in contact with me when you’re feeling better.”
steve from brisbane
10 Feb 12 at 7:55 pm
OCO
I reckon addicts are a captive market for drug dealers, what supplier doesn’t want a bid for his product? Do drug dealers really give a shit?
I haven’t really got a firm opinion on legalising heroin however I sure as hell wouldn’t want anymore speedfreaks walking the streets.
sdfc
10 Feb 12 at 7:59 pm
Most of the drug dealers I’ve met have been very cautious people. Two of them I considered friends – one still is, but he’s out of the game now. The other I lost touch with and don’t know what’s become of him. Both flat out refused to deal with addicts, because addicts have a tendency to run out of money, then start making desperate phone calls and sending heaps of begging text messages to the dealer. This is exactly the kind of electronic trail a dealer who wants to stay out of prison does not want to have leading to his front door.
Oh come on
10 Feb 12 at 8:03 pm
The smart ones who manage to gain a good clientele maybe however many heroin dealers are addicts themselves.
sdfc
10 Feb 12 at 8:08 pm
In which case they won’t be dealers for very long at all. A very short-lived career when you consume all the product.
Gab
10 Feb 12 at 8:10 pm
You’ve got imaginary bugs under your skin, for crying out loud. Look, here’s a doc I know, he’ll help you. Then get in contact with me when you’re feeling better.”
Did it ever occur to you that drug addicts and drug dealers live in the same subculture, share similar interests and bonds(beyond drugs), are caring people who generally wish no harm on others? Yes, I know there are asshole drug dealers, there are assholes everywhere, but as mentioned above, and something people like you will probably never get through your thick fucking skull, the greater majority of drug dealers and drug users are everyday people who do care about other people, who do wish to contribute to society, who hold down jobs(how else can they afford the drugs?), and are people of good standing.
Stop relying on TV to inform your views about drugs. Stop relying of politicians, media commentators, go look at some data some time. Try it, you might learn something.
John H.
10 Feb 12 at 8:13 pm
From my understanding they sell product in order to gain income to buy product. I don’t think many addicts are all that flash at keeping jobs.
sdfc
10 Feb 12 at 8:13 pm
Which is why most dealers are not addicted to heroin.
Gab
10 Feb 12 at 8:15 pm
I don’t think many addicts are all that flash at keeping jobs.
That comes back to what you mean by “addiction”. Consider Paul Erdos, that legendary mathematician. He took amphetamines for 20 years. He stated that without it he could no longer do mathematics post 50 years of age.
John H.
10 Feb 12 at 8:15 pm
That’s great John but I really don’t think promoting the use of speed in the wider community necessarily sensible.
I’m not sure if that’s true Gab but the question is what is the percentage of weekend warriors to addicts?
sdfc
10 Feb 12 at 8:22 pm
Some do. Most don’t. The golden rule of dealing – don’t get high on your own supply. Dealers who deal to feed their habit tend to end up in jail or dead.
Disregarding the fact that no one was talking about promoting the use of speed, it is not an especially harmful amphetamine. I’m not terribly worried about its effects on the wider society – actually, it’s been around for years. Yeah it makes some people cuckoo. Many use it recreationally with little ill-effect. Meth, on the other hand, makes people crazy in a relatively short space of time. That’s a drug to worry about.
Having said that, banning it isn’t an effective method of combating its consumption.
Oh come on
10 Feb 12 at 8:58 pm
That’s great John but I really don’t think promoting the use of speed in the wider community necessarily sensible.
Yeah good point. We don’t encourage drug use but then we pick “winners”. Despite what I have said above I am in no way asserting that drug use is good. For some people though it does seem to work, hence the heavy emphasis on self medication in some studies.
My problem is that over generalisation of dealers and drug users, this doesn’t square with my personal experience of younger years and data which suggests the greater majority of frequent drug users do not have an addiction problem. Technically they may be labelled as addicts but their life contradicts the view of drug users and addicts peddled by people like Steve.
What we fail to recognise is that the medical community has a somewhat jaundiced view of drug use because they are dealing with the users who can’t handle their habits\addiction. As to the legal issues, I still can’t make up my mind SDFC. As Roccoco indicated above, legalisation could well involve more government control. I think some drugs should be legalised, marijuana, LSD, ecstacy, but amphetamines, heroin, and the new synthetic drugs are different altogether.
A recent longitudinal study of middle aged drug users in Britain found no evidence of mental decline and slight hint that drug users had higher intelligence. So even the claim that regular drug use will ruin our cognition is problematic. Stupid drug use will do that and amphetamines are such a perturbance to the dopaminergic pathways that the idea of using will power alone to defeat such addiction becomes laughable. By way of example, a friend of mine is currrently in partnership with a Big Phama to develop a rehab strategy for MethA addicts. Their strategy, given them another dopamine agonist. Sounds weird eh? But not when you read studies demonstrating that MethA has such profound effects on dopaminergic function that it can take months and possibly years for the cortico -striatal dopaminergic tone to return to normal values.
John H.
10 Feb 12 at 8:59 pm
While we’re on the topic of sexy conservative chickd – My dream is being caught in a Palin-Bachmann sandwich.
Bachmann: “I read Mises on the beach”. Fuck me. How goddamn sexy is that…?
Skuter
10 Feb 12 at 9:22 pm
A recent longitudinal study of middle aged drug users in Britain found no evidence of mental decline and slight hint that drug users had higher intelligence.
I’m pulling the bullshit card on this one.
Which drug(s)?
Sure, at the top end Keith Richards has been able to excell despite his drug use, but really, most people who have used illegal drugs for over 20 years are completely useless.
jupes
10 Feb 12 at 9:28 pm
Look this isn’t a great field. However all three guys would be multiples better than the demented socialist in the White House.
No conservative nor libertarian can suggest otherwise and maintain credibility.
JC
10 Feb 12 at 9:29 pm
I’m pulling the bullshit card on this one.
Which drug(s)?
All types of drugs. Nor is the study unique. A CMJ study circa 2000 found a similar result for marijuana light smokers, and a recent study found no lung damage from light marijuana smoking. An earlier British study surprised the bods because they were stunned by the sheer number and diversity of drug users.
but really, most people who have used illegal drugs for over 20 years are completely useless.
Got any evidence for that? Look, the reason I reference research is because of opinions like “I think … but haven’t read anything but hey I’m still authoritative.” You really think I give a rat’s arse about the opinion of someone who thinks but doesn’t read?
John H.
10 Feb 12 at 9:34 pm
Meth was widely available in Sydney in the mid eighties.
Back then you heard a hell of lot less about it because junkies didn’t consume meth.
That is they consumed junk – remember, this was a veritable eon before the great junk drought.
Rabz
10 Feb 12 at 9:35 pm
John H, sorry, I was only trying to make a point not write a thesis outline. I tried to keep it very simple, because I wanted to focus attention on the value of examining the role of will and volition in beating addictions. Theodore Dalrymple, with long experience in prison psychiatry, is interesting on this.
Of course social and cultural circumstances including the degree and type of social interactions, life experiences and opportunities from birth or pre-birth on, genetics, nutrition, neurological, pharmacological and other factors form a part of the complex of ‘habits’ we term addictions. ‘Habit’ is an interesting neurological, as well as social, phenomenon: we couldn’t function at all without clear habits. Even our senses as we understand them are habituations. And I am by no means a simple behaviourist; wouldn’t want to focus on will and volition for a start if I was.
Best to clear that up.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
10 Feb 12 at 10:01 pm
Oh gawd – Lizzie’s being a hell of a lot more than a pretty face, yet again – watch out people!
Rabz
10 Feb 12 at 10:14 pm
Hi Rabz, it’s Friday nite and what am I doing in??
Let alone getting all defensively intellectual.
Having a riot of a time watching ABC News where economists (not a spunky looking lot in this iteration) are all giving their opinion about basis point rises without Reserve Bank say so. Aaagh – Ms. Gillard now patronising us again. C U
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
10 Feb 12 at 10:46 pm
Hey Lizzie!
Enjoy some music in the meantime. I’m plotting my midnight posting as we speak…
Rabz
10 Feb 12 at 11:00 pm
Lizzie B, there’s still time to head out. Banking drives me to drink!
Skuter
10 Feb 12 at 11:03 pm
BankingEconomists drink me to drive!Rabz
10 Feb 12 at 11:05 pm
Cheers Rabz. Good to know I have that effect on you!
Skuter
10 Feb 12 at 11:28 pm
One of the rare hot milk and honey early nights for me, Skuter. It’s been a busy and interesting week; a lot going on Chez Lizzie. Lotsa planning to do. I’ve been getting the 4am wakes making lists – love looking out over the harbour in these pre-dawn hours and checking out who’s awake in the neighbourhood and, who’s not, in this densely packed little part of Syd. Wonder what they are all up to. They probably wonder what near-naked possible femme fatale at window, all still and enigmatic, is up to as well. Bet someone somewhere has a telescope. Spent the day myself doing a little bit of excusable mild flirting (nothing sleazy) with the plumber inbetween racing off to appointments. We are, after all, creatures of habit, in various ways. HIA is away this week, thus I am one bad habit down.
And so to bed.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
10 Feb 12 at 11:44 pm
What a fascinating thread.
“Leaving it illegal is far more libertarian.”
That is a silly proposition. Even a highly regulated market will be less oppressive than a black market, because paying taxes is never as bad as being put in prison. Think about it – banning a product, or allowing a product with conditions; neither is libertarian, but it’s obvious which is closer.
“Maybe it’s a curious happenstance that in America, libertarian values overlap a lot with conservative values.”
That is a good point. Australia has had a culture of government control and interference from the start, and so conservatism here means something rather different to America.
“However addicts by their very nature are not free actors.”
Rod strikes at the very heart of libertarian morality by making the very reasonable point that ‘voluntary’ is not a simple concept. It’s possible there is no definitive answer to the problems surrounding the ideas of ‘freedom’, ‘voluntary’, and ‘coercion’, but it’s a rare libertarian that confronts these problems rather than sweeping them under the ideological carpet.
Spot elaborates on this theme: “Is it truly voluntary euthanasia when…” but riles some feathers by saying: “There’s so much of a power imbalance involved”, which sounds identical to left-wing criticisms of economic power. Perhaps spot and wreckage are right, and this is the basic difference between conservative and libertarian – conservatives think some social considerations trump individual preferences, whereas libertarians do not?
Jarrah
11 Feb 12 at 12:01 am
John H
I still can’t make up my mind SDFC. As Roccoco indicated above, legalisation could well involve more government control. I think some drugs should be legalised, marijuana, LSD, ecstacy, but amphetamines, heroin, and the new synthetic drugs are different altogether.
I agree.
sdfc
11 Feb 12 at 12:29 am
See above. Duty doesn’t come into it, and people are free to refuse.
Papachango, how can duty not come into it when you refer to rights? Both negative and positive rights impose duties. A right to life, for instance, imposes a duty on all not to kill negligently, recklessly, or murderously. Similarly, a purported right to the basic necessities of life like shelter imposes a duty on governments to provide housing. Voluntary euthanasia is a positive right since it involves not a duty to refrain from acting in particular way but in fact creates a duty to act in a particular way when requested. But you say people are “free to refuse” which means this is a curious ‘right’ since theoretically we could all ‘refuse’ and thus this supposed ‘right’ appears rather ephemeral. You’ll note that we cannot refuse to refrain from killing negligently, recklessly, or murderously without infringing the law.
It’s also curious to see libertarians supporting positive rights. I suppose you could side-step this problem by arguing that what people actually have a right to is the solicitation of assistance from other parties in their own suicide. And you think conservatives have problems.
dover_beach
11 Feb 12 at 12:57 am
Jarrah, I’m not “ideologically pure” enough to call myself either a conservative or a libertarian, so… meh.
According to Papa, “you can’t call yourself a libertarian unless you strongly support it [euthanasia]“. OK, so I can’t call myself a libertarian because I don’t trust the State to licence some citizens to commit premeditated murder.
But according to many of the hardline conservatives I know in the US, one can’t call oneself a conservative unless one strongly supports capital punishment. OK, so I can’t call myself a conservative because I don’t trust the State to licence some citizens to commit premeditated murder.
I also support equal rights under the law for gay couples, which gets me offside with some Christian conservatives; yet I don’t support co-opting the term “marriage,” which puts me offside with the angry gay-left.
Being ideologically pure may give some folks a nice warm fuzzy feeling, but at the end of the day most everyone I know ends up having to make compromises when they get into that voting booth.
spot
11 Feb 12 at 12:59 am
“It’s also curious to see libertarians supporting positive rights.”
The distinction between positive and negative rights isn’t straightforward, if it really exists at all. For example, if rights enforcement depends on the state, are they not all ‘positive’ to some degree?
Jarrah
11 Feb 12 at 1:00 am
“Being ideologically pure may give some folks a nice warm fuzzy feeling, but at the end of the day most everyone I know ends up having to make compromises when they get into that voting booth.”
Anyone who thinks they are ideologically pure is deluded. There is no purity to be had. We are biological creatures in a social setting, and both categories are inherently fuzzy in their workings.
Jarrah
11 Feb 12 at 1:04 am
The distinction between positive and negative rights isn’t straightforward, if it really exists at all.
I agree, but above I hit open a formulation that might distinguish the two more clearly, “Voluntary euthanasia is a positive right since it involves not a duty to refrain from acting in
particular[certain] ways [negative right] but in fact creates a duty to act in a particular way when requested.” Nevertheless, it’s not without its own ambiguity.For example, if rights enforcement depends on the state, are they not all ‘positive’ to some degree?
I don’t think Berlin was adopting such a use of ‘positive’ which derives from legal positivism in which all rights that are legal rights are positive rights.
dover_beach
11 Feb 12 at 1:15 am
I feel the same Spot.
I am anti abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, gay adoption and anyone but married couples having IVF
I’m pro civil unions, drug legalisation and death penalty.
I’m a bitsa goddamnit.
Infidel Tiger
11 Feb 12 at 1:17 am
Jazza
Yes, but some of us are purer than others. For instance it will perhaps take a decade to forgive you for voting Greens and helping put Repugnant Rhiannon in the senate, Jazza.
You could, if you chose make a public apology now, but don’t look for acceptance till around 2025 at the earliest.
JC
11 Feb 12 at 1:21 am
JC, remember when you supported Obama? Yeah you do… admit it bro.
Infidel Tiger
11 Feb 12 at 1:23 am
IT
And I manned up and made a public apology. In other words I manned up (as usual). It took me all of two o so months before I realized he was a complete turkey. However I did end up doing the right thing.
I bought the bullshit he was a middle of the roader Clinton type.
I was duped.
JC
11 Feb 12 at 1:27 am
IT, JC has “Yes We Can” as his wallpaper.
dover_beach
11 Feb 12 at 1:29 am
That’s some stone cold honesty, JC. I hope you have a new bullshit detector… please loan it to Jarrah.
Infidel Tiger
11 Feb 12 at 1:32 am
I re-wallpapered DB. The new one says “get the fuck out here. No you can’t”.
JC
11 Feb 12 at 1:32 am
Other than the death penalty, and I could be persuaded in rare circumstances, I’m with you IT. A bitsa, just slightly different.
But I can’t cop Tebow.
Tiny Dancer
11 Feb 12 at 1:50 am
Social stuff is difficult.
I hate the idea of a kid being aborted, but I also don’t want it to be made illegal.
I think it’s time the state got out of the relationship business and allow marriage to go back to it’s traditional roots which is essentially religious (in a church) or through celebrant. The overriding point is that marriage should be a private affair. I still can’t understand why gays would want to be caught in family law.
Drugs should be decriminalized.
I think the state’s wings need to be clipped by 50% or more on the financial side as a starter.
And finally nanni-staters should be placed on ASIO watch.
JC
11 Feb 12 at 2:06 am
I’ve been away from this thread too long, obviously.
C.L.
11 Feb 12 at 2:54 am
Wow, when I went to bed early last night I missed confession time! Political sins of the past and all that. Clearly, I am not alone.
As someone who was once fairly left and somewhat ideologically driven, like Spot I am very suspicious of calling myself anything much politically these days. There has always been a fair streak of the individualist libertarian in me, which sat badly with the controlling nature of leftism and often got me into hot water with my erstwhile mates. I am increasingly of a conservative disposition socially, having become dismayed by the general inhumanity of leftist social engineering and bureaucracy.
My feminism, such as it is, abhors medieval sexism and gender absolutism, and is happy with the state of legal equality in the West. I scorn leftist manufactured feminist miseries, and the same for manufactured gay ones. Marriage is for males with females. Other social issues – each on their merits, as I call them after examining my own conscience and an individual’s personal responsibilities.
Economically, I think free markets do it best and free trade is where it is at. Still thinking about any provisos. I would eat crushed glass to get rid of the current Federal Labor Government.
The Cat has provided a useful forum for me to continue thinking. Hope I don’t sound too naive for all the economic intellects that abound here.
End of confession.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
11 Feb 12 at 9:12 am
Yes it is. Stay out of Surry Hills when you are on the turps.
.
11 Feb 12 at 9:22 am
It has gone a bit further than that, “love”, e.g., Mary Gaudron.
.
11 Feb 12 at 9:28 am
WTF is ‘ideological purity’?
We’re all the sum parts of our opinions and prejudices, leavened with the lessons learned from many personal experiences.
I’ve certainly become a lot less of a libertarian in my old age. I used to be a real ‘anything goes’ type person.
Now I no longer even believe in drug legalisation/decriminalisation.
And don’t get me started on same sex marriage.
I also steadfastly don’t believe in god.
Free markets, less grubment and more individual responsibility.
Oh and FFS can we please get those laybore/greenslime scumbags out of our lives?!?!
Rabz
11 Feb 12 at 9:28 am
Jarrah,
Please stop this Professor Xavier crap on me. I am ideologically pure. Who is more libertarian than me? No one. Not even John Humphreys, Ayn Rand or David Freidman. I am what I am. Don’t tell me what to think under the guise of murky concepts with shifting definitions. You’ve already tried that crap before with the idea that coercion is not a black and white idea.
It is.
.
11 Feb 12 at 9:31 am
Communist.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=981
.
11 Feb 12 at 9:33 am
There is a big and real difference between a duty to do something and a “duty” not to do something, and that is the very real difference between a positive and a negative right.
The people who want to blur this distinction usually do so because their own perspective is weak. Or they are just offended by libertarians and hate that they are logically consistent when their own perspective is not.
John Mc
11 Feb 12 at 9:37 am
Sorry, not going to argue about the merits of freer availability of drugs.
I’ve seen too many wrecked lives due to drug abuse.
By and large people are better off being kept clear of them.
Rabz
11 Feb 12 at 9:40 am
Yep, enjoy that ‘schizoid’ feeling. Conservatives make laws; libertarians seek liberty from constraints. Irreconcilable differences that must somehow live together. A lot like marriage, really. Just have to get on with it.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
11 Feb 12 at 9:44 am
The demand for drugs is inelastic and the supply is elastic.
The only way to really ‘stop’ drug use is to severely punish any end drug use (i.e., Singapore).
This is not feasible or in any other way desirable.
.
11 Feb 12 at 9:44 am
Dot, Mary Gaudron’s elevation was part of an implicit affirmative action program – what I refer to as the ‘manufactured miseries’ of modern feminism.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
11 Feb 12 at 9:46 am
It is also part of the legal status, given who is in Federal Cabinet.
.
11 Feb 12 at 9:50 am
No.
Interdiction works. That’s why Sydney is now largely junkie free and has been for the last decade.
Herion addiction used to be an absolute scourge in Sydney.
About ten years ago, a mate of mine who’s one of the top statisticians in this country noted that herion busts were massively up, ODs were down to nothing as were ambo call outs and narcan shots.
All good, as far I was concerned. Until of course, the morons started abusing meth and hey presto! Instant meeja hysteria.
Rabz
11 Feb 12 at 9:53 am
Yep, enjoy that ‘schizoid’ feeling. Conservatives make laws; libertarians seek liberty from constraints. Irreconcilable differences that must somehow live together. A lot like marriage, really. Just have to get on with it.
The journey from wanting to make others do what you think they should do (or actually making others do what you want if you’ve got the power to do so) to letting people do what they want within the minimum constraints required to get along peacefully, is the story of human progress.
John Mc
11 Feb 12 at 9:54 am
Dot, I agree. Not the terms of the discussion though.
I called affirmative action a ‘manufactured misery’, and I disagree with those who create these, because legally Western women have all the rights they need. That is my point. Women need nothing more than the legal right to exist on equal terms. Thatcher showed us that very forcefully.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
11 Feb 12 at 10:06 am
How long did that last?
I find it a bit odd that you say “interdiction works” then mention substitution effects in the next breath.
.
11 Feb 12 at 10:13 am
The secret of a successful marriage, John Mc. You have no idea what I can put up with from him, and he’d tell you the same with regard to me.
There’s nothing like progress, in history, or in interpersonal relationshps.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
11 Feb 12 at 10:16 am
“You’ve already tried that crap before with the idea that coercion is not a black and white idea. It is.”
No, it’s not, as many have pointed out. It’s wilful blindness to claim it is.
“and helping put Repugnant Rhiannon in the senate, Jazza.”
Don’t be stupid. I voted LDP for the Senate. Who did you vote for?
Jarrah
11 Feb 12 at 10:43 am
Coercion is a black and white idea.
.
11 Feb 12 at 10:47 am
Heroin availability has been massively down over the last decade.
Most junkies have since ended up on methadone, not ice. Methadone of course, being a substance that doesn’t give them a high and allows them greater levels of social functionality.
The throttling of the supply of heroin into Sydney over the last decade has been one of that city’s great untold stories.
I personally saved many thousands of dollars (over course of about ten years) by ditching my home contents insurance as soon as the drought was obvious – the other giveaway being the plummeting in the property crime stats.
Drugs are a scourge and if their supply is restricted or non existent, that can only be a good thing. It means less young idiots becoming hooked for starters.
The drug milieu must also be ruthlessly ‘deglamourised’.
There are few more loathsome, useless dirtbags on the planet than drug addicts.
Rabz
11 Feb 12 at 10:48 am
“Coercion is a black and white idea.”
Just keep repeating your mantra, Punctuation Mark. No need to present an argument.
Jarrah
11 Feb 12 at 11:00 am
“I personally saved many thousands of dollars (over course of about ten years) by ditching my home contents insurance as soon as the drought was obvious – the other giveaway being the plummeting in the property crime stats.”
You know what else decreases property crime? Decriminalising or legalising drugs so they’re not so expensive that people resort to burglary to sustain their habit.
Jarrah
11 Feb 12 at 11:02 am
What is your argument exactly? You’re confused?
.
11 Feb 12 at 11:02 am
Well now you’re on the trolley re drugs.
.
11 Feb 12 at 11:03 am
Hitting the demand end rather than arguing about the supply side is the probably the better way to go to stop addled drug lives starting. More personal responsibility in the culture in general and less time on the hands of yoof would greatly assist. Just don’t try saying that out loud to anyone under 25 who is into popular culture.
I agree with Rabz about the empirical good effects of the heroin drought, as seen here in 2010 and 2011 postcodes.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
11 Feb 12 at 11:05 am
“What is your argument exactly?”
You were the one who brought up a previous disagreement, so presumably you know full well what my arguments are. I can repeat them for you, but just for a change, why don’t you put up a proposition for us to debate? No assertions, please, but an actual argument.
Jarrah
11 Feb 12 at 11:06 am
No Jarrah, you have to establish why your position isn’t a mantra and why mine is.
.
11 Feb 12 at 11:07 am
You brought up the topic. Onus is on you.
Jarrah
11 Feb 12 at 11:09 am
I’m quite satisfied that I’m concerned with an objective truth and you have been mixing with the wrong kind of people in Surry Hills again.
I know what you are saying is a mantra. I don’t care if you are unconvinced by my bluntness.
.
11 Feb 12 at 11:12 am
So you’re satisfied with your view, but are unwilling to defend it. Says it all, really.
Jarrah
11 Feb 12 at 11:16 am
So are you Jarrah. You have substituted ethics for post-modernism.
.
11 Feb 12 at 11:17 am
Leaving it illegal is far more libertarian.
In the event of a mass of regulation restricting its supply et al, you have a point if you were talking about grass. Marijuana can be grown anywhere by anyone and its black market has been relatively laissez-faire. Altho’ I suspect that the recent movements of bikers into Melbourne portend a stop to that.
Heroin requires several stages in production and various contingencies including the corruption of law enforcement agencies in order to function. Effectively it’s a monopoly or oligopoly operated by crime syndicates. And because it’s illegal it adds layers of surveillance and creates a huge market for various opioids that would not exist if it was simply legal.
I’ve asked several times why libertarians don’t claim Tea Party co-founding, pot-smoking, riflewoman and hunter Sarah Palin but I’ve never been given an answer.
Sarah Palin smokes pot!!!!?
Where does that come from?
Adrien
11 Feb 12 at 11:44 am
I’ve asked several times why libertarians don’t claim Tea Party co-founding, pot-smoking, riflewoman and hunter Sarah Palin but I’ve never been given an answer
Simply because Obama would have wiped the floor with her, and she would have probably been out of her depth as president. Plenty of libertarians like her, but they don’t say that precisely because they like her.
She’s a great American and a great patriot.
John Mc
11 Feb 12 at 12:04 pm
Thanks Lizzie.
Rabz
11 Feb 12 at 1:23 pm
jazza
Dot is damned right. We’re mostly pure whereas you’re not, know you’re not and are now trying to paste white feathers on us too.
We didn’t vote Greenslime at the last election like you did, so I can see why you feel impure and guilt ridden. Stop to trying to paint us with the same brush.
JC
11 Feb 12 at 1:37 pm
I’d skip the LSD, and the ecstasy too.
The problem with most illegal drugs, apart from addiction, is that they do have side-effects, some severe. And part of that problem is that any legalisation is going to have to fit into a legal structure that already exists.
There’s no point saying “there should be no legal structure”, because a great deal of what there is relates essentially to deception; I can’t see a strong case from any kind of free-market liberal perspective for permitting people to obtain money and benefits via deception. There’s no way to rationally assess the price you’ll pay for a product when you are severely misinformed as to its nature.
So, in the existing structure, heroin and amphetamines at least, and quite likely marijuana, would fail to pass the standards that are required of currently legal drugs- they’d come off the prohibited substances list and go onto the faulty and dangerous products list.
In addition, anything that at even minimal doses leaves a user incapable of fending for themselves is problematic (the problem with LSD is that it suppresses the cross brain activity that checks reality for “realness”).
wreckage
11 Feb 12 at 2:11 pm
Wreckage – Your problems with illegal drugs are also problems with legal drugs. Valium, prozac etc are both addictive and have harmful side effects. LSD, on the other hand, is not addictive.
I wish people who’re against the use of these things would just come right out and say they don’t like it that people get high, end of.
Adrien
11 Feb 12 at 2:34 pm
Long enough to save the people of Cabrammatta.
Peter Patton
11 Feb 12 at 2:38 pm
Not that my sample is scientific or anything, but over the years I have detected a very strong correlation between how much experience one has had with the drug world, and one’s views on drugs decriminalization. The more pro-legalize folks are the less experience they have with the issue. The most rabid pro-criminalise folks are those who’ve been through rehab a few times.
Peter Patton
11 Feb 12 at 2:49 pm
Adrien, it may be that…
….but there are people out there who have a different perspective to you. I don’t have a problem with people getting high, but I do have one with people who damage themselves and have to be cared for.
The two things are not the same.
Winston Smith
11 Feb 12 at 3:10 pm
Lizzie & IT, these ‘rules’ are very similar to my own.
Only the very young have the ability to divide their lives with Occams razor. The older don’t have a ready supply of answers, and each question has to be decided on its merits.
Winston Smith
11 Feb 12 at 3:14 pm
The problem with most illegal drugs, apart from addiction, is that they do have side-effects, some severe.
Wreckage,
Side effects are everywhere. There is mountains of research on marijuana, LSD, ecstasy, etc, if people wish to be informed about the effects there is nothing stopping them.
Antipsychotics and antidepressants are most certainly faulty and dangerous products. We allow them because they help people, though in relation to antidepressants that is now up for grabs.
Minimal doses of amphetamines, marijuana and heroin do not leave people impaired as much as you imagine. A few glasses of alcohol will leave me much more impaired than those drugs.
Of course you don’t take LSD and just carry on as usual, though I must admit my trip into the city and cinema while on some good acid was one of the best nights of my life. But LSD is a strange drug, you play with it, have great fun with it, and in my case at least, then lose interest in it. I think that is a common experience. I have driven home coming off an acid, alcohol, pot, speed party and was pulled over by the police for a breath test. The copper came up to my window and said, ‘Hey mate, move on, you’re blocking the road.” There I was coming down on 4 drugs not having sleep for 2 days speaking to this copper and thinking I was doomed but he looked at me and just said move on. Gee, I must have been really impaired …
John H.
11 Feb 12 at 3:57 pm
John
As I’ve aged I have been very conscious of increasingly say ‘no’ to drugs, even booze. In fact, I am more likely to deliberately avoid a social occasion if it seems to be organised primarily to get shitfaced. Surely, that is just acknowledging the very strong – and changing – signals that the body (and brain) sends as you age? One of my oldest and most hearty party buddies was back in town for a month over Xmas. One night, about 25 us went out to dinner [one thing that does not seem to be receding with age is the inability of my old crew to take a crap without inviting 50 people] at a great pub. After dinner, we repaired to the main bar. Next minute, I simply had to bolt, without saying goodbye. I suddenly realised it was down to the last four of us, and each of us had shouted at least one round each. What was in each round? 2 shots of tequila and a schooner. I spent the next 24 hours wishing I was dead.
Peter Patton
11 Feb 12 at 4:12 pm
And that was AFTER the meal, where I know that I drank at least one bottle of wine, and not one of the other 24 brought their car keys. Oh, and 1 beer and 2 martinis in the bar before our table was ready.
Peter Patton
11 Feb 12 at 4:16 pm
Hey Peter,
Same with me. Drugs get boring and the changes in our metabolism and brain make it more difficult with age. I can’t remember the last time I got on the turps or had speed, the ecstasy I tried was so friggin boring I promised never to try it again(for many though ecstasy is a riot but individual variation and all that), and I never had that much LSD, maybe 20 trips over a decade but have no interest in it now. I still smoke pot, but only with one friend twice a week and we just rage at each other about what we’ve been reading. The poor bugger, I use him as a sounding board about the stuff I’m reading. I’m sure it annoys him at times but he does bring in some good points and picks me up on errors. I rationalise my pot smoking by reading research which indicates THC and CBD are amongst the most neuroprotective molecules on the planet. Not that you’ll hear that in news …
I think parenting and drug use of any kind is a major fuck up waiting to happen. Once past 40 years of age if you are not curtailing any drug habit you are making a big mistake. Personally I think people who boast about getting pissed and then complain about illegal drug use are first rate hypocrites.
John H.
11 Feb 12 at 4:24 pm
Oh sorry, I forgot the point. Surely everybody is/has/will have this same experience of just ‘growing out/tired’ of drugs?. So here’s the question: in the larger scheme of things, how many people actually do get fucked around on drugs? They’d be the one’s who don’t get tired/bored. Enough to justify the costs that go with criminalisaing a large proportion of the population? My compromise on the issue is to just try liberalisation. If in 2 years time, we have a disaster on how hands, bring the laws back. If not, we can all party on the fortune we save.
Peter Patton
11 Feb 12 at 4:33 pm
I’m not against people ‘getting high’, per se. It would be mighty hypocritical (to put it mildly) of me to take that stance.
I’m against young people ruining their lives (or damaging their potential) abusing drugs.
Ultimately, drugs offer little more than a banal, transient thrill.
There are other, far more important and rewarding experiences in life.
Those experiences are what matters and are what makes for a well rounded and rewarding existence.
Abuse of drugs will only ever detract from your experience of life.
Rabz
11 Feb 12 at 4:41 pm
My compromise on the issue is to just try liberalisation. If in 2 years time, we have a disaster on how hands, bring the laws back. If not, we can all party on the fortune we save.
Yes! We should try it. To start with it is obvious that many people rely too much on media and TV to inform them about drugs. With liberalisation there will be much more attention on drug use and the more open attitude will allow a better investigation of the issue. Many people think there will be druggies robbing homes and all hell will break loose but the experience of other countries doesn’t support that.
The big worry I have is the arrival of so many synthetic drugs because this will not continue unabated so in about 10 years time synthetic drugs, typically much more potent than natural drugs, will be readily available to many people. The latest THC analogues are clearly very dangerous. Like MethA, it will soon be possible to create “backyard labs” to create many synthetic drugs. There will be no controlling this.
Fortunately most people do get tired of drugs, many people can access a wide variety of illicit drugs but choose not to. What prohibitionists don’t seem to understand is that there is no addictive personality in pure form but rather addictive potential for certain classes of drugs.
PS: Given the last research on antidepressants we might also save a fortune if we stopped handing out these placebos like candy!
John H.
11 Feb 12 at 4:43 pm
Pete and John,
BTW, I know exactly what you mean – I have one remaining vice, which I intend phasing out very soon – no prizes for guessing what it is.
All my illegal vices have long gone by the wayside – pot being the longest to get rid of. I actually stopped smoking it well over a decade ago, mainly due to the discovery of the good ol’ space cake – a fabulous ‘mode of administration’ if ever there was one.
Three pieces a week – 32 pieces ‘o’ cake from a quarter of good heads @ $90 a pop. Cheap, very fun (4-5 hrs of an extremely intense high) and no side effects whatsoever.
I just got bored with it in the end and no longer miss it.
Rabz
11 Feb 12 at 4:55 pm
Ultimately, drugs offer little more than a banal, transient thrill.
There are other, far more important and rewarding experiences in life.
Value statements Rabz, not all of us are committed to being the best we can be, the most productive we can be. Fine, if people want to live that way good on ém but my life is not a testament to this society or a submission to its demands.
Abuse of drugs will only ever detract from your experience of life.
Come on Rabz, use is not abuse. There are very few people on this planet who do not use some form of intoxication. Alcohol is everywhere and it is just as bad as many illicit drugs. If you think being a teetotaller is a way for a fulfilling life then clearly most people are not interested in your way of life.
John H.
11 Feb 12 at 4:56 pm
I don’t have a problem with people getting high, but I do have one with people who damage themselves and have to be cared for.
The streets are crawling with men who’ve forsaken, family, work and a home and don’t care provided they have a bottle. This is sad but what can you do? Make it illegal to drink and people will just drink illegally. That said: most people who drink, smoke grass, drop ecstasy whatever don’t go down the toilet. And those that do will anyway.
Adrien
11 Feb 12 at 5:42 pm
Whatever the ‘evils’ of drugs it isn’t anything compared to the State using them as a mode of surveillance and control. Anyone who supports the restricted state and turns a blind eye to the rise of the DEA etc is entertaining folly or hypocrisy.
Adrien
11 Feb 12 at 5:47 pm
Rabz
Weirdly, I haven’t really had to make any decision to ‘cut back’ in fear of my health, or anything. My brain and body did all the work for me. If I still really wanted to get out of it and party, wild horses couldn’t stop me. Oh, and if there is one thing I would thank god for, should he deign to visit me when my heart finally stops, it will be for designing me to absolute loathe and despise marijuana the first time I ever tried it, and all six of the subsequent attempts!
Peter Patton
11 Feb 12 at 6:18 pm
While I’m sure some people would want to ban alcohol *cough*Roxon*cough* it’s not possible to ban it in our society because it’s a custom, and I think that is a good argument against legalisation of other drugs – we don’t want them to become customary.
Consider Yemen and Khat, a relatively innocuous drug on its own, but taken society-wide I’m sure it’s one factor in that country’s general shittiness.
Andreas
11 Feb 12 at 6:38 pm
Not what I said, not what I meant.
wreckage
11 Feb 12 at 7:28 pm
Funnily enough, it’s been with civilised society pretty much since the year dot.
Wine and beer spring immediately to mind.
However, if any leftist plonker did try to ban it they wouldn’t live to regret it.
nanny roxoff, take note…
Rabz
11 Feb 12 at 7:31 pm
I should have a bit clearer. LSD has problems at minimal doses because of the way it suppresses your brain activity. I did not mean that all illegals had the same minimal dose problem, and if that’s what I outright said, then I wasn’t proofing closely enough.
(That said, the way most illegals are used is a function of them being illegal. If most people in rural areas did speed they way they drink, it would be a catastrophe.)
I’m not saying the line between illegals, legals, and medicinals is clear-cut, in fact I’m saying the opposite.
I’m also implying, in a roundabout way, that “just legalise everything” is no more a solution than “just make laws against everything that I find distressing”.
wreckage
11 Feb 12 at 7:38 pm
I’m glad Cohibas don’t come with glittering lights, Gab. I might smoke two a night instead of just the one!
Abu Chowdah
11 Feb 12 at 10:20 pm
I thought you more a hookah man, Abu.
You know, I haven’t smoked a cigar in years, can’t even remember the brand I smoked. It was thin gauge and I think name started with “M”.
Gab
11 Feb 12 at 10:51 pm
Macanudo?
John Mc
11 Feb 12 at 11:31 pm
“Funnily enough, it’s been with civilised society pretty much since the year dot.
Wine and beer spring immediately to mind.”
The use of hallucinogens pre-dates that of fermented and distilled drugs by a long way, principally because they require little or no processing, at least in comparison.
As an aside, there’s a surprising ancient historical trend of ‘drinking’ societies taking over or dominating societies that got their jollies in other ways. Maybe this was because of the greater aggression induced by alcohol?
Jarrah
12 Feb 12 at 12:03 am
Which is what he said – “civilised” society. Any savage can stumble upon a field of magic mushrooms, or llama uponm a coca plant.
OR, it takes a hell of a jump in IQ to work out how to mass produce booze.
Peter Patton
12 Feb 12 at 12:25 am
OR, it takes a hell of a jump in IQ to work out how to mass produce booze.
Generally indicative of a greater interest in making stuff, that being consistent with raised iq, so those who ferment also were engaging in other stuff. Beer is also a reasonable fuel source. Additionally, antiseptic applications?
John H.
12 Feb 12 at 12:28 am
Yeah, get the local savages pissed, and root their chicks!
Peter Patton
12 Feb 12 at 12:30 am
Yeah, get the local savages pissed, and root their chicks!
Now that’s a good idea.
John H.
12 Feb 12 at 12:31 am
Dude, it’s not MY idea. I’ve probably just been reading too much Roman literature.
Peter Patton
12 Feb 12 at 12:34 am
If I’d been reading Greek stuff lately, I probably would have said
Peter Patton
12 Feb 12 at 12:35 am
Why Being Sleepy and Drunk Are Great for Creativity
Fleeced
12 Feb 12 at 12:36 am
“Any savage can stumble upon a field of magic mushrooms, or llama uponm a coca plant.”
Sure, but the pattern suggests that certain drugs become culturally established and others do not, and which take root depends on numerous factors. In turn, the drugs have a cultural effect. Note the difference in Europe between (broadly speaking) wine-drinking societies, beer drinkers, and spirit drinkers.
Jarrah
12 Feb 12 at 12:36 am
Wine drinkers tend to be less productive?
sdfc
12 Feb 12 at 12:38 am
Preferably after the said chickies have consumed some of the non toxic mushies.
Rabz
12 Feb 12 at 12:39 am
Though maybe if she’s some Andes savage, she’ll have stumbled across the local coca stash.
Peter Patton
12 Feb 12 at 12:42 am
Whoa, and her she is!
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1174f_rick-james-superfreak_music
Peter Patton
12 Feb 12 at 12:44 am
The Romans drank wine and had a lean diet.
The goths drank beer and ate potatoes and meat.
We all know what ended up happening.
The beer drinkers created the most havoc – and still do.
Funny that.
Rabz
12 Feb 12 at 12:44 am
“Wine drinkers tend to be less productive?”
Yes, but were also the first to ‘civilise’. What role that correlation plays is impossibly difficult to tease out, but it is suggestive. Then again, the oldest Mediterranean civilisation, the Egyptians, probably invented beer, so who knows what conclusions we can really draw.
Jarrah
12 Feb 12 at 12:49 am
Actually, it is the easiest correlation, EVAH! You can’t have beer OR wine without civilisation. That is the whole point of this discussion. Savages do not make beer or wine. Period.
Peter Patton
12 Feb 12 at 12:51 am
Then again, the oldest Mediterranean civilisation, the Egyptians, probably invented beer, so who knows what conclusions we can really draw.
Before that, goes back 6,000 years at least for beer.
John H.
12 Feb 12 at 12:53 am
“Savages do not make beer or wine. Period.”
Who are ‘savages’? You’ve been reading too many books written in the 19th century. Beer and wine are agricultural products, of course they can’t be made by pre-agricultural societies. That’s a given.
“Actually, it is the easiest correlation, EVAH! You can’t have beer OR wine without civilisation. ”
You seem to have missed the point – wine drinkers tended to civilise faster than beer drinkers.
Jarrah
12 Feb 12 at 12:55 am
Some of the old civs are Indians an Chinese. What were their poisons?
JC
12 Feb 12 at 12:58 am
Given the biological inputs, and level of socio-technological sophistication required, I’d bet on Syria-Mesopotamia.
Peter Patton
12 Feb 12 at 12:59 am
“Before that, goes back 6,000 years at least for beer.”
By ancient Chinese, maybe. Beer was independently invented by several civilisations. The ancient Egyptians had it 5,000 years ago, and certainly had it before northern Europeans, and possibly before the Fertile Crescent.
Jarrah
12 Feb 12 at 1:01 am
Maybe that could be a PHD subject for someone. Alcoholic beverages and productivity.
sdfc
12 Feb 12 at 1:02 am
By ancient Chinese, maybe.
Sumerians.
John H.
12 Feb 12 at 1:03 am
Oh give it up, Jarrah. You know nothing about history, let alone pre-history. You would do well to read some 19th century. This UNSW Law School diet you’re on is starving you. Who fills your head with all this idiocy?
Peter Patton
12 Feb 12 at 1:04 am
What were their poisons?
Everyone else!
John H.
12 Feb 12 at 1:05 am
Jarrah; I was reading recently that large-scale adoption of agriculture may have only come about because of its killer app….. beer.
wreckage
12 Feb 12 at 1:07 am
Typical Peter. No argument, just assertion. What school did you go to, to end up so mentally deficient?
Jarrah
12 Feb 12 at 1:07 am
I’d say the beer drinkers would win out, because for much of human history, beer was drunk more for the water, as the plain water sources they had access to at that time were hideous.
Anyway, the classic commentary on this topic was made in the 18th century, which must get thoroughly modern Jarrah’s panties in a twist. But do yourself a favour and catch a squizz of Hoggart’s Beer Street and Gin Lane.
Peter Patton
12 Feb 12 at 1:09 am
Jarrah it seems the theme is that education is bad for you. Why you are different to the rest of the population is a question that needs to be answered.
sdfc
12 Feb 12 at 1:09 am
“Sumerians.”
Maybe. The earliest Sumerian mentions found so far are centuries after the earliest Egyptian mentions, for what they are worth. We may simply have not unearthed the requisite evidence, but so far it looks like it went west-east rather than east-west (in that particular region).
Jarrah
12 Feb 12 at 1:10 am
Lol… Are you meeting up with Lambert in the canteen? Dude, you need to be de-brainwashed after what’s happening to you.
I reckon you close to electric shock treatment to get some of the stuff outta there.
JC
12 Feb 12 at 1:10 am
“Jarrah it seems the theme is that education is bad for you.”
It’s quite bizarre. JC promulgates the meme almost single-handed, which is weird because we disagree just as much as before I started my degrees. As for poor Peter, is it jealousy? I don’t know. He certainly seems to have a chip on his shoulder about UNSW.
Jarrah
12 Feb 12 at 1:14 am
Jazza’s a good kid, but I think we’ve lost him. We have to go the full hog here and not piss around with those regular electrodes… we may need cardiac paddles to his temples.
JC
12 Feb 12 at 1:15 am
I wonder why they reduce themselves to such crap. It really is of little value.
sdfc
12 Feb 12 at 1:16 am
The earliest Sumerian mentions found so far are centuries after the earliest Egyptian mentions, for what they are worth.
All the sources I’ve seen state the first records are from Sumeria. My first comment was based on a memory of a book I read years ago but I did a quick check and it is always coming up with Sumerians. ie. Mesopotamia
But then …
John H.
12 Feb 12 at 1:17 am
Not entirely true Jazza. You remind me of one of distribution charts with the two tails and the fat belly in the middle.
You started off horribly, came really good there for a while and then since you started this uni crap dropped over the cliff again.
JC
12 Feb 12 at 1:19 am
Jarrah, I have no idea what you do. It’s just that you repeat exactly the ill-informed luvvie ‘take’ on issues, for which UNSW Law school is notorious, and which they never tire of filling up the oped pages. Though, for all I know you could go to UTS.
Peter Patton
12 Feb 12 at 1:19 am
Jazz, get the fuck out of there and transfer to Syd while there’s still a chance.
JC
12 Feb 12 at 1:21 am
I was going to say, there is no way a USyd Law student would write the babble you do.
Peter Patton
12 Feb 12 at 1:23 am
Yeah Jarrah, Pete knows all about you. Just stop regurgitating things Pete doesn’t like. Cut it out I say.
sdfc
12 Feb 12 at 1:27 am
Jazza
Don’t let us hear that you end up as a herman rights lawyer because we will be extremely displeased and very disappointed.
We don’t want you ending up as some corrupted version of Erin Brockovich or some shit like that.
JC
12 Feb 12 at 1:32 am
Sounds hot.
wreckage
12 Feb 12 at 1:33 am
Well I can warm much more to Jarrah now that I can think of him of Julia Roberts, rather than George Williams!
Peter Patton
12 Feb 12 at 1:36 am
“I wonder why they reduce themselves to such crap.”
They have nothing else.
“Jarrah, I have no idea what you do.”
Yeah… right. Where did you get your law degree?
“and it has been suggested that beer may have preceded bread as a staple”
That’s definitely the way I would have done it.
Jarrah
12 Feb 12 at 1:39 am
Who? What?
wreckage
12 Feb 12 at 1:41 am
Yeah, all us terrible vulgarians who still read stuff that was published before 1995.
Peter Patton
12 Feb 12 at 1:43 am
Yeah right on Pete.
sdfc
12 Feb 12 at 1:49 am
“Who? What?”
Don’t worry, you’re not included in the bargain bin of commenters like JC and PP.
Jarrah
12 Feb 12 at 1:54 am