From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: A positive agenda from conservatives (was Re: Clinton's plan )
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 17:05:49 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug17.144328.6560@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
]In article <1992Aug16.151553.29003@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
]>]Encourage moving away from fossil fuels to nuclear power, conservation,
]>]and alternative fuels.
]>
]>No! Get the externalities right and let the market decide.
]
]"get the externalities right" sounds contradictory to "market decide".
]If you mean "figure out a fossil fuels tax, and that's it" - then okay.
]I would favor standing back and letting the market decide as
]much as practicable.  I *disfavor* the way the nuclear power
]industry has been needlessly strangled.

No, get the externalities right is tricky and quite dangerous, but
from an economics point of view makes sense: arrange for those
whose economic activity impacts others to pay the costs of that. I have
a real problem with trying to do this in depth because of my strong distrust
of government's competence to do so. However, it is not at all contradictory
to letting the market decide - getting the externalities right improves
the efficiency of the market.

]>Recognize that "enforcement and treatment" will not work without
]>draconian measures including even more threat to civil liberties.
]>Legalize drugs, and use the enforcement money saved (2/3 of the
]>total budget) for treatment and education.
]
]Except most treatment is largely ineffective.  The only real
]"treatment" is to have people not use drugs in the first place.

This is true, but does not negate my statement above. However, there is
no reason to believe that the few people stopped from using dangerous
drugs by laws compenstates for the huge cost of enforcement. 
]>
]>Stop using legislation to enforce morality in the case of
]>"victimless crimes", a truly oxymoronic term to one who recognizes
]>natural rights.
]
]I disagree that drug abuse is victimless.
]I can only point to James Q. Wilson's "Against the legalization of Drugs"
]in Commentary a few years back (Jan 1990?). It was the best exposition
]of the validity of drug laws I know of.

Well, I haven't read it, although I have read other debates (such as
Bill Buckley vs Bill Bennet). While it is true that drug use can affect
those other than the drug taker, that is also true of many other activities
that we do not legislate (such as eating fat, driving small cars, etc).
It's really a question of paternalism: how responsible is the government
for being the father and mother of everyone.

Also, if you are considering drugged drivers as part of this, consider
that this problem can be dealt with directly without outlawing drugs.
I have nothing against vigorously prosecuting crimes that are committed
as a result of drug use.

Finally, the current drug laws are highly inconsistent. The same penalties
exist for relatively innocous drugs (marijuana) as for very dangerous ones
(such as crack cocaine or PCP). At the same time, other very dangerous
drugs are not only allowed but subsidized by government (tobacco).


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
- - "May you have the wealth of a Republican, and the sexual prowess - -
- -  of a Democrat." - Johnny Carson's joke writers
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections