The Changing of America
 

Good article. I found myself nodding the whole time I was reading. As a fairly conservative/libertarian (I don't agree 100% with either philosophy) guy under 30, I think this reflects what my generation will bring to America.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196850,00.html

John, you hit some of my thoughts precisely. I do see America tending toward socialism in the short term, but I don't think my generation will stand for it. Once we are in power, it will all be about personal freedom and responsiblity.

The ultimate end of a Socialist Society is COLLAPSE....when U deaden the steps of the participants stagnation takes place. Once stagnation takes place its just a matter of time beofre the system caves in upon itself.

All Socialists know how to do to solve problem is to increasingily tighten the screws by applying more rules regulating behavior. This in the long run creats an environment of disregard for the law, since who among us can comply with every rule and regulation, and at some point we stop caring because it beocmes so overwhelming.

Contrary to Anarchists and Libertarians there are laws that are necessary to maintain the social compact. Everyman has his limitations and therfopre laws are needed to remind him of that.

Freedom to do or say what you want requires that the indivdual imposes a self restraint/responsibility on HIMSELF. Just because you can doesn't mean that you do. There has to be some concept that what you do or say may impinge upon anothers senseabilities.

I would advocate the legalization of drugs as Milton Freidman does and for the same reasons.

1. It takes the money out of the lawless element hands
2. It decreases the level of personal crimes..Burglary, Muggings
3. Increases the Tax base by imposing a useage tax
4. It decreases the level of law enforcement necessary to combat both the distibuter and users crimes
5. It decreases the need for so many prisons.

In any society there are roughly 6% to 7% of the population that is addictive in nature.

I agree that the user should bear the liability for his actions the same way a Drunk Driver is held accountable for his. As it stands denying access to Medical services in case of an OD...once it becomes legalized I would argue that the level of services needed would be about the same as they are under the current system.

America before 1913 was a user nation with Cocaine in Coca Cola, Laudaum, Heroin/Opimum .

Is this the generation that spends 40+ hourse per week playing world of warcraft?

Does this also refer to "risk-preferred behavior" such as the social and economic expense of injured racing drivers, sky divers, skiers, motorcyclists, skateboarders, etc. etc. etc ?

Society and citizens share risk and its expense for many different reasons. I don't mind paying an increased insurance expense for their mistakes if they pay their fair share of insurance (and other social expense) that covers me when I f**k up skiing. I certainly don't expect some jack*** who runs me over on the slopes when he's blasted to pay me in cash for the rest of his life. I do expect a settlement from an insurance company. It's the sharing of that insured expense that allows us to enjoy risk preferred behavior at a cost we can all afford. My economic efforts (and I suspect yours) alone will not pay for the research that new ligament surgery to cure a bum knee. We ALL paid for it through insurance and taxes.

The Libertarian model makes its adherents feel like geniuses and is a convenient platform from which to hurl criticism, but there are problems. Let's say we drop all this socialism and welfare, and make those drug offenders pay for those sins, like John suggests. What if the offender refuses? What if they all refuse? I guess we'll store thm in prosons? For failing to provide recompense (debtor's prison....we've tried that)? Prison is probably more expensive than welfare.

No matter what road you take away from some of these social programs, the bigger fight on your hands will be the one that comes from your fellow citizens when they notice that the completely "hands off" regulatory system is worse (more expensive) than the welfare one.

This is where insurance underwriting comes in.

Racing (usually bruised equipment and egos at track days) does not equal sky diving (any problem you are dead), does not equal skiing (big deal - a knee) , does not equal motorcycling (usually kill themselves), does not equal skateboarding (pliable youngsters), does not equal methanthaminine usage (rots the brain), does not equal smoking crack(users are soon dead)..

Some behaviors are so off the charts that nobody can afford the premiums.. And that is why they remain illegal.

We have our own dead weight. Outlaw WOW and watch thefts at computer stores go up....

well, you're showing your biases...hope you're not the underwriter. How many of the above have you done in your life?

yeah, but they'd have to form a guild first, then organize a plan to storm the computer store...

Two words,
Sonny Bono

Kind of a morbid joke, sorry

You guys have a he!! of a fight on your hands... a whole lot of messed up laws your going to have to change... and once government gets power it has been hard to get them to give it up, very hard.

But know that some of us old guys will be there to watch your back. ;) We are all in this together.

As long as everyone leaves me alone!!

Legion,

When I was a teenager if a cop walked up and asked for ID you could ask him why.... try doing that today and you might get thrown on the ground, cuffed, etc.

It's going to be a long road to just get back to normal.

Insurance underwriting and the concept of shared risk exposure allows statistics and probability to analyze risk v reward rather than opinion. Your analysis says more about your preferences than the actual risk / reward of these particular examples:

racing - can kill
sky diving - not all mistakes result in death
skiing - can kill - or result in paralysis
motorcycles - not all accidents result in death - some result in bystander or innocent party death
skateboarding - ask any ER doc about pliability
meth - not all users or ex-users are dead or rotted.
crack - some ex-users even survive this menace.

But now we are arguing about risk preference - a subject about as likely to be resolved as recreational drug legalization - even though society has already agreed to absorb the risk and cost of some recreational drugs - coffee, tea, alcohol, fat and sugar.

You still haven't addressed the immorality of stealing money to do what you want for people at gun point.

When do you think you will accomplish that?

While I'm a firm believer in personally funded, and insured, risk taking; you presuppose that prohibition is working, at least partially, when it's easily demonstrable that it's not only not working, it's enabling far more drug consumption that would otherwise take place.

Quote:

* Absolute liability for Torts committed while under the influence. Smoke a doobie and experience time distortion and run a red light and T-bone the plaintiff? Defendant works the rest of his life to replace plaintiff's lost income.

That's already the case. I'd remove criminal penalties, that simply provides additional power to the state, and eliminates the defendant's reimbursement to the plaintiff via his earnings.

Quote:

What do you think the likelihood of either of those changes occurring is? The trouble is that the modern welfare state cannot accept the idea that society should not pick up the tab for the risk preferred behavior of a small percentage of participants. There is no question that the individual is the least-cost risk avoider, but the transactions costs of ensuring individual compliance are higher. Given a choice between policing individual behavior to avoid a loss and just cleaning up the mess when a loss occurs, which do you think carries less social cost? Sadly I think we are headed in the other direction, in which the implied consent doctrine coupled with increasing levels of socialism will be used to restrict, not expand, the scope of individual liberty, not by force, but by contract. If we move to socialized medicine how long will CMS permit the continued practice of tobacco use since it's picking up the tab?

There is no evidence that drug legalization would increase the numbers of drug users; the basis for current drug prohibition is the huge industry involved in it's enforcement at everyone's expense.