[TopHat]

I'm abstaining on the grounds I'm not Scottish and consider this a Scottish matter.

[paperclip]

(Original post by Mr Dangermouse)
It's a problem, obviously, but not one that should be solved by the law.

Do you extend that to all social problems?

For example, do you think people crashing their cars because they are using their mobile phones not a problem that should be solved by the law?

Well, that's what differentiates policymakers from researchers i guess. Anyone that knows anything about attention can start on why this is a bad idea. This podcast explains it. What this shows is that the division between social issues and economics libertarians tend to make is rather artificial - it expects individuals to always make rational cost/benefit analyses which people hardly do. Rather than engaging in the actual debate in question (i.e. problem drinking) you're instantly dismissing it as not your business. Rather than listen to any of the problems Scotland has, you've written a motion condemning them, whilst you lack any alternatives.

Moreover, you seem to quickly forget that problem drinking does have economic ramifications - both for the individual, and society (e.g. vandalism). Guess what, targeting the cause of the problem (drinking) will reduce the effects.

[Mr Dangermouse]

(Original post by paperclip)
Do you extend that to all social problems?

For example, do you think people crashing their cars because they are using their mobile phones not a problem that should be solved by the law?

Well, that's what differentiates policymakers from researchers i guess. Anyone that knows anything about attention can start on why this is a bad idea. This podcast explains it. What this shows is that the division between social issues and economics libertarians tend to make is rather artificial - it expects individuals to always make rational cost/benefit analyses which people hardly do. Rather than engaging in the actual debate in question (i.e. problem drinking) you're instantly dismissing it as not your business. Rather than listen to any of the problems Scotland has, you've written a motion condemning them, whilst you lack any alternatives.

Moreover, you seem to quickly forget that problem drinking does have economic ramifications - both for the individual, and society (e.g. vandalism). Guess what, targeting the cause of the problem (drinking) will reduce the effects.

I think that's a poor comparison because you could never increase the price of talking on a mobile phone whilst drunk.

That's banned for a reason. Being drunk isn't, so I find it ridiculous that they try to discourage it without trying to ban it.


Sure it may stop a few cars getting smashed up, but I don't that's valid reasoning to price the working man out of a night out with his mates.

[Mr Dangermouse]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Riight. Does this kind of attitude extend right across the social spectrum? People are enslaved, we can't solve that it's their own fault and problem. People are subjected to racial abuse, oh but we can't solve that because it's their own fault and problem.

Racial abuse you have a perpetrator and a victim, with alcohol abuse the perpetrator IS the victim.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by Mr Dangermouse)
Racial abuse you have a perpetrator and a victim, with alcohol abuse the perpetrator IS the victim.

This is clearly a waste of time.

[paperclip]

(Original post by Mr Dangermouse)
I think that's a poor comparison because you could never increase the price of talking on a mobile phone whilst drunk.

You've missed the point. You're saying that the government shouldn't get involved in social issues - but accept government intervention to stop me CHOOSING to talk on the phone whilst driving my car. How is that not hypocritical?

That's banned for a reason. Being drunk isn't, so I find it ridiculous that they try to discourage it without trying to ban it.

Well, being drunk has a load of other regulations attached to it that don't ban it, i take it you believe that being drunk and disorderly shouldn't be against the law then?

In addition - as you were so accepting of inattentional blindness - if i can demonstrate that problem drinkers don't choose to become drinkers, would you withdraw this motion?

Sure it may stop a few cars getting smashed up, but I don't that's valid reasoning to price the working man out of a night out with his mates.

A few cars severely understates the problem Scotland has with drinking (according to what i've read). And i don't understand how you can create a motion telling a whole country off if your solution is just to ignore the problem, or that the problem doesn't exist?

[CyclopsRock]

Those arguing on the grounds that Scotland's problems are different to Englands - why not support localism all the way down to the individual, hmm? What makes Scotland's issues independent of Englands? And what makes Glasgow's issues indepenent of Newcastles? At what level do you arbitrarily believe this issue should be "solved" by overarching legislation?

[paperclip]

(Original post by CyclopsRock)
Those arguing on the grounds that Scotland's problems are different to Englands - why not support localism all the way down to the individual, hmm? What makes Scotland's issues independent of Englands? And what makes Glasgow's issues indepenent of Newcastles? At what level do you arbitrarily believe this issue should be "solved" by overarching legislation?

I didn't realise you were an anarchist

Rich coming from a monarchist.

[Mr Dangermouse]

(Original post by CyclopsRock)
Those arguing on the grounds that Scotland's problems are different to Englands - why not support localism all the way down to the individual, hmm? What makes Scotland's issues independent of Englands? And what makes Glasgow's issues indepenent of Newcastles? At what level do you arbitrarily believe this issue should be "solved" by overarching legislation?

The Scottish government have made their decision.


This motion exists to criticise that decision and discourage the UK government from trying something similar?

[CyclopsRock]

(Original post by paperclip)
I didn't realise you were an anarchist

Rich coming from a monarchist.

I'm a monarchist for practical reasons. The less restrictions the government put on people, the better. I didn't have you pegged as an anarcho-capitalist.

[paperclip]

(Original post by CyclopsRock)
I'm a monarchist for practical reasons. The less restrictions the government put on people, the better. I didn't have you pegged as an anarcho-capitalist.

I have little opinion on minimum pricing. Generally, i don't agree with it because i believe we should seek alternative ways of dealing with the problem. However, when a country is trying to deal with something, i find it horrendous that westminister is colonial enough to damn that solution, especially when it lacks any alternative, and even fails to recognise it as a problem. From my understanding, Scotland have had a difficult time with drinking culture for a long time, and far in excess of Englands. If this motion went through the RL parliament, it would be a goldmine for Scottish nationalists.

I think the fact that the English riots didn't spread to Scotland is quite illustrative that our cultures are quite separate. Scotlands also had problems with prostitution (i can't actually put a date to this) and drinking that are quite different to Englands problems. Having separate parliaments to deal with these unique problems is sensible.

[CyclopsRock]

(Original post by paperclip)
I have little opinion on minimum pricing. Generally, i don't agree with it because i believe we should seek alternative ways of dealing with the problem. However, when a country is trying to deal with something, i find it horrendous that westminister is colonial enough to damn that solution, especially when it lacks any alternative, and even fails to recognise it as a problem. From my understanding, Scotland have had a difficult time with drinking culture for a long time, and far in excess of Englands. If this motion went through the RL parliament, it would be a goldmine for Scottish nationalists.

And it's a **** solution. Supporting a **** solution on the grounds that "something must be done!" is about as dumb as supporting a war on the grounds that you don't like someone. This is without even getting in to whether it's the role of the government to protect people from their own mistakes, even if you DO consider it a problem.

I think the fact that the English riots didn't spread to Scotland is quite illustrative that our cultures are quite separate. Scotlands also had problems with prostitution (i can't actually put a date to this) and drinking that are quite different to Englands problems. Having separate parliaments to deal with these unique problems is sensible.

Great. But there were no riots in Bristol either. Or Newcastle. Or Cambridge. I love localism. I think the more locally decisions are made, the more likely they are to represent the wishes of those that the law affects - but having this based on arbitrary nationalist borders is barmy. Delegate authority down to the city, town, village, individual. Why not? If the idea that the more locally we make decisions the better, why not? National parliaments are a pathetic consolation to the lack of accountability and representation people feel - but it still leaves enormous swathes of people feeling like that. There's no moral reason to oppose further delgation, only practical.

[paperclip]

(Original post by CyclopsRock)
And it's a **** solution. Supporting a **** solution on the grounds that "something must be done!" is about as dumb as supporting a war on the grounds that you don't like someone. This is without even getting in to whether it's the role of the government to protect people from their own mistakes, even if you DO consider it a problem.

Apart from religious fundamentalist-like cries that it "isn't part of the free market", no substantive argument has been made against the policy.

Well, the even the member who wrote this motion accepts that it is the role of the government to protect people from their own mistakes - he conceded that the mobile phone driving ban was a good idea.

In addition to this, this whole minimum intervention thing doesn't really sit well with me. This may be because, as a psychologist i'm constantly surrounded by examples where our free will has been been subverted - to the extent that even shopping centres make use of psychology. I'm quite a deterministic person - now, apply that concept to drinking: the working class typically drink a lot more than the middle. Something must be accounting for the differences - i'm not very interested in how we can benefit from this, but how we can help these people. I don't particularly have a problem with people that choose to drink, however, if this was a rational choice both populations would represent a normal distribution.

Great. But there were no riots in Bristol either. Or Newcastle. Or Cambridge. I love localism. I think the more locally decisions are made, the more likely they are to represent the wishes of those that the law affects - but having this based on arbitrary nationalist borders is barmy. Delegate authority down to the city, town, village, individual. Why not? If the idea that the more locally we make decisions the better, why not? National parliaments are a pathetic consolation to the lack of accountability and representation people feel - but it still leaves enormous swathes of people feeling like that. There's no moral reason to oppose further delgation, only practical.

Well, i agree with the locality principle in general, of course not the individual. Libertarians seem to make the assumption that everyone is a rational economic agents, which is clearly not true. I linked to this blog in another post today, but it illustrates quite well how we are irrational at the best of times. All you have to do to learn for yourself why i lack faith in your free market-fundamentalism is google the psychology of money (although the blog gives you a good idea); money isn't simply a trading mechanism, it is a way of life.

Moreover, we are social animals, we are products of our wider social upbringing to the effect that in isolation we can't develop speech or thought properly. Communities help to develop people, and are not something that occurred through chance, but over thousands of years of evolution, and guess what? People do perform best in community-centred environments, whether it's in education or rehabilitation. Social identity theory, in particular, helps explain this (as problems in identity have been linked to a variety of problems, and rehabilitation (prison or drug) focusing on identity have had promising results).

Do you actually think most people own an Ipod because they have rationally made a cost-benefit analysis and determined it to be the most suited to their needs?

[Keckers]

If someone wants to drink themselves to death they'll do it regardless of the cost, don't pretend this is to help those people.

[Keckers]

(Original post by paperclip)
Libertarians seem to make the assumption that everyone is a rational economic agents, which is clearly not true.

It's pretty hard to test that when you live in a world where government strips away responsibilities before people have a chance to claim them as their own in the first place.

[paperclip]

(Original post by Keckers)
It's pretty hard to test that when you live in a world where government strips away responsibilities before people have a chance to claim them as their own in the first place.

Why would you need to impose it on millions of people to test it? A marketplace, afterall, is just a collection of buyers and sellers. It's been tested inside labs millions of times.

Moreover, the scottish government HAS tried unregulated alcohol pricing, and clearly didn't like the results of it - did you read the blog article i linked to? (I'm also listening to their most recent podcast at the moment and it's talking about technobabble - it also sounds quite relevant to my point).

[CyclopsRock]

Firstly I wish to state that I was very drunk when I wrote my posts last night. That said, reading back, I'm proud of myself.

(Original post by paperclip)
Apart from religious fundamentalist-like cries that it "isn't part of the free market", no substantive argument has been made against the policy.

I was under the impression that it was up to the government to make a case for why they should limit people's freedom, not the people's responsibility to argue why they shouldn't.

I think your relegation of 'isn't part of the free market' as religion-like fundamentalism both 1) disregards the entire gamut of economics (because, whilst you may see it as fundamentalism, there is a reason we don't like distortions in the market, and those reasons are very real and have very apparant effects on people's lives. They aren't some bogeyman, they actually exist) and 2) demonstrates your general love of statism, despite an alternative you may attest to. No substantive argument has been made against the policy? What about the fact business's will lose money? What about the fact people will have less choice about what they choose to spend their money on? What about certain brands of alcohol will die a death because, when you're forced to spend x amount per unit, you're always going to go for the one that cost that much anyway because, well, it's most likely better quality. Now, you might disregard these reasons and say that nothing is more important than the iron fist of the state protecting people from their own decisions, but to suggest that there is no substantive argument against the policy is ignorant.

Well, the even the member who wrote this motion accepts that it is the role of the government to protect people from their own mistakes - he conceded that the mobile phone driving ban was a good idea.

What another member may or may not concede has little to do with my opinion.

In addition to this, this whole minimum intervention thing doesn't really sit well with me. This may be because, as a psychologist i'm constantly surrounded by examples where our free will has been been subverted - to the extent that even shopping centres make use of psychology. I'm quite a deterministic person - now, apply that concept to drinking: the working class typically drink a lot more than the middle. Something must be accounting for the differences - i'm not very interested in how we can benefit from this, but how we can help these people. I don't particularly have a problem with people that choose to drink, however, if this was a rational choice both populations would represent a normal distribution.

Hey, I'm all for helping them too. Show me an effective way of doing it, and I'll support it. But if you see a problem - the lower classes drinking more than the middle classes, to the point where it endangers their health - and think that the solution is for the state to make it economically non-viable for the working class to drink as much (whilst the middle classes can continue on unaffected), I think you're barmy.

I also disagree with the idea that, when it's cheap enough, all classes should otherwise be expected to consume the same amount of a product ("a normal distribution"), otherwise it's irrational. Rationality isn't purely about "x vs y" in an analytical fashion, because different things matter to different people. To answer your below point about ipods, do I think everyone that owns one has done a cost/benefit analysis and compared it to other media players? No. But if they value the shared experience of using the same media player as other people, or it's a user interface they happen to like (even if they've tried no others), or if they happen to like the way the box looks, that's not irrational, because that's what matters to them. Do I think that, in the vast gamut of experiences and people that one experiences in their life (often defined by their class) can have an impact on their desire to drink alcohol? Of course. I don't think this needs to be fixed, any more than one's predisposition towards a certain media player.

Well, i agree with the locality principle in general, of course not the individual. Libertarians seem to make the assumption that everyone is a rational economic agents, which is clearly not true. I linked to this blog in another post today, but it illustrates quite well how we are irrational at the best of times. All you have to do to learn for yourself why i lack faith in your free market-fundamentalism is google the psychology of money (although the blog gives you a good idea); money isn't simply a trading mechanism, it is a way of life.

Moreover, we are social animals, we are products of our wider social upbringing to the effect that in isolation we can't develop speech or thought properly. Communities help to develop people, and are not something that occurred through chance, but over thousands of years of evolution, and guess what? People do perform best in community-centred environments, whether it's in education or rehabilitation. Social identity theory, in particular, helps explain this (as problems in identity have been linked to a variety of problems, and rehabilitation (prison or drug) focusing on identity have had promising results).

Do you actually think most people own an Ipod because they have rationally made a cost-benefit analysis and determined it to be the most suited to their needs?

I've dealt with most of this above, but I think you fundamentally misunderstand what Libertarianism is about. I don't care if people make the wrong choice. Having a choice doesn't always mean you'll make the right one. But at least people know what they want (even if, in reality, something else would benefit them more), which is more than you can say for any other entity making the choice on their behalf (Which is, remember, the only alternative to someone making the choice themselves). What's right for one person isn't right for another, and thinking than the solution to flawed human ability to rationalise (though again, I'd argue it's not really a flaw) is for another, different human with an equally imperfect ability to rationalise, but who also lacks the knowledge of what this person might want, is also barmy.

Betamax was better than VHS, on paper. Clearly, though, there was something about VHS's that people preferred. The fact it's not clear on paper what that was is irrelevant - the choice was made by the people that actually used the products.

Regarding your talk about communities, that's laughable. The idea that Libertarians think that devolving responsibility down to the individual somehow mandates everyone live as hermits in a cave is ridiculous. There's absolutely nothing stopping communities of Libertarians coming together to do something. I don't understand why you think there's anything in their Psyche that would stop them doing so, either. Culture and communities don't only exist because the government force them to exist - all Libertarianism would do is remove these compulsions. I agree with you that communities and cooperation developed for a reason - so why do you assume they'd fall to the wayside the moment people were no longer compelled by the state to ensure that they don't?

[Metrobeans]

This is in cessation.

[Metrobeans]

This has been withdrawn.