Are markets moral?

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Gary Childress
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Are markets moral?

Post by Gary Childress »

Do free markets tend to favor moral people or do they tend to favor immoral people? Do free markets tend to entice people to moral behavior or do they tend to entice people to immoral behavior? In other words, would a psychopath do better in a free market than a more saintly person?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackmccull ... d950df791e
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8813
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Are markets moral?

Post by henry quirk »

As I see it: the market is nuthin' but individuals transacting.

The free or open market is nuthin' but free men and women buyin' and sellin'. It's an on-goin' amoral event. Supply & demand. Baby formula and bazookas.

The moderated or controlled market is nuthin' but immoral: individuals are directed to or directed away from transactions by an overseer, their needs, wants, desires, and assessments blunted by those wieldin' the Big Stick. Supply & demand is hobbled. Only approved baby formula and never any bazookas.
Gary Childress
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: Are markets moral?

Post by Gary Childress »

I also sort of wonder about things like addictive drugs. Would a free market allow for the unfettered selling of things that are addictive and perhaps self-destructive? Or would there be some degree of regulation against openly selling such things?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8813
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Are markets moral?

Post by henry quirk »

Gary Childress wrote: Sat Jul 18, 2020 12:21 am I also sort of wonder about things like addictive drugs. Would a free market allow for the unfettered selling of things that are addictive and perhaps self-destructive? Or would there be some degree of regulation against openly selling such things?
Seems to me: free men and women ought to be able to ingest what they choose, and bear full responsibility for the consequences.
Gary Childress
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: Are markets moral?

Post by Gary Childress »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Jul 18, 2020 1:04 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sat Jul 18, 2020 12:21 am I also sort of wonder about things like addictive drugs. Would a free market allow for the unfettered selling of things that are addictive and perhaps self-destructive? Or would there be some degree of regulation against openly selling such things?
Seems to me: free men and women ought to be able to ingest what they choose, and bear full responsibility for the consequences.
I don't know. It seems like everyone knows now that the consequences are bad for taking illegal drugs but we have a drug epidemic anyway. Would it be even worse if the drugs weren't illegal to sell?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8813
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Are markets moral?

Post by henry quirk »

Gary Childress wrote: Sat Jul 18, 2020 3:13 am
henry quirk wrote: Sat Jul 18, 2020 1:04 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sat Jul 18, 2020 12:21 am I also sort of wonder about things like addictive drugs. Would a free market allow for the unfettered selling of things that are addictive and perhaps self-destructive? Or would there be some degree of regulation against openly selling such things?
Seems to me: free men and women ought to be able to ingest what they choose, and bear full responsibility for the consequences.
I don't know. It seems like everyone knows now that the consequences are bad for taking illegal drugs but we have a drug epidemic anyway. Would it be even worse if the drugs weren't illegal to sell?
It seems to work out that folks who use, use no matter the legality, and, folks who don't use, don't use no matter the legality.

Prohibition just seems to make criminals more clever and, of course, it makes them wealthy.

Wouldn't surprise me at all if some of the biggest, behind-the-scenes, supporters of prohibition are drug lords.
Gary Childress
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: Are markets moral?

Post by Gary Childress »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Jul 18, 2020 4:18 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sat Jul 18, 2020 3:13 am
henry quirk wrote: Sat Jul 18, 2020 1:04 am

Seems to me: free men and women ought to be able to ingest what they choose, and bear full responsibility for the consequences.
I don't know. It seems like everyone knows now that the consequences are bad for taking illegal drugs but we have a drug epidemic anyway. Would it be even worse if the drugs weren't illegal to sell?
It seems to work out that folks who use, use no matter the legality, and, folks who don't use, don't use no matter the legality.

Prohibition just seems to make criminals more clever and, of course, it makes them wealthy.

Wouldn't surprise me at all if some of the biggest, behind-the-scenes, supporters of prohibition are drug lords.
I suppose that could be true. However, I would imagine that some people don't use certain drugs because they are illegal and they are afraid of doing something that is illegal. Making it legal might increase the number of people who try some drugs and become addicted. Maybe more users might come into contact with dangerous, addictive drugs if barriers are lowered. Making addictive drugs legal would probably lower their cost and make them easier to get hold of. It seems like common sense would tell us that lowering the cost and making them easier to get hold of would increase the number of users. Of course, common sense isn't always right.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2179
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Are markets moral?

Post by Sculptor »

Gary Childress wrote: Sat Jul 18, 2020 9:38 am
henry quirk wrote: Sat Jul 18, 2020 4:18 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sat Jul 18, 2020 3:13 am

I don't know. It seems like everyone knows now that the consequences are bad for taking illegal drugs but we have a drug epidemic anyway. Would it be even worse if the drugs weren't illegal to sell?
It seems to work out that folks who use, use no matter the legality, and, folks who don't use, don't use no matter the legality.

Prohibition just seems to make criminals more clever and, of course, it makes them wealthy.

Wouldn't surprise me at all if some of the biggest, behind-the-scenes, supporters of prohibition are drug lords.
I suppose that could be true. However, I would imagine that some people don't use certain drugs because they are illegal and they are afraid of doing something that is illegal. Making it legal might increase the number of people who try some drugs and become addicted. Maybe more users might come into contact with dangerous, addictive drugs if barriers are lowered. Making addictive drugs legal would probably lower their cost and make them easier to get hold of. It seems like common sense would tell us that lowering the cost and making them easier to get hold of would increase the number of users. Of course, common sense isn't always right.
Common sense tells us that the "War on Drugs" is a war on liberty, and that the main problems caused by drugs, is less about the drugs themselves but whollly caused by the "War on Drugs".
When you criminalise you create criminals. selling drugs becomes risky and that put up the price. Large prices mean big profits and more criminals step up to sell at inflated prices.
Because they are addictive, addicts cannot afford to maintain their addiction so the steal and kill to obtain money to buy more drugs.
After 40 years of the "war on Drugs", not one life has been saved. The prisons are overbursting with convicts and a new market in privatised prisons has sprung up.
Now the USA has the largest drug population on earth by far. Police being what they are have largely picked on back people and incarcerated them in larger numbers.
Quality drugs like cocaine have attracted smaller sentancing than cheaper crack, this has also effected black conviction rates. Users who are in the professional class such as lawyers and doctors manage to avoid arrest, and are rarely convicted.
So this was has also been waged not only against black people but against the working class disproportionately.

But there is a new strategy in town. Prescription addiction is the new kid on the block. Deaths by fentanyl and oxycodone have now exceeded deaths from illegal alternatives and their is a new market where pharmacists and doctors collude to make money by exploiting the feckless and itinerant population who have been let down by lack of social provision and the instigation of austerity.
Gary Childress
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: Are markets moral?

Post by Gary Childress »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Jul 18, 2020 11:50 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sat Jul 18, 2020 9:38 am
henry quirk wrote: Sat Jul 18, 2020 4:18 am

It seems to work out that folks who use, use no matter the legality, and, folks who don't use, don't use no matter the legality.

Prohibition just seems to make criminals more clever and, of course, it makes them wealthy.

Wouldn't surprise me at all if some of the biggest, behind-the-scenes, supporters of prohibition are drug lords.
I suppose that could be true. However, I would imagine that some people don't use certain drugs because they are illegal and they are afraid of doing something that is illegal. Making it legal might increase the number of people who try some drugs and become addicted. Maybe more users might come into contact with dangerous, addictive drugs if barriers are lowered. Making addictive drugs legal would probably lower their cost and make them easier to get hold of. It seems like common sense would tell us that lowering the cost and making them easier to get hold of would increase the number of users. Of course, common sense isn't always right.
Common sense tells us that the "War on Drugs" is a war on liberty, and that the main problems caused by drugs, is less about the drugs themselves but whollly caused by the "War on Drugs".
When you criminalise you create criminals. selling drugs becomes risky and that put up the price. Large prices mean big profits and more criminals step up to sell at inflated prices.
Because they are addictive, addicts cannot afford to maintain their addiction so the steal and kill to obtain money to buy more drugs.
After 40 years of the "war on Drugs", not one life has been saved. The prisons are overbursting with convicts and a new market in privatised prisons has sprung up.
Now the USA has the largest drug population on earth by far. Police being what they are have largely picked on back people and incarcerated them in larger numbers.
Quality drugs like cocaine have attracted smaller sentancing than cheaper crack, this has also effected black conviction rates. Users who are in the professional class such as lawyers and doctors manage to avoid arrest, and are rarely convicted.
So this was has also been waged not only against black people but against the working class disproportionately.

But there is a new strategy in town. Prescription addiction is the new kid on the block. Deaths by fentanyl and oxycodone have now exceeded deaths from illegal alternatives and their is a new market where pharmacists and doctors collude to make money by exploiting the feckless and itinerant population who have been let down by lack of social provision and the instigation of austerity.
Well, I remember once commenting long ago to a young girl who had done volunteer work helping people rehab from drugs that drugs ought to be legalized across the board. She got mad at me and gave me "what for", told me how could I say that when she had seen people hopelessly strung out on heroin and whatnot. Maybe pot and less severe drugs ought to be legalized but should heroin and stuff like that be legalized?

I agree that there is racial disparity in how drug policy is enforced that needs to be addressed and probably it should be more enforced against the production and distribution side, than the consumption side. Perhaps even legalize hard drugs to some degree but have various restrictions and not make them too easy to obtain.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8813
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Are markets moral?

Post by henry quirk »

Gary Childress wrote: Sat Jul 18, 2020 9:38 am
henry quirk wrote: Sat Jul 18, 2020 4:18 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sat Jul 18, 2020 3:13 am

I don't know. It seems like everyone knows now that the consequences are bad for taking illegal drugs but we have a drug epidemic anyway. Would it be even worse if the drugs weren't illegal to sell?
It seems to work out that folks who use, use no matter the legality, and, folks who don't use, don't use no matter the legality.

Prohibition just seems to make criminals more clever and, of course, it makes them wealthy.

Wouldn't surprise me at all if some of the biggest, behind-the-scenes, supporters of prohibition are drug lords.
I suppose that could be true. However, I would imagine that some people don't use certain drugs because they are illegal and they are afraid of doing something that is illegal. Making it legal might increase the number of people who try some drugs and become addicted. Maybe more users might come into contact with dangerous, addictive drugs if barriers are lowered. Making addictive drugs legal would probably lower their cost and make them easier to get hold of. It seems like common sense would tell us that lowering the cost and making them easier to get hold of would increase the number of users. Of course, common sense isn't always right.
I'm thinkin' legalizin' or decriminalizin', over the long haul, would land us with pretty much the same folks usin' and the same folks not usin' as we have now.

If heroin were legal, available, and cheap: are you gonna try it?

I wouldn't.

I think the legality = increased use argument, over the long haul, doesn't hold water. It assumes folks will if they can. It doesn't take into account that most folks prefer clear heads and self control (two things addiction steals from the addict).

No, if you want to entrench and expand addiction: ban stuff. Folks don't like bein' directed. Overbearing direction makes folks rebellious. A rebellious population is more likely to use (in a you say I can't? Fuck you! kinda way).

Alcohol prohibition was a good example of this. Prohibition led to more potent, compact alcohol; clever ways to produce and distribute alcohol right under the cops' noses (often with the cops' assist); created an organized criminal industry; and made it easy for rebellious sober folks to become sotted.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2179
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Are markets moral?

Post by Sculptor »

Gary Childress wrote: Sat Jul 18, 2020 12:54 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat Jul 18, 2020 11:50 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sat Jul 18, 2020 9:38 am

I suppose that could be true. However, I would imagine that some people don't use certain drugs because they are illegal and they are afraid of doing something that is illegal. Making it legal might increase the number of people who try some drugs and become addicted. Maybe more users might come into contact with dangerous, addictive drugs if barriers are lowered. Making addictive drugs legal would probably lower their cost and make them easier to get hold of. It seems like common sense would tell us that lowering the cost and making them easier to get hold of would increase the number of users. Of course, common sense isn't always right.
Common sense tells us that the "War on Drugs" is a war on liberty, and that the main problems caused by drugs, is less about the drugs themselves but whollly caused by the "War on Drugs".
When you criminalise you create criminals. selling drugs becomes risky and that put up the price. Large prices mean big profits and more criminals step up to sell at inflated prices.
Because they are addictive, addicts cannot afford to maintain their addiction so the steal and kill to obtain money to buy more drugs.
After 40 years of the "war on Drugs", not one life has been saved. The prisons are overbursting with convicts and a new market in privatised prisons has sprung up.
Now the USA has the largest drug population on earth by far. Police being what they are have largely picked on back people and incarcerated them in larger numbers.
Quality drugs like cocaine have attracted smaller sentancing than cheaper crack, this has also effected black conviction rates. Users who are in the professional class such as lawyers and doctors manage to avoid arrest, and are rarely convicted.
So this was has also been waged not only against black people but against the working class disproportionately.

But there is a new strategy in town. Prescription addiction is the new kid on the block. Deaths by fentanyl and oxycodone have now exceeded deaths from illegal alternatives and their is a new market where pharmacists and doctors collude to make money by exploiting the feckless and itinerant population who have been let down by lack of social provision and the instigation of austerity.
Well, I remember once commenting long ago to a young girl who had done volunteer work helping people rehab from drugs that drugs ought to be legalized across the board. She got mad at me and gave me "what for", told me how could I say that when she had seen people hopelessly strung out on heroin and whatnot. Maybe pot and less severe drugs ought to be legalized but should heroin and stuff like that be legalized?

I agree that there is racial disparity in how drug policy is enforced that needs to be addressed and probably it should be more enforced against the production and distribution side, than the consumption side. Perhaps even legalize hard drugs to some degree but have various restrictions and not make them too easy to obtain.
When the USA takes responsibility for its citizen's education and welfare things might change.
But making drugs illegal does not work. Decriminalising them does no harm,
Drugs have been legal since the dawn of time, until the 20thC
You might stop and ask why people take drugs.
And look at the record of other countries' policies.
Skepdick
Posts: 4964
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Are markets moral?

Post by Skepdick »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Jul 18, 2020 1:42 pm I'm thinkin' legalizin' or decriminalizin', over the long haul, would land us with pretty much the same folks usin' and the same folks not usin' as we have now.

If heroin were legal, available, and cheap: are you gonna try it?

I wouldn't.

I think the legality = increased use argument, over the long haul, doesn't hold water. It assumes folks will if they can. It doesn't take into account that most folks prefer clear heads and self control (two things addiction steals from the addict).

No, if you want to entrench and expand addiction: ban stuff. Folks don't like bein' directed. Overbearing direction makes folks rebellious. A rebellious population is more likely to use (in a you say I can't? Fuck you! kinda way).

Alcohol prohibition was a good example of this. Prohibition led to more potent, compact alcohol; clever ways to produce and distribute alcohol right under the cops' noses (often with the cops' assist); created an organized criminal industry; and made it easy for rebellious sober folks to become sotted.
Decriminalisation isn't about preventing use. It's about de-stigmatising recovery and using public funding to cover the cost thereof.

And in general, how you tackle addict recovery need not be how you prevent addiction in the first place.

If you want fewer addicts - take your lessons from the Rat Park experiment. Happy people don't use drugs for escapism.
If you want to help addicts recover - do what Portugal did.
Gary Childress
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: Are markets moral?

Post by Gary Childress »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Jul 18, 2020 2:58 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Sat Jul 18, 2020 12:54 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat Jul 18, 2020 11:50 am

Common sense tells us that the "War on Drugs" is a war on liberty, and that the main problems caused by drugs, is less about the drugs themselves but whollly caused by the "War on Drugs".
When you criminalise you create criminals. selling drugs becomes risky and that put up the price. Large prices mean big profits and more criminals step up to sell at inflated prices.
Because they are addictive, addicts cannot afford to maintain their addiction so the steal and kill to obtain money to buy more drugs.
After 40 years of the "war on Drugs", not one life has been saved. The prisons are overbursting with convicts and a new market in privatised prisons has sprung up.
Now the USA has the largest drug population on earth by far. Police being what they are have largely picked on back people and incarcerated them in larger numbers.
Quality drugs like cocaine have attracted smaller sentancing than cheaper crack, this has also effected black conviction rates. Users who are in the professional class such as lawyers and doctors manage to avoid arrest, and are rarely convicted.
So this was has also been waged not only against black people but against the working class disproportionately.

But there is a new strategy in town. Prescription addiction is the new kid on the block. Deaths by fentanyl and oxycodone have now exceeded deaths from illegal alternatives and their is a new market where pharmacists and doctors collude to make money by exploiting the feckless and itinerant population who have been let down by lack of social provision and the instigation of austerity.
Well, I remember once commenting long ago to a young girl who had done volunteer work helping people rehab from drugs that drugs ought to be legalized across the board. She got mad at me and gave me "what for", told me how could I say that when she had seen people hopelessly strung out on heroin and whatnot. Maybe pot and less severe drugs ought to be legalized but should heroin and stuff like that be legalized?

I agree that there is racial disparity in how drug policy is enforced that needs to be addressed and probably it should be more enforced against the production and distribution side, than the consumption side. Perhaps even legalize hard drugs to some degree but have various restrictions and not make them too easy to obtain.
When the USA takes responsibility for its citizen's education and welfare things might change.
But making drugs illegal does not work. Decriminalising them does no harm,
Drugs have been legal since the dawn of time, until the 20thC
You might stop and ask why people take drugs.
And look at the record of other countries' policies.
Why do people take addictive drugs? I had assumed because it feels good and people want to feel good. However, that good feeling comes at a price if their health deteriorates. Some drugs can trigger mental health disorders and others I believe pose physical health risks from overuse.
Gary Childress
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: Are markets moral?

Post by Gary Childress »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Jul 18, 2020 3:36 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Jul 18, 2020 1:42 pm I'm thinkin' legalizin' or decriminalizin', over the long haul, would land us with pretty much the same folks usin' and the same folks not usin' as we have now.

If heroin were legal, available, and cheap: are you gonna try it?

I wouldn't.

I think the legality = increased use argument, over the long haul, doesn't hold water. It assumes folks will if they can. It doesn't take into account that most folks prefer clear heads and self control (two things addiction steals from the addict).

No, if you want to entrench and expand addiction: ban stuff. Folks don't like bein' directed. Overbearing direction makes folks rebellious. A rebellious population is more likely to use (in a you say I can't? Fuck you! kinda way).

Alcohol prohibition was a good example of this. Prohibition led to more potent, compact alcohol; clever ways to produce and distribute alcohol right under the cops' noses (often with the cops' assist); created an organized criminal industry; and made it easy for rebellious sober folks to become sotted.
Decriminalisation isn't about preventing use. It's about de-stigmatising recovery and using public funding to cover the cost thereof.

And in general, how you tackle addict recovery need not be how you prevent addiction in the first place.

If you want fewer addicts - take your lessons from the Rat Park experiment. Happy people don't use drugs for escapism.
If you want to help addicts recover - do what Portugal did.
What did Portugal do that helped addicts recover?
Last edited by Gary Childress on Sat Jul 18, 2020 3:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8813
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Are markets moral?

Post by henry quirk »

Decriminalisation isn't about preventing use.

Did I say it was?
Post Reply