Assorted links

Comments

If prohibition causes violent crime, which is often claimed by libertarians, should we expect to see a decline in violent crime in Colorado starting in about 2008?

So even if I find a belief logically incoherent, I can't assign it a probability of less than 5-10%?

Am I allowed to say I'm much much more than 99% sure Santa Claus doesn't exist? Russell's Teapot? The Tooth Fairy? If so, given that "god" is less plausible than any of these (especially the teapot), shouldn't it get a lower probability still? In short, I'm perfectly comfortable with the trillion-to-one on god.

For my *political* beliefs, I wouldn't want to bet more than 10-to-1 on almost anything I now believe. But when it comes to mythological beliefs, those need to be in their own category. The Amazing Randi's paranormal challenge puts up a million dollars versus *nothing* - challengers aren't required to bet even a dollar of their own. Anybody who contributed to Randi's fund demonstrates their number is much more than a million. Frankly, the weak spot in the Paranormal challenge is *not* that there's more than a million-to-one chance of gods or fairies or ghosts or ESP or dowsing or telekinesis existing/working, it's that there's more than a million-to-one chance JREF could be fooled by a hoaxer or accidentally fail to propose a strong enough test.

Do non-libertarians believe that prohibition does not cause violent crime?

"If prohibition causes violent crime, which is often claimed by libertarians, should we expect to see a decline in violent crime in Colorado starting in about 2008?"

Not likely because:

1. Regulation of medical marijuana raises its price above that of the existing, mature black-market. (It would be better to subsidize it than to tax it in the short run.)
2. Production and distribution channels are still either quasi-legal or illegal.
3. Since retail marijuana is still illegal most other places there is likely to be an Amsterdam-effect creating narco-tourism, increasing demand in Colorado.

The best way to legalize drugs in this hemisphere is to do it everywhere all at once, with North and South America reversing current policy and legalizing the production, distribution and retail sale of marijuana, coke, meth and heroin.

Semi-legalization may not be a good path at all because it may have little effect on crime, thereby strengthening the political argument that full legalization won't work.

Ask yourself this: what is so special about illegal drugs that causes their producers to behave so much more violently than the producers of other commodities? The producers aren't usually the ones getting high, after all.

At the pick a number link, Tyler Cowen said:

"I think people should be truly uncertain about almost all of their beliefs."

Of course, there's only a 60% chance he's right.

And I am 100% certain of the following statement: This sentence is false.

Don't feel bad, Brian. I recognized under 20% of the faces. In one case I wasn't even sure of the sex. And yes, I have a mild case of face blindness. I also have trouble recognizing emotions which is why I love deadpan humour.

As for Nazi fiscal policy, in the short term putting someone to work building a machine gun carrier has the same fiscal effect as building an autobahn. Later, when the machine gun carrier is put to use, it's ability to act as anti-capital and destroy carefully cultivated human and manufactured capital can become apparent.

Comments for this post are closed