SpacingOutMan Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Since the conception of the United Mechodamian States, it has become apparent that no nation can avoid the issue of drugs and narcotics. Despite the government being a relieving autocratic dictatorship led by Prefect Lord Kilik Torqameda, the issue has been sent to the masses to vote. Essentially they will be the ones doing the drugs, and their own outcomes will be determined by the error of their own decision. Ultimately the ballot choices are self-explanatory, and now the referendum begins. [OOC: I am opening this up to everyone who sees this because I want this to be as a random outcome for me to RP instead of absolutely knowing the outcome of the election. Vote what you honestly think is best and yeah, voice opinions from your national leaders, etc.] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykep Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Decriminalization. Finding a middle ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted June 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 In terms of decriminalization, it'd be difficult to find middle ground in enforcement and where to draw the lines for punishments (fine, slap on the wrist, etc.). That is where the real dilemma lies when it comes to decriminalization. At least the other four options are fairly self-explanatory in their consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 (edited) Yes with heavy regulation. Takes out the criminal element and ensures some measure of safety. The Alliance allows some degree of recreational drug use in so far as it is issued through the proper channels and there is appropriate medical supervision. Edited June 20, 2009 by iamthey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted June 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 And has that yielded relatively favorable results? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 As a nation founded upon the ideals of capitalism, Xaristan would support letting the capitalistic society take over, and legalize the drugs with no government interference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 (edited) And has that yielded relatively favorable results? We would say it has, though of course there are a lot of other effecting variables. Generally speaking if a person who has been prescribed the substance in question, they can be given more specific guidelines of use which will likely be followed as the person would wish to retain such privileges. Furthermore as they were produced by a legitimate source quality control of the actual substance itself is more exact rather than the second rate productions of criminal drug operations. Beyond that if an individual consults with a medical professional once a week use can be monitored, and events such as addictions, and overdose can be prevented. Problems with prohibiting all forms of recreational drugs generally sources from A the makeshift operations with zero oversight that cut corners by mixing potentially harmful substances into the drugs to expand supply, and B the fact that its amateur chemists rather than licensed professionals. and B the fact that people using them lack supervision, as well as education other than, that they shouldn't do them. The result is an ignorant group of people who experiment at their peril with substances they know nothing about. While we try to discourage their use, those that wish to use them anyway are properly educated and properly supervised. This hopefully reduces unnecessary medical costs and deaths. As a nation founded upon the ideals of capitalism, Xaristan would support letting the capitalistic society take over, and legalize the drugs with no government interference. We also disagree with Xaristan's policy. In general capitalism often results in reduced quality and the cutting of corners to save costs. Most individuals are incapable of analyzing chemical compounds. So something such as this will only result in a legitimate market which is scarcely better than the present black market. The point of legalizing is that you as a government can control it, and ensure safety measures are put into place. Edited June 20, 2009 by iamthey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 We also disagree with Xaristan's policy. In general capitalism often results in reduced quality and the cutting of corners to save costs. Most individuals are incapable of analyzing chemical compounds. So something such as this will only result in a legitimate market which is scarcely better than the present black market. The point of legalizing is that you as a government can control it, and ensure safety measures are put into place. It's obvious that you have only lived in a corrupt capitalistic society then. True capitalists provide the best product they can for their customers at the lowest price. Therefore, people buy more of their product than anyone else's, and they get more profit. And the point of legalizing for more government control only works if you are a socialist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 It's obvious that you have only lived in a corrupt capitalistic society then. True capitalists provide the best product they can for their customers at the lowest price. Therefore, people buy more of their product than anyone else's, and they get more profit. And the point of legalizing for more government control only works if you are a socialist. True, though this assumes people are adequately educated and informed. Think about this, you have gasoline A, and gasoline B. Gasoline A costs 1$ a gallon, and gasoline B costs 5$. gasoline A is in reality "watered down" to expand the amount of product that can be sold, this results in a marginal loss of power and long term damage to the engine, though it is advertised as just as effective as leading brands. Gasoline B is high quality and therefore costs a lot more. Most of the citizens in that society hate no real expertise that would allow them to really judge the difference between the two so its likely most would take the one poor in quality because it was cheaper, even though it would in the long term damage their vehicle. The same can be said with any number of products. Sure with something obvious like clothing, food, and artwork we can make an easy judgment, but that isn't so true with computers, chemicals/pharmaceuticals, or cars. A normal person has little more than their own sense of aesthetics by which they can judge items before them and if there is no regulation restricting faulty advertising, and no quality standards than the results show. Capitalism is about one thing (and im not saying its entirely bad) profit. All that really matters is the perception of quality that your product has, not its actual quality. As long as people think its good, its good. So in reality the goal is to be capable of producing the cheapest thing possible so that you can charge a little less than your competitors, and therefore profit the most. Its not endemic to a corrupt capitalist society its just inherent to the value system of capitalism. Capitalism needs a neutral party to watch over it, otherwise it just can't be honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 True, though this assumes people are adequately educated and informed. Think about this, you have gasoline A, and gasoline B. Gasoline A costs 1$ a gallon, and gasoline B costs 5$. gasoline A is in reality "watered down" to expand the amount of product that can be sold, this results in a marginal loss of power and long term damage to the engine, though it is advertised as just as effective as leading brands. Gasoline B is high quality and therefore costs a lot more. Most of the citizens in that society hate no real expertise that would allow them to really judge the difference between the two so its likely most would take the one poor in quality because it was cheaper, even though it would in the long term damage their vehicle. The same can be said with any number of products. Sure with something obvious like clothing, food, and artwork we can make an easy judgment, but that isn't so true with computers, chemicals/pharmaceuticals, or cars. A normal person has little more than their own sense of aesthetics by which they can judge items before them and if there is no regulation restricting faulty advertising, and no quality standards than the results show. Capitalism is about one thing (and im not saying its entirely bad) profit. All that really matters is the perception of quality that your product has, not its actual quality. As long as people think its good, its good. So in reality the goal is to be capable of producing the cheapest thing possible so that you can charge a little less than your competitors, and therefore profit the most. Its not endemic to a corrupt capitalist society its just inherent to the value system of capitalism. Capitalism needs a neutral party to watch over it, otherwise it just can't be honest. Once again, this is your interpretation from growing up in a tainted capitalistic society. More regulation is not the answer. More education is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 (edited) Once again, this is your interpretation from growing up in a tainted capitalistic society. More regulation is not the answer. More education is. I suppose its simply a matter of opinion. That is your nation's perspective you are all welcome to pursue it. We disagree and will continue our centrally planning. So far it has served us well so we won't deviate. Also I did not grow up in a corrupt capitalist society, I have merely studied capitalism and drawn conclusions based on my study of social science. You will have to pardon me if I don't put as much faith in the judgment, or honesty of people. Edited June 20, 2009 by iamthey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Once again, this is your interpretation from growing up in a tainted capitalistic society. More regulation is not the answer. More education is. More education. So a person need only be completely educated in the following fields according to you to be able to make wise decisions: chemistry, physics, mechanics, and electronics, to name a few. We are unsure what the situation is in your nation, but few people here have the time to educate themselves thoroughly in all these areas, and therefore, regulation is needed in our economy--and the economy of any nation that is hoenst with itself. As such, we support the idea of legal drugs being heavily regulated and taxed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Drugs are highly illegal in Pangong. The highest penalty for distrubution is death in Pangong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 More education. So a person need only be completely educated in the following fields according to you to be able to make wise decisions: chemistry, physics, mechanics, and electronics, to name a few. We are unsure what the situation is in your nation, but few people here have the time to educate themselves thoroughly in all these areas, and therefore, regulation is needed in our economy--and the economy of any nation that is hoenst with itself.As such, we support the idea of legal drugs being heavily regulated and taxed. Did we say people had to educate themselves in those areas? No, we did not. We said more education was the answer. The state funded schools in Xaristan provide sufficient education concerning the capitalistic system and how it should be run. Will there be people who try and cheat the system? Of course, but they will be the anomalies, not the norm. An education system grounded in these capitalistic ideals, and not one that teaches personal greed and getting ahead, is the way to have a true capitalistic system, not a quasi-socialist one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eggman Empire Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 Yes. With drugs legal, we'll be able to explore multiple venues and uses without having to worry about the international community breathing down our neck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 (edited) Did we say people had to educate themselves in those areas? No, we did not. We said more education was the answer. The state funded schools in Xaristan provide sufficient education concerning the capitalistic system and how it should be run. Will there be people who try and cheat the system? Of course, but they will be the anomalies, not the norm. An education system grounded in these capitalistic ideals, and not one that teaches personal greed and getting ahead, is the way to have a true capitalistic system, not a quasi-socialist one. What the promised land meant was in order for people to make informed decisions as consumers... to make the capitalistic system function at its best people must be highly knowledgeable in a wide range of fields to be able to accurately assess and judge which products are superior and worth their market cost. The integrity of a capitalist system when there is no government regulation is the consumer as they are the ones which determine demand and therefore profit for a given good. The Producer in capitalist theory is therefore kept in line and honest by these consumers. Unfortunately in practice the best product does not always win out, it is simply the product that seems the best to the average consumer, who's knowledge is limmited. That is why an informed non-bias watchdog is required to ensure that the consumer base is adequately informed, and that companies are kept honest. As for what you do, you can do all the "brainwashing" (and don't take that the wrong way) you want but ultimately that isn't always going to cover your bases. Communist societies do the same thing to try to prevent "corrupt" communist societies but it generally doesn't always work. That is why there needs to be a system of enforcement to ensure that the system in question is preserved. Moreover capitalism is by its definition about self interest, its analysis isn't written from the standpoint of an ideology it is laid out as a description of a natural form of economic order that exists when alternatives are not imposed. Read the original works of Adam Smith you will find its not a book of ideology but rather a series of observations on a given phenomenon. Changing the focus from self interest to social concern ultimately changes it from capitalist to a more socialist system, as that screws up the producer's focus on profit which is what theoretically ensures optimal quality, efficiency, and market pricing. And instead controls them though ideology and social responsibility. Ultimately without any form of enforcement you will end up with a society where people blindly trust the integrity of the producers while a handful of producers will take advantage and spoil the entire system. And as there is no government to ensure that your "capitalist ideals" are upheld, there will be no repercussions or reason to not take advantage, other than ones "moral integrity". I merely think your understanding is a bit too idealistic. However again, I guess we can agree to disagree. Edited June 21, 2009 by iamthey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted June 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 It seems most people are apt for complete legalization, though with a majority feeling government intervention is necessary. Interesting stuff as to how people feel. Moreover, though, even if the polls somehow are usurped and drugs are voted to be outlawed outright, death wouldn't be an option for distribution... just a Class A felony (max) which is 30 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 OOC: There's no such economist as Adam Smith, chief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 OOC: There's no such economist as Adam Smith, chief. OOC: Actually, there is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 (edited) OOC: There's no such economist as Adam Smith, chief. OOC: Heh, Adam Smith was an economic theorist, he is credited with "inventing" or as I guess he would have said discovering capitalism. He was the first to write of the "invisible hand" which guides a free market and drives supply and demand. Hes basically the Karl Marx of capitalism. Though unlike Marx who originally started out with analytical philosophy (regarding the historical shifts in economic systems and its relation to class struggle ultimately predicting the system of communism would emerge) and then jumped to ideology; smith was pretty much just an analytical philosopher, and just sought to describe capitalism (as he thought it was a natural occurring phenomenon given the right conditions in society). Edited June 21, 2009 by iamthey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.