Show Comments 2

 

  1. I find that there is a flaw in how you’ve presented the Zero Aggression policy.
    The simple fact is, it appears heavily biased argument for no regulation at all of drugs. The problem here is that this has no realistic hope of convincing anyone, and it certainly should NOT be the first topic posted as an example of how the ZAP should function.
    The trouble is that there is no middle ground in the theory-crafting of the scenarios and questions. If someone supports, say, regulating the concentration of a drug, or requiring a prescription for a drug, the progression of your questions do not allow for that in the slightest. This comes across as though you have an ulterior agenda, and if someone does not agree with total legalization and deregulation of every drug under the sun, with no oversight whatsoever, then they are ‘wrong’ and need to be convinced.
    I don’t disagree with the ZAP applying in these scenarios. However, your current line of questions carries an undercurrent of the message that “you are wrong-headed unless you agree with our (possibly radical) position”. I suggest refining how you approach this concept, to keep from appearing radical.

    1. Post
      Author

      Hi Chet. Thanks for your comment.
      There are types of regulation that involve the initiation of force, and those that don’t. For instance, when I want to be sure of a quality product I look for the Underwriters Laboratory approval label. When I want the same thing for nutritional supplements I look for companies that undergo testing by NSF. These are free market forms of regulation that involve no initiation of force. I expect to see similar forms of accreditation for mind-altering substances as they increasingly come to market. Now…
      If you would prefer violence-based State regulation of narcotics while wanting to see them decriminalized in general, our slider allows scope for that sort of thing. Instead of choosing to strongly oppose drug prohibition, you could mostly, or slightly oppose it.
      Is our position against the initiation for force radical? We think the contrary position is the radical one. The idea that one group of human beings can force its opinion on others via threats of violence is the radical position in our view. We are trying to bring moderation to a world where too many people advocate violence-based solutions. Thanks for participating in the discussion about this.

Leave a Reply to Chet Cancel reply

Fields marked with * are required