Free riding ain't free. Libertarians on smoking, externalities and property rights.

MarginalRevenue · 4時間前

Every time a smoker smokes they gain utility in having their craving fulfilled, just like how I drink over a gram of caffeine a day, by this point there are no real "benefits" besides soothing the craving. The intial smoke may have been done out of peer pressure, wanting to look cool in an instagram pic etc, the point is someone does something because it gives them utility/avoids disutility. People aren't born addicted to smoking so they must have had some reason to start, and have a reason everytime they take a smoke. I'm anti-smoking and am totally in favor of banning in public places/maybe altogether, I just don't think you did a very good job making that argument.

Not an argument.

What the hell kind of rebuttal is this? This surely proves me wrong doesn't it...

They're not born addicted to smoking but they BECOME addicted. You must've heard from smokers that "I won't get addicted/I only smoke casually" yet in fact they do become addicted and find it extremely hard to quit.

The initial smoke may give them some 'utility' as you defined it, but after the first cigarette they're not doing it for that reason. Pack-a-day smokers aren't smoking all of their lives to look cool, and teens aren't only smoking at parties where they get the utility of looking cool.

MarginalRevenue · 4時間前

http://i.imgur.com/oTS0yCT.png

MarginalRevenue · 4時間前

Again, SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT.

I'm sure, strictly speaking, there is irrationality involved in all these thing - except to nowhere near the degree as smoking. You still haven't acknowledged the fact that cigarettes contain nicotine (which is extremely addictive - far more than sugar) and junk food does not.

MarginalRevenue · 4時間前

this means nothing, the public doesn't know policy

I included public opinion polling to give some evidence that smokers aren't acting in their best interests. Why would a lot of smokers be okay with tax increases on tobacco if they are acting in their best interests? Isn't this slightly, I don't know... irrational?

technically it is. If it is not done by the force coercion and the smoker knows the risk of smoking (how could they not), then it is rational. Your disagreement is normative.

technically it isn't.

(how could they not)

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40435877?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

If you can't access this article just read the first page, it covers this point about irrationality.

Also, another poster commented ITT about time-horizon. I should have mentioned this in my R1 rather than just using the word 'irartional'.

There are 0 benefits to smoking????? Why can't the market get rid of smoking in private businesses? If you don't want to smoke than you can to a voluntary non-smoking restaurant, there doesn't need to a be a law that prohibits any kind of smoker catering restaurant.

I thought I pointed this out in my R1, this is a perfectly reasonable argument. What about the case for a workplace though? Its harder to make it 'smokers only' or 'you must put up with the smokers in this workplace'.

You also start out with the assumption that you as a non-smoker have more of a right to the air you want to breathe than me a smoker. If the smoker derives more utility from smoking in a public place than the aggregate annoying of the public, why should there be a law prohibiting him from doing so. It seems you recognize Coasian analysis at the start of your r1 and then throw it away at the end.

Which allocation do you think is more socially optimal? It sounds like you place greater value on the 'property rights' of smokers rather than the right to clean air for non-smokers.

One smoker might derive utility for smoking in a public place at the cost of reduced utility for all of those around him. This sounds awfully in favour of the non-smokers. If a smoker is exposing the non-smokers to second hand smoke around him I would have thought this scenario is a lot worse than giving the smoker added inconvenience by making him smoke somewhere else.

What utility are the smokers gaining by the way? You haven't explained this.

MarginalRevenue · 5時間前

You didn't read this part of my post did you?

Of course the laws should be reasonable and involve some discretion, rather than basing them purely on theory.

MarginalRevenue · 5時間前

Le slippery slope argument.

There's nothing special about nicotine unless it has mind controlling properties.

Really? You don't think its addictive?

You can hardly say "yeah its not really irrational because if smokers had the willpower they could easily give it up".

MarginalRevenue · 5時間前

Unhealthy, yes, but not really irrational. I wasn't intending on implying that anything remotely 'sinful' or externality-producing should be banned or taxed (slippery-slope argument). Of course the laws should be reasonable and involve some discretion, rather than basing them purely on theory.

If you read my post you would have saw the point about nicotine. Junk food is delicious but it doesn't contain nicotine so my decision to consume is far more 'voluntary' than it would be for cigarettes.

Besides, in no way does junk food produce as many externalities as smoking and you're not going to get cancer from eating burgers.

MarginalRevenue · 5時間前

R1 my R1 if you think I'm wrong.

MarginalRevenue · 7時間前

Does that really make the decision rational or justified? In theory, a rational decision maker would not choose to consume cigarettes because they give them no benefits (unless you think 'stress relief' or w/e other easily substituted benefits it supposedly has justifies the decision) and a hell of a lot of costs. Don't you think a lot of the utility gained from cigarette smoking is just satisfying cravings for nicotine? That makes the decision not entirely voluntary and 'rational'.

Also, a person who smokes for the first time is probably going to have a shitty experience with the terrible taste and the coughing yet they're likely to keep smoking.

MarginalRevenue · 14時間前

Huh, really makes you think.

MarginalRevenue · 16時間前

CYKA BLYAT!

MarginalRevenue · 16時間前

Gasp.

MarginalRevenue · 19時間前

What a waste of my fucking time. What the hell kind of video was that?

MarginalRevenue · 20時間前

A lot of politicians back a candidate well before the nomination process is effectively over. Her platform aligns far more to Bernie than it does to Hillary, yet she never endorsed anyone. I remember watching her talk in various speeches and YouTube videos and 75% of them were about banking, equality and progressive social policies.

If and when she endorses Hillary her reason will be "oh jeez I strongly considered Bernie but y'know Hillary is/is going to be the nominee so there was no point in endorsing Bernie. Besides, Hillary might offer me her VP slot. Can't say no to something like that."

MarginalRevenue · 20時間前

She's not native American.

MarginalRevenue · 1日前

Check my post history lol. I don't support Hillary.

MarginalRevenue · 1日前

Why did you include /s?

MarginalRevenue · 2日前

If you like Mexico so much go back there.

MarginalRevenue · 3日前

They're not going to ask you to lead a prayer.

MarginalRevenue · 3日前

"Sorry, may I excuse myself while you guys say grace. If you didn't already know I am an atheist and this offends me."

Your comment implies that these people are being disrespectful for saying grace with you at the table. Its not.

Its completely harmless to sit there in silence while they do their thing.

MarginalRevenue · 3日前

Is it really that bad?

I don't see how this can really offend people to the point were you need to be notified beforehand. If I went for dinner to a household that practiced praying before a meal, I would obviously think "this isn't for me" but its not like i'm going to activate some weird voodoo ritual by being respectful and participating. This is microaggression-tier LPT.

MarginalRevenue · 4日前

Unified monetary policy doesn't make sense. It literally one of the biggest challenges with the EU in times of recession, or when one country is booming and the rest are in recession.

MarginalRevenue · 4日前

This is hilarious. Sweden Yes!!!

MarginalRevenue · 4日前

After that convention I can't take the Libertarians seriously. That debate (and the strip-tease) were hilariously bad.

MarginalRevenue

トロフィーケース

本日のreddit gold目標額達成率