Blog

Joe Biden’s Second Best Day

After ending the war in Afghanistan:

Biden pardoning all prior federal offenses of simple marijuana possession

President Biden will pardon all prior federal offenses of simple marijuana possession, the White House said Thursday, a move toward decriminalizing the drug.

The move applies to those convicted of simple possession of marijuana, including those in the District of Columbia, according to senior officials. The White House noted that people of color and White people use marijuana at similar rates, but that “black and brown people have been arrested, prosecuted, and convicted at disproportionate rates.”

“As I’ve said before, no one should be in jail just for using or possessing marijuana,” Biden tweeted Thursday. “Sending people to jail for possessing marijuana has upended too many lives — for conduct that is legal in many states. That’s before you address the clear racial disparities around prosecution and conviction. Today, we begin to right these wrongs.” …

In addition to the pardons, Biden urged governors to follow suit regarding state marijuana offenses and instructed Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra and Attorney General Merrick Garland to begin reviewing how marijuana is classified under federal drug laws.

“The federal government currently classifies marijuana as a “schedule one” substance, the same as heroin and LSD – and more serious than fentanyl,” said Biden. “It makes no sense.”

This is fantastic news.

Update, Reason: What Biden’s Weed Plan Really Means; Biden Is Still Seeking Potential Life Sentences for Distributing Weed, Even As He Pardons for Possession

The Carl Sagan Case Against Democracy

The Carl Sagan Case Against Democracy

 

We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.

– Carl Sagan, BrainyQuote

How has science and technology advanced when “we the people” never “voted” for such a thing to occur?

Democracy advocates claim that ‘if we don’t vote on X through the political process, we will have no influence on X, and X will benefit only the very few’.

Does anyone think Seinfeld would have been funnier if script writing had been put to a popular vote? Would printers work better if people who know nothing about printers voted on how printers should be made? Computers? Houses? Cell phones? Cars? Airplanes? Food?

Allowing tens of millions of uninformed people to shape anything is an unwise policy, especially when they pay no price for being wrong.

In the free market, people succeed by pleasing the mass of consumers. In government, politicians succeed by vilifying people of goodwill and rewards he who enrages the masses of ignorant voters.

If the government didn’t have a monopoly on security, only rich people would be able to have security just like when the government got out of other businesses, the only cars produced were limousines, the only clothes produced were tuxedos and the only food produced was foie gras

AOC is 100% Wrong About Inequality

AOC is 100% Wrong About Inequality

…[I]n 1800 AD, 95% of the world was destitute, living in what we’d now consider extreme poverty. In 1900 AD, about 75% were.

 

Now, maybe 9% of people are, while nine out of ten people live above extreme poverty. In 1950, Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan were very poor. Singer would have said we have duties to give our extra income to their citizens. In 2020, Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan are very rich—indeed, the average person in Singapore is now richer than the average American. Singer today would say the Japanese, Koreans, etc.,have duties to give their extra income away. But we should ask, how did the people in these recently poor countries go from being the kinds of people Singer thinks ought to be helped to the kinds of people Singer thinks ought to give help?

 

The answer: It’s not as though Japan and Korea went from being full of people who need help to people who can help because anyone listened to Singer. Rather, they became rich precisely because people ignored Singer’s advice. Over the past 60 years, people in already rich countries bought toys, transistor radios, stereos, video game consoles, VCRs, DVD players, Blu-ray players, smartphones, automobiles, electronics, and a wide range of other morally insignificant luxury goods they didn’t need from these countries. The result wasn’t that their people starved while their economies went on making useless trinkets. The result was instead that their people were liberated from poverty and joined the ranks of the rich.

 

Today, China is starting to move toward being a middle- income country. Some parts of China are quite rich, while others remain poor. But it was only when China partly liberalized, and when Americans and others started buying so many unneeded, morally insignificant luxury goods from China, that China finally started to escape extreme poverty.

 

There are a few historical examples of countries avoiding sudden collapse or utter chaos thanks to handouts from wealthier countries, but there are no examples of countries having sustained, poverty-ending growth as a result of such handouts. Rather, all of the rich countries grew rich by participating in the world market economy, by producing things others wanted at prices they could afford to pay. Historically, the thing that eradicates extreme destitution is not throwing money at destitution, but throwing money into the very forms of commerce Singer wants to eliminate and regards as morally wrong.

 

– Jason Brennan, Ph.D., Why It’s OK to Want to Be Richp. 153-5

 

Podcasts

scotthortonshow logosq

coi banner sq2@0.5x

liberty weekly thumbnail

Don't Tread on Anyone Logo

313x0w (1)

313x0w (1)

313x0w (1)

Pin It on Pinterest