When All Else Fails Blame "Free Markets"

[Lucrum]

The constitution was a good start but was and is inadequate. To put it mildly.

I have to laugh at all this uncritical worship of the constitution by the right wing nut jobs.

That's OK FagCunts, we're laughing at your uncritical worship of the AGW scam.

 

[dbphoenix]

Piezoe,
You are not a would be libertarian if you believe we live in a perfect world. The idea isn't that there's no theft and bad people around. The idea is that giving the government the monopoly in violence is what gets one the worst deal, where choices are limited and one cannot escape voluntarily using their services.

Private security firms can handle the protection business. Malls and societies can come together to voluntarily pay for competing firms to provide security. Unlike the government provided security, now there's a competition between security firms. Not only do they have to provide security, but have to get it done with least force, as the using excessive force can have a negative impact on their reputation if the competitor is doing it better.

The money that was given to taxes is more efficiently and voluntarily given to firms and insurance companies instead that have better reputation.
Insurance firms become a key in this environment where to get insurance for property, they raise premiums if an approved firm isn't in charge of the security. They don't want to have to pay someone for damage to their property or person if they can avoid it.

That's just an example where security is provided with no government. If you are asking the obvious question, that what is prevent these firms from becoming the local governments you need more detailed reading. You may also realize that providing security in Canada as an example in a lot easier than providing it in certain areas in the USA. What means is that a group of people could be less inclined to violence as compared to another group. Similarly if one is living amongst those who are libertarians, their motto of Non Aggression Principle (NAP) would imply there's less threat to violence and lesser need of protection.

Yes, you'll ask what if an external force joins hands and attempts to conquer those who don't like violence. I would suggest you may like to read Chaos Theory by Murphy if you are seriously interested. I have a feeling you really haven't read enough about the libertarian part even though you quote Plato, who philosophically was more of a socialist and a central control kind of guy.

Have a good day.

Gringo

Do you really believe all of this or are you being satirical? If the former, you ought to read up on Chicago in the 1920s.

 

[fhl]

The constitution was about protecting people's liberty and property.
The global warming scam is about taking people's liberty and property.

Yep, explains a lot about the left.

 

[dbphoenix]

The constitution was about protecting people's liberty and property.
The global warming scam is about taking people's liberty and property.

Yep, explains a lot about the left.

Actually it's nature that's taking people's property.

 

[fhl]

Actually it's nature that's taking people's property.

Right you are. Climate change is caused by nature. Not the hoax that says it's man made.

 

[futurecurrents]

Right you are. Climate change is caused by nature. Not the hoax that says it's man made.

Yes these guys are in on the hoax also. Along with every science org in the world. Gore made them do it. Just how stupid are you?

American Geophysical Union

"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5

 

[futurecurrents]

I like this part of the constitution.....there are a bunch of them like this.

“Art. 4th, Sec. 2nd. — No person held to service or labor in one State, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”


In fact, the constitution was so perfect that there have been 33 amendments to it. So far. Now we have get rid of that 2nd one. It has outlived it's usefulness.

 

[dbphoenix]

Right you are. Climate change is caused by nature. Not the hoax that says it's man made.

That's not what I said. What is causing the changes in natural phenomena is the actions of man.

Anyone who believes that the toxins we've been pumping into the air, the land, and the water over the past century have had no effect is living on a different plane.

 

[Gringo]

Do you really believe all of this or are you being satirical? If the former, you ought to read up on Chicago in the 1920s.

An excerpt (LFYE ch20)"

Economic analysis by itself cannot judge whether drug prohibition is a good or a bad policy. Ultimately citizens and policy makers must incorporate their value judgments before deciding whether it is good or bad for the government to, say, punish convicted cocaine dealers with 25-year prison sentences. However, in order for citizens and policy makers to make informed decisions, they must understand the full consequences of drug prohibition.

When it comes to illicit drugs, the question is not: “Would it be better to live in a society with or without cocaine?” That particular question is not relevant, because the government is powerless to stamp out cocaine use completely. Rather, the crucial question is this: “Would it be better to live in a society with or without extreme penalties for cocaine use?” In order to imagine what society would be like in one condition versus the other, it is important to learn what economic analysis says about the effects of drug prohibition. Remember that there is a difference between saying something is immoral versus saying it should be illegal. If someone argues that cheating on one’s wife shouldn’t carry a jail term, that person isn’t thereby condoning adultery.

Drug Prohibition Fosters Violence
Everyone knows that the illegal drug trade is plagued by excessive violence, often in the form of gang warfare. Worse still, innocent bystanders are often killed as collateral damage from turf battles between rival drug dealers. The casual observer might conclude that drugs such as cocaine and heroin are intrinsically bad, and go hand-in-hand with violence. Yet this explanation is wrong. Both economic theory and American history demonstrate that drug prohibition causes violence, not drugs per se.

The historical evidence is clear enough in the case of alcohol Prohibition. From 1920 to 1933, under the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution, for the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol (for purposes of consumption) was illegal in the United States. Yet despite the official illegality, alcohol was still produced and distributed by bootleggers, and drinkers could still gather socially at speakeasies.

Although Prohibition didn’t eliminate alcohol use, it did place the industry under the control of organized crime. During the Prohibition period— often called the “Noble Experiment”—mobsters such as Al Capone (based in Chicago) derived significant revenues from the illicit alcohol trade, money that they used to bribe government officials and hire “soldiers” and other henchmen for their criminal networks.

For our purposes, the important feature of alcohol Prohibition was that the alcohol trade could be as violent as the heroin or cocaine trade is today The infamous St. Valentine’s Day Massacre was a 1929 gangland hit in which Al Capone arranged for the murder of seven members of rival Bugs Moran’s operation. Historians cite various motivations for the slayings, but all agree that Capone and Moran were enemies due in part to rivalry in the bootleg market.

If you have seen movies or read true crime accounts dealing with Prohibition-era gangsters, these historical events are familiar and do not cause any puzzlement. Yet on the surface it should be shocking that rival entrepreneurs would try to kill each other over alcohol. Can you imagine turning on the television tomorrow and learning that the distributors of Budweiser had ordered a hit on the distributors of Heineken? That would be inconceivable.

Alcohol is no longer controlled by organized criminals, but instead by legitimate businessmen and women. Now that alcohol is legal, its producers try to gain market share by improving the product quality or cutting its price. It wouldn’t even occur to them to use violence to gain more customers.

On the other hand, what activities do we see in the hands of criminal organizations? They include drugs such as heroin and cocaine, prostitution, gambling, and loan sharking. In short, all areas that are still (unlike alcohol since the repeal of Prohibition) either prohibited or heavily regulated by the government.

The historical episode of alcohol Prohibition provides very compelling evidence that the violence we currently associate with illegal drugs is due to government’s prohibition, not to the nature of the products themselves

Friedman on drugs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLsCC0LZxkY

 

[Ricter]

An excerpt (LFYE ch20)"

Economic analysis by itself cannot judge whether drug prohibition is a good or a bad policy. Ultimately citizens and policy makers must incorporate their value judgments before deciding whether it is good or bad for the government to, say, punish convicted cocaine dealers with 25-year prison sentences. However, in order for citizens and policy makers to make informed decisions, they must understand the full consequences of drug prohibition.

When it comes to illicit drugs, the question is not: “Would it be better to live in a society with or without cocaine?” That particular question is not relevant, because the government is powerless to stamp out cocaine use completely. Rather, the crucial question is this: “Would it be better to live in a society with or without extreme penalties for cocaine use?” In order to imagine what society would be like in one condition versus the other, it is important to learn what economic analysis says about the effects of drug prohibition. Remember that there is a difference between saying something is immoral versus saying it should be illegal. If someone argues that cheating on one’s wife shouldn’t carry a jail term, that person isn’t thereby condoning adultery.

Drug Prohibition Fosters Violence
Everyone knows that the illegal drug trade is plagued by excessive violence, often in the form of gang warfare. Worse still, innocent bystanders are often killed as collateral damage from turf battles between rival drug dealers. The casual observer might conclude that drugs such as cocaine and heroin are intrinsically bad, and go hand-in-hand with violence. Yet this explanation is wrong. Both economic theory and American history demonstrate that drug prohibition causes violence, not drugs per se.

The historical evidence is clear enough in the case of alcohol Prohibition. From 1920 to 1933, under the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution, for the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol (for purposes of consumption) was illegal in the United States. Yet despite the official illegality, alcohol was still produced and distributed by bootleggers, and drinkers could still gather socially at speakeasies.

Although Prohibition didn’t eliminate alcohol use, it did place the industry under the control of organized crime. During the Prohibition period— often called the “Noble Experiment”—mobsters such as Al Capone (based in Chicago) derived significant revenues from the illicit alcohol trade, money that they used to bribe government officials and hire “soldiers” and other henchmen for their criminal networks.

For our purposes, the important feature of alcohol Prohibition was that the alcohol trade could be as violent as the heroin or cocaine trade is today The infamous St. Valentine’s Day Massacre was a 1929 gangland hit in which Al Capone arranged for the murder of seven members of rival Bugs Moran’s operation. Historians cite various motivations for the slayings, but all agree that Capone and Moran were enemies due in part to rivalry in the bootleg market.

If you have seen movies or read true crime accounts dealing with Prohibition-era gangsters, these historical events are familiar and do not cause any puzzlement. Yet on the surface it should be shocking that rival entrepreneurs would try to kill each other over alcohol. Can you imagine turning on the television tomorrow and learning that the distributors of Budweiser had ordered a hit on the distributors of Heineken? That would be inconceivable.

Alcohol is no longer controlled by organized criminals, but instead by legitimate businessmen and women. Now that alcohol is legal, its producers try to gain market share by improving the product quality or cutting its price. It wouldn’t even occur to them to use violence to gain more customers.

On the other hand, what activities do we see in the hands of criminal organizations? They include drugs such as heroin and cocaine, prostitution, gambling, and loan sharking. In short, all areas that are still (unlike alcohol since the repeal of Prohibition) either prohibited or heavily regulated by the government.

The historical episode of alcohol Prohibition provides very compelling evidence that the violence we currently associate with illegal drugs is due to government’s prohibition, not to the nature of the products themselves

Friedman on drugs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLsCC0LZxkY

The "crucial question" then is how much violence are we willing to accept in order to control drug usage. I'm willing to accept some (but not too much).