Now why would a pot seller be against legalization? It would collapse the main price support for his market.
Who will pay $300 an ounce for things available for $10 to $50 a pound?
Which is why I say that drug prohibitionists objectively support criminal drug dealers. You would think they were on the same side. It is a symbiosis. Neither could exist without the other.
Where would the criminals be without good old all American moral panics? Out of a government supported job. Now price supports for farmers make a little sense. A regular food supply is a good thing. But price supports for criminals? Well it is good for government. When the government runs short of criminals who will heed the call for more taxes for more police?
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against . . . We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Now why would a pot seller be against legalization? It would collapse the main price support for his market.
Who will pay $300 an ounce for things available for $10 to $50 a pound?
Which is why I say that drug prohibitionists objectively support criminal drug dealers. You would think they were on the same side. It is a symbiosis. Neither could exist without the other.
Where would the criminals be without good old all American moral panics? Out of a government supported job. Now price supports for farmers make a little sense. A regular food supply is a good thing. But price supports for criminals? Well it is good for government. When the government runs short of criminals who will heed the call for more taxes for more police?
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against . . . We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum
The problem for Rosenbaum comes when he gets caught breaking those same laws he creates. If you create unobservable/unenforcable/uninterpetable laws, you also have to condition the innocent men into never questioning why you yourself should not be punished for breaking them.
That means the system Mr.Rearden must come to understand is very different that even Rosenbaum is prepared to grasp.
MSimon wrote:What happens when the guilt trips no longer work GIT?
I'm honored that you single me out, even when you deceive and present me as very other than what I am.
But you try to guilt trip me at every opportunity with "doper". I'm neither guilt tripped nor a doper. But enjoy your little game. There are few that care now and in time it will merit the same reaction as "wet" does now. "Say What?"
Prohibition is not a viable method of drug control. What works better is regulation of sales. But that isn't perfect either. But it is better. For 30 years kids have been saying illegal drugs are easier for them to get than alcohol. And that is the Colorado campaign in a nutshell. "Regulate pot like alcohol.'
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Now why would a pot seller be against legalization? It would collapse the main price support for his market.
Who will pay $300 an ounce for things available for $10 to $50 a pound?
Which is why I say that drug prohibitionists objectively support criminal drug dealers. You would think they were on the same side. It is a symbiosis. Neither could exist without the other.
Where would the criminals be without good old all American moral panics? Out of a government supported job. Now price supports for farmers make a little sense. A regular food supply is a good thing. But price supports for criminals? Well it is good for government. When the government runs short of criminals who will heed the call for more taxes for more police?
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against . . . We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum
The problem for Rosenbaum comes when he gets caught breaking those same laws he creates. If you create unobservable/unenforcable/uninterpetable laws, you also have to condition the innocent men into never questioning why you yourself should not be punished for breaking them.
That means the system Mr.Rearden must come to understand is very different that even Rosenbaum is prepared to grasp.
You might know Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum better as Ayn Rand. Does that clarify the issue for you?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
That explains it, I've always thought her books used simplistic strawman fables to support her views, the kind of arguements she could then easily knock down. Her writing was wooden and stilted, and any legit economist/plilosopher uses real world examples in support of theory.
MSimon wrote:
Prohibition is not a viable method of drug control.
Less than 1/10 the population touches illegal drugs while the vast majority use alcohol. If dope were legal we have every reason to expect its use would skyrocket. That's just what we need, more than 10X the numbers of psychotics walking the streets.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
MSimon wrote:
Prohibition is not a viable method of drug control.
Less than 1/10 the population touches illegal drugs while the vast majority use alcohol. If dope were legal we have every reason to expect its use would skyrocket. That's just what we need, more than 10X the numbers of psychotics walking the streets.
Has alcohol use skyrocketted by 10x? I'm sure you could say yes if you talk about prohibition, but as of late, say the last 30 years, while it has gone up during the recession, it has not skyrocketted. I still strongly believe you need to legalize, stigmatize, publically ban (IE: can't use in public), and watch it disappear.
As for MSimon, you really should come to California. You know, your drug of choice is legal here, and perhaps to your surprise, there are many libertarians around. They just tend to be left-leaning libertarians, but they have their reasons of course.
MSimon wrote:
Prohibition is not a viable method of drug control.
Less than 1/10 the population touches illegal drugs while the vast majority use alcohol. If dope were legal we have every reason to expect its use would skyrocket. That's just what we need, more than 10X the numbers of psychotics walking the streets.
Has alcohol use skyrocketted by 10x? I'm sure you could say yes if you talk about prohibition, but as of late, say the last 30 years, while it has gone up during the recession, it has not skyrocketted. I still strongly believe you need to legalize, stigmatize, publically ban (IE: can't use in public), and watch it disappear.
As for MSimon, you really should come to California. You know, your drug of choice is legal here, and perhaps to your surprise, there are many libertarians around. They just tend to be left-leaning libertarians, but they have their reasons of course.
This reminds me of what Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori said regarding Colombian President Arango's creation of a safe haven for Narco-guerrillas, so that he could negotiate with them.
"Brilliant plan! Now that you've got them all in one place, you can wipe them out! "
California certainly needs more people who smoke dope and think left. It can serve the nation as a sort of "roach motel".
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
MSimon wrote:
Prohibition is not a viable method of drug control.
Less than 1/10 the population touches illegal drugs while the vast majority use alcohol. If dope were legal we have every reason to expect its use would skyrocket. That's just what we need, more than 10X the numbers of psychotics walking the streets.
Has alcohol use skyrocketted by 10x?
That is irrelevant. Many people who would use pot do not because it is illegal. While alcohol is legal, the reasons to violate the law, risk losing your job, and become a criminal are far fewer. You can rest assured that many people who do not use dope would do so if it were made legal. That is why 8X as many people use alcohol as smoke dope.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
I'm guessing you don't care for sunny constant temperatured climtates? Perhaps you don't like the tech industry or maybe you don't like the tank grave yard? Not sure what it is you may have against this state, but I find it a nice place to live, much to my surprise when I move dout here. I have constant access either to the mountains to snowboard, the beaches to swim, and the tech sector that pays me handsomely for my abilities. If people want to smoke some weed in their own homes, that doesn't bother me or effect me in the slightest. To this day I'm still glad I left the dull life of Ohio for the far less depressing climate of California, although I do miss Columbus and my Buckeyes, but I'll get to see them next year in Berkeley.
ScottL wrote:I'm guessing you don't care for sunny constant temperatured climtates? Perhaps you don't like the tech industry or maybe you don't like the tank grave yard? Not sure what it is you may have against this state, but I find it a nice place to live, much to my surprise when I move dout here.
The state is wonderful. The people are various flavors of nuts. The problem with California is that it is filled with people who may be very talented or even brilliant in some particular area, but in terms of common sense and wisdom they are complete fools.
Wealth does that to people.
ScottL wrote:
I have constant access either to the mountains to snowboard, the beaches to swim, and the tech sector that pays me handsomely for my abilities. If people want to smoke some weed in their own homes, that doesn't bother me or effect me in the slightest.
That you have noticed yet. Make enough money, and you are insulated from a great deal of stupidity. The pain falls on those too poor to escape the addicts, or their poor choices.
ScottL wrote:
To this day I'm still glad I left the dull life of Ohio for the far less depressing climate of California, although I do miss Columbus and my Buckeyes, but I'll get to see them next year in Berkeley.
ScottL wrote:I'm guessing you don't care for sunny constant temperatured climtates? Perhaps you don't like the tech industry or maybe you don't like the tank grave yard? Not sure what it is you may have against this state, but I find it a nice place to live. . .
I doubt anyone with a legitimate choice would choose to move to a state with a trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities. CA will be bankrupt in the next couple years and we in the other sates, who have been cutting back and have crowded classrooms, etc., are certainly NOT going to allow the Feds to send our money to CA.
It's time y'all started acting like adults and put your house in order.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
