A question for libertarians.

[fluxrad]

1. All drugs shall be legalized.
2. All weapons shall be legalized.
3. All acts which are not harmful to others shall be legalized (i.e. the old "I'm not touching you" game).
4. Business will be as lassaize-faire as humanly possible.
5. Education will be at the sole discretion of the parents.

This begs the question:

Can I be the guy you pay to build the prisons?

What a totally worthless post. We are all dumber for having read it.

Now I know it's hard for you to repress your Mommy, Mommy nanny-state liberalism, fluxrad, but couldn't you at least try?

[fluxrad]

3 cliches in a row, Scoot.

Sadly, not a record.

Also, the ad hominem attack was kind of expected. But hey! Way to not put any thought into the question.

[flatline]

Crime would go down (even if its just because we define less things as crimes). There would be a need for less prisons.

You can make a rational argument that society as a whole would be worse off under a libertarian plan, but an argument that we would need more prisons is just ignorant.

You also misused the "begs the question" phrase.

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]
Crime would go down (even if its just because we define less things as crimes)

[/ QUOTE ]

Which, when combined with the absolute availability of drugs, weapons, and economic inequity (at the gain of near perfect efficiency) resulting from a carte-blanche market would thereby cause crime to increase as a result. That is to say, freedom and incarceration form a sort of social Laffer curve. Do you see why?

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Crime would go down (even if its just because we define less things as crimes)

[/ QUOTE ]

Which, when combined with the absolute availability of drugs, weapons, and economic inequity (at the gain of near perfect efficiency) resulting from a carte-blanche market would thereby cause crime to increase as a result. That is to say, freedom and incarceration form a sort of social Laffer curve. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your latest series of posts advocating your authoritarian moralism have truly driven fear into my heart. I fear for the future of this country if you are anything close to being mainstream.

natedogg

[lehighguy]

The legalizing of drugs reduces crime. Thier illegal status creates high profit incentives to get involved while creating little oversight or disclosure. It attracts the worst elements to the business. Prohibition led to Al Capone and organized crime. The banning of various narcotics is probably partly responsible for inner city gangs and warfare (gangs are largely funded and driven by drug operations).

Similairly, criminals already have weapons. If you are a criminal then you make it a point to acquire weapons. That weapon gives them an advantage over thier victim thereby driving them to commit more crimes in relative safety. If all citizens were armed, a criminal would face potential death at every mugging, and most likely re-evaluate his decision.

I could make an economics arguement as well, but I don't have all day. Simply put, governmental control of the economy helps no one over the long run.

[Superfluous Man]

[ QUOTE ]
Can I be the guy you pay to build the prisons?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, with fewer criminals to lock up and hence fewer prisons to build, I'd love to pay you next-to-nothing, then tell you to kiss my ass when I see you begging for change in the street.

If your only marketable skill is to be an authoritarian ass and imprison as many people as humanly possible, you deserve to starve. Do you see why?

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]

Your latest series of posts advocating your authoritarian moralism have truly driven fear into my heart. I fear for the future of this country if you are anything close to being mainstream.


[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't ask me where I think we are on the curve. All I've stated is that going too far either way along the X axis would be seriously problematic.