Originally posted by Ancapitan
There doesn't have to be and you don't have to go to some shady dealer to deal with such violence. Besides, this violence that can stem from the black market is due to government preventing you from the many open sources you can purchase from due to the wanted items legality.
This is true...for the most part. There is still a small percentage - the people Oliver North was talking about - that would still perpetuate violence even if the "drug market" was completely open and free. There will always be that element to humanity.
However, I agree that a free and open drug market (AC) would curb a crap-ton of the drug violence in America.
I would like for the government to study that. Maybe relax the drug policies in one city and see if it works. LA?
Originally posted by Ancapitan
The premise of your proposition is that the state is addressing the issue of violence well.
not at all
Originally posted by Ancapitan
Which is completely false. It is possibly the most violent entity known to man. Its not reason, not eloquence, it is force.
there are many different types of violence. I don't think anyone would argue with you that eliminating the state would end large-scale projections of military force, sure.
However, if you look at the historical record, the establishment of the state and growth in government power and the monopoly of force are also associated with a much smaller portion of society being involved in warfare and violence or being a victim of it.
Historically, a far higher portion of the population dies from violence in systems without formal government than in systems with it.
Originally posted by Ancapitan
Are you saying that people cannot voluntarily set up a protection agency in the absense of a government, a group of people forcing it to happen?Are you saying that people cannot voluntarily purchase protection agencies in this free market?
no
what I am saying is that, in the best case, they will work in ways practically indistinguishable from a state based system, and as a small "a" anarchist, I would criticize the new systems of authority in the exact same way I would a modern system.
also, you have described a system where rich criminals can, literally, buy off the only people who would prosecute them.
Originally posted by Ancapitan
There doesn't have to be and you don't have to go to some shady dealer to deal with such violence. Besides, this violence that can stem from the black market is due to government preventing you from the many open sources you can purchase from due to the wanted items legality.
/facepalm
no, I agree with you, there is no violence in the black market as a result of people ripping each other off for profit
Originally posted by dadudemon
However, I agree that a free and open drug market (AC) would curb a crap-ton of the drug violence in America.
just as a point of clarification
AC wouldn't make the drug market like modern free markets, it would make modern free markets like the drug market
drug legalization in a system where the state enforces contracts and all of that other beneficial nonsense, I would agree with you. In AC, drug cartels are now legitimate business operations with little incentive to behave in a more socially-conscious way.
yes, and there are a number of ways they might function through different interpretations of how one would be voluntarily "under the law" (sort of extending from situations where the only laws that apply to you are the ones you agree to by contract to a form of "defacto consent" to certain legal systems by entering the property of whoever controls the police in a certain area).
It is just one of those systems where, the more efficient it becomes in design, the more it imitates a state run system. Like, enforcing any form of legal equality would require a body that is no different from a government in a practical sense.
Originally posted by Oliver North
just as a point of clarificationAC wouldn't make the drug market like modern free markets, it would make modern free markets like the drug market
drug legalization in a system where the state enforces contracts and all of that other beneficial nonsense, I would agree with you. In AC, drug cartels are now legitimate business operations with little incentive to behave in a more socially-conscious way.
Those Cartels are a product of a crappy system, not a product of an AC-like Drug System.
To expand, an AC system for drugs would have independent quality organizations. The people would buy the cheapest and highest quality drugs. The producers would have to play ball in that market.
If what you said were to actually be legitimate in the real world, then the Cartels would have waged wards on the dispensaries in CA a long time ago. You may protest this statement because the dispensaries are operating within a state-authority system, then I'll say that the Cartels don't give a crap about the laws, already, and do business their way. They do not operate within the system and that is the entire point of their existence. Because of the system, they can exist and thrive.
The Dairy Market is worth around $20 Billion, annually. Drugs are estimated to be worth $30-$60 billion, annually. Why don't we have Dairy Cartels? There is tons of regulation for food n'stuff. So there should be a viable market to do some illegal dairy activity. And the customer base is huge!
"Because diversity of dairy..."
Then I'd say that there is a diversity of drugs even within the same type of drug.
Cartels make their money from the illegality of the drugs. If they are not illegal, then they do not have much of a source of income. They'd have to switch the type of business they conduct or they'd fold.
This is what happened in CA when MJ was made legal for medical use. Drug dealers, some violent, legitimized their business and operated within the law. In an AC system, they'd legitimize themselves by conforming to some sort of independent regulatory group.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Those Cartels are a product of a crappy system, not a product of an AC-like Drug System.To expand, an AC system for drugs would have independent quality organizations. The people would buy the cheapest and highest quality drugs. The producers would have to play ball in that market.
If what you said were to actually be legitimate in the real world, then the Cartels would have waged wards on the dispensaries in CA a long time ago. You may protest this statement because the dispensaries are operating within a state-authority system, then I'll say that the Cartels don't give a crap about the laws, already, and do business their way. They do not operate within the system and that is the entire point of their existence. Because of the system, they can exist and thrive.
The Dairy Market is worth around $20 Billion, annually. Drugs are estimated to be worth $30-$60 billion, annually. Why don't we have Dairy Cartels? There is tons of regulation for food n'stuff. So there should be a viable market to do some illegal dairy activity. And the customer base is huge!
"Because diversity of dairy..."
Then I'd say that there is a diversity of drugs even within the same type of drug.
Cartels make their money from the illegality of the drugs. If they are not illegal, then they do not have much of a source of income. They'd have to switch the type of business they conduct or they'd fold.
This is what happened in CA when MJ was made legal for medical use. Drug dealers, some violent, legitimized their business and operated within the law. In an AC system, they'd legitimize themselves by conforming to some sort of independent regulatory group.
I think we are addressing the issue from different perspectives. I don't necessarily agree with everything you said, but lets say it is a given.
My point is that the violence in a black market is caused by a lack of any specific body that can enforce contracts between powerful companies. Not all of it, of course, but the vast majority. If I feel you have wronged me, I can only (and trust me from personal experience, I am expected to [if you want I can expand, but I'm sure you get it]) respond with violence. If I feel I can "out-violence" you, it is in my interest to wrong you, because you have no established form of retribution or remuneration.
How can an AC system ensure contracts in a way that doesn't fall victim to the same abuses and immorality involved in having a state enforce contracts?
(also, be careful when you say cartels have had no conflicts with medicinal growers. Additionally, cartels almost specifically don't want to cause problems in America because of law enforcement... you can't hand wave that away).
Originally posted by dadudemon
They'd have to switch the type of business they conduct or they'd fold.This is what happened in CA when MJ was made legal for medical use. Drug dealers, some violent, legitimized their business and operated within the law. In an AC system, they'd legitimize themselves by conforming to some sort of independent regulatory group.
Originally posted by Oliver North
How can an AC system ensure contracts in a way that doesn't fall victim to the same abuses and immorality involved in having a state enforce contracts?
What you said:
Originally posted by Oliver North
It is just one of those systems where, the more efficient it becomes in design, the more it imitates a state run system. Like, enforcing any form of legal equality would require a body that is no different from a government in a practical sense.
You already answered your question, lol!
The only difference is there will be multiple bodies operating instead of just one bloated one. In the perfect AC world, they would create a massive system of checks and balances and competition which would force them to simply have a better "product" to get more participants. We see this happening, already, with some technology standards setup by specific organizations.
But the perfect world is never the case. Shit will go awry, dishonesty will ensue, and shady deals struck such as "non-compete" agreements like we see from cable corporations. So you'd have one regulatory body (whose participation is petitional and superficially voluntary because, remember, this is still an AC system, right?) not encroaching on the "customers" in another seemingly competitive regulatory body. Thus defying the spirit and intended purpose of AC.
Originally posted by Oliver North
(also, be careful when you say cartels have had no conflicts with medicinal growers.
Basically, the idea that Cartels were either attacking medicinal distros or even participating in the operations is all but a myth. There is little to no evidence of it.
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2013/01/feds_admit_no_proof_of_mexican.php
That's where I was getting that from (not that particular article but the "revelation" that the Cartel participation was practically a myth).
Originally posted by Oliver North
Additionally, cartels almost specifically don't want to cause problems in America because of law enforcement... you can't hand wave that away).
If I gave the impression that I thought the drug cartels were not causing problems in America because of law enforcement (or the opposite of that), let me clear up that the cartels' operations in the US are numerous and pervasive. They don't just do a little bit: they do a lot.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/01/mexican-drug-cartels-deeper-us
The scary hand of the US government is not very scary to them.
So while legit CA medicinal MJ peeps are conducting their business pretty much unmolested by the drug cartels (I say virtually because there are most likely some dealers that tried to go straight but were too wrapped up in the cartels...or something like that), the cartels are still conducting business in the US, elsewhere. To me, that sounds like legalizing MJ, cocaine, and some other drugs would loosen the grip the Cartels have on the US.
Originally posted by dadudemon
What you said:You already answered your question, lol!
The only difference is there will be multiple bodies operating instead of just one bloated one. In the perfect AC world, they would create a massive system of checks and balances and competition which would force them to simply have a better "product" to get more participants. We see this happening, already, with some technology standards setup by specific organizations.
But the perfect world is never the case. Shit will go awry, dishonesty will ensue, and shady deals struck such as "non-compete" agreements like we see from cable corporations. So you'd have one regulatory body (whose participation is petitional and superficially voluntary because, remember, this is still an AC system, right?) not encroaching on the "customers" in another seemingly competitive regulatory body. Thus defying the spirit and intended purpose of AC.
I suspect we aren't going to get much further than this. I know the theory, I just don't believe it anymore, and afaik, you don't actually support any form of pure AC, so like, ya...
my only response would be, as a philosophical anarchist, how could having multiple system of authority that run in ways indistinguishable from government preferable to a single one?
I mean, when there are multiple systems, each one needs its own police force, and potentially military, in order to enforce their own contracts. There would be conflict between these systems, much like there is between modern nations with different laws, only now conflict over contracts would necessitate at least conflict between requisite police forces, unless each authoritarian system agreed to some even greater authoritarian system, further removing power from the people...
in any pragmatic sense, this is ludicrous, but hey, if the only moral consideration you have is volunteerism, I hope you get to experience the outcome of that system...
Originally posted by dadudemon
Basically, the idea that Cartels were either attacking medicinal distros or even participating in the operations is all but a myth. There is little to no evidence of it.http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2013/01/feds_admit_no_proof_of_mexican.php
That's where I was getting that from (not that particular article but the "revelation" that the Cartel participation was practically a myth).
oh, I agree on participation in the medical system. AJE has interviewed medicinal growers who have had violent interactions with cartels who were trying to enforce territory, but I think the vid was 20 min and I don't want to look it up, so I'll concede and say the answer is below.
Originally posted by dadudemon
If I gave the impression that I thought the drug cartels were not causing problems in America because of law enforcement (or the opposite of that), let me clear up that the cartels' operations in the US are numerous and pervasive. They don't just do a little bit: they do a lot.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/01/mexican-drug-cartels-deeper-us
The scary hand of the US government is not very scary to them.
So while legit CA medicinal MJ peeps are conducting their business pretty much unmolested by the drug cartels (I say virtually because there are most likely some dealers that tried to go straight but were too wrapped up in the cartels...or something like that), the cartels are still conducting business in the US, elsewhere. To me, that sounds like legalizing MJ, cocaine, and some other drugs would loosen the grip the Cartels have on the US.
we are, again, talking about things at different levels. Cartels do commit criminal activities in America, largely within the immigrant community, but yes, sometimes beyond it. However, this is largely low scale things like kidnapping and extortion.
Cartels themselves don't consider America their territory that they control in the same way they do in Mexico, and they know that there is a limit to what can be done in America before they face the full force of American anti-drug might (for instance, expenditures of the drug war on Columbia vs Mexico, which has actually pushed cocaine production from Columbia to, iirc, Paraguay and Peru).
Like, cartels control many parts of Mexico where they are dominant even compared to the state in terms of a monopoly of violence. To that degree, you will never see cartels in power in America. I mean, compare El Paso, Texas to Juarez.
Originally posted by Oliver North
I suspect we aren't going to get much further than this. I know the theory, I just don't believe it anymore, and afaik, you don't actually support any form of pure AC, so like, ya...
I'm pretty sure that, at this point, we are agreeing on almost every point but only discussing the semantics of theoretical/utopian flavors of AC rather than a real-world iteration of an AC system.
Originally posted by Oliver North
my only response would be, as a philosophical anarchist, how could having multiple system of authority that run in ways indistinguishable from government preferable to a single one?
Because:
"...multiple bodies [will be] operating instead of just one bloated one. In the perfect AC world, they would create a massive system of checks and balances and competition which would force them to simply have a better 'product' to get more participants."
And the biggest seller is: "participation is petitional and...voluntary"
It is about the freedom of the market.
Originally posted by Oliver North
I mean, when there are multiple systems, each one needs its own police force, and potentially military, in order to enforce their own contracts.
No, they wouldn't. They would fine their participants or revoke membership. In this pretend scenario, participation in that independent regulatory body would be desirable if it meshed well with their company vision and mission. If they did something to lose that privileged and seal of approval, it is supposed to be detrimental to their reputation similar to losing a UL listing for your electronic product. In a system without government regulation, regulatory and reporting for those organizations would be just as prolific if not more prolific in an ideal AC system. You'd have more than just consumer reports (CR) and a handful of internet sites: you'd have several consumer report entities with even more pull on the market.
Honestly, we pretty much have that, these days. The difference between online reviews and a more professional outfit like CR is the quality of depth of studying they do on the products.
An ideal independent regulatory body would do random quality checks, unannounced, and hire an independent firm to confirm or dispute their results, on occasion. This is stuff that they taught us to do in school for auditing (both security and business practices). I could write 90 pages on that, alone, because I actually did. 😐 It is very dry and TL😄R material. But the information is out there and it can be done. My objections to the AC system is the corruption that would be even MORE pervasive than it is, now.
Originally posted by Oliver North
There would be conflict between these systems, much like there is between modern nations with different laws, only now conflict over contracts would necessitate at least conflict between requisite police forces, unless each authoritarian system agreed to some even greater authoritarian system, further removing power from the people...
So you're saying that a company like Consumer Reports and Underwriters Laboratories would create armies to assert their market control?
There could be a Commercial Standards body created that would require other regulatory bodies to a general guideline. So your regulatory bodies would also be controlled by regulatory bodies. For instance, IEEE. Except in an AC system, IEEE could issue citations for non-standard operations. That could be the superior body you talk of that is still independent of a Nation-State (lol).
And to get to participate in any of these bodies? You'd have to pass an assessment test or earn a degree that is relevant. Which means the people can participate in those regulatory bodies. There's almost no difference between that system and how the system operates, now, except for the most important: government is cut out of the picture.
No police forces need to be involved. I don't see IEEE calling the police if an electronics company labels a product as 802.11n compliant but is not. So I don't see them needing a police force if government was removed from the picture.
Originally posted by Oliver North
in any pragmatic sense, this is ludicrous, but hey, if the only moral consideration you have is volunteerism, I hope you get to experience the outcome of that system...
We have it already.
Check this out: the FCC is the government regulatory body for communications BUT....they are almost entirely superfluous and NOT needed. The communication standards are already out there and the market is doing a pretty damn good job of regulating and improving itself when it comes to communications technologies. There are still cries to dissolve the FCC.
To make it more clear, is 3GPP a government entity? No. Is ETSI (considered the parent group over the volitional 3GPP group) a government entity? No. Are we coming out with and improving cellular data technologies independent of a government institutions with controlled conditions and standards by which Mobile Companies MUST meet in order to use labels such as "LTE" and "4G"? Yes. This is an example of the market taking care of itself independent of a government. It works quite well, too. It could be improved if groups like 3GPP had some competition, too.
Do you think the mobile companies are being forced by a government organization to participate in and use the 3GPP standards for their mobile technologies? Nope. It's voluntary. But it would certainly be bad business to not participate.
This same type of system could be applied to the food and drug industry. The AC System really could work....but only in some ways. Again, I still object because of the potential for stupid bad corruption.
Originally posted by Oliver North
oh, I agree on participation in the medical system. AJE has interviewed medicinal growers who have had violent interactions with cartels who were trying to enforce territory, but I think the vid was 20 min and I don't want to look it up, so I'll concede and say the answer is below.
Based on the outcome, whatever pressures they applied did not last very long.
Originally posted by Oliver North
we are, again, talking about things at different levels. Cartels do commit criminal activities in America, largely within the immigrant community, but yes, sometimes beyond it. However, this is largely low scale things like kidnapping and extortion.Cartels themselves don't consider America their territory that they control in the same way they do in Mexico, and they know that there is a limit to what can be done in America before they face the full force of American anti-drug might (for instance, expenditures of the drug war on Columbia vs Mexico, which has actually pushed cocaine production from Columbia to, iirc, Paraguay and Peru).
From how it reads, it is not just a hold over the immigrant community, it is pervasive and virulent. It is not just a small influence on American soil, it is big time.
Originally posted by Oliver North
Like, cartels control many parts of Mexico where they are dominant even compared to the state in terms of a monopoly of violence. To that degree, you will never see cartels in power in America. I mean, compare El Paso, Texas to Juarez.
Well, there was an enormous amount of violence in Juarez...and it did spill over into the US and into El Paso. Just because El Paso was in the US, did not keep the violence from spilling over. So I am not sure if you were changing your mind by pointing out that the violence spilled over into El Paso or if you're saying that despite them being twin cities, there was not nearly as much violence in El Paso as there was Juarez. In either case, I think both points are valid: violence was less in El Paso and violence was had in both cities indicating that the Cartels didn't give a **** at least to a certain degree.