Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How so? The market is people trading and interacting by choice, and the state is a third party interfering in those voluntary exchanges.
As I noted in another thread, you (or I) may agree with a state/government's involvement in the market in one instance or another and may believe the result is positive, but everything a state does to intervene with or affect the market is by definition anti-free market, since a state compels people to act or not act rather than allowing free interaction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by turkeydance
"if drugs were decriminalized, the prison population would decrease 75%"
well, yes, since the overdose death rate would eclipse incarceration.
Incorrect. Or at least not demonstrable. As Chicano3000X said, people would be more likely to seek help if they were not afraid of incarceration, and society might more readily provide it if drug use were not criminalized. Plus, if drugs were manufactured by reputable companies with decent QA standards rather than in a basement somewhere, users would know and more accurately control what and how much they were using, reducing health risks.
But even if it were more dangerous to users, that is a danger they have brought on themselves, and the benefit to the rest of society would be enormous. Reduction in crime as a)gangs no longer fight over markets and b)the need to rob and steal to support a habit declines along with the price of drugs once they are legal, reduction in abuses of police power (no-knock warrants, asset forfeiture), and reduction in cost of incarcerating millions of non-violent drug users.
Non-drug users need to realize how negatively they are affected by the war on drugs.
Though there are a few around here who believe in total privatization of everything, most of us who lean libertarian do not believe in completely eliminating government, and that protection of life, liberty, and property is an appropriate function of government. A criminal justice system (which includes prisons) is part of that. If a government chooses to use contractors to partially or fully operate prisons instead of full-time government workers, they should ensure that those contractors are adequately trained to perform the job.
Agreed, less government is better, but some basic government functions like prisons are necessary. People can handle things like welfare better without government red tape and incompetence. As it stands, there is too much big government mucking in people’s lives, less is definitely more.
As I noted in another thread, you (or I) may agree with a state/government's involvement in the market in one instance or another and may believe the result is positive, but everything a state does to intervene with or affect the market is by definition anti-free market, since a state compels people to act or not act rather than allowing free interaction.
Yep, exactly.
And on the bold, for the record, I don't agree with any state involvement in the market...not just because of the outcome, but mainly because of the principle that two people have the right to make any deal they want without an outsider coming in and telling them what they are or aren't allowed to do.
...it's actually really odd to think that there are people who truly think they have the RIGHT to overrule other people's peaceful interactions. Takes a big ego, arrogance, and a control freak personality I'd say.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.