The best example of a business unfettered by the government is ... a drug gang

by Ben Reilly Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:09 pm

The only reason to start a business is to earn as much profit as possible. Thus, every successful business follows a few simple rules:

* The business must be selling something that is in high demand.

* The business must strive to corner more and more of the market for its product or service.

* The business must work hard to fend off competitors.

Supporters of unfettered capitalism like to say that businesses would be far more profitable if it weren't for the many government rules they must follow. Sometimes they're right!

But a business that had few or no government rules to follow would probably end up looking a lot like a business that can't survive government intervention of any kind, and the best example of that kind of business is a drug gang.

Drug gangs sell a product that is in high demand, they strive to expand their base of customers, and they work hard to fend off competition, just like any other business.

But because any brush with government intervention could spell the death of the gang, they operate completely outside the law. So the rules for such businesses become:

* Sell something that is in high demand -- regardless of whether it kills people.

* Corner more and more of the market -- regardless of whether the new customers are children.

* Work hard to fend off competitors -- up to and including killing them, and any innocent people who might be in the vicinity.

I'm not saying that all business owners are as ruthless as the leaders of drug gangs.

But I am saying that in the absence of government regulation, the pursuit of profits would logically lead many businesses to sell a highly addictive product, regardless of whether it's unsafe, indiscriminately, and to use violence to protect its profits.

Government regulation is possibly the most important the key to keeping businesses from behaving more like gangs.

I'd love for someone to prove me wrong on this.

by Maddog Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:14 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:The only reason to start a business is to earn as much profit as possible. Thus, every successful business follows a few simple rules:

* The business must be selling something that is in high demand.

* The business must strive to corner more and more of the market for its product or service.

* The business must work hard to fend off competitors.

Supporters of unfettered capitalism like to say that businesses would be far more profitable if it weren't for the many government rules they must follow. Sometimes they're right!

But a business that had few or no government rules to follow would probably end up looking a lot like a business that can't survive government intervention of any kind, and the best example of that kind of business is a drug gang.

Drug gangs sell a product that is in high demand, they strive to expand their base of customers, and they work hard to fend off competition, just like any other business.

But because any brush with government intervention could spell the death of the gang, they operate completely outside the law. So the rules for such businesses become:

* Sell something that is in high demand -- regardless of whether it kills people.

* Corner more and more of the market -- regardless of whether the new customers are children.

* Work hard to fend off competitors -- up to and including killing them, and any innocent people who might be in the vicinity.

I'm not saying that all business owners are as ruthless as the leaders of drug gangs.

But I am saying that in the absence of government regulation, the pursuit of profits would logically lead many businesses to sell a highly addictive product, regardless of whether it's unsafe, indiscriminately, and to use violence to protect its profits.

Government regulation is possibly the most important the key to keeping businesses from behaving more like gangs.

I'd love for someone to prove me wrong on this.

Drugs are not the problem.

The violence is the result of government making it illegal.

That's why Coors hasn't been in any gang wars with Budweiser.

by Guest Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:14 pm

You are starting off with a false premise. "The only reason to start a business is to earn as much profit as possible."

Is that really the only reason?

by Ben Reilly Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:21 pm

phildidge wrote:You are starting off with a false premise. "The only reason to start a business is to earn as much profit as possible."

Is that really the only reason?

Give me another one!

by Maddog Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:22 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
phildidge wrote:You are starting off with a false premise. "The only reason to start a business is to earn as much profit as possible."

Is that really the only reason?

Give me another one!

Freedom to not answer to a clock or another person.

by Ben Reilly Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:23 pm

Maddog wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:The only reason to start a business is to earn as much profit as possible. Thus, every successful business follows a few simple rules:

* The business must be selling something that is in high demand.

* The business must strive to corner more and more of the market for its product or service.

* The business must work hard to fend off competitors.

Supporters of unfettered capitalism like to say that businesses would be far more profitable if it weren't for the many government rules they must follow. Sometimes they're right!

But a business that had few or no government rules to follow would probably end up looking a lot like a business that can't survive government intervention of any kind, and the best example of that kind of business is a drug gang.

Drug gangs sell a product that is in high demand, they strive to expand their base of customers, and they work hard to fend off competition, just like any other business.

But because any brush with government intervention could spell the death of the gang, they operate completely outside the law. So the rules for such businesses become:

* Sell something that is in high demand -- regardless of whether it kills people.

* Corner more and more of the market -- regardless of whether the new customers are children.

* Work hard to fend off competitors -- up to and including killing them, and any innocent people who might be in the vicinity.

I'm not saying that all business owners are as ruthless as the leaders of drug gangs.

But I am saying that in the absence of government regulation, the pursuit of profits would logically lead many businesses to sell a highly addictive product, regardless of whether it's unsafe, indiscriminately, and to use violence to protect its profits.

Government regulation is possibly the most important the key to keeping businesses from behaving more like gangs.

I'd love for someone to prove me wrong on this.

Drugs are not the problem.

The violence is the result of government making it illegal.

That's why Coors hasn't been in any gang wars with Budweiser.

Never said that drugs were the problem, but the violence is not a product of the government making them illegal. Violence is a product of a business built on flouting the law.

If there were fewer laws, more businesses would operate the same way.

by Maddog Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:24 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
phildidge wrote:You are starting off with a false premise. "The only reason to start a business is to earn as much profit as possible."

Is that really the only reason?

Give me another one!

Flexibility.

My ex was a personal trainer because she wanted to around for the kids when they needed her. She could have made more money working for someone else.

by Maddog Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:25 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Drugs are not the problem.

The violence is the result of government making it illegal.

That's why Coors hasn't been in any gang wars with Budweiser.

Never said that drugs were the problem, but the violence is not a product of the government making them illegal. Violence is a product of a business built on flouting the law.

If there were fewer laws, more businesses would operate the same way.

If you were to make violence legal, then yeah.

Is that what you are saying? Full blown anarchy?

by Guest Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:25 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
phildidge wrote:You are starting off with a false premise. "The only reason to start a business is to earn as much profit as possible."

Is that really the only reason?

Give me another one!

Medical Cures

Technological innovation

Would you like some more?

by Ben Reilly Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:27 pm

Maddog wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:
phildidge wrote:You are starting off with a false premise. "The only reason to start a business is to earn as much profit as possible."

Is that really the only reason?

Give me another one!

Freedom to not answer to a clock or another person.

You can do that as a homeless person -- unless you want money, which is the only reason to start a business.

by Maddog Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:27 pm

Let me give you an example. I sell you any plant that you want, for whatever price we agree on. The law allows for this but does not allow for us to commit acts of violence towards each other.

by Maddog Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:27 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Freedom to not answer to a clock or another person.

You can do that as a homeless person -- unless you want money, which is the only reason to start a business.

Yes, but you may not be making as much money as possible, by starting the business. You may be taking a pay cut.

by Ben Reilly Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:28 pm

Maddog wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:
phildidge wrote:You are starting off with a false premise. "The only reason to start a business is to earn as much profit as possible."

Is that really the only reason?

Give me another one!

Flexibility.

My ex was a personal trainer because she wanted to around for the kids when they needed her. She could have made more money working for someone else.

She could have been around the kids all the time if it weren't for her desire for money -- the only reason to start a business.

by Maddog Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:29 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Flexibility.

My ex was a personal trainer because she wanted to around for the kids when they needed her. She could have made more money working for someone else.

She could have been around the kids all the time if it weren't for her desire for money -- the only reason to start a business.

Yes, she wanted money, but she gave up making more money than she could.

by Ben Reilly Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:29 pm

phildidge wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:
phildidge wrote:You are starting off with a false premise. "The only reason to start a business is to earn as much profit as possible."

Is that really the only reason?

Give me another one!

Medical Cures

Technological innovation

Would you like some more?

You start a business to SELL medical cures and innovative technology, not to create them.

by Ben Reilly Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:31 pm

Maddog wrote:Let me give you an example. I sell you any plant that you want, for whatever price we agree on. The law allows for this but does not allow for us to commit acts of violence towards each other.

But other laws decide how much money there is available to pay the police. No law is meaningful unless people routinely get arrested, tried and punished for breaking it.

by Maddog Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:31 pm

Ben wrote:earn as much profit as possible."

This is not the same as making a living or some sort of income.

by Guest Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:32 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
phildidge wrote:

Medical Cures

Technological innovation

Would you like some more?

You start a business to SELL medical cures and innovative technology, not to create them.

Really? That is simple hogwash, you said the only reason was to make profits, which as seen is emphatically bullshit

In fact many buisness are actual charities

So again your premise was false and would fail every single peer review process based off this fallacy

by Maddog Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:32 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Maddog wrote:Let me give you an example. I sell you any plant that you want, for whatever price we agree on. The law allows for this but does not allow for us to commit acts of violence towards each other.

But other laws decide how much money there is available to pay the police. No law is meaningful unless people routinely get arrested, tried and punished for breaking it.

The best example of a business unfettered by the government is ... a drug gang 2190311264

by Ben Reilly Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:32 pm

Maddog wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Flexibility.

My ex was a personal trainer because she wanted to around for the kids when they needed her. She could have made more money working for someone else.

She could have been around the kids all the time if it weren't for her desire for money -- the only reason to start a business.

Yes, she wanted money, but she gave up making more money than she could.

Let's pretend we're talking about typical, rather than atypical, businesses. Not part-time freelance endeavors but proper capitalist enterprises.

by Maddog Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:33 pm

phildidge wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:

You start a business to SELL medical cures and innovative technology, not to create them.

Really? That is simple hogwash, you said the only reason was to make profits, which as seen is emphatically bullshit

In fact many buisness are actual charities

So again your premise was false and would fail every single peer review process based off this fallacy

He didn't say make a profit.

He said make as much profit as possible.

That's not why everyone does what they do for a living.

by Ben Reilly Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:34 pm

Maddog wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:
Maddog wrote:Let me give you an example. I sell you any plant that you want, for whatever price we agree on. The law allows for this but does not allow for us to commit acts of violence towards each other.

But other laws decide how much money there is available to pay the police. No law is meaningful unless people routinely get arrested, tried and punished for breaking it.

There are two aspects needed for a law to impact society -- the law itself, and enforcement of said law.

Clever pro-business politicians routinely give lip service to the notion of something being "wrong" but de-fang the laws they say they support.

by Maddog Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:34 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Yes, she wanted money, but she gave up making more money than she could.

Let's pretend we're talking about typical, rather than atypical, businesses. Not part-time freelance endeavors but proper capitalist enterprises.

I'm self employed.

Full time.

I like the hours and the money is OK.

by Guest Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:35 pm

Maddog wrote:
phildidge wrote:

Really? That is simple hogwash, you said the only reason was to make profits, which as seen is emphatically bullshit

In fact many buisness are actual charities

So again your premise was false and would fail every single peer review process based off this fallacy

He didn't say make a profit.

He said make as much profit as possible.

That's not why everyone does what they do for a living.

He actually said:

"The only reason to start a business is to earn as much profit as possible."

Hence the only part screwed up his whole theory, as its not the only reason why people start up a buisness

by Ben Reilly Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:35 pm

phildidge wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:
phildidge wrote:

Medical Cures

Technological innovation

Would you like some more?

You start a business to SELL medical cures and innovative technology, not to create them.

Really? That is simple hogwash, you said the only reason was to make profits, which as seen is emphatically bullshit

In fact many buisness are actual charities

So again your premise was false and would fail every single peer review process based off this fallacy

A charity is not a business. I'm talking about the typical, for-profit business.

And if the two of you have to resort to using exceptions as examples, that tells me I'm onto something.

by Maddog Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:36 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Maddog wrote:

There are two aspects needed for a law to impact society -- the law itself, and enforcement of said law.

Clever pro-business politicians routinely give lip service to the notion of something being "wrong" but de-fang the laws they say they support.

Lets start over.

I sell you any plant that you want, for whatever price we agree on. The law allows for this but does not allow for us to commit acts of violence towards each other.

What is wrong with this relationship?

by Ben Reilly Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:37 pm

Profit is the only reason to turn a hobby or a passion into a business.

You like painting? Fine! But you start selling your paintings, and you're doing that not because it's the only way you can paint, but because you want money for painting.

You don't start a business unless you want to make money.

by Guest Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:37 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
phildidge wrote:

Really? That is simple hogwash, you said the only reason was to make profits, which as seen is emphatically bullshit

In fact many buisness are actual charities

So again your premise was false and would fail every single peer review process based off this fallacy

A charity is not a business. I'm talking about the typical, for-profit business.

And if the two of you have to resort to using exceptions as examples, that tells me I'm onto something.

This is where your argument falls apart, as you are moving the goal posts onto what can be a buiness

You have not even defined what is the typical for- profit business

It also neglects and even fails to understand why many people go into buisness themselves.

Its not even provided a sample of buisness and their reasons for starting one

by Maddog Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:38 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
phildidge wrote:

Really? That is simple hogwash, you said the only reason was to make profits, which as seen is emphatically bullshit

In fact many buisness are actual charities

So again your premise was false and would fail every single peer review process based off this fallacy

A charity is not a business. I'm talking about the typical, for-profit business.

And if the two of you have to resort to using exceptions as examples, that tells me I'm onto something.

Millions of these exceptions exist in the US.

They are small business owners. They probably like to remain small business owners and don't have to "make as much profit as possible".

by Maddog Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:39 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:Profit is the only reason to turn a hobby or a passion into a business.

You like painting? Fine! But you start selling your paintings, and you're doing that not because it's the only way you can paint, but because you want money for painting.

You don't start a business unless you want to make money.

Making money is different than "making as much money as possible".

by Guest Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:40 pm

Blimey Ben, you really should take on board criticism, as any concept or theory generally recieves. Take on board the shortfalls. As there is plenty from the start. Go back to the drawing board and rework out all these problems and then fine tune your idea here.

by Ben Reilly Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:41 pm

Okay, I'll concede the most minor and inconsequential part of my premise, if it will move the conversation on from this stupid debate over what constitutes a business.

I'm talking about businesses that were started to create wealth for the owners and its employees -- not freelancers, or charities, or whatever.

Now, please stop the diversion and the song and dance routine, and address the spirit of my post, please.

by Guest Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:44 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:Okay, I'll concede the most minor and inconsequential part of my premise, if it will move the conversation on from this stupid debate over what constitutes a business.

I'm talking about businesses that were started to create wealth for the owners and its employees -- not freelancers, or charities, or whatever.

Now, please stop the diversion and the song and dance routine, and address the spirit of my post, please.

Its not a diversion Ben and it is a stumbling block here, when you need to define what you mean by a buisness. When as seen many start for a multitude of reasons. I am done, to me as soon as a premise has shortfalls espcially over defintions. Then those need to be addressed and corrected.

by Ben Reilly Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:51 pm

phildidge wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:Okay, I'll concede the most minor and inconsequential part of my premise, if it will move the conversation on from this stupid debate over what constitutes a business.

I'm talking about businesses that were started to create wealth for the owners and its employees -- not freelancers, or charities, or whatever.

Now, please stop the diversion and the song and dance routine, and address the spirit of my post, please.

Its not a diversion Ben and it is a stumbling block here, when you need to define what you mean by a buisness. When as seen many start for a multitude of reasons. I am done, to me as soon as a premise has shortfalls espcially over defintions. Then those need to be addressed and corrected.

Okay, I don't know how to better define what I'm talking about here. I'm not talking about freelance aerobics instructors or non-profits that by definition don't compete over profits.

I'm talking about what every reasonable person thinks of when someone talks about businesses -- grocers, auto repair shops, pubs and the like.

They are started or obtained to make money. Nobody starts a business in order to pursue a hobby or pour money into open-ended research. They start a business to monetize their hobby or pursue research that can be sold or developed into a profitable product or service.

Jesus but the bullshit got thick quickly in this thread.

by Guest Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:53 pm

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/243145

See Ben there is many reasons

You would have to argue that the "main" reason to start a business is to earn as much profit as possible. That would be a better starting point but would not apply to all buisnesses either.

by Guest Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:59 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
phildidge wrote:

Its not a diversion Ben and it is a stumbling block here, when you need to define what you mean by a buisness. When as seen many start for a multitude of reasons. I am done, to me as soon as a premise has shortfalls espcially over defintions. Then those need to be addressed and corrected.

Okay, I don't know how to better define what I'm talking about here. I'm not talking about freelance aerobics instructors or non-profits that by definition don't compete over profits.

I'm talking about what every reasonable person thinks of when someone talks about businesses -- grocers, auto repair shops, pubs and the like.

They are started or obtained to make money. Nobody starts a business in order to pursue a hobby or pour money into open-ended research. They start a business to monetize their hobby or pursue research that can be sold or developed into a profitable product or service.

Jesus but the bullshit got thick quickly in this thread.

Yes they do

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/sep/30/turn-hobby-into-business-earning-living

https://www.fundera.com/blog/hobby-into-a-business

by Ben Reilly Sat Aug 24, 2019 12:01 am

The only reason to turn a hobby into a business is money! How is this a difficult concept?

You can keep doing the hobby without turning it into a business, right? So the only reason to turn it into a business is because you want money for doing it.

I seriously give up. This is basic logic, yet it seems beyond you.

by Guest Sat Aug 24, 2019 12:06 am

Ben Reilly wrote:The only reason to turn a hobby into a business is money! How is this a difficult concept?

You can keep doing the hobby without turning it into a business, right? So the only reason to turn it into a business is because you want money for doing it.

I seriously give up. This is basic logic, yet it seems beyond you.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again

Yes i would give your pigheaded stubborness a break here. You simple thought of a good concept, but never thought this properly thorugh. Mainly as you went into this with a bias towards people in buisness. Never understanding why many people do

Learn to show some humility, by actually researching this more and actually finding out from people why they have.

As stated there is multiple reasons why people go into buiness

by Ben Reilly Sat Aug 24, 2019 12:10 am

phildidge wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:The only reason to turn a hobby into a business is money! How is this a difficult concept?

You can keep doing the hobby without turning it into a business, right? So the only reason to turn it into a business is because you want money for doing it.

I seriously give up. This is basic logic, yet it seems beyond you.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again

Yes i would give your pigheaded stubborness a break here. You simple thought of a good concept, but never thought this properly thorugh. Mainly as you went into this with a bias towards people in buisness. Never understanding why many people do

Learn to show some humility, by actually researching this more and actually finding out from people why they have.

As stated there is multiple reasons why people go into buiness

And money is the common denominator of all of them. And that isn't even the main point I was trying to make here. You're just desperately trying not to engage with the point of the post.

by Guest Sat Aug 24, 2019 12:14 am

Ben Reilly wrote:
phildidge wrote:

Wrong, wrong and wrong again

Yes i would give your pigheaded stubborness a break here. You simple thought of a good concept, but never thought this properly thorugh. Mainly as you went into this with a bias towards people in buisness. Never understanding why many people do

Learn to show some humility, by actually researching this more and actually finding out from people why they have.

As stated there is multiple reasons why people go into buiness

And money is the common denominator of all of them. And that isn't even the main point I was trying to make here. You're just desperately trying not to engage with the point of the post.

Seriously grow up and learn to take criticism you baby

You are acting pathetic

by Ben Reilly Sat Aug 24, 2019 12:24 am

And you're getting personal, so I'll make one last attempt to explain.

Say you take up growing tomatoes for fun, and it turns out, you grow beautiful, delicious tomatoes. And a friend says you should try selling them at the local farmers' market.

The only reason you'd do that is to make money, right?

It's not as though you have to make money in order to keep growing tomatoes. You started off not doing it for money. You could keep growing them and give them away to friends and family.

You wouldn't decide to sell them unless you wanted money for them -- right?

That's my point. Or, that's the part of my point you've fixated upon. But if you can make that example wrong, I'll give up and walk away from my entire point.

Only Maddog even tried to address my claim that unfettered businesses would behave more like gangs.

by Guest Sat Aug 24, 2019 12:28 am

You claim i did not understand basic logic and yet you could not define even what a buisness was and kept moving the goal posts. You claim that is not insulting, thinking you know what logic is? To then not even take criticism when clearly people start a buisness for many reasons.

Like I said, learn to take criticism and more importantly learn about how papers presented work. This would be torn apart, because you have not even researched this. You have simple formed an opinion

So in the spirt of you acting like a baby

Go away and rethink your concept after you have actually done some research

by Guest Sat Aug 24, 2019 12:41 am

Also have a major issue with this nonsense

"But I am saying that in the absence of government regulation, the pursuit of profits would logically lead many businesses to sell a highly addictive product, regardless of whether it's unsafe, indiscriminately, and to use violence to protect its profits."

Social media is highly addictive, and they use gambling methods to addict people to use them. I have not seen any of these buisnesses resort to any violence to protect their profits. Hence another flaw in the so called logic. These companies are not restricted by any real governement regulation. Whilst I certainly deplore the methods used by these social media sites. None of it has led to violence in the pursuits of profit

by Ben Reilly Sat Aug 24, 2019 1:00 am

My point is not that companies currently commit violence against one another, but that they would if the government was too weak to do anything about it.

by Guest Sat Aug 24, 2019 1:03 am

Ben Reilly wrote:My point is not that companies currently commit violence against one another, but that they would if the government was too weak to do anything about it.

The Governements have no legislation on social media companies. Its why there has been many reviews on this within the US congress. Or have you not seen twitter, google, facebook etc brought before congress.??

The reality is your presumption has fallen down here, because these companies make staggering profits and are very much in competition with each other. So where is the violence?

by Maddog Sat Aug 24, 2019 5:55 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:And you're getting personal, so I'll make one last attempt to explain.

Say you take up growing tomatoes for fun, and it turns out, you grow beautiful, delicious tomatoes. And a friend says you should try selling them at the local farmers' market.

The only reason you'd do that is to make money, right?

It's not as though you have to make money in order to keep growing tomatoes. You started off not doing it for money. You could keep growing them and give them away to friends and family.

You wouldn't decide to sell them unless you wanted money for them -- right?

That's my point. Or, that's the part of my point you've fixated upon. But if you can make that example wrong, I'll give up and walk away from my entire point.

Only Maddog even tried to address my claim that unfettered businesses would behave more like gangs.

And if the government made those tomatoes illegal, there would be violence associated with transactions that involve them

by Maddog Sat Aug 24, 2019 7:25 pm

If a drug gang is illegal, It Is fettered by its very definition.

by Guest Sat Aug 24, 2019 7:37 pm

Maddog wrote:If a drug gang is illegal, It Is fettered by its very definition.

The best example of a business unfettered by the government is ... a drug gang Angif-hit-the-nail-on-the-head

by Ben Reilly Sat Aug 24, 2019 11:30 pm

Maddog wrote:If a drug gang is illegal, It Is fettered by its very definition.

Meaning it's forced to operate outside the realm of the government as much as possible, which I argue is a situation quite similar to what would exist if the government had little to no involvement in business.

by Guest Sat Aug 24, 2019 11:40 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Maddog wrote:If a drug gang is illegal, It Is fettered by its very definition.

Meaning it's forced to operate outside the realm of the government as much as possible, which I argue is a situation quite similar to what would exist if the government had little to no involvement in business.

But you are comparing two really seperate things here and trying to make/argue that such unlimited unregulated government intervention. Will always lead to violence. Sorry Ben, but history shows that simple is not the case. Only in authoritarin governments will you see examples of this.

by Sponsored content