So is the drug war. It all depends on where you're standing.

Prisons, lawyers, judges, social workers running drug rehab programs, feds (DEA, FBI), local police, defense industry selling helicopters, airplanes, surveillance technology, etc, etc.

An unthinkable amount of money has been spent and made from the drug war for highly questionable ROI to the public.

What type of reduction in police work would take place if the drug war was ended today? 20%? 30%?

The war on drugs is a job machine. DEA agents fly around like international playboys from the books I've read. Plus international governments get tons of money from the US to run their own interdiction programs.

There has to be some level of influence to keep the 'war' going from these perverse incentives.

> highly questionable ROI to the public

Only if you exclude people working for the public sector from you know, the public.

Those things create jobs for voting constituents. That's the main ROI here. Reduction in crime, drug use and increased security are just beneficial, but not necessary side effects of these initiatives.

Creating jobs for creating jobs sake is such a terrible justification. Especially because in this scenario (like many others) it's not a controlled economic stimulus but an ongoing money drain. Milton Friedman is turning in his grave seeing this idea become mainstream. These are highly skilled people too: lawyers, judges, and highly technical law enforcement who could be working on dealing with real crimes or protecting honest hardworking citizens. Not futile show trials to appease the copyright industry.

For some. Where's my cut?

Can't civilians exercise their right to seize anyone's cash?

Sure, Just like "Citizen's arrest" is a thing, I'm positive "Citizen's civil forfeiture" is too.

Ask the Bundy Clan about that

Government in general a profitable venture for those in government. You have to produce nothing, please no one and you get to decide how much money is your fair share of what others have worked hard to earn.

So did you make the roads you drove on to work? Impressive.

How about the fire, police, schools, environmental protections, consumer protections, and court system? How big is the military defending your patch of land?

I admit there are problems, but I'm always amazed when people say the government doesn't do anything, then take a car to work on public roads, listen to the radio (FCC), eat food (FDA), etc.

but whats your point??

he did make those roads... he paid taxes in gas, insurance, purchase of a car tax, license plate tax... all that do indeed sponsor roads he drives on!

as of military defending his patch of land, hard to argue. Africa is much bigger than USA -- how much they spent as a continent on defense? Bet 1000th of what US does. Other than that, he might choose to protect his own land with the second Amendment and keep military out of it, no?

Sure he sponsored the roads, but the government implemented those roads. Planning, buying, organizing, maintaining, etc are all part of the work that the government does.

I still don't get it. Who do you think paid for planning, buying, organizing and the cost of maintaining of all that??

All those things (planning, buying, organizing) are...work.

I was saying the government does lots of work. It doesn't always function great, but it does a lot right too.

No he didn't. If we abolished taxes tomorrow everything would fall apart.