throwaway1967
1 - it's incredibly hard to produce.
2 - it's incredibly hard to ensure something is pure LSD.
Those problems are not there for psilocybe mushrooms, for which the LD50 has never been found (read: it's totally safe).
And yet, somehow, there's a large group of people that is always for people meddling in other people's business by telling on them (including calling the police when they see a citizen legally open-carrying!).
It must be because laissez faire is not easy to spell.
He's made other things as well that are impressive. He makes his own radios and fixes his go-kart. Lots of potential there.
As for me, if flushing the toilet doesn't help, I need to call someone.
You're just being negative here by willfully ignoring that said doctor is giving the drug away for free, which is not the usual modus operandi of quack doctors.
Can you spell LIBOR? Banks do operate on trust, which is what allowed the LIBOR conspiracy to take place.
Unless you can list here the "checks and balances and intermediaries" that failed during all that fake setting of LIBOR rates.
If a company's sole paying client is the government (i.e. the public at large through government coercion) then that isn't a private company.
A private company is one where if all the potential voluntary clients give up on, it goes under.
Is a spy a (foreign) private company since it also sells its services to the government? Is a saboteur a private company? Is a privateer?
This service (keeping prisoners) only exists for one type of client, clients that have a monopoly on force, also known as governments. A private business may indeed sell solely to the government, but it can only be private if the service it offers exists for more than that one type of client. Failing that, such "company" is a Government Agency, whether the government admits and/or makes it official or not.
In days of yore the UK would also call privateers private. Do you see the pattern of governments trying to distance themselves from the evil they're doing by labeling unofficial government agencies "private companies"?
This is not about a person's preference for calling things a certain way. In a proper discussion we have to settle the meaning of words and phrases. And the phrase "private company" in no way encompass the work of government agencies whose product could not be sold to the general public directly.
Sorry DennisP, you're just wrong. "Call it what you want" is not an argument, much less a counter-argument to my arguments. You could have taken the normal route and just said "you're right", but instead you're choosing to keep pushing the "call it whatever" non-argument button. Be a good loser and admit you're wrong, or refute my arguments.
I can also tell you went through all my recent past comments and voted them all down, as I went from 0 to -10 immediately after our interaction. Very childish of you, but not surprising.
How do you hope to solve problems and disagreements if you're not willing to abide by the code of conduct that those who argue seeking to learn follow?
If you believe what Socialist Bernie Sanders thinks is "private" then you'll believe anything.
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
So whatever the "majority of the population wants" doesn't count, period.
Second of all, if you really believe the US isn't ruled by a secret cabal, like so many US Presidents and other important US politicians have warned us about since before Andrew Jackson, I'm sorry to say but it just makes you come across as ahistorical.
A private enterprise receives 100% of its income from its clients.
No prisoner is paying to be incarcerated.
What you mean to say is that the Government gives taxpayer money to some prisons, and some private persons end up pocketing this taxpayer money.
There is no private business going on in prisons.
Are you sure your arrow there means causation?
Explain like I'm five, why do you think the police feels it needs to compete with law-abiding gun-carrying citizens?
I've never heard of this silly idea before, but maybe I'm silly and you have a great argument for that.
If you had said "the more guns in criminals' hands, the more police militarization to preserve advantage" then I'd agree with you but I'd ask to see how you know the number of guns in criminals' hands.
0.001% of law-abiding gun holders are a problem for the police. 100% of criminals are a problem for the police, whether they're carrying guns, knives, or a closed fist.
That would get people interested in geopolitical events. At least, more interested than the establishment would like them to be.
There'd be books on geopolitical spread betting, how to become informed, how reading unpopular economics blogs can actually help your understanding, and so on.
Lots of truth would come out if this were allowed. I'm just hypothesizing, feel free to disagree!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-fo...
> Forensic "science" is definitely horseshit though.
Of course it is! Any adjectivized Science shall be horse shit. There's only one Science, the one individuals can try and reproduce the findings of others.
Forensic Science, also known as "Good enough for the courts' interests".
EDIT: rayiner:
> How are lay judges going to go and make the determination of when a seemingly legitimate "science" is legitimate enough for admissibility in court?
Shouldn't they have thought of that before they created the Courts and named themselves Judges?
How did that happen and no one asked themselves "but what if we're not experts in a scientific specialty and the decision requires knowing that field?"
It's kind of late to ask this question now. Goes to show what a sham this circus really is, that they don't have a method to cope with a daily occurrence.
It is only when we see this problem in the private sector, that we are then allowed to comment on how this is a problem and therefore private police can never work. /s
How's that working out in the US? Right now there's a Holocaust happening where some 50 million poor blacks have been killed inside their mothers' wombs. It's alright though, in the US babies and kids are barely citizens, otherwise hitting them would be criminal assault.
Police : Government :: Human Resources : Corporation
Got it? Or do I need to show you YouTube videos of several cops saying to a citizen that they (the cop) don't really work for them (the citizen)?
It's nice that it's in writing but if the police officer as a person doesn't know about it, it doesn't help the citizen being abused by the officer that the officer actually works for the public.
If you want the police to protect the poor from the rich, you have to come up with a way that this police answers to the poor and to no one else. Right now the rich decide how the police can selectively enforce the law and guess what, it's usually to the detriment of the poor.
I don't think that kid would understand this "simple proof".
For example, Finnish is utterly genderless, but it has more declension cases for nouns than Latin had. And so, Finnish affords itself the ability to have free word order and checksum benefits while doing entirely away with the concept of gender.
So I reject your explanation on the basis that it is clear to me that the declension of nouns into cases is what is responsible for the checksum and word order benefits, and not whether a language has grammatical gender.
Do the moral thing and step-down from their monopolies, and embrace competition.
Why do you care about immoral people? Those who benefit from monopolies are not above robbers who benefit from a temporary monopoly on violence to bilk their victims.
EDIT: response to ishw (since my posts are being delayed):
The drivers that took credit in order to benefit from an immoral monopoly subsidized by tax-payers had it coming. Public libraries are available and anyone can learn where this road leads by picking up Economics in One Lesson which is eminently readable and widely available.
This is like saying "this gang of robbers paid the government X dollars backed by credit for the right to rob, and we can't put those robbers in a position of defaulting on their now-worthless license to rob". Uhm, yes we can, because the "medallion" they bought is precisely the instrument that makes it illegal for everyone else to compete with them. In other words, a criminal is not exempt from their crime just because they purchased the instrument, that enabled them to commit the crime, with credit.
When you say "Taking the moral highroad is not an option here", therefore, that's just a misinformed reaction to a situation that, as you correctly noted, allows for no way out that isn't harmful to one or both parties. Which is why this sort of engagement (monopolistic or monopsonistic) is to be discouraged and why only voluntary contracts should be enforced by Law.
EDIT: response to mbreese:
Wow... your response is a complete non-sequitur to what I said.
Most YouTube channels are trying to make you think you are getting smarter because flattering your viewership's egos is a proven way to grow it. They work from a top-down perspective where they hold the information and you listen without questioning; much like a classroom; for people who mostly think "learning" is such process.
It is an entirely different experience to watch a YouTube channel where the host is actually working hard to make you think, even when this forces the host to be stern with its listeners, to correct their incorrect patterns of thinking when they call in, and to be available for any corrections by their viewers and willing to publicly correct an error.
For all that, I like Stefan Molyneux's podcasts on YouTube.
I use elastic shoelaces that are always tied. I can put my shoes on in half a second and run out the door and there's no way they're coming off even when I'm running.
Define "being considerate". Go ahead, try it. You'd have to list every person's feelings towards every word uttered next to every other possible word.
How about, we all learn not to be offended by words? That at least is scalable, consistent, and defined.
Sell it in a pill, or sell a service so that someone else can do the hard work for me, or otherwise sell a gadget I strap around me and it works "me" out. /s
In other words, pigritia imperat - laziness rules.
More seriously, people will exercise if you can distract them from the fact that they are exercising. Once those immersive first-person shooters become cheaper you might see a change.