Bob, I thought your position was that crime will fall little-to-none after prohibition repeal. Although you appear to still be arguing it, you NOW say "crime will never end entirely...[it] can be decreased but not eliminated". First, no one disagreed with that. Second, that's entirely different from what you were previously advocating.
Now let's look at your last comment: "All I claim is that the people incarcerated for drug-related crime will not all go straight. Some will, but neither you nor I know how many." That is NOT "all you claim". You have been repeatedly claiming that FEW will go straight and MOST will continue in crime. Come on bob! If you are going to concede, man-up about it and stop lying about your original position. Anyone can go back and see that's not what you wrote before. Such face-saving attempts may work in your face-to-face discussions where no one has a recording device, but not here. You are decimating your credibility here, and will have a hard time convincing anyone that anything you have to say in the future is valid; especially as an admitted member of the military-industrial complex with a pro-government bias. ---------------------------------- See below. From: ma ni Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:13 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Libertarian] DoD Employees Bob, Your bias presents too many contradictions. If "criminals will be criminals", where will their revenue come from once prohibition ends? BOB: They might expand current markets popular in organized crime, such as these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organized_crime#Typical_activities If "criminals will be criminals", why not go ahead and prohibit alcohol again and also tobacco? BOB: Because I believe in personal liberty. And I like beer. Smoking is dumb, but it's none of my business if someone else does it. If "criminals will be criminals", why ever try to educate or rehabilitate anyone? BOB: Because few things in life are absolute. There is always hope and chance. But the odds are against it succeeding for many or most. If "criminals will be criminals", how will the high crime rate ever go down? BOB: End the welfare state, which subsidizes failure and creates poverty. But crime will never end entirely. There will always be a spectrum of individual behaviors, some good, some bad, most somewhere in the middle. If "criminals will be criminals", why even try to fight government abuse or vote out the crooks? BOB: Limited government with adequate checks and balances limits the damage government officials can cause. It's the same with all crime, which can be decreased but not eliminated. If you want your prediction to be at least somewhat credible, please answer some of these inconsistencies. BOB: Note that I do not dispute the general libertarian prediction that crime will decrease with the end of drug prohibition. All I claim is that the people incarcerated for drug-related crime will not all go straight. Some will, but neither you nor I know how many. ---------------------- Crime related to drug prohibition will, by definition, go to zero after it ends. That is a given. What replaces it could be less violent, but I can't be sure. All I'm saying is criminals will be criminals, for the most part. People typically don't quit good jobs or drop out of college to deal drugs. I blame drug dealers for any murder or theft involved in circumventing drug prohibition. I do not blame peaceful dealers for the other detrimental effects, however. If a liquor store owner refuses to sell me a bottle of wine after the legal hours of operation, I am not justified in breaking in and shooting him to get my wine. I am justified in meeting him out back where he agreed to sell me a bottle of wine after hours in a peaceful manner. See the difference? I'm totally against drug prohibition, but on libertarian grounds, not because I think it's better social engineering. It's simply the libertarian thing to do.
