Smart Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Organized crime typically deals in the black market, which is in response to the restrictions government has placed on trade. For example, marijuana, or Prohibition, gambling, prostitution, etc. OH, so THAT'S what that means, I'm pretty sure we all thought he was talking about rap music and hair weaves. If for some reason your offended by the truth... No wait, get it straight kid. We are offended BY YOU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOAKER Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 The point is that organized crime is not a reflection of unchecked capitalism, it is the result of regulation. But I guess your Obama goggles are too thick to see the truth. Im glad you've found a collective identity. BUT, No I think you and SHAL are offended because you masturbate to your Obama posters above your bed at night. But Im glad you read my post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 yeah, because there was no black market back when there was no market regulation... and when was that? EVER? C'mon Truthy, pony up a time, ANY time, when there weren't market restrictions. A totally free market implies a lack of property rights, physical or intellectual. Why can't I sell your shit? This dude is gonna buy it... oh and I'm taking your girl too. (OH SHIT! You don't have a girl for me to take, damn the luck!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 "Organized crime typically deals in the black market, which is in response to the restrictions government has placed on trade. For example, marijuana, or Prohibition, gambling, prostitution, etc. " exactly. organized crime has no court system to settle disputes for instance. if you dont get paid for the sale of X (drugs or whatever) yet the stuff you sold is illegal, you cant go to court to settle the dispute. it is the prohibition that causes all these problems. look at alcohol prohibition.... you had the same situation with drug pushers now. shootings, etc etc. when alcohol was legalized you didnt see beer truck drivers shooting each other did you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 A totally free market implies a lack of property rights, physical or intellectual. Why can't I sell your shit? This dude is gonna buy it... oh and I'm taking your girl too. (OH SHIT! You don't have a girl for me to take, damn the luck!) absolutely not... property rights are the foundation of the free market. there is also much debate over 'intellectual' property. some think patents, copyrights etc is actually a government restriction on free exchange. after all, if two people are developing something simultaneously and one gets to the patent office 1 second before the other, the other has no 'rights' to his own work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shai Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 if you dont get paid for the sale of X (drugs or whatever) yet the stuff you sold is illegal, you cant go to court to settle the dispute. Man, if dope were legal every crackhead that got burned for a dub would be taking their case all the way to the Supreme Court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x5v1s Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 The point is that organized crime is not a reflection of unchecked capitalism, it is the result of regulation. But I guess your Obama goggles are too thick to see the truth. Im glad you've found a collective identity. BUT, No I think you and SHAL are offended because you masturbate to your Obama posters above your bed at night. But Im glad you read my post. :D this president is a complete failure .. .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Mamerro Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 it is the prohibition that causes all these problems. look at alcohol prohibition.... you had the same situation with drug pushers now. shootings, etc etc. when alcohol was legalized you didnt see beer truck drivers shooting each other did you? Interesting you mention this. I seem to recall a previous analogy of yours likening bankers and the Fed to teenage drivers and alcohol.Your argument was that the Fed must be banned, therefore the logical extension of that analogy is that alcohol should be banned as well. So, which is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 you are talking apples and oranges. a gun doesnt have a mind altering affect, nor am i in favor of banning said alcohol in the analogy. i merely said it makes you act a certain way. such as the FED distorts the market. even further, the FED and guns cannot be compared because the FED is a government infringement in the market and liberty, guns are not. the FED has a monopoly on credit and creation of money. there is no legal free market alternative to the FED. if the government was forcing people to drink or own guns, your attempt to find an inconsistency in my ideological argument would work nice try though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shai Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Money can fuck up how you think. So can a gun. Maybe not in the same way that booze or dope does but some people can't handle either one without getting funny in the head, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Mamerro Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 I'll give you the second point, but it doesn't take away from your insinuation to remove blame from the participant (banker) and place it on the enabler (fed). Are you saying the FED forced the bankers to act a certain way, or merely influenced them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 You need to have money produced and distributed centrally otherwise there is nothing to stop me making my own money and declaring myself a multi millionaire, The FED just like the Bank of England have to be in control or if not them then another single organisation. The monetary system of a nation cannot be a free market where anyone can enter it otherwise money then has no value whatsoever. The Fed isn't where the blame lies. You don't prosecute the gunshop owner for 1st dgree murder because a gun from his store killed someone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 do you know how money came into existence? it came about through the free market. gold and silver served as money throughout all of history. it was chosen for its high value in a small compact package. it was easily divisible. by your argument, you insinuate that NOTHING has value unless the government tells us it does. do diamonds have value? the government doesnt need to tell us that diamonds have value. why does the government have the right to counterfeit? all they do is print up some paper, and FORCE everyone to accept it as 'legal tender.' as you say, if anyone prints up some money, and calls them an 'angelofdeath' everyone would laugh if someone tried to use them as cash. this is what happened when the government in 1933 took away citizens gold. they confiscated the gold and gave them dollar bills in exchange. only difference is the govt tells you have to accept it. money systems and currency compete and you decide what to accept. if someone wants to accept a 'decyferon' for payment, that is their choice, but usually people are going to want something that is able to be traded and exchanged. things like gold and silver have historically been the top choices. you can print up all the money you want, and 'call' your self rich, but if no one will accept your money, the money is worthless. money came out from barter. you have a scrambled egg and you want a frisbee, so you have to find a frisbee owning scrambled egg wanter. as you can see this is difficult, therefore money and currency developed. in the US prior to government intervention in money, gold and silver coins from different nations circulated as money. deerskins or a 'buck' became synonomous with a dollar. no one needed government to tell people the value. MAM.... im saying the FED has a monopoly on the issuance of money and credit. banks have to deal with the FED. im also saying the federal regulatory system created moral hazard that insulated bankers from risk by socializing any possible losses. im also saying government policy forced lenders to make loans to sub prime borrowers as well as people took on loans, coercion free, for sums of money they couldnt pay back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 but society has moved on and those rules that existed before money no longer apply this is the situation we have nowadays, it won't change. Yes I can write Decyferon on a piece of paper and if someone wants to accept it as payment then that is up to them, however in the wider view of things it is worthless to everyone but me and that person. You need common agreement between everyone of the value of something for it to be widely accepted, hence why we ave money and money markets that need ot be dealt with. If it wasn't the government then it would have to be one other single entity that controlled it. Diamonds have no value, it is only because we place value in them as humans, nothing has value it is only because we accept it to have value. Diamond value is determined by the diamond manufacturers all they are doing is the same as the FED or Bank of England. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 no. diamond value isnt determined by manufacturers, its determined by consumers and the market. you even said in the value of diamonds is determined by humans value we place in it. this is the market. if a manufacturer asks 5K for a diamond and no buyer will pay 5K, it is not worth 5K. this is how it works and how it should work with all things, including money. its pretty common knowledge the market places high value on diamonds and there is no government edicts determining their value. the market determines it. diamonds never made good currency due to how they are cut, etc. they are not easily divisible the way gold is. the market has chosen gold for centuries as the most valuable commodity and it took the strong arm of the government to make it illegal to use as currency. but look at it being traded in the commodity markets... whenever the dollar tanks gold soars. money throughout history has never needed a central government to control it. sound money or commodity based money is a the great equalizer. money production is the first thing a government wants to get its hands out. sound money restrains governments because it cant be inflated. dollars are inflated. we lose 5% of a dollars value every year. this does not happen with sound money. without central banks, wars are much harder to finance. the first central bank created in england was essentially created to fund imperial adventures. the market determines value and has always determined the value tradable commodities. central banks operate on force. they force people to accept a piece of paper for money. the free market has every concern already built into it. and we get no inflation or coercion from the government. sound money is a win win. there is absolutely NO reason to oppose it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 I do see your point AOD (as always haha) but to compare the global economic markets we have nowadays to the trade system throughout history is not the same thing, there is much wider global trade nowadays and I personally couldn't see how the old system would still work in modern business terms. But then again I am kinda out of my depth in this discussion as my global economics understanding isn't that great and I am just giving my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 well, look at how different currencies compete for 'top' status. the dollar is still the world 'reserve' currency to my knowledge. gold is still universally accepted as a chief store of value, even though its legal tender status has been disintegrated in most countries. there is no legislating body to determine which money is worth 'more.' the market does. some people see the value of the dollar dropping (it has dropped 96% since the creation of the fed, in another words the dollar of today is worth .04$ compared to a dollar in 1913) and think euro's and franc's might be better to hold than dollars. some still hold dollars. i just dont see any downside at all to allowing monetary competition as a first step towards a more free market. if we suffer rapid inflation, it could be legal tender laws will be ignored as they have been numerous times throughout history and dollars wont be accepted as money. but we currently have 'frog in simmering water' inflation. as long as inflation isnt 50% a year... people are just used to 5% maybe 10%. sure, you could hold gold, then sell the gold, exchange to dollars and use this as currency, as a way of dealing with inflation (gold has nearly always kept up with inflation)but this is an infringement of liberty. you should be able to use the gold as currency. or silver. or ball point pens. there was a guy in the mid western US that was paying his construction workers in gold american eagle 1oz coins. the coins were worth $750 at the time, but a value of $50 was stamped on the coins from the US Mint. so since this US mint made coin was marked as $50, the man tried to only pay taxes on the 50$ instead of the market value of 750$. needless to say, he got into a lot of trouble with the IRS for breaking legal tender laws, even with money created by the US treasury! this is absurd! i wonder if the same precedent applies to paper dollars that have numanistic value ?( say a 20$ bill from 1910 is worth 4000$ to a collector ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 I think I will spend sometime and do some reading on the subject, maybe help me understand the whole situation a bit better Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 absolutely not... property rights are the foundation of the free market. So I still don't understand why I can't sell your stuff. If someone is willing to pay for something and I can provide it then what's the problem? If you wanted money you should have sold it yourself, right? Maybe you can buy it back from the other guy. there is also much debate over 'intellectual' property. some think patents, copyrights etc is actually a government restriction on free exchange. after all, if two people are developing something simultaneously and one gets to the patent office 1 second before the other, the other has no 'rights' to his own work. If copyrights, etc. are a restriction on free exchange then I'm going to refer you back to my first paragraph. With patents, that's pretty much the way it goes, if you don't do it, someone else will. The thing is, if people are developing something simultaneously but independently then there are usually enough design differences so that both people can get a Patent and then battle it out in the market. I mean, Microsoft fully stole Apple's idea of a GUI but here we are 20 years later and both are still competing in the market. *Yes, I'm aware that MS claims to have developed Windows in the early 80's but those were actually DOS windows allowing users to run more than one program at once and not a GUI at all. Finally, with things like copyrights and the first to the finish line takes the glory... ayep. Darwin dragged his ass until he'd been back home for something like 40 years. He'd edit this part and reorganize chapters, send out parts to his fellow intellecuals for clarification and generally fart around his estate. Finally somebody pointed out that another fellowwas about to publish something that reached pretty much the same conclusions. Darwin jumped up and got his shit put together and published first and now he's the one who the Christians despise. Same with the decoding of DNA, Watson and Crick were locked in competition with 2 other scientists named Franklin and Wilkins. If not for the fact that W&C pulled large parts of their research directly out of their asses they would never have 'won'. As it turned out the stuff they pulled from their asses was correct and that's the way it goes. To the winner go the spoils. It seems that if property rights are the basis for a free market then you must support market regulation. Someone has to decide what constitutes private property, some one then has to enforce the rules of property rights and THAT is market regulation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 So I still don't understand why I can't sell your stuff. If someone is willing to pay for something and I can provide it then what's the problem? If you wanted money you should have sold it yourself, right? Maybe you can buy it back from the other guy. i know you are a halfway 'smart' guy. i know you are not stupid enough to actually try to use this silly line of reasoning. the reason why you cant sell my stuff is because I OWN it. if you try to sell it, you will get shot. that is why you cant sell it. i guess you are just trying to pull my chain and not actually have a debate about this. If copyrights, etc. are a restriction on free exchange then I'm going to refer you back to my first paragraph. i didnt say i supported the 'anti' intellectual property rights idea, but i can sort explain it to you. its like this. you are a girl. you see a girl with a pony tail. it looks neat. if you put your hair in a pony tail, is the other girl losing anything? if you have 'intellectual property' you are supposedly 'violating' her rights to the ownership of the idea of a pony tail. this is essentially trying to own an idea. some freedom activists believe that unless something can be 'homesteaded' it can not be 'owned.' hence, you cannot own an 'idea.' It seems that if property rights are the basis for a free market then you must support market regulation. Someone has to decide what constitutes private property, some one then has to enforce the rules of property rights and THAT is market regulation. sure property rights are the basis of the free market. without some sort of system of ownership, you cannot buy and sell or trade. sure i support 'regulation' of the market, by individuals. im not an anarcho capitalist, but i sympathize with the idea. im perfectly fine with a government that does nothing but protects property rights which include infringements to your life and liberty. these are property rights as well. but since you'll bring up a state of anarchy in your next argument... you dont really need a government to protect property. property owners and/or their agents can take care of their own property just fine. so, people, property owners, enforce the rules of property. the only just form of 'market regulation' by government is a protection of property rights. your trying to come to a false conclusion with your line of reasoning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Man, if dope were legal every crackhead that got burned for a dub would be taking their case all the way to the Supreme Court. No because if drugs were legal restrictions would still exist. Also the purchasing of dope from a street dealer would still be illegal. That would be like going to court to confess to a crime. It would be the same as Alcohol. Which we all (well maybe not all) agree is a drug. Yet for some reason I can still go to the store, buy a 12 pack. Get loaded, jump in my car and kill someone. So I still don't understand why I can't sell your stuff. If someone is willing to pay for something and I can provide it then what's the problem? If you wanted money you should have sold it yourself, right? Maybe you can buy it back from the other guy. To argue against a free market economy by saying you can't sell someone's property makes pretty much no sense at all. "A free market describes a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to regulate against force or fraud. The terminology is used by economists and in popular culture. A free market requires protection of property rights, but no regulation, no subsidization, no single monetary system, and no governmental monopolies. It is the opposite of a controlled market, where the government regulates prices or how property is used." I just copied and pasted that off Wikipedia. The basic idea. The Fraud part would be EXACTLY what you are referring to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shai Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 No because if drugs were legal restrictions would still exist. Also the purchasing of dope from a street dealer would still be illegal. That would be like going to court to confess to a crime. I was being sarcastic but...I'm sure we've all seen the episode of "Cops" where the crackhead goes up to the jakes on the corner and rats someone out because they gave them money to go buy rock and they got burned. Sounds ridiculous until you've seen it...I've seen crackheads snitch like a motherfucker, usually when they're so smoked out that they think the cops will actually pay them for information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 I don't think it would be fraud, I never said I would claim ownership, in fact I said specifically that I would be selling YOUR shit. Now we're back to property rights and regulation. That Wiki definition says nothing to deny that the imposition of property rights is an absolute regulation. This speaks straight to the hippy concept that 'you can't, like, own land maaan!' Also, why would purchasing from a street deal still be illegal, that's like saying I can't buy my corn from the farmer. The only reasons alcohol is regulated are to insure quality (so nobody goes blind) and the tax stamp. I can fully re-sell beer on the street as long as I can prove I paid my taxes and comply with laws concerning who I'm allowed to sell to. If I want to sell liquor I have to apply for a state liquor license, more stamps and taxes. Why wouldn't it be the same for pot, or crack or heroin? Why wouldn't Beer & Wine licenses just turn into Beer, Wine and Pot licenses while the other becomes a Liquor & Narco license? Stores are just street dealers with a place to get out of the rain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x5v1s Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 legalize pot .. im down with that ..all day everyday other drugs ..hell no Obama is to much of a fraud to even legalize pot dude fooled you guys bad 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 You mean before the election, when he said he wasn't going to legalize pot? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x5v1s Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 nope i mean in his term ... all the lefty's i know think all the petitions around phoenix is gonna change his mind ..its a states right issue ..but cause of Article IV of the constitution ..its never gonna happen ..except in cali ...i think if there was a way to tax it the government would be all over it but there are just too many seeds out there ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 I was being sarcastic but...I'm sure we've all seen the episode of "Cops" where the crackhead goes up to the jakes on the corner and rats someone out because they gave them money to go buy rock and they got burned. Sounds ridiculous until you've seen it...I've seen crackheads snitch like a motherfucker, usually when they're so smoked out that they think the cops will actually pay them for information. My bad. ^__^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 all the lefty's i know think all the petitions around phoenix is gonna change his mind Oh, I see, because all the lefty's you know think their petitions will change his mind, Obama somehow retroactively fooled people "bad". Of course we all know that people, stoners particularly, are incapable of fooling themselves... but, still... I'm not sure I agree with you a hundred percent on your police work there Lou... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainframe Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_medical_marijuana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainframe Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 "Organized crime typically deals in the black market, which is in response to the restrictions government has placed on trade. For example, marijuana, or Prohibition, gambling, prostitution, etc. " exactly. organized crime has no court system to settle disputes for instance. if you dont get paid for the sale of X (drugs or whatever) yet the stuff you sold is illegal, you cant go to court to settle the dispute. it is the prohibition that causes all these problems. look at alcohol prohibition.... you had the same situation with drug pushers now. shootings, etc etc. when alcohol was legalized you didnt see beer truck drivers shooting each other did you? Elaborate on how this argument supports your position. You're saying that when alcohol was legalized and brought back into the fold of a government regulated market, the situation improved. I thought you were advocating a completely unregulated market. Anyway the point was to provide a potent example of 'greed' as a driving force in an unchecked market. The murder and drugs and robbery just provide an especially juicy picture of that. What I meant to draw attention to was the way in which unregulated business can devolve into cronyism, monopoly, and all-around bullying. That is, it is influenced by a force known as 'greed.' This is beyond simple self-interest. You continue to deny the existence of 'greed' yet you still haven't provided an argument to justify this and you haven't responded to my points. no. diamond value isnt determined by manufacturers, its determined by consumers and the market. you even said in the value of diamonds is determined by humans value we place in it. this is the market. if a manufacturer asks 5K for a diamond and no buyer will pay 5K, it is not worth 5K. this is how it works and how it should work with all things, including money. its pretty common knowledge the market places high value on diamonds and there is no government edicts determining their value. the market determines it. diamonds never made good currency due to how they are cut, etc. they are not easily divisible the way gold is. the market has chosen gold for centuries as the most valuable commodity and it took the strong arm of the government to make it illegal to use as currency. but look at it being traded in the commodity markets... whenever the dollar tanks gold soars. I was under the impression that the value of diamonds is artificially inflated by manufacturers. People do place a high value on diamonds, but in terms of the costs of extraction and the processing of raw diamonds the price we get as consumers is very very high. Since diamond mining isn't exactly the domain of small start-up businesses, the big boys, of which there are few, can keep putting out clever ad campaigns to keep us thinking diamonds are special (not that we need much convincing, they're so shiny) while they keep the prices super high. Since there are so few players they can set these high prices without competition. That's just my understanding of the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.