Marijuana Prohibition ended in Colorado!

[SamuelRSmith]

the2real4mafol said:

1. She has a decent point but people should have a choice of private or state education at least, especiallly in the poorer nations. My whole problem with private schools, is the fact that they cost money. Even if it's cheap, money is still a sort of barrier to education. sure, it may be better than state education in some cases, but I think a government should provide a service for the neediest, while the better off have a choice between the two.

... and state schools are free, right?

2. I disagree, the flaws of the capitalist system create poverty and unemployment. In a time like this, when the market trully fucked up, we have seen poverty and unemployment only rise! For example US poverty rose from 12.5% in 2007 to 15% in 2011, Average wages have fall from $55,000 to $50,000 in the same time,while unemployment was under 5% in 2007 but is now around 8%, in a country like the United States, there is no where the state caused all that!  Explain how the state created these? (the only time government creates unemployment, is when they lay off public sector workers) And how is the market any better?, they create problems themselves. I would like to know what democratic body you would replace the government with, seriously is there any alternative?

How did the state create all these? Simple, they fucked around with the money supply, causing high inflation, and forcing interest rates down. These generated bubbles, primarily in housing, which burst in the autumn of 2008. They then made it worse through intervention which has caused the crisis to drag out through the past 5 years.

3. Of course, it's better the money goes away from dangerous gangbangers to the state who can help people get a job and fix the infrastructure. Of course, the prison population will go down too, since many are arrested for similiar having drugs, legalising them means they won't go to jail at all, costing the state more. While the taxes raised from pot can be used to help set up family run business', which is great for jobs and the economy. As for your last sentence, do you think that how it is in state prisons. If the talking about the USA still, most prisons are actually private now, which is where the money comes in. They profit from incarcerating people!

Stop using "of course" it's not as obvious as you think. There are far too many people involved with far too many incentives for the prison population to decrease. How many cops, bureaucrats, lawyers,etc... do you think would lose their jobs if drugs were fully legalized? How many prisons closed down? Probably zero, as, instead, they'd just be redeployed in dealing with other crimes. You know the average American commits 3 crimes a day, right? They'll just start enforcing those. And now they have all this lovely drug money to pay for it.

4. Just like communism, a truly capitalist is not really possible. The wealth of corporations can't help but corrupt the government and make it nearly impossible for smaller businesses to compete (really free isn't it!). But even if there was a truly liberal market, profit would still be the motive here, not anyone else. I don't see why they wouldn't pay even less to workers, if there was an anarchic society. As for the envirionment, i doubt they would care that much about it as long as business is strong, since companies can move to somewhere else anyway 

Again, corportations are a product of the state, and not capitalism. So any argument you make against capitalism through corporations is automatically null and void. You're right, profit is the motive... for everybody! Why would workers work when it isn't profitable for them? And why would they stick to employers which don't give them as much profit as others? The only reason that labour mobility is low is because the State makes moving jobs a hard and dangerous time.

As for the environment. During the industrial revolution, property rights were first powerful enough to protect the environment. If a factory opened up near your land, and caused environmental damage, you coud sue them for damages... thus, it became profitable for firms to build their factories so that they operated in a more environmentallr friendly manner. Then, the state got involved... it decided that the "public good" was more important than these silly little property owners, and the courts started ruling in favour of the factory owners. The rest, as they say, is history.