|
|
|
|
|
|
by s73v3r
4120 days ago
|
|
|
I'm not saying anything like that at all. And I do not respect any argument that mentions the "monopoly on violence" bullcrap. These people made their choices. They decided, of their own free will, to become involved in something they knew to be highly illegal. Everything that follows is their fault, and their fault alone. Saying that because these things are illegal means they have to resort to violence is to give them a free pass, and absolve them of their own responsibility. |
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewQl-qAtNwQ
> Saying that because these things are illegal means they have to resort to violence is to give them a free pass, and absolve them of their own responsibility.
Not at all! I merely show that a NECESSARY result of disenfranchising people who want to engage in a particular kind of trade which the government deems "wrong" (in the legal sense, because the government can't really determine morality) is that there are very predictable, unfortunate outcomes like this. The whole drug trade is absolutely RIFE with violence because people have no alternative to settle their disputes. I'm not saying that they are guiltless; far from it! But a modicum of thought makes it plain that the violence is due to the illegal nature of what they're doing.
Look at all the other industries that manage to grow things, distribute them, and eventually sell them directly to customers. Coffee, fruit, vegetables, nuts, grains, etc. All these industries have rates of violence which are very close approximations to ZERO. What is different about drugs? Two things:
1. They get you high (but so does coffee, sugar, etc)
2. They're illegal
Obviously I can't PROVE the causality is from 2 rather than 1, but I think a reasonable person could make a reasonable assumption that 2 is far, far more likely than 1.