| Even Candidate Obama (now President Obama) acknowledges that the state is the institution which has a monopoly on violence. To try and dispute this is akin to arguing that they sky in not in fact blue. 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. |