They could go into other illegal fields, or they could move somewhere where their illegal drug expertise is useful, or they could become farmers or teachers or simply retire.
There are other countries and other states in the USA that have legalized certain drugs, have they had a comparative rise in other illegal and dangerous activity like you have claimed?
Or are you just hypothesizing one possible outcome that has no evidence or bearing on reality, "whatsoever".
controls = natural selection, survival of the fittest
oversight, monitoring = culture, language, history
Science has the potential to speed up the process of knowledge acquisition. Our current human diet is the result of thousands of years of trial and error. A scientist attempts to follow cause and effect, minimizing confounding variables that obscure cause and effect.
In the article it stated that names and events were changed to protect people from the crimes committed.
Maybe he was breaking the law, maybe he was helping children, maybe he was the victim of a crime like the other fellow who had his face smashed in and had reasons not to go to the hospital.
If I were writing such an article and needed to change the reason why he couldn't go to the halfway house, I would make up another reason why he couldn't go instead of making up the fact that he decided not to go. That's just sloppy journalism.
>>> It's not like I've never heard of [the concept of natural monopolies].
You have the benefit of the doubt from me, but your specific arguments leave out the installation phase of the electrical grid, which I'm sure you are very familiar with.
>>>First, there are many large companies that could raise the necessary capital to build power plants and electric transmission lines.
Agree, but capital isn't the only thing. You have to put the electrical lines into the ground, disrupting traffic. The costs and capital of the electrical system are not what makes it a natural monopoly, the physical reality of our current technology does (pending wireless transmission as you mention later).
The current physical reality is solved by having the government own the last mile(for some definition of mile), while electrical providers can connect at hubs. This is how it works in places where the population understands the specifics of natural monopolies.
>>>Third, having deregulated electricity systems would open up the field to innovation, such that we'd probably all have small nuclear reactors at our houses, or wireless power transmission, or something.
The biggest problem is that these technologies do not yet exist. Maybe in the future they will be stymied by regulation, but if they were invented today I can't think of an electrical grid regulation that would stop them. Remember, consumers can hook up power generating technology to the grid already: solar panels.
>>>Second, people can always get together and form a non-profit power company if the normal market isn't providing stable, competitive prices. (By "people" I mean, say, the people of an entire US state.)
Businesses are in the business of making money. When a corporation thinks it can make money by suing municipalities that form broadband networks, they do so. Like in Lafayette.
Want to know why this isn't all over the news, with the competing ISPs and cable companies badmouthing these bad corporate actions? Because the cable companies and the ISPs and the media companies are largely owned by the same people, and collude monopolistically. This is a very recent accomplishment: regulations existed to prevent it but were overturned by the deregulation achieved through the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
I was under the impression that the "last mile" was owned by whatever company had been granted the local monopoly. If the "last mile" is owned by the government, and the power companies connect at hubs, then there is no actual "natural monopoly." I think that's actually a good solution.
A better solution would be to have the "last mile" owned by the people who own properties, but that may be nit picking. And I think that's probably how things would have eventually developed without government intervention.
Now, I think that in reality, power companies (in the US, at least) almost always are regulatory monopolies, i.e., government-granted ones. But, because of the "last mile" solution, they don't _need_ to be.
In summary, I feel like my point that natural monopolies don't exist is still supported.
When a corporation thinks it can make money by suing municipalities that form broadband networks, they do so. Like in Lafayette.
You can't (logically) use one abuse of government power to justify other government power that counteracts it, which seems to be your argument.
In the example you gave, the abuse is being able to win invalid lawsuits, and that is being used to justify government regulation of arbitrary industries (telco, in this specific case).
Better to just make it so you can't win invalid lawsuits.
Because the cable companies and the ISPs and the media companies are largely owned by the same people, and collude monopolistically.
They do collude monopolistically: the telcos have government-granted regulatory monopolies.
deregulation achieved through the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Given that the telco industry is 100% made up of government-granted regulatory monopolies, this act clearly did not implement deregulation.
>>>Given that the telco industry is 100% made up of government-granted regulatory monopolies, this act clearly did not implement deregulation.
I do not think it is controversial to say that deregulation is the act or process of removing or reducing state regulations. I have checked several dictionaries and encyclopedias, on line and dead-tree.
So a slight reduction in the regulatory laws that contributed to the formation of "government-granted regulatory monopolies" is deregulation. Therefore, the 1996 telecommunications Act of 1996 is deregulation, since it reduced and removed some, but not all, regulatory laws.
If we can agree on this, I will reply to the rest of your comment. If we disagree I can still reply, but the definition is really important to my argument.
I think that a _proper_ definition of "deregulation" is "completely removing regulation." Anything short of that is "partial deregulaiton."
I think that many people act as if and/or think that a proper definition of "deregulation" is "reducing regulation."
However, I see no point in arguing about definitions. I propose that we just use the terms "complete deregulation" and "partial deregulation" from here on out, so as to be non-ambiguous.
Given this, let me state my stance on partial deregulation. I thought about stating it earlier, but it seemed just barely too tangential.
I think partial deregulation is often much worse than regulation.
For example, regulation may take the form of "Cable company X has the exclusive right to lay coaxial cable in our city. In return, cable company X must allow our city to have our own special channel where we can post public announcements; and, it must lay wire to all areas of the city, regardless of income level; and, it must allow the city to set rates that subscribers can be charged."
Under partial deregulation, X may be allowed to set whatever rates it wants, but still have the exclusive right to lay coaxial cable. So, it can gouge customers.
In this case, partial deregulation didn't correct a situation in which the government was overstepping its bounds. It partially corrected it, and in doing so, made things worse.
I think this is overwhelmingly the kind of thing that happens with partial deregulation, and I think partial deregulation is overwhelmingly what happens these days when politicians talk about deregulation.
Sorry, I know you just wanted me to agree/disagree with your definition rather than adding a bunch of new intellectual content... but I figured the above would be helpful (and likely similar to what you were thinking).
>>>However, I see no point in arguing about definitions. I propose that we just use the terms "complete deregulation" and "partial deregulation" from here on out, so as to be non-ambiguous.
Agreed. All dictionaries disagree, but I'm not talking to any of them.
I believe that all reasonable people agree that history has shown that monopolies are inefficient in a capitalist system(see the 1920s for example). I feel that government-granted regulatory monopolies are also inefficient in a capitalist system. From your comments, I assume that you agree with both of these things, please let me know if you have a different view.
My understanding of the invention of regulations is this: Full deregulation of business seems like the best possible solution, until the point that companies become so big that they form monopolies that stifle competition. Then the government has to come in and regulate them until they are no longer monopolies. From your comments, I assume that you agree with this, let me know if you have different views.
I have to go eat but I have a comment written up about natural monopolies with relation to telcos ready to be edited and then posted.
Full deregulation of business seems like the best possible solution, until the point that companies become so big that they form monopolies that stifle competition. Then the government has to come in and regulate them until they are no longer monopolies. From your comments, I assume that you agree with this, let me know if you have different views.
Well, I don't think natural monopolies exist (as we discussed previously), only regulatory monopolies.
So, I don't think companies can become so big that they become natural monopolies.
I had written about some example cases that help support this (IBM, MS, Bell Telephone), but it was too long and probably not worth it, so I removed them.
I gotta tell you: not everyone is on the internet. In the US, publicly usable internet usually comes in the form of wifi, or terminals at the library. Not everyone has a library near by. Not everyone has enough money for a cheap cellphone or cheap laptop to take advantage of free wifi. Internet cafes aren't a going concern here.
And some people are legitimately scared of computers! Is it their own problem? Emphatically yes. Is it also society's problem? Again, emphatically yes. Is it their own fault? Well that's a matter of opinion. I think we should solve the problem and then argue over blame if there is time left over.
Wikipedia>>>In some cases, men and boys that have been raped (statutorily or otherwise) by women have been forced to pay child support to their rapists.[1]
I think it is a good thing that individuals control their own money, and can choose to give it to whomever they want.
Can we agree that people with no money will starve to death unless they use violence to take food from someone, or the government uses violence to take food from someone on their behalf? The foodstamps of this great depression are equivalent to the soup lines of the old great depression: they prevent people from robbing, looting, and starving in the streets.
I don't know in the US, but here in Europe the gov't does not need to "use violence" for that. It is pretty much general consensus that people with no monies should get money (not "foodstamps") from the gov't, payed by our taxes, so they can live with dignity, independently of what the reason for their unemployment / poverty might be.
When Americans use the "use violence" argument, your argument doesn't work as a response, I'm afraid.
It is a libertarian tactic of assuming that anything the government does they don't like is use of violence, except for government protection of artificial property rights which is somehow usually magically exempt.
Just because naive libertarian polemicists use an argument doesn't make that argument incorrect.
>>>It is a libertarian tactic of assuming that anything the government does they don't like is use of violence, except for government protection of artificial property rights which is somehow usually magically exempt.
In my experience, libertarians universally agree with me when I say "artificial property rights are completely protected and propped up by the government's threat of violence". It is their favorite part of the how governments operate, because they do not recognize the benefits of collectivism (socialism, communism, prisoners dilemma, tragedy of the commons).
Notice how I have not told you anything about my personal political views.
I agree that the governments typically don't need to "use violence". Do you agree that the "threat of violence" is sufficient?
I can't speak to Europe as a whole or the specific country you are from. In the US, you can be put in jail for non-payment of taxes. We have good old debtors' prisons. Also, if you are hungry and take food that does not "belong to you", there are certain criminal laws that can result in imprisonment. How do European governments deal with non-payment of taxes and the taking of food?
By the way, US "foodstamps" are now called "EBT" and you get a normal looking debit card that has certain restrictions on how it can be used (no buying shoes, only food ingredients).
Agree for the current US, which is likely a large part of why they have food stamps, but no "living wage for doing whatever suits your fancy".
An argument could be made that much of the government funded research done at Bell Labs is worthless. An argument could be made that of the worthwhile things that have come out of this government research, transistors, lasers, and CCDs are the most far reaching (since transistors begat miniaturized electronics begat cell phones and computers begat the internet).
These government researchers were largely doing "whatever suited their fancy" and most of it was wasted effort and tax money. An argument could be made that the money and effort wasted was worth the amazing results.
The government and by extension its citizens acknowledge and accept that most government funded research won't pan out. Important details that make this work:
1) Only a very small fraction of the population is doing government funded research. Large population supporting small research operations is sustainable.
2) The research is vetted on some level, and it is in a technical field. Technical research has an established history of paying dividends (even though it finds many dead-ends)
I disagree with your point 1): very many Americans are unemployed or underemployed, and being supported by welfare initiatives such as unemployment, medicare, and food stamps. Some significant fraction could be employed doing basic research instead of sitting at home watching TV and looking for jobs that aren't being offered by corporations that are making more profits than ever through fractional reserve lending and bailouts.
An example of underemployment in our industry: there are very many individuals with government funded computer scientists with BS, MS, and PHD degrees, that are employed in lucrative positions as code monkeys and computer janitors. These people should be inventing the next UNIX and IPV8 and advanced networking algorithms and image recognition and self driving cars. I'm not educated on whether strong AI is a pipe dream or not but weak AI has helped with image recognition and encryption breaking and genetic learning and spam filtering and web searching.
I think your initial point that "citizens acknowledge and accept that most government funded research won't pan out" is highly highly controversial in the US among some democrats, republicans, and most libertarians. Many want to cut non-military blue-sky research completely. These people call themselves neo-conservatives, President George W. Bush was a champion of the ethos. Liberals and normal conservatives are a bit sneakier on their wishes to de-fund research.
Would you care to share your measuring system for how do decide if it is 1:1 or not? It seems complex to measure health, "wealth", happiness, and security. I sure haven't found any actionable or reasonably complete metrics in my readings, maybe I am bad at searching.
There are other countries and other states in the USA that have legalized certain drugs, have they had a comparative rise in other illegal and dangerous activity like you have claimed?
Or are you just hypothesizing one possible outcome that has no evidence or bearing on reality, "whatsoever".