Drug money and banks

[geni]

VIENNA, Jan 25 (Reuters) - The United Nations' crime and drug watchdog has indications that money made in illicit drug trade has been used to keep banks afloat in the global financial crisis, its head was quoted as saying on Sunday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSLP65079620090125

Aparently the drug trade was one of the few places left which had significant amounts of liquid capital. As aproaches to dealing with the banking colapse go this one would appear to have a fair bit of risk attached.

[Policenaut]

Not surprised. I assume many of these transactions were coming from the Cayman Islands.

[Alex Libman]

Legalize all drugs (and all other victimless "crimes").

Privatize all banks (including the Fed).

[geni]

Legalize all drugs (and all other victimless "crimes").

No we've been through this uncrontroled antibiotic use results in unacceptable levels of antibiotic resistance.


Privatize all banks (including the Fed).

Been tired didn't work.

[Alex Libman]

All obey Generalissimo el Geni! Unacceptable, Geni says! UNACCEPTABLE! Off with his head! :rolleyes:

Human civilization shackled forever by just a few ignorant and baseless claims...

[drkitten]

Human civilization shackled forever by just a few ignorant and baseless claims...

Well, that's actually what we're trying to prevent.

Hence why we don't take Libertarianism seriously. It's about as "ignorant and baseless" as it's possible to get.

And I do find it ironic that you complain about human civilization "shackled" when you are a triumphant proponent of chattel slavery.

I guess shackles are only bad when they're metaphorical, huh?

[cheat3]

Been tired didn't work.

when was this tried? and by whom?

[Alex Libman]

Hence why we don't take Libertarianism seriously. It's about as "ignorant and baseless" as it's possible to get.

You and others here are repeatedly failing to make any logical arguments for the "divine right" of government to enslave you, and you're not going to score any points by more name-calling.


And I do find it ironic that you complain about human civilization "shackled" when you are a triumphant proponent of chattel slavery.

You cannot be free unless you're free to sign a contract that obligates you to something. If you call that slavery then... you don't know the first thing about slavery.

Educate yourself!

[Roboramma]

You and others here are repeatedly failing to make any logical arguments for the "divine right" of government to enslave you, and you're not going to score any points by more name-calling. Um, we're slaves?

Why didn't someone send me the memo?

[Alex Libman]

Why would they send you a memo? It would be like explaining to cows that their fate is to be overmilked and slaughtered (if cows could comprehend that prospect).

It's in a plantation owner's best interest to have his slaves think they are free and everything is a-OK. For example, did you know that some slaves in the American South got weekend leave? In other cultures, slaves were allowed to own property (including other slaves), and even buy their freedom. Cato (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_the_Younger), the iconic statesman of the Roman Republic, made his money buying weak slaves, educating them for specialized intellectual work, and selling them for profit. A healthy, educated, and motivated slave is a profitable slave!

And no system of making slaves profitable is better than "liberal democracy". Slaves will willingly send you suggestions on which figureheads do the best jobs brainwashing them (voting), which is very effective at preventing slave uprisings, and they're incentivized to put themselves on the most valuable career path they can - just for letting them keep a small fraction of what they earn!

[geni]

when was this tried? and by whom?

pretty much everyone prior to 1694.

[geni]

You cannot be free unless you're free to sign a contract

Enforceable contracts are just another limit on freedom.

[Alex Libman]

pretty much everyone prior to 1694.

Right, back when there were no kings and no restrictions on trade... :rolleyes:


Enforceable contracts are just another limit on freedom.

No, they aren't. They are entered into voluntary, and civilized society is impossible without them.

[geni]

Right, back when there were no kings and no restrictions on trade... :rolleyes:

What has that got to do with the price of monkeys?


No, they aren't. They are entered into voluntary,

What? You claim freedom yet deny me the right to hold a gun to someone's head untill they sign a contract?


and civilized society is impossible without them.

So in the name of "civilized society" you reject true freedom. Pathetic.

[dudalb]

Gee, and I thought that civilized society was impossible without police and a court system...things which Alex Liebman finds "oppresive". You learn something every day.
SOme people's ability to ignore reality when it threatens a totally abstract ideology is fascinating.

[Alex Libman]

What has that got to do with the price of monkeys?

You've implied that prior to the Bank of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England) there existed a level of economic freedom similar to the one I advocate, which clearly was not the case. Canon law didn't look too kindly on usury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury), not even for a business loan to buy monkeys... for whatever monkey business you had in mind...


What? You claim freedom yet deny me the right to hold a gun to someone's head untill they sign a contract?

Is the NAP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle) really that hard to understand? Really? Not even this flash video (http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf) with slick stick-figures? Hmmm....


Gee, and I thought that civilized society was impossible without police and a court system...things which Alex Liebman [sic] finds "oppresive" [sic] [...]

Individual rights = good

Self-defense = good

Private security = good

Rules set by property owners = good

Voluntary contracts = good

Private arbitration = good

Violence (aka government) = bad


Is that really so hard to comprehend?