Radical Politics & New Ideas

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFpUjyM0orQ The last part at 12:41 is wrong, you are misunderstanding what is going on and getting confused by pro-white rhetoric. ALL White people in the world need to take affirmative steps to right the wrongs of the past, at their own physical and mental expense, because ALL White people benefited from the historical racial and economic discrimination, and willingly accepted the money, physical property and advantage that the previous generations gave to them, even though that money, property and advantage was gained at the expense of other races, through theft, murder, and discriminatory laws, and discriminatory cultural practices which excluded ALL other races except the white race from economic participation, and sufficient public education. The whole phenomenon needs to be put into context. You can't be naive and publish content like this now, at least not go as far as you are going after 12:41 because all those ignorant white people and ACTUAL racists and ethno-centrist white people are going to use your video as propaganda to strengthen their resolve, which is, whether they intend it or understand the nuances of what they are actually doing, it is to further economic and social inequalities based on RACE.  That is also why being colorblind in this age IS RACIST. (and as a side note, when people say “racist” it is typically being used colloquially, you are not doing any help to anyone by getting concerned with the details of the semantics of the word, like you may not think that a different race is physically unable to perform at the same mental capacity because their brains somehow evolved differently, which is the technical definition of racism, but colloquially you are still a racist if you are ethnocentric or if you ignore the past and current context surrounding racial inequality, which is very real and there are statistics that prove that physical inequality as undeniable fact...) We MUST acknowledge the HISTORY of racial discrimination and acknowledge the fact that the physical arrangements and structures that history created ARE STILL WITH US, it's not ethereal and it didn't resolve after the civil rights movement created some half assed laws back in the day.

I think the real threat of AI is the underlying structure of capitalism. Machines have so much potential to do our work more efficiently than we do, a lot of potential which exists now immediately in the present that we aren't tapping because we are stuck with the legacy paradigm of capitalism. Basically because humans need to have jobs for that system to work, but AI and technology breaks those boundaries so we have to adapt to manage that and exploit the technology for our long term survival. It makes sense because human beings are by nature exploitative of situations in which they don't have to work, and nobody likes working that much, so there needs to be some incentive to get us to do work, like the threat of becoming homeless or starving or losing medical services, etc. However technology is so good now that the incentive must be artificially imposed on people at this point to get them to work, not in all industries, but most, because technology is so good that we have conquered nature to a large extent and its basic nature which originally gave us the incentive to work, because you will starve if you don't grow food, etc. etc. 

So really I think the challenges with AI are socially constructing a system which allows us to exploit AI and technology to the maximum extent and figuring out a way to manage society and distribute wealth in a way that allows us to thrive in the absence of work, in the absence of a structure of capitalism that requires us all to work to achieve material wealth. And the main challenge with that is that many people will have to have responsibility to work, to maintain the technology and do things which technology may never be able to do, and part of that challenge is that distributing work in a way that is equal may not be realistically possible, because specialization takes so much experience and there may be no way around that.

One dimension to this also is that having humans perform work is inherently pollutive and inefficient. If you have to drive to work then you have to haul 100-300 pounds or more of living flesh in a large vehicle to and from your workplace, and you have to obtain food and other services while you are out in the field. That takes significant resources and it is polluting the earth so badly at this point that employing humans to do the work is actually detrimental i the long term, so we actually may need to replace ourselves with technology and our survival might depend on our ability to do that safely.

The last point is that ai needs to be contained so that it doesn't self replicate and evolve out of control in a way that it starts attacking us, or a dangerous malfunction gets out of control. Employing AI on a large scale increases the risk of mistakes that could lead to that end, so we also have to manage that very carefully. Technically you can accomplish this, by basically keeping the AI in a box that it can't get out of, if you can think about that conceptually. But trusting random people to all engineer systems that get that right is really hard to manage because people will get greedy or lazy and screw it up.

Police Must Be Held Accountable Most people argue for better training of police and accountability as the solution to the societal problems that caused the death of George Floyd and so many other individuals, at the hands of the police. By all means, that is a part of the solution that MUST be implemented if we are to continue to use police But Wait... That Is Not Nearly Enough... However, that will only go so far, and even with these provisions in place we will indefinitely still experience the problem of police violence, particularly against people of color, because people of color just happen to be the economically disadvantaged social minority as a result of historic economic inequality Nobody seems to be questioning the reasons for the initial police response in the first place, and if any response at all to the actions which lead them onto the scene were justified or even practically necessary

Police were called because of a complaint from a store owner of the attempted use of a COUNTERFEIT $20 BILL to buy CIGARETTES 

The first thing that comes to my mind when I hear that is, WHY THE FUCK DO WE NEED POLICE TO RESPOND TO SOMETHING LIKE THIS???

Investment into technology and property insurance is a better solution than investment into police We would be better off investing in technology to allow store owners to scan money for integrity, and potentially also to help them implement better physical security, rather than give our money to the police to solve it their way 

We all have seen too many times the way it plays out when police solve problems their way The same things come to mind when I think of the story of Michael Brown, shot dead as the result of a response to him STEALING A FUCKING CIGAR. Or Eric Garner, trying to SELL CIGARETTES ON THE STREET

I wrote about this before in fact, and conducted street protests, after each of these incidents happened Why would we pay the expensive price to violently police these things, or authorize police to use any form of violence at all in response to such petty crimes

As I said, we are better paying for technology to solve most of these problems, laying off some police in favor of hiring engineers

And a lot of these laws just shouldn’t exist

We need to embrace our freedom, and have compassion for victims of systemic inequality

We should work hard to achieve solutions that maintain freedom, and prevent violence, the antithesis of freedom

Police should ONLY be focused on important things, like homicide, serial killers, rape, violent assault, things that involve violence that must be stopped

We should stop using violence to police property. 

Property protection can be achieved through the use of technology to provide physical security, and through the use of simple insurance

If we want to be a society of private property, then we can continue to collectively pay to protect that property, but just not allocate the collective wealth to the provisioning of police forces, instead diverting the funds to the provisioning of physical security and insurance

Here is a list (not comprehensive) of risks we should NOT be taking:  - Police response to use of counterfeit money

 - Police response to minor theft 

 - Police response to drug possession, or even drug sales (legalize all drugs, allow them to be cheap so people don’t have to steal to support their habits, this is a very important one and I wrote about this in other posts)

 - Police car chases (completely un-necessary if life is not being threatened by the perpetrators, it’s extremely dangerous to chase after somebody at high speeds to just to retrieve property, just insure property and let the thieves have it)

We have to remember also that our society is so grossly unequal that theft is THE ONLY form of economic social justice a lot of these people can get

In response to a facebook post about getting back to nature, it went something like this.. The guy: [some hippy shit about how everybody should just get back to nature...] Me: In a capitalist mode of economy (which will arise within any statist system that provides property rights) people inevitably get stuck in cities, then they can't get out So for people to be able to have freedom to even make decisions about their life, the underlying structure of capitalism, rooted in property rights, must first be dismantled The guy: Dismantle property rights? Me: Property rights seem like a good idea but they are rooted in violence, really are a way for the rich to preserve wealth while the poor disproportionately pay for the police and government systems that protect the property

The leverage that is fundamentally rooted in violence is ultimately used to indirectly force people to work with the means of production that slowly but surely always consolidate with the true beneficiaries of the property system

This basic principle, along with authorization to dispense violence directly, is also what makes state socialism dangerous

Property rights will inevitably lead to power structures with physical leverage and the ability to invoke violence

As the structure becomes more and more sophisticated, like what we see with the kind of neo-liberal corporatism that we have today the owners of the property are getting to the point where they can essentially invoke state violence against who they wish, even though it may manifest indirectly

Its like how you build a computer program starting with binary, then programming languages get built on top of that, then frameworks, then you have a mechanism that allows you to carry out extremely complex functions with the press of a button

When a Central Bank prints money, it is basically just a tax on everybody holding the currency it printed

To explain let me use this example, your money is only as valuable as the stuff you can buy with it

So lets say $100 = 100 veggie burgers (I'm vegan), and let's also say that there are only $100 in existence

You hold $10

If the U.S. gov't prints $990 such that there are now $1000 in existence, but no technological innovations immediately arise at the same time which reduce the effort it takes to make veggie burgers, 

then $100 now equals $1000/100 veggie burgers which is 10 veggie burgers (learn how to work with ratios if you don't understand the math), and thus 1 veggie burger = $10 now, where it used to equal $1 before they printed the money

so you still only have $10 because the government didn't give the money they printed to you

so now you can only buy 1 veggie burger with your money, where as you used to be able to buy 10... and that sucks for you And if the Central Bank now has $900 more, to do what they want with it. This is why printing the money this way is a tax, because the value went to them. They can now buy 90 more veggie burgers than they used to be able to.  Real value is determined by the amount of useful things you can buy, not by the numerical amount of money you possess.

They taxed the real value which you held, and then consolidated it with themselves, and then whomever they choose

Being that the central banks decide when to print money and how much, not congress or consensus by the people, it is taxation without representation

And also the Central Banks appropriate that money to big banks and Wall Street, it doesn't go into things like welfare or whatever else tax money is typically used for

And.. there is no actual proof that printing money and distributing it that way will fix any problems with the economy, the benefits are all hypothetical

And.... it is an Unequal Tax, meaning that poor people get taxed more than the rich

Lets say the rich had $90 out of the original $100 

They can afford to invest their money into solid assets, let's say veggie burgers, and still have enough money left over to survive day to day,

So they would invest $80 into 80 veggie burgers, keeping $10 to survive on day to day 

Then, after the government prints all the money, using the example above, they can sell their veggie burgers for $10 a piece, because veggie burgers now equal $10 each.

The poor only had $10 and they needed it to get by day to day, so they couldn't invest 

So 100% of their money lost its value, whereas the rich only lost about 10% of their money's value.

This is why it is an unequal tax

(I just wrote this on FB so pardon the grammar used. Hopefully this will give a better perspective on the actual situation, do the research tho I can’t promise my claims are true, but they are the result of my understanding of the situation after doing extensive research)

Many Americans are hyper-concerned about the negative effects that Socialism could have on our economy If Socialism is undertaken within a functioning system Democracy and the Democracy is left intact, the people can self-correct if things go wrong As long as authority is not assigned in such a way that undermines the ability of the Democratic system to function, dangerous or ineffective social programs can be undone and recuperative measures can be taken if necessary

If you don’t participate politically, either you are guilty of complacency or you are of the opinion that the outcome of life is solely in the hands of “God”, as it were, and nothing that human being do can change the outcome.

If you are of the latter opinion, then you should consider that if you are wrong about this hypothesis, and did not act when you had the chance, then you would be part of the reason why the outcome for living beings turned out the way it did. You would be guilty.

If you are not affected by guilt, and the outcome makes no difference to you, then your pattern of behavior is quite similar to a psychopath, who kills without remorse or guilt for the outcome of their acts, only caring about self satisfaction.

In fact, there is a psychological classification for a human being that cannot express remorse or guilt or care for the outcome of other living beings. One such person would be classified as being affected by sociopathy. They would be a sociopath.

What people describe as "Identity Politics" is not actually a real phenomenon. "Identity Politics" is, rather, a misinterpretation of a different political phenomenon which doesn't define identities, but rather recognizes social groups that have been defined by social and economic segregation.

Individuals with certain characteristics that effect their economic and social situation due to social and historical phenomena can be identified as belonging to groups which are defined by the affecting phenomena. 

Groups like African Americans in the United States have an economic and social situation that is in fact different and less well off than other groups like European Americans. The same goes for women, and any non-heterosexual or gender non-conforming groups around the world, and practically all ethnic or racial minorities in any given territory around the world which is or has been historically controlled by an ethnic or racial majority.

Such groups have historically been discriminated against and now must contend with social and economic structures that transcend state power, which still have the power to discriminate against these groups. 

Cultures which normalize discrimination of these groups are pervasive around the world. Sometimes discrimination is manifested and carried out in such subtle ways that they are not even recognized as being discriminatory by those who have not taken the time and initiative to fully analyze the situation, and those who benefit from the discrimination will never have incentive to analyze the situation any more deeply than what benefits them and preserves their privilege within society.

The fact that some of the affected groups are still struggling with a physical legacy of economic inequality, like for instance collectively controlling less capital within their networks, means that members of these groups should be given advantages through political systems to counteract the disadvantages that they face against members of the groups who benefited from the history of discrimination.

Obviously the end goal would be the elimination of all such group distinctions, and have all individuals within society work together on an equal footing.

However, the history of discrimination is real, and to ignore the fact that social groups were created with advantages and disadvantages as a result of this history is an ignorant, irresponsible, and dangerous distortion of the truth.

The concept of "Identity Politics" is that physical and political advantage is given to those who exhibit some (arbitrary) identity, but the real phenomenon that "identity politics" attempts to describe is much deeper than that. 

The real political phenomenon that “Identity Politics” attempts to describe is the recognition of the disadvantages that groups have, and that groups were constructed as a result of physical social and economic discrimination. The historical discrimination was based on physical features such as racial features, ethnic customs, sexual expression, or gender expression. Discrimination was the only thing based on these arbitrary identities. As a result of the legacy of discrimination, advantage and disadvantage has been bestowed on different groups. 

In contrast to the claims of “Identity Politics”, "Identity" as it is used in real politics is based on the legacy of disadvantage or likelihood of disadvantage based on historical legacies of discrimination. 

I have recently attended jury duty on a Special Narcotics Unit Grand Jury

I believe that full drug legalization and regulation is the best solution for our current political context in the Americas

My experience as a juror has not changed my opinion on the subject, but has reinforced it and caused me to articulate the reasons for my beliefs more fully than I have in the past.

Free market competition is the only effective way to prevent the unregulated sale of dangerous substances at the street level

Competition from the drug industry would take all the business from street vendors, gangs, and criminal producers of drugs

It would be in the industry’s best interests to submit itself to regulation, as the alternative, criminalization, would present far greater risks and operating costs to the industry

Deregulation efforts will most likely not include the producers of drugs, who will still have incentive to commit violence in this scenario, and thus drug industry on the production side will not easily and cost-effectively be able to expand as much as it would in a legalized scenario. This would give producers incentive to participate in a legalized market instead of an illicit one

Customers will almost certainly go for the legitimate option with no legal consequences rather than risk legal consequences by purchasing illicit substances on the street

Customers can achieve greater confidence about what they are actually purchasing (purity, dosage, etc.) in a legalized and regulated industry than they could in an illicit or deregulated industry

Illicit industries reward people who are mentally unstable. Legitimate industries exclude these people from gaining control

Illegal industry incentivizes and rewards mentally unstable or insane people to participate. These are people who would not qualify for a job that carries much responsibility in a legalized and regulated industry

These people are the most likely to rise to the top in an illicit industry, as any means of operation is possible when your industry is already secret and clandestine out of the view of the public and authorities, and the most brutal and ruthless tactics and the ability to take extreme risks (which sane people would otherwise not attempt) will deliver the most advantage in this scenario

The drug war creates and sustains violent gangs

Gangs recruit members from childhood and teen age, either voluntarily when people live in situations that compromise their judgement or when the gang presents a real potential benefit to their lives, with children and teenagers being incapable of understanding the consequences or predicting how the situation could play out long term, or the gangs violently force people into their their ranks. Once involved, participation is mandatory, there is no escape for most and thus there is no other choice than to participate or face horrifying retaliations including death

The drug trade facilitates gang formation and gang activity more than any other source of revenue, it exceeds, by far, revenue from extortion, robbery, pimping sex workers, etc.

Gangs establish criminal networks and build transportation systems that allow them to transport drugs, guns, people across borders, anywhere they want. Once these routes are established they can be used to transport many things other than just drugs. Taking drugs out of the picture greatly reduces the ability of the gangs to construct these systems and conduct crimes across the spectrum

Ultimately, legalization will reduce violence

With gangs and other violent actors competed off the streets, violence will be reduced: particularly gun violence within cities

People need catharsis. Just as the increase in the popularity and availability of violent video games have been correlated with a reduction in street violence, access to the psychoactive experience in safe and controlled settings may further reduce motivation to commit acts of violence

Addicts can gain a social safety net through regulation

Prostitution is commonly resorted to as a means to maintain access to drugs in the case of addiction, and there may not be a need to obtain money this way if the industry was regulated such that drug prices can become cheaper than they are now, and such that proven addicts can receive free rehabilitation treatment, as an exchange by the industry for permission to remain in business

The legalization or decriminalization of sex work can further serve to create a safer society in the presence of drug use

Legalization can prevent the spread of disease

HIV and Hepatitis can be contracted via stays in prison in the case of rape and the other violent interactions that occur within these spaces, through the use of dirty needles, and through prostitution. The drug war creates circumstances that facilitate the spread of disease 

Punishment makes life hard for people, prevents participation within the legitimate economy, and puts criminals in contact with each other, thus creating a self-feeding cycle

Prison stays reduce income and savings for convicts. Criminal records, trauma, visible scars and tattoos from prison and forced gang involvement makes it difficult for ex-convicts to participate in the legitimate economy, thus creating renewed incentive to sell drugs or resort to prostitution once they are freed

Prison concentrates criminals and allows them to network thus perpetuating the drug trade

Aggression within prison can aggravate people and turn them into violent criminals or addicts to cope with the trauma and aggravation

Inmates are commonly forced to use drugs in order to test potency of drugs smuggled into prisons, and are forced into addiction as a method of extortion. Prisons perpetuate addiction and produce new addicts this way

There is so much economic incentive to sell drugs that criminalization is basically just a perpetual game of “Whack-a-Mole”, except with dire consequences for society

If you arrest one dealer another will come up in their place weeks to months later 

The generational aspect of human procreation will ensure that there is always someone emotionally immature to pick up the torch in the illicit drug market. The younger generations will enter the market before they are old enough to understand the history or the consequences, and they will fill in the voids left by established dealers who have been incarcerated

Unregulated drug markets can be exploited to push drugs on children and trick people into taking addictive drugs 

Drug dealers are free to lace drugs with other drugs (like mixing heroin into cocaine) or to present drugs as different from what they are in an effort to make sales or get people addicted to the drugs they want to sell. A legalized industry can avert this by requiring the provision of transparent information about the drugs being sold

Drug dealers are free to violently push drugs on kids and sell to children or teens. Legalized industry can be effectively regulated to prevent this

An illicit industry will target people of poor mental health and addicts to sell drugs

An informed public can make responsible decisions about what to purchase and how to safely handle the effects of drug use within society

Reduction of stigma and open conversation as well as transparent information surrounding the drugs will allow the general population to become familiarized with the effects and dangers of the drugs. This will lead to greater public awareness and thus more responsible and informed consumption, as well as giving the public information necessary to implement effective regulations as the situation evolves

Regulations can effectively prevent industry from hiding facts about their product or irresponsibly commercializing it

Dosage will be much more reliable with legalized industry thus overdoses will be prevented

Increased visibility into the lives of addicts will act as a strong deterrent especially for those who are too young to comprehend the real life consequences and ease of addiction of some substances. Parents should already be showing their children documentaries of real life drug addicts as there are many now, freely available on YouTube, etc. which are far better of a depiction of the problems surrounding drug use than any PSA or educational videos I watched in school (I’m a 80′s-90s kid..)

The dangerous crimes committed by drug addicts can be prevented through harm reduction techniques

If the industry is regulated to support the addicts they create and detox them, etc., then theft and prostitution on behalf of the addicts can be averted

Reach out at point of sale can offer mental health services and mental health checks may be required to obtain certain drugs. Alternatives may be offered to prevent incentive for customers to obtain drugs on the street

The development of dangerous synthetic drugs and alternatives to illicit substances may be averted by legalization of safer and more natural drugs

The development and distribution of dangerous alternatives such as k2 and fentanyl can be averted if safer drugs are produced at scale and sold at competitive prices

The drug industry will produce benefits for all aspects of society as a side effect of the economic activities surrounding this industry

Technology will be progressed as research and innovation in the drug space is legalized and incentivized. This increases the potential for safer drugs to be developed and for more effective methods of detox, addiction prevention, and rehabilitation to be developed

The presence of a legalized industry will increase legitimate and stable economic opportunity spanning many fields

People who would otherwise have jobs as illicit or underground drug dealers could have jobs in a legalized industry which they can list on a resume, thus increasing economic mobility for large portions of society

Drug legalization can prevent global international economic instability and prevent immigration crises

Control over the production supply chain by a consumer base can prevent terrorist activity, the rise of gangs and the rise of warlords outside the country, as these organizations have historically gained traction through the exploitation of the drug trade. A competitive legal industry could serve to legitimize the operations of these organizations and provide incentive for them to pursue peaceful relations with local people and the outside world. Otherwise a legalized industry would fill market demand and compete these organizations out of existence. 

Economic stabilization can limit emigration, as in the case of economic migrants, and make the world more secure globally

Removing power from gangs and drug lords will prevent emigration, as it would prevent the creation of refugees fleeing from the circumstances these organizations create

The following points present my suggestions for the most practical and effective regulation techniques

Price controls should not be established. Price should be competitive, to make the products sold by legalized and regulated industry more appealing to consumers than the products of an illicit industry (because they would cheaper, as well as being of higher verifiable quality, etc.) We are already seeing this effect with legalization efforts in the United States, in which black markets are still thriving because states are artificially increasing the price of legal drugs such that they aren’t competitive compared to black market products

Machines, procedure, and telemetry can be used to regulate the distribution of drugs such that the drugs don't end up on the street. We can distribute cash effectively with ATMs so we should also be able to distribute drugs in a similar way

The industry should be established in an incremental way such that people who may be effected by the change are compensated or given an advantage in establishing legitimate business, so not to disrupt local economies which may be reliant upon illicit drug trade and shift economic power away from minority social groups who may be most subjected to the street-level manifestations of the industry 

Gangs will retaliate for a long time as their business is being taken from them. We created a beast with the drug war and it will not easily disappear, so the development of a legalized industry must be looked upon as a long term endeavor, and we must stay the course despite retaliation and the fear it will cause

The effects of drug use can be insulated from technical industries through the use of systematic drug tests and the use of sophisticated and highly redundant quality control and assurance methods. Engineers, doctors, and pilots will not all become drug addicts if these industries use techniques to prevent drug use among its highly skilled employees

Most jobs are relatively low risk and thus regulations should not attempt to keep everybody who participates in the work for to stay clean of drugs

To prevent drugs from being bought and resold on the street, certain drugs may be regulated such that they must be administered on site. 

To prevent dangerous activities of drug users while they are on hard drugs such as LSD or other psychedelic substances from affecting others within society, certain drugs may be regulated such that they must be administered on site.

Further, only small amounts may be sold to any given person at a time. A potential mechanism to facilitate this regulation would be the use of cards that may be issued to allow cartels of sellers to keep track of how many items a particular customer has purchased in a given time. These cards or ids could be distributed such that the identity of the person is not stored or even used at all. An application and renewal process may need to exist involving psychiatric vetting and physical identification. The ability of central authorities to link identities to history of purchase can present a risk to customers. 

Trained and certified staff, like doctors, psychiatrists, and professionals trained in restraint, as well as supporting facilities, may be required for certain commercial operations, particularly those which require administration of site due to potent disorienting effects of certain substances. This may seem like a nightmarish setting in which to consume drugs, but these types of facilities could be made presentable and fun. Commercial operations will find ways to create appealing experiences within the frameworks of regulation

Consumption off site may present risk of use while operating sensitive machinery or automobiles. This may provide further motivation to enforce consumption on site or to use some other method of prevention like confiscation of car keys and offer of driving service on site

Transport of substances off site may be necessary to increase the appeal of legalized product and allow the legalized industry to effectively compete with criminal enterprises, although consistency and quality of product along with lessened prices may be sufficient. The resale of substances may primarily target those who are underage since this is a market that most likely would not be served in the case of legalization, which would make this aspect of regulation a point of contention. Decriminalization allows that underage market to be served, but Portugal has shown positive results after decriminalization. 

To mitigate the size of the underage market which thus creates a niche for gangs and other violent actors to fill, lowering of legal ages of consumption may be practical. One of the points of legalization is to prevent the rise of violent criminal organizations and the negative effects they have upon society. The negative effects of increased consumption among youth may be outweighed by the prevention of violent crime. 

Mental health checks may be required for the purchase of certain substances

The economic stability of individual customers may also be necessary to evaluate in order to sell to certain individuals, so that drugs aren’t allowed to be sold to someone who is destitute or at risk of becoming destitute

The industry may provide rehabilitation services in many ways, taxation may serve as an effective means to establish a universal robust rehab system and welfare program requiring that rehab be carried out, so that people have a chance to rebound in case they become addicted and aren't forced into prostitution or to commit acts of theft to support drug habits. The worst that could happen in the scenario of legalization is that more people become addicted to drugs (and also driving becomes less safe as a side effect of increased drug use) If drugs are not criminalized and there is no violence surrounding it, and if prices can be brought down because of decreased risk associated with doing business, then people should be able to cope with their problems and function as addicts with (maybe) a lessened capacity to perform work (Joseph McCarthy was a heroin addict for example) until they gain the ability to overcome their addiction. Welfare as described above would probably be cheaper than paying police to enforce drug laws and to incarcerate people, and the industry would further provide benefit to the social mobility of economic minorities which would increase the power of local economies. The spread of disease would be prevented which would collectively save society a lot of money and provide stability. The industry could also be taxed to supplement the cost of this kind of welfare, so the industry and the surrounding regulatory infrastructure should easily have the ability to solve any problems that the industry creates 

Counter arguments to legalization, in support of criminalization

Arguments may be made that criminalization is the desirable solution, in order to insulate ones children or family from access to substances. Many people would support this argument even if it means that economically disadvantaged children suffer more as a consequence. Ultimately, people will want to protect their own children at the cost of everyone else’s safety. Criminalization may be an effective way to achieve this morally questionable goal. 

However, one may say that the immense emotional responses individuals may experience when considering effects on their children may cloud judgement and, further, families with economic means to escape risky situations may be isolated from the reality of the situation in the places that drug trade and drug use manifest their effects. Negative effects of criminalization may simply be transferred to other areas or other countries, particularly those without the economic means to carry out criminalization effectively. One may describe this tactic as classist or selfish in motivation. Legalization may pay for itself and thus prove to provide a more equalized solution while maybe not being able to achieve the classist goal of total isolation from access to drugs for certain segments of society (wealthy people’s children, etc.)

Increased presence of police in neighborhoods supposedly reduces crime. My question is: what kinds of crime? Maybe violent crime, robberies and overt drug sales are prevented, but drug transactions may actually still be occurring in the area, but just undetected. Also, increased better economic circumstances may correlate with police presence, so how can we know if this phenomenon caused the change or if some phenomenon in parallel caused the change, like greater access to technology for those who can “afford” to have more police in the neighborhood (local governments typically assign greater police coverage to areas of greater economic circumstance)

I have been told, though I have not yet found material on this yet, that the string of violent crime in the 80′s caused by crack addiction, which particularly instigated addicts to commit violent robberies with handguns and knives in order to support their addiction, was only solved by mandatory minimum sentences. However, through legalization, cocaine may reach a low enough price point and safer alternative drugs may be cheap enough and prevalent enough that crack wouldn’t be a popular phenomenon anymore, rehabilitation programs would be more available, and the sale of crack may even be effectively outlawed through regulation.

One way to eliminate the threat of state socialist dictatorship might be to construct an anarchist society

This is a perceived threat that has been used to justify extraordinary military spending, aggressive international covert activities, and to strengthen authorities of both democratic capitalist nations and less or non-democratic socialist nations

If a system of Anarchism works moderately well socially and economically, and the anarchist society is 100% transparent and also active about exporting press material and allowing foreign journalists to report, then the socialist governments may not be able to gain enough political momentum to carry out war against the anarchist territories.

Thus a huge savings in military expenditure could be achieved, potentially making the prospect of setting up an anarchist society slightly more appealing to an average person.

Even in the case of a partial secession from a parent nation, with the parent nation still remaining mostly or partially intact, allowing an anarchist society to form might likely result in a political advantage for the parent nation against a socialist nation when it comes to defense.

If countries keep up an offensive stance against socialist countries for instead of a purely defensive one, with the exception of offense directed towards nations that have committed significant atrocities against humanity in the form of genocide, mass brutality or mass slavery, then they are the enemy that we should all be fighting against, and we should maybe even hope that socialist nations are preparing to rid the global threat of the decision making bodies of these countries, and we should prepare to maintain democracy somehow in the event of the imposition of dominion from an invading socialist nation.

If you allowed anarchism to happen, you would technically be making it easier for socialist and communist governments to achieve their goal of implementing socialism, but not necessarily strengthening their central authorities in the process.

With anarchism, except under extreme circumstances, you could individually opt out and resume doing things the old way, subjecting yourself to the rule of an authoritative nation state, at least in a way that is acceptable enough not to invoke declarations of war against you by an army of free people.

This mechanism of decision making and assembly of forces for warfare would ensure that the ability for significant enough forces to oppose groups of opt outs would tolerate a wide range of political solutions chosen by those who opted out

Meaning, that opt outs could establish democratic governments using a wide spectrum of political and social arrangements, but not be able to establish dictatorships.

Could Anarchism Present a Threat to State Socialist Governments?

Besides the threat of inspiring social uprisings against authority, What might happen if free people conducted an attack upon a country they did not agree with?

What can be considered, politically, as an attack by one nation upon another nation, may only be acts originating from a nation. Thus acts carried out by free people may be viewed only as terrorist activity by the nation which came under attack and their allies.

Attacks like these may trigger defensive war by these nations, and thus an anarchistic society without explicit controls on the prevention of aggressive action from free individuals of the anarchist society, may be viewed as a potential threat from socialist nations, and so this strategy of using anarchism to mitigate war between nations might not be effective, and momentum to establish a movement towards anarchism thus may not be able to use this prospect as one of its mobilizing claims to potentially benefit society.

And when I say mobilizing, I mean not only the mobilization of people towards anarchist secession or revolution, but mobilization of parent and neighboring nations to aid in transition to anarchism and to maintain peaceful relations between themselves and the anarchist territory(ies)

Dictatorships Present a Real Threat to Everyone:

Dictatorships present a risk to neighboring countries, because proximity to countries controlled by dictatorships loses them the ability to use information to mitigate violence. There is no other way to persuade an adversary not to use violence.

You lose the ability to inform masses of people, and instead you only get to inform a small minority already biased leaders, with the leaders being the only decision makers. Thus the likelihood of your, or your free societies', information to persuade the decisions of these decision makers becomes predictably lessened.

If you really are at fault then that will resonate with the people in the case of a democratic society, and war may be truly justified by them, but if there is any doubt that war is necessary then the people at large will collectively hold enough variation in their beliefs and philosophies about life such that decisions to declare war will be blocked.

Aggression against Dictatorships may be Justified by Neighboring Nations and Territories

According to all of the above arguments, aggressive action against dictatorships can be justified, even on behalf of anarchist societies, if it had the intention of dismantling the dictatorship in favor of a more democratic decision making structure, as a means of significantly reducing risk of war against you and the global affects of war which could destabilize your economy and society.

This is not to suggest that war would ever be a good idea or morally justified, but that in the eyes of common people war may be justified and thus may arise under these conditions.

Mitigating the Risk of Aggressive Action on behalf of the Parent Country:

During an anarchist secession, peace could be preserved between neighboring states, if the breakup doesn't get dirty and people rights to property in certain areas doesn't become infringed, that will give the united states reason to declare war.

However, technically in an anarchist society, if the anarchist federation just doesn't offer property protection from the people anymore, than those business are not having their property infringe by a state actor, and it is simply to the property owner to protect that property against free people