How the Free Market Gave Us Drug Prohibition
Reporting on the prohibition-related violence that has claimed 40,000 or so lives in Mexico since 2006, British journalist Ed Vulliamy zeroes in on the real problem: capitalism. Mexico's murderous cartels, he explains in the Guardian, are simply "acting like any corporation":
Not by coincidence, Juarez is also a model for the capitalist economy. Recruits for the drug war come from the vast, sprawling maquiladora—bonded assembly plants where, for rock-bottom wages, workers make the goods that fill America's supermarket shelves or become America's automobiles, imported duty-free. Now, the corporations can do it cheaper in Asia, casually shedding their Mexican workers, and Juarez has become a teeming recruitment pool for the cartels and killers. It is a city that follows religiously the philosophy of a free market….
Narco-cartels are not pastiches of global corporations, nor are they errant bastards of the global economy—they are pioneers of it. They point, in their business logic and modus operandi, to how the legal economy will arrange itself next. The Mexican cartels epitomised the North American free trade agreement long before it was dreamed up, and they thrive upon it….
Mexico's war is how the future will look, because it belongs not in the 19th century with wars of empire, or the 20th with wars of ideology, race and religion—but utterly in a present to which the global economy is committed, and to a zeitgeist of frenzied materialism we adamantly refuse to temper: it is the inevitable war of capitalism gone mad.
Vulliamy mentions in passing that some people think ending the war on drugs might improve the situation, but he deems that proposal "of tangential importance" because it does not address the corrupting influence of all the money that can be made by selling drugs. In short, he offers a long-winded, left-wing version of Hillary Clinton's remark that we can't legalize drugs because "there is just too much money in it."
[Thanks to Richard Cowan for the link.]
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Haha... yeah.. before the maquiladoras, Mexico was a paradise of equality where no one would dare sacrifice their life of abundance and peace to smuggle drugs.
Actually, Mexico was fun to visit before the drug war went berserk. Killed many a brain cell in Fred's Rainbow Bar in Juarez. Of course the time we ran into the drunk UTEP co-eds also happened to be the time we brought the wives, but that's another story.
I laugh at the border in, say, 1969 compared to today. My 16 year-old self, brother and friend drank in the bar in Palomas having lifted a leg over the chain holding the two sides of the chain-link fence at the border.
They didn't want me to run drugs, but workers. They said that since I was 16 I wouldn't get busted.
I was young and stupid but not that stupid!
... Hobbit
I used to go to Laredo back in the late 90s. And before that I had been to Juarez and TJ. All were great times to be had. It is a shame you can't safely go there anymore.
Mexico's murderous cartels, he explains in the Guardian, are simply "acting like any corporation"
Wow. British corporations field paramilitaries to fight for turf? Who knew?
Well, maybe American banana corporations, but who else, really?
There was the East India Company, but I think that stopped at least a century ago.
No wonder the corporation he works for is called the Guardian!
Boots has been warring with Superdrug for the better part of a decade now. More than three thousand dead.
"Not by coincidence, Juarez is also a model for the capitalist economy."
Yep.
Why, when anyone thinks "capitalism", Juarez immediately comes to mind.
Or not.
Hey, nobody knows capitalism like the PRI.
Isn't it funny how all these violent, gang ridden industries only crop up when the government makes a given product illegal?
So is it capitalism or prohibition that creates the violence? Which created Al Capone? And why isn't Anheiser-Bush hiring mercenaries to mow down it's competitors?
SOMALIA!
You know what Ciudad Juarez means in Spanish? Galt's Gulch. Its illegal to snort coke in Juarez that isn't laid out in the $ymbol of the almight dollar.
The protagonist of the song "Cocaine Blues" was overtaken down in Juarez, Mexico for that very reason.
Free markets are for Christ-fags.
Christfags!!!
Drink.
I've always wondered how someone like this gets a soapbox, unless the intention is to distract the crowd and get them looking in non-productive directions, as the thieves and pickpockets do their work.
You always have the Jonnie One Notes out there - I recently met a guy into Hemp - every subject area we got into and dammit if it wasn't hemp - social security? hemp. Why the Heat lost in the NBA finals? - Hemp - will the sun rise tomorrow - only if there is hemp - this Guardian writer seems in the same vein except its capitalism capitalism capitalism and the guardian actually prints him the hemp guy I talked to people just ignore.
If the Guardian Trust started dealing drugs perhaps they might break even in about ten years...
MOBILE HOME PARK POLITICAL MAYHEM
TRAILOR PARK TRASH
Now we have been off the blog community for over a month doing a self move to a newer unit within a Seniors Mobile Home Community, and we are what Buba refers to as trailer park trash which may or may not be the case, it depends upon one's point of view, the Irish Travels have [4] Four area's located around the country which are established communities in which the customs of the Irish Travelers are in fact separate countries, with actual Kings running the communities under Irish Travelers Laws and Customs, then you had the Lawrence Welk Retirement Community that was established in California, my homeroom teacher from High School days retired to that very community. Well in every community that are politics, and since we were in moving from one unit to another and off the usual blog rantings we got involved in the local community politics, generally we don't care what goes on in the community as long as we have a roof over our head, food in the fridge, a bed to flop on, the [BBC] British Broadcasting Company to watch on the tele/boob tube, but we got caught up in the Senior Mobile Home Park Political Mayhem.
COMMUNISM VERSES IMPERIALISM
In our park we are now broken down into [3] Three groups, Owners, well they owner the units in which they live but not the land upon which they live who have formed an ASSOCIATION, what an association represents is a Communist Party, they have a Chairman, and his close henchmen who go around when the landowner's representatives close down for the evening or on the weekends take off to get away from the Mobile Home Park Political Mayhem. They tool around in their golf carts giving the evil eye to full renters, those of choose not to be stuck with home of any type and section 8 [Eight] renters, those who can no longer afford to live on their own without government assistance. An of course they have taken the Landlord to court with Pro Bona Lawyers, all that means is they are using the case as a tax write off against other cases where they are making a killing. Now these clowns tell the Association Members that they have never lost a case against Mobile Home Owners, and that is true they deal their way out of going to court, the association goes in with dollar signs in their eyes and comes out with black eyes. Now, we don't take well to threats or intimidation, money works we have our price and can be bought off, but out and out threats and evil eye's, well that means the guy is looking for a black eye on our part, so when the Association Chairman made his move on us we offer to plant a black eye were his evil eye was, where upon our Commie Party Leader made a hasty retreat.
ZELL MILLER
Now, the Owners were give long term lease agreements, by the Landowner who is worth a cool [90] ninety million United States Dollars, but is in his eighties with failing health, it mostly works that if your [60] sixty you have about [40%] forty percent chance of seeing [70] seventy, if your [70] Seventy you have about a [30%] thirty percent chance of seeing [80], so the owner has about a [20%] twenty percent chance of seeing [90]. But the owner has children, and a [$90] ninety million dollar corporation with shell companies included. They mobile home business was set up with owners of units being the safety net, but have become a legal club thru associations that are driving up the cost of living within non- total owner Mobile Home Parks, parks in which the unit owners are owners of the park in which they live, vice those who live in units that are upon land owned by a corporation. So, in this case the option has been placed upon the table that since the ring leader of the association has a long term least and the association and its ring leaders represent long term legal problems, look to the headache solver, Zell Miller of Chicago. In the Mobile Home Industry, the name that strikes fear, from owners, thru association, and renters or any connection to the Mobile Home Industry is Zell Miller of Chicago. The Mobile Home Corporation of the Community in which we live has placed on the table the sale of the park the Chicago problem solver Zell Miller, and if anyone is the Excedrin Table to the headaches of Mobile Home Park Association, its Zell Miller, the man strikes fear in the hearts of mere mortal men. We will continue with our rantings Mobile Home Park Mayhem on another day, but now we have to work on putting up a Sun Screen on the unit, the work never stops.
HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVINIEN
Let me tell you how this relates to hemp...
+infinity
and beyond!
So, your Park is in Juarez, go on....
"what an [Homeowner's] association represents is a Communist Party"
Now you're making sense!
Isn't that a DRINK?
Do you want to party, it's party time.
Ouch. I almost sympathize with how much this news must feel for you guys. The truth hurts, doesn't it?
What, that the writers at the Guardian are complete idiots?
We knew that already.
What truth? Can you not read?
If you substitute "governments" for "corporations", his article makes sense.
"Narco-cartels are not pastiches of global governments, nor are they errant bastards of the global economy ? they are pioneers of it."
"[T]he cartels, acting like any government, have outsourced violence to gangs affiliated or unaffiliated with them, who compete for tenders with corrupt police officers."
actually, some reasonoids sound about as deranged when they refer to govt. as liberals do when they refer to corporashuns(tm)
Ain't I a smart flatfoot for figgerin that out!
smooches!
I dunno... when I think of capitalism, I tend to think of Pemex, Mexico's state-owned petroleum industry.
This is all proof that Carlos Slim didn't make his money on telecom, he's actually a evil drug baron.
Recruits for the drug war come from the vast, sprawling maquiladora?bonded assembly plants where, for rock-bottom wages, workers make the goods that fill America's supermarket shelves or become America's automobiles, imported duty-free.
If only those eeeeevil corporations hadn't opened factories in Mexico, then the somewhat poor factory workers would have remained desperately poor farmers...and everyone knows impoverished farmers never get recruited by drug cartels.
"imported duty-free."
Oh, NO!! The HORROR!!
For sure. Good thing Afghanistan avoided the lure of developing out of an agrarian society into a free market democracy -- why, they would be awash in drugs if that were the case!
...everyone knows impoverished farmers never get recruited by drug cartels.
If the drug cartel offers you silver or lead, which one would you choose?
Ugh.... so we should outlaw money?
But then only the outlaws will have money!
And then they will recruit poor farmers in Mexico in to their cartels which will cause massive crime and violence!!
Wait a minute..
ATOMS!
Of all Eurofaggotry, Britfaggotry and Francofaggotry is the worst. This shit-for-brains, socialistic assclown lost credibility with the first paragraph -- bullshit is bullshit, especially if a statist hack is spewing it.
Austro and Swedefaggery are at least as bad, IMO.
Califaggery and New Yorkfaggery are potent domestic blends.
Super-Califaggery sounds quite atrocious
Wish they all could be Connifornia fags!
How interesting that so many supposedly tolerant individuals use a name for homosexuals as a suffix of contempt.
Shut up, faggot.
Wow, you're a pleasant one. Support for gay mirage covers a multitude of intolerances, I've heard.
Gay mirage is just an illusion.
They make me THUUUUPER thirsty.
We toe the lion when it comes to gay mirage.
It's also a term used to describe a cigarette or a bundle of sticks. How do you know we don't have contempt for cigarettes?
Unless of course, you are just a whiny little bitch looking for an excuse to be offended...
Not by coincidence, Juarez is also a model for the capitalist economy
No you stupid fucking douche bag....
This is how mexican capitalists compete.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StopeAvUgJs
"Recruits for the drug war come from the vast, sprawling maquiladora?bonded assembly plants where, for rock-bottom wages, workers make the goods that fill America's supermarket shelves or become America's automobiles, imported duty-free."
As somebody who's done industrial development for years--and lived in Mexico for more than a year...
Those manufacturing jobs never really materialized once China came on line as a capitalist machine--he's not talking about jobs that have been lost; he's talking about manufacturing jobs that never materialized.
The recruits for some of these drug lords are coming from poor Mexicans who used to work as gardeners and construction workers in the United States. The downturn in immigration arrests coming across the border tracked the downturn in the housing market pretty closely. ...especially considering that much of the housing boom happened in Las Vegas, Phoenix, San Diego, Riverside County and other places with a high preponderance of illegal aliens.
Why wouldn't high unemployment and a cratered construction industry make for a lot more in the way of unemployed illegal aliens?
...but no! It must be our free trade agreements!
Baloney. His theory ignores the facts.
His story also lacks an explanation of how Chinese unemployment (as rock-bottom wage jobs migrate to places like Vietnam) has not led to a vast Chinese drug cartel.
He also alleges that drug cartels are making regular deposits at their friendly local Banorte: "Cartel bosses and street gangbangers cannot go around in trucks full of cash. They have to bank it ? and politicians could throttle this river of money, as they have with actions against terrorist funding." I'm not even going to dignify that with a response.
China has harsh penalties for drug dealing (e.g. summary public execution), which is why there has been no drug dealing in China, as well as a domestic police apparatus up to the job of punishing dealers and putting users into insane asylums where they belong.
Yes, China has no illegal drug trade or violent trafficking whatsoever. I hear the Chinese-Burmese border is great place for a relaxing, drug-free summer holiday.
I can go down to any random corner in a bad part of my city and get any kind of drug I want if the price is right. I dare you to try the same in Beijing.
I know several friends who have gotten drugs near Peking's Legation Center. Many of the non-Han areas of Peking similarly provide drugs to willing clientele, and it's hard to imagine any of the entertainment spots as being free of drugs.
That's without even getting into the drug paradise that is Macao.
The Truth|6.22.11 @ 7:53PM|#
"I can go down to any random corner in a bad part of my city and get any kind of drug I want if the price is right. I dare you to try the same in Beijing."
I can scream "Obama's an asshole!" on any street corner of my city.
Try shouting "Tanks!" in Tiananmen Square.
Hint, da troof: Your fave country is not a free country. And the closer we come to that example, the worse off we are.
Including "Trains!"
That's because you don't live in Beijing.
Going to a US city you've never been to and finding the right drug dealers is a riskier propo.
It is interesting that in export markets there does seem to be a understanding between law enforcement and the cartels...about selling to the locals.
One of the reasons Calderon went full metal jacket on the cartels was because they started selling to the locals--breaking that agreement. In the wake of 9/11, our security really clamped down at the border, and for a while, it got really hard to move product into the U.S.
Anyway, that unwritten agreement between law enforcement looking the other way so long as you're not selling product to the locals broke down when the cartels ended up stuck with tons of product they couldn't move anymore.
I bet it's that way in a lot of places--like the Golden Triangle. As long as it's for export rather than domestic consumption, local law enforcement is probably more likely to look the other way.
In Mexico, it's kinda well known among the expats, that stuff is easy enough to find when you're in Southern Mexico, but it's really low quality.
Don't try to confuse The Truth with The Facts.
It pretty much seems da troof hasn't gotten closer to China than the last Friedman column.
The last time I was there the (CNN or BBC) TV coverage of any Tibetan news was amusing: "We are having technical difficulties".
In the south when watching the HK news they just cut to PSAs about Dengue Fever whenever something offensive comes on.
Penalties in the US for drug dealing are pretty harsh too, so I don't buy that.
One "advantage" China has is that there are no privacy rights and enough desperately poor people that they really can afford a policeman on every corner.
putting users into insane asylums where they belong.
Ever had a glass of wine, dipshit? Insane asylum for you!
I dunno what China is like, but drugs don't necessarily create ghettos. Just cause there isn't a part of town you don't even go to doesn't mean you can't score some H.
which is why there has been no drug dealing in China,
Shut the fuck up
"Baloney. His theory ignores the facts."
It's worse than that.
There are a limited number of ways to organize humans to accomplish something. Churches, governments of various forms and commercial enterprises select of the lot and as a result share the techniques.
Regardless of that generality, there are some specific differences. And the drug trade most closely approximates a totalitarian government rather than any legal commercial arrangement:
Screw up in a church, and they toss your ass.
Screw up in a (legal) commercial enterprise and you get fired.
Screw up in a modern socialist/democracy and you get a job in either a rent-seeker or a small agency.
Screw up in either a totalitarian government or a criminal syndicate, and you get shot.
I can't stand it anymore. There is simply no way to communicate with the Guardians, both upper- and lower-case ones.
Ah yes, "materialism" the bugaboo of righteous folk who never have and never will have to worry about having enough to eat or warm and clean place to sleep.
It's a subconscious trick. Associate capitalism only with things, as if it ignores people. Obviously that'll turn people off since goods are only half an economy. The market, of course, manages services (essentially, people helping other people) as well.
This is so dumb it barely is worth commenting on. Is mexican coca cola equally warring in mexico? What about mexican vw and fiat? Bloodletting galore? No you fucktard. That's because they are legal entities. Rules constrain the limits of the playing field and establish fair play. Would they turn into bloodthirsty monsters if buying a car was illegal? No, they would simply leave. Maybe someone that came to fill the gap would be a ruthless bastard, but legal coporations aren't caged tigers waiting to kill their trainers. They're completely different.
I seem to have missed your post when writing what I posted below. We are on the same topic. I am not sure, however, that the history of corporations indicates that some will behave very badly to protect their interests. I think (broadly) of the battles between organized labor unions and miners in the early 1900's. Both organized groups (the mining companies and the unions) used violence to protect their positions.
Every group (call it what you want, collective, government, corporation, union, etc) are a product of their times. Comparing modern narcos with modern corporations is apples and oranges. Its a lazy way of saying "See, I'm right about X because Y exists" even though you know you can't prove X and Y are at all similar except in 1 way.
Union violence has largely been directed at replacement workers ("scabs") or at current workers who break the picket line; which if you think about it, is rather lame.
Employers want (naturally) control over the workplace that they've created; for a number of obvious reasons.
Labor and anti-labor violence is however nothing like it used to be; I think that's partly because employers are no longer the self-enforcers they used to be (in fact, that they had to be really given the circumstances) and partly because so much has changed in the U.S. re: the employment picture - extractive industries have lost their importance for example, and work is generally much less difficult, etc. The workforce is far more specialized, educated, etc. than it used to be in other words. Also, as a result of the benefits of a commercial society manners have improved.
I don't even know where to start with this. There's too much Bullenschei?e.
"Bullenschei?e."
I'm stealing that.
Just to, perhaps, take this in another direction...there seems to be a presumption at the heart of this that is probably in reality more of a question than an axiom. The question is whether "Black Markets" are "freer" than the sanctioned and regulated "normal" markets, and therefore provide a glimpse at how unregulated markets would behave.
The article seems to presume that the answer is yes, that because black markets operate entirely outside the legal system, they are, in fact, freer than legal markets as there is no central authority enforcing rules. I think the cartels operate in ways that argue against this premise, but it is an interesting idea to think about.
Neu, that's a strawman for all but the most anarchic (and even then, I imagine that they don't see violence as a regular feature of their system). When libertarians talk about the free market, they are generally referencing a marketplace where fraud and other forms of coercion are removed as options: this is the aspiration of libertarianism whether it be through the use of a small centralized monopoly of force (government, if you will), competing providers of force (anarchy, if you will), or some combination of the above.
It isn't a strawman, it is a question, but I don't disagree with your points.
If completely and exclusively socializing an industry is equivalent to the government saying "no one, except us, may provide these goods/services", then banning it is one step more restrictive.
Black markets aren't really "free" markets either, since "free market" still assumes some legal restrictions imposed through coercion (property rights, particularly -- also, competing through quality or prices, rather than just murdering your competitor). I suppose they might be a better prediction for anarchocapitalism, but not really for minarchism.
I suppose they might be a better prediction for anarchocapitalism, but not really for minarchism.
I agree. Although, of course, once you let in any regulation (minarchy) then the discussion becomes about how far those regulations go before they are inappropriate. Over at Crooked Timber you tend to get the term Propertarian to refer to minarchists due to the focus on property rights as the only place for proper regulation.
But I would not that the idea presented by The Immaculate Trousers about "competing providers of force" is unlikely to look like anything other than what we see with the cartels as the medium of exchange between competing providers of force would most likely be, well, force.
That's the rub. There is no such thing as a sustainable minarchy, because it is invariably the nature of any legal monopoly to grow.
It may be harder to conceptualize, but anarcho-capitalism is the purest form of a non-coercive society. We also shouldn't let the limits of our imagination lead us to completely dismiss something like anarchy. Just because I cannot, right now, completely see how every little detail would work out, does not justify retaining a state which I not just suspect (like with anarchy), but actually know, for a fact, is killing and robbing people every day.
Demanding that every little nag be reassured and laid to rest as a precondition for doing away with the murderous state just seems like a limp justification for keeping a murderous state.
Just because I cannot, right now, completely see how every little detail would work out
So, you're going to convince people to abolish the state by telling them that they have to abolish the state to find out what it will be like when they abolish the state.
Not too convincing. Of course, if you are Nancy Pelosi, it probably sounds good enough.
In my experience with an-caps it has little to do with convincing; it's purely about being "right".
The burden of proof should be on the statist to explain why an institution should be allowed to continue to exist which robs and murders innocent people.
Anarcho-capitalism offers a plausible way out of that trap. It's the only route that doesn't end with a "well, SOME state is OK, only this time, we're going to be really, really careful what we put in the constitution so that it can never be abused again!" bullshit fantasy.
So you're going to convince me to keep the state with phantasms of what might happen if it's abolished, though you have no actual proof that any of it would come to pass? What is this, the Somalia argument? Not too convincing.
I grant that fear of the unknown isn't always smart. I just think you'll never get anywhere by telling people you have no idea what will happen. You have to give them some plausible reassurance that it won't look like Somalia.
I hear you. There are a lot of possible answers, both historical and theoretical, but they don't lend themselves to sound-bite length comments.
What phantasms? The Anarchy of Roystgnr is 100% real, and is exactly the stateless society you're looking for! We have no taxes, no police, no military, and no attempts to coerce you whatsoever!
Perhaps this anarchy isn't to your liking, because it's wholly powerless and incapable of preventing a coercive expensive police state from filling the power vacuum? But isn't that part of the bargain? Read that "no police, no military" bit again, and consider the implications.
So what needs to change before my anarchy becomes viable? If the problem is merely that hundreds of millions of people don't respect it as a system, well, that's basically how constitutionally limited government failed too.
No one has proven that every possible cardboard plumbing system would leak either. That doesn't mean I'm rushing to install it in my house because copper is expensive.
We also shouldn't let the limits of our imagination lead us to completely dismiss something like cardboard plumbing. Just because I cannot, right now, completely see how every little detail would work out, does not justify retaining a metal pipe system which I not just suspect (like with cardboard), but actually know, for a fact, is rattling and annoying me when I turn the faucet off every day.
Thankfully cardboard plumbing is easily testable. Perhaps you can think of a non-insulting, intelligent analogy, instead of a purposefully terrible one.
Not really -- a cardboard plumbing advocate could just say that the cardboard plumbing system I installed wasn't the system that would work. Just like anarchists say that Somalia and the mafia underworld aren't real anarchy.
What's the difference between that and the trope that Russia/China/Vietnam/North Korea/East Germany weren't real communism? Actually, Somalia's standard of living has drastically increased since its government gave up and the Mafia wouldn't be nearly as powerful without government restrictions on drugs, booze, guns and other things that people want, so there are specific, concrete objections to your strawmen.
Turn the faucet off more slowly and it won't rattle so much. The rattle is from the momentum of a rushing column of water being brought to an abrupt halt in pipes that are likely not securely hung in the walls. That or the air risers at the faucets are either missing or not functioning properly.
"I suppose they might be a better prediction for anarchocapitalism, but not really for minarchism."
That's not really true. Prohibition creates the violence, not the mere trade.
The fact that the drugs are illegal means that it's going to attract the most violent elements in society, as they're the only ones willing to suffer the violence of the state if they get caught. It also artificially constrains the supply, which drives up profits, incentivising normally non-violent people to enter into the violent lifestyle. Beyond that, it's limited to a single given sector of the market, meaning all these nefarious elements are coalesced in an organized way, where such behavior would otherwise be scattered and disorganized, and consequently ineffective.
it's going to attract the most violent elements in society, as they're the only ones willing to suffer the violence of the state if they get caught.
Bzzt. I don't see why there would be any correlation between violentness and willingness to be punished.
The violence is created by the fact that the market participants have no recourse to state protection of their rights, so violence becomes the only way to settle disputes, as well as being a convenient tool to "compete" in the marketplace.
Beyond that, it's limited to a single given sector of the market, meaning all these nefarious elements are coalesced in an organized way, where such behavior would otherwise be scattered and disorganized, and consequently ineffective.
Not really true -- org crime tends to diversify into many illegal "services", mostly vice crimes but also darker deeds such as murder for hire and kidnapping.
"Bzzt. I don't see why there would be any correlation between violentness and willingness to be punished."
Repeated participating in violence desensitizes you toward violence. That's why the military puts people though harsh boot camps.
"Not really true -- org crime tends to diversify into many illegal "services", mostly vice crimes but also darker deeds such as murder for hire and kidnapping."
Wow, that has nothing at all to do with what I said. All of those are illegal activities, which is exactly the point. Legislative prohibition creates marketplaces where nefarious elements know they can gather and organize.
"The question is whether "Black Markets" are "freer" than the sanctioned and regulated "normal" markets, and therefore provide a glimpse at how unregulated markets would behave."
Well, no, they're not.
"Risk insurance" costs are built into any black-market pricing, either directly (in the authorities' vigorish) or indirectly in the cost of legal protection (legal fees to stay out of jail).
So the price is not set freely by the seller and the buyer, it is heavily distorted by the government.
So the price is not set freely by the seller and the buyer, it is heavily distorted by the government.
I don't know if I buy that argument. The buyer and seller are determining how much that risk is worth.
They are not free. They are limited in participation by strictly those that will break the law to participate. This not only narrows the pool of participants and leans it towards those that are more destructive, it dissuades those that would try and change the system to be fairer and less violent.
Insert "security company X" for "government" and you see the problem with an an-cap 'system'. Unless you think security companies would be angelic organizations that would never think of using force to interfere with free exchanges.
Some fundamental principles of libertarianism include courts and laws underwhich all individuals are treated equally and all contracts are enforced equally.
That doesn't exist in a black market. It's one of the reasons post-Soviet Russia's economy was rapidly taken over by it's former black market - lack of enforcable contracts and property rights led immediately to corruption. It's why the Russian mafia became so big so fast.
Far from being solely about "less government", libertarianism is actually about a specific and refined form of limit government.
It's about a government that is limited to the role of a fair referee. Without a referee, you can't have a fair game. The referee's role is crucial to the fairness and stability of the system, but in order to do that the role of the referee must be one of a limited and external observer and enforcer of rules.
Supply in black markets is being artificially constrained by the state. They are nothing but massive price-fixing schemes created and sustained by the government.
the purest form of unregulated capitalism is the parking lot of a Phish show
its also proof that its the prohibition not the sale of drugs that causes violence
Black markets act the way they do because you can't go to the cops. All a mafia or a cartel is cops for people who can't call the cops. If I am running a legal business and someone comes and robs me, I can call the police and they will take care of it. If someone doesn't pay their bills, I can sue them in court and collect.
If I am doing something illegal, I can't do any of that. If you take my drugs and don't pay me, I can't sue you. An illegal contract is not enforceable in court. If someone comes and robs me, I can't call the cops.
So instead, I have to form a mafia or a cartel that will protect me. All these organizations are, are protection rackets. They are not corporations. They are shadow governments only they enforce the law by killing people.
Drug violence has nothing to do with regulated markets. GM wouldn't start killing people who didn't pay their debts if you got rid of safety regulations on cars or EPA restrictions on factories. The death and the violence arises when you take away people's recourse to law enforcement and the courts. It is about the law, not the market.
You write a lot of stupid shit on here NM. But this post takes the cake. This may be the most inane piece of concern trolling ever posted.
John,
If you look at my post you will note that I say:
"The article seems to presume that the answer is yes, that because black markets operate entirely outside the legal system, they are, in fact, freer than legal markets as there is no central authority enforcing rules. I think the cartels operate in ways that argue against this premise, but it is an interesting idea to think about."
While I didn't go into the detail you did...my "inane piece" essentially agrees with your point. Your inability to read is impressive. Even more impressive is your willingness to continue the insult train as if it makes you seem smarter to the rest of the folks here. Thing is, with the millions of words you have posted here, you are pretty much an open book. Try taking it down a notch and quite acting like a cunt.
To put it another way John.
I posted something I thought was an interesting question in order to get some discussion around the idea. It was one about which many seemed to have something to say...including you. You even made an interesting (if somewhat obvious) contribution to the discussion.
Then followed with a snipe at me for bringing up the topic. I have no problem with incivility on H&R, but I find your recent vitriol towards me fascinatingly off target. You might want to take some time to exorcise whatever demon version of me you have living in your head. I ain't here to push an agenda, but to have a discussion.
My apologies for misunderstanding.
So instead, I have to form a mafia or a cartel that will protect me. All these organizations are, are protection rackets. They are not corporations. They are shadow governments only they enforce the law by killing people.
I disagree that the cartels are all about protection. While the point about the lack of access to courts is central to the violence, these organizations don't really operate like a modern state and aren't all about protection. The use of violence is as much about stamping out competition and manipulating the market as it is about enforcing some black market version of contracts.
Legal corporations do non-violent analogies in their competition with others selling the same products. Self interest goes beyond protecting yourself from the bad actions of others. Self-interest can be served by actively taking steps to weaken or eliminate competition. Regulating that competition by taking violence off of the table is (according to several people here) essential to a "free market," but, in an absolute sense, this is a restriction in freedom as it takes options off of the table.
There's a distinction between free markets and anarchy. If you can sue a guy for ripping you off, it's a free market. If you have to shoot the burn artist to get your money back, it's an anarchy.
I would point out this: too infrequently defenders of capitalism do not make the crucial distinction between the corruption which dominates almost all of the worlds economies and genuine free market capitalism. What is called capitalism is, in fact, "corporatism" and "crony capitalism" - where those with money and influence are able to bend government to their will and to serve their purposes at the expense of the rest of us. The consistent failure to point this out will forever leave us open to the charge of being champions for the Rockefellers and the Gettys and others of that ilk and against the interests of ordinary people.
How many of the wealthy today would be wealthy without government serving their interests? How many millionaires are only millionaires because of IP for example? How often has government done the bidding of the very wealthy? Have they ever done otherwise? How many billion dollar stadiums have been built for the benefit of billionaire sports team owners?
When we stop, when government stops being the private instrument of the very rich and powerful, then we can defend capitalism with integrity and a straight face. When we stop kidding ourselves that the very wealthy do not receive special privileges and consideration in every society beyond the obvious benefits of simply being rich, then we can attack the "progessives" for being fools without being fools ourselves.
You're by and large correct, but be careful: socialists constantly wail about how none of the failures of communism actually prove communism doesn't work, because nobody ever implemented real communism, so our criticism of the Soviet Union, China, etc. isn't valid.
Trotskyists are particularly fond of this tactic. They claim the problem is not communism, which was never really put in place, but instead Stalin. If only Trotsky had taken over, everything would have been fine and we would have seen the triumph of the workers paradise.
Saying that one cannot criticize capitalism because there's no real capitalism right now goes down the same road.
I agree, although I think it is possible to make specific points about specific deviations from a genuinely free market, and the unfair consequences of those favors.
For example, we can point out how farm subsidies distort the market in favor of certain players. We can point out how corruption in the rest of the world is often a consequence of complex, selectivly enforced regulations, often leftover from more socialist times.
If we stick to making specific logical connections between certain "unfree" aspects of the market, and their perverse consequences, then we aren't really falling into that "hasn't really been tried" trap.
I agree with the silliness of putting drug crime at the door of car corporations, but reading the whole article, it seems like his larger point goes almost entirely against the greed of the leaders of the drug cartels who are so interested in becoming wealthy that they're willing to do highly immoral things (like murder) in order to get there. I have no problem with that evaluation. I do think he misses something important when he says decriminaliztion is tangential and the only way to really deal with the problem is to go after the money....well, obviously decriminalization is the best and probably only ethical way to go after the money.
the leaders of the drug cartels who are so interested in becoming wealthy that they're willing to do highly immoral things (like murder)
More accurately, they're highly immoral people--in fact, sociopaths--who have found this is a good way to turn their talents into cash. Funny they don't go into IT or insurance or some other legal industry.
Which makes it not a very good point.
Sure. However, Hazel Meade made an excellent point the other day that greed and egoism in a capitalist system (small government, protections against fraud and injury, etc) directs the greedy and ambitious into producing good things; i.e., a Joseph Stalin in the US is more likely to produce goods that drive his competitor out of business than he is to slaughter millions en masse. Greed, like the poor and gravity, will always be with us, no matter what system we choose.
greed and egoism in a capitalist system (small government, protections against fraud and injury, etc) directs the greedy and ambitious into producing good things
or alternatively, as Friedman puts it - ""...make it more profitable for the wrong people to do the right things."
I would agree that greed inside the free market tends to produce good (or at least useful) things...but remember that a gigantic share of the legal economy in the US is outside the free market. Not to mention the illegal economy where there are some greedy people doing exceptionally nasty things.
And of course it's much easier to make a fortune as a lobbyist than it is as an entrepreneur.
Yes, all of that is true.
OT, but somewhat related.
Algore is pissed that his rent-seeking isn't paying off (and he's being ignored):
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/.....202D84.DTL
Regarding Obama:
"His election was accompanied by intense hope that many things in need of change would change," Gore writes. "Some things have, but others have not. Climate policy, unfortunately, falls into the second category."
He *is* right:
"Bush" = 4 letters
"Obama" = 5 letters
There's your change right there!
I thought the Hit and Run blog was an idyllic retreat from insanity like this.
(Not referring to commenters who are uniformly insane. Rather the lead of this thread.)
Life is hard...
Hey Ruthless.
Long time no c.
Down with people making rational self-interested decisions!!!! We must stop this free market, capitalist disease! Hence-forward, acting on the incentives presented to you will be FORBIDDEN!!!
What a maroon! There is nothing free-market about a black market.
In a free market, people are free to buy and sell whatever they want, to whoever they want.
A black market? Try to move in on my territory, or undercut my price, or sell a nominally better product, and I'll....well, I'll fucking kill you.
Don't sound so free to me.
"Don't sound so free to me."
Yeah, but you don't write for the Guardian.
By the time I got near the end of his rant, just before I quit reading I was reminded of the time I started to read the unibomber manifesto and decided I didn't need to waste any more time on that crap either. Same type of left wing loony bin tripe. It's sad that to get a journalism or teaching degree you have to go throught that bullshit commie brain washing. One would think that simple common sense would prevail and yet for whatever reason it doesn't. How can those people tolerate their own idiocy. Is I was that f'in stupid I'd shoot myself.
You read the whole thing? I read the first sentence and already knew what the rest of it said. I also knew exactly how to destroy his pathetic argument. I get the feeling Reason just posted this to give us some easy target practice.
During WWII, it became obvious that there was no need to reduce every damn island held by the Japanese; we (the allies) could 'hop' them.
As a result, several of them became isolated, could offer no resistance at all, and became merely target practice for trainees.
Guardian, I hereby christen you "Rabaul".
How the mob gave us prohibition. I think the market would actually stabilize the drug prohibition situation.
I think the market would actually stabilize the drug prohibition problems. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol either.
Between this and the shitty Stale piece purporting to assault libertarian thought, it's been a dull week in Democratic-partisan-land.
I had a few Britlanders opine to me about how friendly New Yorkers are and how only MOST of New York sucks rhinoceros balls -- no surprise there, New Yorkers sucking the cocks of Europeans, because most people I meet there are assholes, unfortunately.
Actually this article is all wrong, those Mexican drug cartels are not acting like corporations, they are acting like your standard government.
Exactly. They are not corporations. They are nothing but a police department for people who can't go to the cops.
OK, we've officially exhausted that Goodfellas line. You do realize that characterization is supposed to be complimentary to the mafia/cartel, do you not?
It is what they are. And the violence is the result of people not being able to go to courts or the cops to settle disputes. It has nothing to do with the "market."
What is your point ?
I wonder what Vulliamy thinks about the capitalist thugs that pay his salary...