A Laissez-Faire Drug Market in the Most Unlikely Place Ever

[aociswundumho]

Everyone on the political left hates laissez-faire, as do most moderates, and even many Republicans. Nearly everyone wants stupid, corrupt politicians to control the economy via government regulation. Here are some examples from this forum:

We cannot continue to afford a laissez-faire marketplace which operates without checks or controls.

Libertarianism sounded good to me until I got to the laissez faire part.

Laissez-faire capitalism is not the ideal form of economy. Regulation is required in order to ensure equal rights and to limit the ability of a powerful majority to victimize a minority.

The closest we came to pure laissez faire free market capitalism was the Gilded Age: the result was that there was indeed tremendous growth in the economic output- but all that money was going just into the pockets of a handful of factory owners.

Pure laissez-faire capitalism is also a clearly defined thing. I don't think there's a single poster here who is in favor of that (OK, maybe one).

Can laissez-faire actually work? It's been decades and decades since the filthy state actually left buyers and sellers alone, but lo and behold we have an example going on right now, and in NYC of all places:

The black market strangled California's legal weed industry. Now it's coming for New York.

Lax enforcement has allowed illicit sales to flourish — with little incentive to go mainstream.

www.politico.com

The state legalized adult-use marijuana more than a year ago but is yet to issue a single dispensary license. The result has been a weed free-for-all: Cannabis seems to be for sale everywhere — head shops, bodegas, even from folding tables on street corners. Some dealers brazenly sell in public, and many boast their products were grown in California.

This is exactly the kind of situation you want for every peaceful market where adults trade value for value. You want fierce competition from as many sellers as possible, with no restrictions on who may sell and no standards for quality.

Note that this weed market is self-regulating. Price is regulated by supply and demand, and quality is regulated by customer buying decisions. Government bureaucrats are neither needed nor desired.

Here is a quote from a special interest prick who doesn't like the current situation:

“Everybody seems to be selling cannabis, and until there’s enforcement, there’s really no concern of a penalty,” said Owen Martinetti of the Cannabis Association of New York, who is personally calling for stronger civil enforcement.

Note that this scumbag doesn't talk about who is being harmed by the current situation, because no one is. In fact, I guaranntee this asshole knows everyone in the market is better off as it is.

If the state does imposed its idiotic regulatory scheme upon the market, it will make all buyers and most sellers worse off.

Sellers will be made worse off because there will be relatively few of them who can jump through all of the hoops to get a license. The licensed sellers will all be wealthy capitalists like that prick above from the "Cannabis Association of New York". Small sellers will be outlawed, just like they are in so many state-regulated markets, from healthcare to car manufacturing.

Buyers will be made worse off because of the higher prices and fewer choices.

Those are the only groups - buyers and sellers - and government regulation makes them both worse off. Those of you who support government regulation, who tf do you believe benefits from it?

Laissez-faire isn't utopia. Things can and do go wrong. Some unscrupulous sellers will still defaud buyers, and some buyers will still rip-off sellers. But it doesn't have to be perfect, it only has to be better than the alternative, which it is.

I should say that it isn't pure laissez-faire:

Meanwhile, New Yorkers are not yet allowed to grow their own marijuana for recreational use, because legislators decreed that regulations governing home cultivation won't be issued until 18 months after licensed pot shops start opening.

The supply is coming from out of state, but with unlicensed growers, things would get even better.

 

[Peter]

Yey, a system where companies can go unregulated and government can't do anything.
That's bound to work just fabulously until it crashes and burns and people demand regulation again.

Lets just pay the average worker almost nothing while those at the top rake in vast unregulated profits because who's going to stop them?
Screw the environment as that lefty protection crap costs money that's out the window.

Nothing matters but the pure pursuit of profits for the few over everything else.

Yep, that's sure to make America great again.

 

[Demon]

I like regulation, particularly in medicine, food, weed (checks for pesticide and mold, etc), knowing my doctor is licensed...

 

[Peter]

I like regulation, particularly in medicine, food, weed (checks for pesticide and mold, etc), knowing my doctor is licensed...

What are you, some kind of lefty wimp?
Surely you don't think companies would sell unsafe foods after only centuries of being shown they do exactly that are you?

Gorden Ramsey is also totally fake news and all the filthy kitchens he's seen are just sets.
Also I'm sure I could do brain surgery just fine after watching a 5 minute youtube "how to" video, why do I need to spend almost a decade at a socialist university designed to indoctrinate me?

 

[Demon]

What are you, some kind of lefty wimp?
Surely you don't think companies would sell unsafe foods after only centuries of being shown they do exactly that are you?

Gorden Ramsey is also totally fake news and all the filthy kitchens he's seen are just sets.
Also I'm sure I could do brain surgery just fine after watching a 5 minute youtube "how to" video, why do I need to spend almost a decade at a socialist university designed to indoctrinate me?

Yeah, I've been doing some research on my own medical stuff lately. I'm sure I'm qualified to go into practice as an endocrinologist. And if I mess up my patients? Its their fault for choosing me as their doctor. Yeah, let's go with no regulations!

 

[OrphanSlug]

Rant from the OP aside for a moment on who advocates for what, I would argue over this entire nation's history we have never had strict capitalism or a Laissez-Faire approach to economics. Moreover, I would argue that it really does not exist outside of a definition and classroom level thinking.

And outside of a few examples of what one may think is closest to strict capitalism there is real reason why just about every modern system economics across the globe is a mixed model.

It does not really matter if the OP, or anyone else, tries to put some segment of the economy in a vacuum and calls it Laissez-Faire, or should be for whatever reason, the simple fact of is no principle of macro economics works that way.

Even at the height of the international drug trade, Cannabis included, that is still not an example of realized strict capitalism. It is just a large example of organizations operating in the supply of illegal products into economies that... wait for it... are not strict capitalism. Similar story with when Cannabis became legal in some states, sort of.

I am not even all that sure why this is up for debate.

 

[aociswundumho]

Yey, a system where companies can go unregulated and government can't do anything.
That's bound to work just fabulously until it crashes and burns and people demand regulation again.

That has literally never been the case. It is special interest groups who lobby for regulation.

Lets just pay the average worker almost nothing while those at the top rake in vast unregulated profits because who's going to stop them?

Do you believe that's what's happening in the weed market in NYC?

Screw the environment as that lefty protection crap costs money that's out the window.

Nothing matters but the pure pursuit of profits for the few over everything else.

Yep, that's sure to make America great again.

Actually it is, and it's also the last thing an economic illiterate like Trump wants.

 

[Peter]

That has literally never been the case. It is special interest groups who lobby for regulation.
Do you believe that's what's happening in the weed market in NYC?
Actually it is, and it's also the last thing an economic illiterate like Trump wants.

Are you claiming that nobody asks for regulations on food, medicine or other things?
I know I do and Demon seems like She's a fan of regulation as well so that seems to go against that idea.

You actually think the illegal trade of drugs is a good model for the US economy?

 

[aociswundumho]

And outside of a few examples of what one may think is closest to strict capitalism there is real reason why just about every modern system economics across the globe is a mixed model.

The argument here is "every government does it, therefore it's correct".

Slavery was once universal. No doubt if you were alive at the time, you would have supported it, using the same reasoning.

 

[Schism]

Personally I depend on the USDA Organic label when buying all my food. I also want to know that doctors are licensed and qualified, contractors are licensed, bonded, and insured, and that if someone hits my car that they're carrying insurance.

I also seek out organic, pesticide free weed.

 

[aociswundumho]

Are you claiming that nobody asks for regulations on food, medicine or other things?

Yes. Milton Friedman studied this extensively. It's always special interest groups which lobby for government controls, because they know it will benefit them.

Think of it this way. As an individual consumer, you do not benefit from having your choices limited by a government bureaucrat.

I know I do and Demon seems like She's a fan of regulation as well so that seems to go against that idea.

You actually think the illegal trade of drugs is a good model for the US economy?

Of course it's good for the economy.

 

[OrphanSlug]

The argument here is "every government does it, therefore it's correct".

Slavery was once universal. No doubt if you were alive at the time, you would have supported it, using the same reasoning.

False equivalency.

The argument is we have plenty of economic reason, with observed empirical data, to support mixed model economics and no real reason to support slavery.

Unsure if you are just being lazy or trying to bait the forum, again, but there is no observable practical reason to go with strict capitalism models of economics. They tend to cause terrible amplification of the economic cycle, harm the most vulnerable, and ironically produce the most examples of system slavery.

And I'll note for the record you failed to address anything else in my post suggesting your same incessant need to polarize a conversation as that is the only debate skillset you have.

 

[Peter]

Yes. Milton Friedman studied this extensively. It's always special interest groups which lobby for government controls, because they know it will benefit them.

Think of it this way. As an individual consumer, you do not benefit from having your choices limited by a government bureaucrat.



Of course it's good for the economy.

As a consumer I do indeed benefit by having doctors regulated to a certain standard and places selling food regulated to be clean.
Deregulating banks lead directly to the financial crisis of the early 2000s so making them even less regulated seems rather less than sensible.

I also don't give a monkeys what Friedman says or didn't say as he's not some sort of mesiah.

 

[aociswundumho]

False equivalency.

The argument is we have plenty of economic reason, with observed empirical data,

Specially, what "empirical data" are you referring to?

to support mixed model economics and no real reason to support slavery.

There are plenty of reasons to support slavery, especially from the perspective of the slave owner.

Unsure if you are just being lazy or trying to bait the forum, again, but there is no observable practical reason to go with strict capitalism models of economics. They tend to cause terrible amplification of the economic cycle,

No, that's the political control of interest rates.

harm the most vulnerable,

Yet the world's poor risk their lives to escape socialism and get to the US.

and ironically produce the most examples of system slavery.

Nonsense. Go ahead and back that claim up with evidence if you can.

And I'll note for the record you failed to address anything else in my post suggesting your same incessant need to polarize a conversation as that is the only debate skillset you have.

 

[aociswundumho]

As a consumer I do indeed benefit by having doctors regulated to a certain standard and places selling food regulated to be clean.

Here's a restaurant in the most regulated city in the world:

Deregulating banks lead directly to the financial crisis of the early 2000s so making them even less regulated seems rather less than sensible.

I also don't give a monkeys what Friedman says or didn't say as he's not some sort of mesiah.

 

[Peter]

Here's a restaurant in the most regulated city in the world:

So, you think because some places break the rules that rules are pointless?
In an unregulated market what would stop that place from simply staying open?

 

[OrphanSlug]

Specially, what "empirical data" are you referring to?

Have you ever set foot in an economics class?

There are plenty of reasons to support slavery, especially from the perspective of the slave owner.

Now I know you are trolling, slavery is a bi-product of near strict capitalism.

No, that's the political control of interest rates.

Incorrect, you sure you've ever been in an economics class?

Yet the world's poor risk their lives to escape socialism and get to the US.

And we are not strict capitalism, we are a mixed model with moderately good results with it.

Nonsense. Go ahead and back that claim up with evidence if you can.

You first, where is your evidence?

 

[aociswundumho]

So, you think because some places break the rules that rules are pointless?

Um, the only reason your beloved regulators did anything was because it made the news.

In an unregulated market what would stop that place from simply staying open?

People wouldn't eat there, and if they did that's their choice.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

View attachment 67424736

Everyone on the political left hates laissez-faire, as do most moderates, and even many Republicans. Nearly everyone wants stupid, corrupt politicians to control the economy via government regulation. Here are some examples from this forum:











Can laissez-faire actually work? It's been decades and decades since the filthy state actually left buyers and sellers alone, but lo and behold we have an example going on right now, and in NYC of all places:

View attachment 67424739

The black market strangled California's legal weed industry. Now it's coming for New York.

Lax enforcement has allowed illicit sales to flourish — with little incentive to go mainstream.

www.politico.com

This is exactly the kind of situation you want for every peaceful market where adults trade value for value. You want fierce competition from as many sellers as possible, with no restrictions on who may sell and no standards for quality.

Note that this weed market is self-regulating. Price is regulated by supply and demand, and quality is regulated by customer buying decisions. Government bureaucrats are neither needed nor desired.

Here is a quote from a special interest prick who doesn't like the current situation:



Note that this scumbag doesn't talk about who is being harmed by the current situation, because no one is. In fact, I guaranntee this asshole knows everyone in the market is better off as it is.

If the state does imposed its idiotic regulatory scheme upon the market, it will make all buyers and most sellers worse off.

Sellers will be made worse off because there will be relatively few of them who can jump through all of the hoops to get a license. The licensed sellers will all be wealthy capitalists like that prick above from the "Cannabis Association of New York". Small sellers will be outlawed, just like they are in so many state-regulated markets, from healthcare to car manufacturing.

Buyers will be made worse off because of the higher prices and fewer choices.

Those are the only groups - buyers and sellers - and government regulation makes them both worse off. Those of you who support government regulation, who tf do you believe benefits from it?

Laissez-faire isn't utopia. Things can and do go wrong. Some unscrupulous sellers will still defaud buyers, and some buyers will still rip-off sellers. But it doesn't have to be perfect, it only has to be better than the alternative, which it is.

I should say that it isn't pure laissez-faire:



The supply is coming from out of state, but with unlicensed growers, things would get even better.

I do not think "caveat emptor" is the way I want drugs people depend on to live handled.

Next silly idea.

 

[Demon]

Um, the only reason your beloved regulators did anything was because it made the news.


People wouldn't eat there, and if they did that's their choice.

And if it didn't make the news (which it did because regulation failed) its anyone's choice for eating there? How would the know they shouldn't?

 

[aociswundumho]

Have you ever set foot in an economics class?

So this "empirical data" you were referring to doesn't actually exist after all.

Now I know you are trolling, slavery is a bi-product of near strict capitalism.

Capitalism is base on property rights, and we all have property in our own physical body.

And we are not strict capitalism, we are a mixed model with moderately good results with it.

Lol, we're down to "moderately good" now. In a few more posts, I suspect we will be at "tolerable".

You first, where is your evidence?

No, you first. You made the claim, the burden is on you to back it up with evidence.

 

[aociswundumho]

I do not think "caveat emptor" is the way I want drugs people depend on to live handled.

Have you ever bought illegal drugs on the black market?

Next silly idea.

 

[OrphanSlug]

So this "empirical data" you were referring to doesn't actually exist after all.

Have you seen any economic data for this nation in the past 100 years? That is our mixed model.

Now, what do you have?

Capitalism is base on property rights, and we all have property in our own physical body.

Spare us the bumper sticker rhetoric.

Lol, we're down to "moderately good" now. In a few more posts, I suspect we will be at "tolerable".

Don't speak for me.

No, you first. You made the claim, the burden is on you to back it up with evidence.

You have yet to back up anything in this thread, why should anyone consider you superior in this?

 

[Jetboogieman]

Ugggh.

Another aociswundumho bitch fest about how kids can't work in coal mines anymore and pharmaceutical companies can't thalidomide the living **** out of us.

The solution to all of lifes issues is to let mega corporations **** us all hard, without any recourse.

Yeah good logic there.

 

[Mr Person]

Nobody should like...tell us what to do, man