jpahmad

Did you watch the videos June?

Basically Yes. Like Josh says, the state doesn't exist, nor does the "black market." These are concepts we use to describe individual people's choices and actions. Both the black market and the state is made up of the same kinds of people: Predators. Both types of people make a living by exploiting their prey which happens to be the unwilling but nonetheless law abiding citizens. So in this way, the state and the black market are the same thing, just like two cartels Mexico are essentially the same thing. Heck, we have tons of empirical evidence all over history of statist/politicians working in both the state and the back market. It still goes on today. If that's not evidence for these two things being the same thing, than I don't know what is.

Jamiroquai, did you watch these videos? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4nXJZX1e-M&list=UUok6mq_8zvOJDoRLAbU0lww https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSt-4rmSzRQ&feature=gp-n-o&google_comment_id=z13ssllzxlqhcldgi04cfrmqftaqcv5iyog0k

Garner profited off of the store owner's hard work and used the presence of state force to leverage against the store owner's ability to compete with him. You have to understand that Garner was not just selling loose cigarettes, he was selling loose cigarettes to the store owner's client stream. The store owner paid to be there, on that particular block of the city. The store owner paid the state to make sure that no one would loiter around in front of his store. The store owner worked hard to build a reputation and presence in that neighborhood. Garner came in and syphon's business of of the store owner's hard work. Garner knows he can do this because the store owner, under gun point, is not able to compete with him. This is aggressive. I do not agree with Stefan on this point. This is a round about way for Garner to initiate the use of force against the store owner. It is an NAP violation. Did you watch my videos? I make a clear case for Garner being a statist himself.

Why would I support the initiation of the use of force against you?

TheMikeness, the store owner felt victimized because Garner was leveraging force against him. This is a violation of the NAP. That's why the store owner felt like a victim, because he was a victim.

could he get therapy while using the drugs? And then, see if the therapist has good enough strategies to replace the need of the drug?

Yes! A state that provides for him. Provides "holes" for him. Provides a livelihood. Don't try to pretend that Garner wants the state to go away. If you sat him down in a chair and told him that the state is gone and all is legal, he would say to himself "shit, what the f@#K am I gonna do now"? He's probably go rob somebody.

Garner leveraged force for his own economic benefit. This is a violation of the NAP. The store owner started his business on the premiss that someone wouldn't sell loose cigarettes right outside his front door. Why? Because it's illegal to do so. Garner had no self-sufficient business. I don't know why you're acting like he was some kind of entrepreneur. Ha, Ha. I'd say move Garner 20 feet away and he doesn't sell one cigarette. Then of course, he would probably be in front of someone else's store front. Garner would have no business without that store front. In a free market, Garner is useless. If he had any sense, he would support the presence of the state, he wouldn't be able to make a living without it. But like I said above, people like Garner are the state.

ah ah! But let me clarify something. Not all "black market" operations use force to leverage business. Say for example, I sell weed out of my house to people who need it for either recreational purposes/or medical purposes. This would be illegal correct? However, if the government disappeared over night, my business would then flourish where as Garner's business would disappear. The weed dealer is not a statist. The weed dealer is not leveraging coercion to his advantage. The weed dealer is building in real skill and supplying a need in an industry that would flourish more without the coercive presence of the state. To figure out who is and who is not a closet statist, just put it to this simple test: If the state disappears overnight, who loses their way of making a living? That's all you have to do. It's that simple.

great point

Yeah, that was worse than a horror movie. I thought it was going to make one kind of statement but then, suddenly, it takes a horrific turn for the worse. Geez...

WTF?

No. His business was negatively effected by the state. Just ask yourself this question: If the state disappeared over night what would happen to Bundy's business? It would be fine, if not better. Next question, if the state disappeared over night what whould happen to Eric Garner's business? It would disappear as well. Yes, the state and the black market are two sides of the same entity. Or in other words, The Black Market is a part of The State. Garner was a statist! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4nXJZX1e-M&list=UUok6mq_8zvOJDoRLAbU0lww

I like that. Nice and orderly.

I'm quite sure he was violating some sort of zoning/loitering restriction. In the current world we live in, the state is the entity that grants property to an individual. This includes defining boundaries between commercial business and between store fronts and sidewalks. It's the framework that everyone who does business in this world has to deal with. Is it a good reality? No obviously. Is it the current reality? Yes. The store owner sets up shop on the premiss that no one is going to hang around outside his front door and sell competing merchandise on the black market. This is because loitering is illegal.

Black markets and the state are in cooperation. Just look at the "war on drugs." Did you guys forget abut that? I bet the argument could be made that the black market is the state. They are two sides of the same coin. Like I said above, without force, the "panhandlers" of the world would be out of business. Without force, the convenience store owner would not only still be in business, but thrive.

Yes, but you're also not right outside the front door of my "legit" operation. Again though Nicholas, this is not a free market we are talking about. When there is the threat of force against competing, then it is not a free market. Black market entrepreneurs are using the force of the government to maintain an advantage. Look at it this way. Without government force, those on the black market would be disenfranchised. Their whole operation is predicated on the fact that their competitors are coerced into not competing with them.

You are victimizing them if you set up shop right outside their front door and "syphon" business off their client stream or potential client stream. That is aggressive to me.

No, there is no free market fractional slacker. In a free market, the store owner would just sell "loosie" cigarettes as well. Unfortunately, it is not legal. In a free market, Garner would not be able to compete with the store owner who would also sell single cigarettes (because obviously there is a market for it) and he would just go away. This is not a free market. I don't know why you keep using that term.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fsj7H3d4050&list=UUok6mq_8zvOJDoRLAbU0lww

Yeah, the ending makes-up for everything. I was initially so annoyed about the movie that I didn't stop to think about the ending. Although, I think it was a little to subtle at the end. Subtle enough to where many people could miss the point. Now that I think abut it, why is the title "Take This Waltz"? Shouldn't it be, "Don't Take This Waltz"?

@ endtheuserpation, the study has different results for men then it does for women. The study you cite though is, I don't know what it is, it seems to be a critique of earlier studies, and nothing is completely refuted. Anyway, that is your proof that modern sexual interactions are "corrupt"? Again, I don't see what this study has to do with monogamy. I really don't. Marriage and monogamy are not synonyms.

Your study doesn't say this.

Oh, this makes sense. You made it seem that married men (not divorced) have shorter life spans. Of course divorced men have shorter lives. They go through so much more stress. The key is not to get divorced.