A lot of people assume that making all research that included federal grant money free to the public would be unilaterally good. I like the idea in general because I actually like to read scientific papers sometimes, but my primary interest is to maximize the amount of research that happens. Or more precisely to maximize the speed at which we acquire knowledge/technology.
Are there any existing examples of places where this has been put into practice that we can compare to see which state of affairs is better? I'm unsure it would be beneficial because most of the public wouldn't read/understand the actual journal articles anyway, and I expect most of the scientists who do work in the field already have subscriptions. I'm worried there might be harm because government mandates of all kinds very often have negative unintended consequences and I'm curious what those might be for this area.
Real drug lords are part of the 1%. Most 1%'ers only work in one industry or a few related ones.
US policy is less about who would benefit from legalization (everyone) and more about who would suffer. If prohibition were ended there would be massive cuts in the budget and staff of the ATF, DEA, police, the entire boarder security industry, infantry defense contractors, prisons, courts and law firms.
Many politicians went to law school. No one wants to put their friends out of work.
The US police/government/courts are less corrupt and have more resources to crack down on the more visible violence.
There is more violence in America than most people realize. It's considered mundane so you don't see it in the news as much.
The US is selling arms to the cartels in Mexico, so their violence is escalated there.
Mexican cartels aren't larger in the US than in Mexico because their supply sources are in Mexico, they lose momentum over distance and face domestic competition as they move across the US.
If we assume drug lords are in it for the money and/or power they'd cut their losses ASAP.
For any of them that are really in it for the thrills the time would depend on their reserves, but I doubt it'd last longer than a few months for any of them.
True. Luckily it's a much smaller market to begin with since most of the population drinks and only a relatively small fraction is interested in drugs besides marijuana.
I'm not really worried about the employment angle because cartel jobs aren't productive jobs. Essentially you're freeing up labor for the productive part of the economy which makes for a higher standard of living for everyone.
It might take a year or two to have nicely packaged heroin from well known companies available in pretty boxes in liquor stores, but I think you'd be rid of all the cartel violence within 6 months.
They'd have the capacity for a moment, but they'd have lost their primary source of income. Human trafficking and extortion don't come anywhere near the risk/reward ratio or volume of drugs.
Some of the cartels would go legit to become drug companies. The ones who wanted to remain criminals would have to downsize their organizations to fit the remaining markets.
That would be true if owning bitcoins had intrinsic value, but they only have value in terms of the things they can purchase, so no. Bitcoin maturity will actually cause bitcoins to decrease in value as inflation in the rest of the economy outpaces the rate of new bitcoin creation.
This is stupid. If the elephant is going to be shot by a warden anyway, WHY NOT let some rich american shoot it? Why does it matter WHO shoots the elephant? It doesn't!
If you want to argue about whether the elephant SHOULD have been killed, that's fine. There is plenty to debate there. But who does the shooting is of no importance.
That said he's right that as a CEO you represent your company--especially when you're handing out swag. Probably not a smart PR move.
