>>14418771>How interesting that alcohol and cannabis became legal without those individuals losing their wealth before that happenednot really. it's an entirely mundane result of them having a head start in the market even if you don't assume that their industry was somehow created by law prohibiting a handful of substances and not simply the prohibitive law creating artificial scarcity in a naive attempt to control demand.
>Drug sellers also didn't have huge amounts of wealth before prohibition, it was only after some drugs were banned that some of them (mainly the ones politicians are tied to) expanded it massivelywelcome to profit from artificial scarcity.
>If anything, this shows the root cause is the state and we need governments (there's a difference).not only does it not show that, it has literally nothing to do with the power imbalance created by resource access imbalance that is inevitable in a "free market" and in turn creates a market held hostage by a profit-motivated entity rather than a state motivated by the political expressions of its populace (i.e. how a democracy is supposed to work)
>not inherent to a free market.it maximizes profit. free markets reward profit maximization. free markets unavoidably and inherently reward corruption.
>Anyone can use the state in such cases, not just companies.incorrect. access to the state becomes a function of access to wealth, even before the market supplants the state (as is the case in narcostates)
>If you seriously think 'free'then provide a definition for "free", and watch the delusion of the free market unravel in the qualifications you have to add as you attempt to reconcile the reality of the words you use with what you feel they should mean
