[nathanbedford]

fwdude: Not to mention the lost war on burglary, robbery and theft. Been illegal for centuries but these still occur at epidemic rates.

NobleFree:I challenge you yet again to name a single FReeper who supports open borders or abortion.

To fwdude: I would point out that burglary, robbery and theft occurred before, during and after prohibition. Would you now bring prohibition back? Do you think the prohibition contributed to crime? I might point out to you that burglary, robbery and theft are now occurring at epidemic rates, by your logic does this not mean that it has been caused by drugs or drug laws? Or does it simply mean that burglary, robbery and theft are simply coincidental with the use of drugs? For the record, I think the use of drugs contributes to crime, but I also think that our war on drugs increases the use of drugs and the crime rate.

NobleFree: I challenge you to name a single Freeper who supports reinstituting prohibition. If you can find one, by your logic all Freepers therefore believe in reinstituting prohibition. Maybe, but maybe not.

Better to leave the rhetorical tricks and gaps in logic for QAnon.

[NobleFree]

NobleFree: I challenge you to name a single Freeper who supports reinstituting prohibition. If you can[not] find one, by your logic all Freepers therefore believe in reinstituting prohibition.

First, one of the undelined words needs to become its opposite (and "can" become "cannot") for your statement to be even within spitting distance of what I argued. And even after that change, you misrepresent my argument (directed at LouAvul, to whom I was replying, and cced to you because Lou's post seemed relevant to your post #19) - which is not that no FReepers support open borders or abortion, but if those positions are characteristic of FR libertarians as Lou implied, then he should be easily able to name one ... which he has NEVER done.

[fwdude]

I’m not by any means trying to link burglary, theft, and robbery to drugs, although that argument can be convincingly made. I’m just using your faulty logic that prohibition of an activity is illegitimate if that activity continues unabated. Yours is the silly argument of a lot of liberaltarians here on FR.

Legitimizing a destructive activity through law creates a legitimate (legal) market for it. Markets do what they do to compete viciously, which means they market to whomever they can, using whatever deception they can, skirting laws when they can. It’s vice that is allowed to feed upon itself and the innocent.