The Economics of the Police State

[Henry]

Sure thing. Libertarians don't like questions though.

I'll ask and report back.

You may want to contact the Von Mises Institute at
334.321.2100 and request the cite from one of their staff members.

They are generally helpful about such things. Further, it would improve the likely hop that your Woods would actually get your request for the information.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Thanks, Henry, will do.

Get to the bottom of this Scooby Doo mystery.

 

[Henry]

Thanks, Henry, will do.

Get to the bottom of this Scooby Doo mystery.

I hope you do. I know you wouldn't want to miss the forest for the trees.

 

[dusty88]

Ha. Tom answered me already. (I don't know if he likes Kirk or not )

He cited this as "one of many scholarly articles on the subject". The War on Cancer Rages On

I've heard the guy "called out " before. He doesn't make stuff up.

 

[Thor]

Questioning is good.

I think the speaker's question "How many police are necessary?" is a good question.

That is a good question, and one that should be addressed at the local level. I think we should move away from federalized law enforcement in the county and focus on local law enforcement locally in our current jurisdictions.

I don't believe any one answer can be an acceptable broad brush solution.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

He answered me too, just the same article. No citation to when and where.

Hmmm.

 

[dusty88]

He answered me too, just the same article. No citation to when and where.

Hmmm.

You can follow that to original sources if you want to pay for the full article. It's not the same as an "original source", granted, but if it appears in several peer-reviewed articles, it's fairly likely accurate.

And also of minimal consequence, considering it was a point used as a speech intro.

The concept here is "government promises stuff like this". It wasn't intended to be a fact supporting any major points. (just like the author of the referenced article "when and where" would be a boring point within this context )

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It goes directly to Woods's credibility.

Is this true or not? Have to check it out.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Well, looky here:

"Right, because it is known by everyone that the U.S. government pledged to
end cancer in 1976. That is why there is no need for a footnote. Is there
someone out there who actually thinks the U.S. government is too sensible
to have made such a pledge? I'd love to meet that person."

Hmmm, what to make of this? Everyone knows so no need for a citation?

Just what have I unearthed here?!?!

 

[dusty88]

You've unearthed your disinterest in hearing a thoughtful discussion on the economics of the police stsre ?

Ya know I love debate points. I'm actually pretty good at evaluating stats in scientific papers. But this isn't even in the body of the topic let alone used as supporting evidence.

Ask for citations from the supporting points.

Eta: are you a lawyer ?

 

[rambone]

The War on Cancer is just another name for the War on the Free Market. The Federal government through the FDA picks and chooses what treatments that Americans are allowed to pursue when they are dying of cancer. All other options are illegal, and any doctor who tries to save lives through unsanctioned methods gets raided by the compassionless, freedom-hating gestapo.

Of course, that market oppression works out great of the peddlers of chemotherapy and radiation. And it illustrates that the police state is here.



FDA, FBI Raid Tulsa Cancer Clinic - NewsOn6.com

"Listen, my wife's dying, and we don't want to go with chemotherapy and radiation," said Sam Bass. "She just couldn't tolerate the surgeries anymore."

"For us, this was a hope and they took our hope away," Bass said. "They took our rights, in my opinion, for me and my wife to choose how to treat her."

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You've unearthed your disinterest in hearing a thoughtful discussion on the economics of the police stsre ?

I merely asking for the citation and so far I have received an e-mail, which I quote in full, which says "well, everyone knows it".

It is this level of intellectual inquiry which cause some to raise an eyebrow when Libertarians speak.

Surely Libertarians would not want a position predicated on nonsense?

 

[dusty88]

Kirk, the intro to a speech is used to center the attention of context. The body is used to present position. BTW, in 1971, the government was very arrogant about what it could be. It was just 2 years after the moon landing. Come on, everybody, give us a little more money, and we can solve any problem.

This speech is largely about the war on drugs and the money involved in those transactions. I think it's a very inportant issue not only because of the economics. I think it is an underlying cause of the homicide issues in the black urban neighborhoods.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I find no source for the "cure cancer by 1976/1977" by President Nixon. Perhaps you can help me?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I am finding plenty of references for CONGRESS declaring a cure for cancer by 1976. I am finding plenty of references for private citizens declaring that cancer will be cured.

I see nothing from Nixon.

Richard Nixon's 30-year War--and Still Counting - Chicago Tribune

 

[dusty88]

I'm more interested in the points made here. I've been long-opposed to the war on drugs. I find his comparison to "market forces" another important angle.

The free market is kind of like properly-working physiology. If you get enough of something, there is a feedback mechanism to slow its production.

In the case of drug arrests: the more the police make, the more resources they get, to make more drug arrests.

They meanwhile try to villianize groups that are peaceful, and threaten their revenue from government.

ETA: If you want to debate this with Woods, open up a post on his Facebook page. He might answer, though I obviously can't speak to his time priorities. I'd say it's more a point for Nixon biographers as Nixon is often quoted to have said, though I also don't know the primary source.
https://www.facebook.com/ThomasEWoods?ref=br_tf

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I'm more interested in the points made here. I've been long-opposed to the war on drugs. I find his comparison to "market forces" another important angle.

ETA: If you want to debate this with Woods, open up a post on his Facebook page. He might answer, though I obviously can't speak to his time priorities. I'd say it's more a point for Nixon biographers as Nixon is often quoted to have said, though I also don't know the primary source.

I am only interested in the truth. We have someone telling us that a historical event transpired but refuses to give a citation. This should alarm all Libertarians, especially INGOtarians who will quickly rally and give me the citation that I have asked for over and over again to this well-known historical fact.

Given all the nonsense in politics where speakers are simply making things up out of whole cloth (e.g., Tyson), shouldn't we be sure of our facts before we compare the man who stopped Alger Hiss (stopped him by asking questions) to Il Duce?

 

[skulhedface]

We have someone telling us that a historical event transpired but refuses to give a citation.

As you seem to have already known, there is no citation because it never happened. After I posted the nih link last night, I continued to search as well and found the same that you did. The quote has been attributed to Nixon in error. I haven't had an opportunity to watch the video yet, but would a common mistake really invalidate the entire argument presented? If it's not central to the argument presented it doesn't matter much. Yeah it may speak to the validity of other facts presented, but those facts should be verified anyway. He's not the first to attribute a quote to the wrong person, we've got some Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and the guy we can't name (it starts with a J) quotes on here all the time that are not quite based in fact.

 

[poptab]

I am only interested in the truth.

Bull****!

You shouldn't make stuff up Kirk it undermines your credibility.

Oh and woods isn't running for office.

Yet.

 

[Henry]

"BTW, in 1971, the government was very arrogant about what it could be."

It is even more so today.

Tyranny is alive and thriving in the USA.