Corporations in America

As I hear this consistent talk about how the private sector is much more capable than government to operate social programs, and how tax cuts are needed to spur the economic growth so that the corporations can be later taxed, I present an interesting source.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/corptax.html

The American income provided for comparison is a family making $30,000 per annum, at a rate of 17% federal income tax.  What is truely interesting is that many large corporations get substantially less federal taxation, and in some cases, are refunded for taxes they never paid.  This is a strange case indeed, as it seems that these "tax cuts to spur economic growth" are rather redundant, as many corporations are paying less than the taxes of impoverished people. 

Libertarian doctrine is obsessive about telling us that government should be weakened, and the spending of the government curtailed to allow the market to grow.  It is rather amusing that the people who benefit most from this plan are not the people who pay the most relative taxes, but the people who pay the lowest percentage of taxes, despite how enormous that 1.8% may be (here's looking at you Microsoft).

It makes me wonder why so many middle class families believe the libertarians want to help them.  The middle class bears the brunt of the highest taxes, and is the true "common men" of America.  When libertarians argue that a graduated tax bracket makes it discouraging to become rich, they need only read the nice steady 1.8% that Microsoft pays to the federal government.  Ah, what a burden it is to be rich.

American corporations are truely the scourge of the market. And they themselves are proof of the "high tide raises all boats" myth expounded by various corporations and economic theorists.  Simply take a look at the GDP of various nations.

http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch2en/conc2en/globalgdp.html

As the chart shows, America doesn't generate so huge a GDP as many would like to assume, and that it is about 3 times that of Japan and 5 times that of Germany. Now that you know the scale of global GDP, look at this source. (Click on Facts and Figures)

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/executive.html

What is evidenced by the diagram is that in Japan, a corporation executive makes 11 times that of a factory floor worker, and likely with due cause (i.e. owning/starting the business), in Germany it is a larger 12 times. (Still reasonable)  Now go over to American corporation executives......Hrm. It seems that American CEOs make a staggering 475 times more money than the factory floor worker.  What is being drawn here is that the United States' policy of "rising tide" is not narrowing the income disparity, but widening it, making the rich MUCH richer, and the poor MUCH poorer.

Libertarians will sometime outcry that government facilitates this taxation, and must be weakened to prevent further injustice.  But I ask Libertarians, with the current system, what empirical proof do you have that doing so will rein in the income disparity?  What evidence do you have that doing so will not be what the corporations would prefer?  Herein lies the evidence of pessimistic outlook of Libertarians, would not justice be achieved if politicians were honorable? Would not the corporate sway be stymied if politicians rejected their bribes and lobbying? Would not taxation be truely graduated if loopholes were closed for large corporations? Would not federal programs and funding increase if corporations actually started paying their share? Why, if they actually paid, lower taxes across the board would be actually JUSTIFIED.  But of course, Libertarians will tell you that all politicians are corrupt, excluding themselves, and that the inherent evil nature of man evaporates in the private sector.  Businesses should exist to make money, government should exist to enforce the people's will, and the people's will is the only sovereign power, without it's grace, business would not exist.

>>39
"If you want to look at Capitalism in action, which will occur again in a libertarian society, just look back to the 1870s up to the turn of the century. 14 hour work days, no breaks, no benefits for workers, shittier pay in the wake of competitioin and cutting costs"

Bullshit.  The standard of living we enjoy today was made possible by our economic system we had then.  People earn more money for less work nowadays because of all the innovations that the free market has brought the world, not to mention the relief of poverty overseas that was initially caused by other countries' lack of freedom (their socialist/fascist governments).

"If you're so confident about "looking at history hithero" why don't you stop being so fucking picky and actually look at what free market has done in the past."

Ok? The free market has made possible the life we live today.  Most advances made for workers by the labor movement was not because of big-government, it was because of labor unions.  Libertarians support workers' right to join unions, strike, etc.

"Anti-trust laws ARE red tape."

Of course they are.  But there is vast difference in the amount of freedom offered the general population when you have a system of government that is more or less laissez-faire and limmits itself merely to handling monopolies, and a system with piles upon piles of books containing thousands and thousands of regulations that small businesses struggle to put up with every year.  Increasing amounts of red tape (regulation) and taxes are making it more difficult for small businessmen to get started, thus contributing to limmiting competition for big businesses, and resulting in fewer small-town millionaires and success stories, and more billionaires and extremely poor people.  I'm beginning to go off topic.  The point is is that regulating monopolies could be seen as a more or less basic function of government from my viewpoint - right along with providing a military.  This is a vast difference when put in contrast to all the socialist programs, bureaucracy, and red tape we have today.  

"It is a government limit placed on the freedoms of businesses. You compare anti-trust laws to welfare, say that they are different, and rest happy knowing that you haven't addressed what they are AT all."

Both limmitations on freedom, yes.  However one is necessary (imo), the other is not.  It is not absolutely necessary that we have welfare for our society and economy to function well.  It is, in my opinion, necessary that we have some degree of control over monopolies.  So, for example, just like I recognize that it is NECESSARY to have a strong military to defend the nation - I recognize that is necessary to prevent formation of monopolies.  The only governmental intervention I support is necessary government intervention.  Everything else should be left to private citizens to voluntarilly engage in.

"What you've basically conceded is that some government control is required to limit the freedoms and actions of businesses and the free market."

Yes, and? There are indeed government programs I support, they are simply far fewer in number than those which you support.  For example, I think government should handle roads.  I think government should handle the military.  I think government should provide police & fire protection.  I think government should provide a court system.  I think government should prevent abuse of monopolies.  These are, imo, some of the most basic functions of government.  We have departed from the vision of a small and simplistic government in our pursuit of socialism.  I favor a small and simplistic form of government limmited to the above.  That's all there is to it, really. 

"Which is pretty much the way it is now, save for a tad too much regulation on the government's part and very sharp wealth distribution."

Wrong.  Go watch 'Free to Choose'.  Government bureaucracy and spending is completely out of control.  We are descending into socialism.

"We are descending into socialism." More like statism, if one is to be specific. The sad part is that a majority of Americans are prone to describe themselves as "socially liberal and economically conservative" - unfortunately Christianity creates wedge issues, socialists create controversy and stagnation, republicans can't introduce capitalism in an attractive manner to save their lives and suck up to retards, libertarians are hampered by semi-racist halfwits who would throw out reproductive rights in order to save guns...

However, there is an article over at Zogby that clearly indicates that things are looking up. Check it for a +7 morale boost.

>>40
"I thought St. Ronald the Raygun raised t***s. Didn't he?"

Let me quote wikipedia on this one for you: 

"Reagan's support for an increased defense budget also was supported by Congressional Democrats. These Democrats, however, were not so willing to go along with Reagan's proposed cuts in domestic programs. The resulting increase of the national budget deficit led Reagan and Congress to approve tax increases in 1982 and 1983."

So in other words, the democrats in congress wouldn't let him cut back on the budget in terms of domestic programs (welfare, all those kinds of things), and the result was his need to raise taxes. 

He still did cut taxes during various times of his presidency, and indeed signed the largest income tax cut in U.S. history. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan

I wouldn't go by % when it comes to big business... 1.8% of microsoft is a lot more then your stupid 33% of your McDonald wages.

>>41
You're reasonably level headed. The only difference between you and the guy you're arguing with is a difference in perspective.
You think that we're descending into socialism, I don't think we are.  I agree bureaucracy and spending is out of control, but corporations have bureaucratic bullshit and waste too, it just happens more noticably in government.

Second, the market does not behave in rational ways, after the 9/11 attacks, the economy plunged, why? Because people were fearful of terrorist attack, even though most of the nation was largely not at much risk.  And as it is now, the average American consumer is too fucking stupid for libertarianism to be implemented, good products don't get picked over shitty ones, people get McDonald's bile still.
 
Enron, Delta and many more screwed its employees/shareholders out of their livelihoods, and I don't see how we can trust the market to keep fair bookkeeping if government isn't looming over them.  That's kind of why the SEC was formed, because prior to the great depression, there was no government regulation of stock value, which led investors to thinking they had bought some cash cow stock when they'd actually bought a lemon.  So, in your government you had better have the government regulation of the stock market, imo.

The problem I see with smaller government is it means little to the rich and powerful, they stand little chance of losing their power and unfair priviledges because even in a small government, they just get less benefit from lobbing and the bribing of officials than before.  In a libertarian system, can you honestly tell me that Microsoft would fall from its mountain?  Would the price of crude oil really drop? Or would it remain entirely controlled by a coalition of oil producing countries, one that the US is not part of? 

Market-Government handjobbery doesn't stop at the border of the US, in order for libertarianism to work optimally, the entire damn world would have to be libertarian, which, frankly, is not likely to happen.

And probably the biggest issue I have, if libertarianism were implemented in the 1930s, who would have stopped Hitler? How would we have beaten the Japanese? A weak American government? A coalition of business owners in America?
The cost of running a war exceeds the revenue a small government would make, hell, the war we run now is hardly being paid, and we have "big government".  Businesses have a vested interest in not fighting wars, especially if the government isn't going to be able to buy tanks, guns, planes, ships they make to fight it.   

I'd like Libertarians if they weren't riddled with drug addicts and small time business owners who need a scapecoat other than themselves for why their business sucks shit.

I agree with socially liberal policies. I agree with fiscal conservativism, but not in the sense that libertarians take it.  I just want government spending and entitlements to be drastically cut, keep the graduated tax brackets "(fuck, rich people find enough loopholes to pay less than poor people, no fucking "discourage upward mobility" there) pay back our debt, increase environmental legislation, cut military spending, develop better nationwide transport systems, reform welfare further to a 3 year benefit maximum, dump social security, lift FCC regulations, dump medicare, medicaid.

You libs can now call me a heartless bastard, you ought to be prepared to get it yourself.
 

Why would you cut military spending when you can't even take over iraq? How do you expect to defend yourself? :p

>>47 u are a heartless bastard.  what, you think you are entitled to your money or something?

>>42
"The sad part is that a majority of Americans are prone to describe themselves as "socially liberal and economically conservative" - unfortunately Christianity creates wedge issues, socialists create controversy and stagnation, republicans can't introduce capitalism in an attractive manner to save their lives and suck up to retards, libertarians are hampered by semi-racist halfwits who would throw out reproductive rights in order to save guns..."

LOL? Ok, first of all, this post reeks of feminazi bullshit.  Yeah, I'm a libertarian, and I happen to be pro-choice, but no way in hell would I ever say that abortion even close to rivals the 2A in terms of significance or importance. 

On one hand, we have a right that is so important, it was enumerated in the Bill of Rights as not to be touched - one of the most fundamental freedoms for the preservation of a free society.  On the other hand, we have the right to squish fetuses.  Plz, cut the liberal tripe. 

>>50
"libertarians are hampered by semi-racist halfwits who would throw out reproductive rights in order to save guns..."

Hmm... deterrant to tyranny, genocide, and mass murder (not to mention reduction in crime levels) vs.  right to squish fetuses.  Hmm... tough choice.

All freedoms are important, but feminists need to get their priorities in order.  My apologies for sounding so condescending, but you apparently forget that there are women who like the 2A as well as men - it isn't one sided.

>>45
"You think that we're descending into socialism, I don't think we are."

Watch Free to Choose.  The government is spending a large portion of every dollar we earn.  At what percentage of dollar spending would you admit that we are approaching socialism, if not actually entered the belly of the beast? Yeah, I suppose we still have a pseudo-capitalist society, but we are indeed letting the bureaucracy and spending for government programs spiral out of control.  There is going to be a budget crisis in the near future when people realize that we can't just pull money out of thin air to fund all these programs... and it will require either massive inflation, a massive tax hike, or some other punch to the gut for the average citizen.

"I agree bureaucracy and spending is out of control, but corporations have bureaucratic bullshit and waste too, it just happens more noticably in government."

I agree.  However I am not generally forced to fund corporate bureaucracy (unless you are talking about privatization?).  I am indeed forced to fund government bureaucracy.

"And as it is now, the average American consumer is too fucking stupid for libertarianism to be implemented, good products don't get picked over shitty ones, people get McDonald's bile still."

Sure.  And this doesn't matter to me.  If they waste their money on bad products, they suffer, not me.  You claim that the public is too stupid for libertarianism to be implimented.  This begs the question:  do you think our leaders in washington are wise enough in terms of use of the budget and funds for socialism or central planning to be implimented? I'd trust the market over the government anyday.
 
"The problem I see with smaller government is it means little to the rich and powerful, they stand little chance of losing their power and unfair priviledges because even in a small government, they just get less benefit from lobbing and the bribing of officials than before."

Not only that, in a more free system the rich and powerful will have more competition from small businesses which would then have been freed from excessive bureaucracy and taxes.  This would help give smaller businesses a fighting chance against your despised McDonalds, for example.

"In a libertarian system, can you honestly tell me that Microsoft would fall from its mountain?"

No.

"Would the price of crude oil really drop? Or would it remain entirely controlled by a coalition of oil producing countries, one that the US is not part of?"

Yes, it would drop (I think).  With the opening of ANWAR or however you spell it, yes I think it would drop.  There is also Venezuela and Russia entering the picture who will then likely compete with Middle Eastern oil producers.  I'm not sure exactly when, but a few years back, OPEC or whatever its name is was urging Russia not to sell oil to us, or to join them or something.  Russia had declined, and started pumping the oil, entering the competition.  Considering Venezuela is in the picture as well, not to mention the new oil found down near the Gulf of Mexico, as well as the oil up in Canada, I'd say there is plenty of competition.

"Market-Government handjobbery doesn't stop at the border of the US, in order for libertarianism to work optimally, the entire damn world would have to be libertarian, which, frankly, is not likely to happen."

I have to disagree here, but Milton Friedman can answer this better than I can.  Go watch the free trade episode of Free to Choose.

"And probably the biggest issue I have, if libertarianism were implemented in the 1930s, who would have stopped Hitler? How would we have beaten the Japanese? A weak American government? A coalition of business owners in America?"

Well, I don't think Hitler would have risen to power if we hadn't intervened in WW1, so this is kinda beside the point imo.

"The cost of running a war exceeds the revenue a small government would make, hell, the war we run now is hardly being paid, and we have "big government".

So we have fewer wars, lower taxes, and more freedom.  In the few cases when war is actually necessary, it would of course be excusable to raise taxes to get revenue to defend the nation.  This is understandable and necessary taxation.  Unfortunately, most of the other things we spend money on is not as understandable nor as necessary.  Libertarians understand the need for a military to defend the nation.

"Sure.  And this doesn't matter to me.  If they waste their money on bad products, they suffer, not me.  You claim that the public is too stupid for libertarianism to be implimented.  This begs the question:  do you think our leaders in washington are wise enough in terms of use of the budget and funds for socialism or central planning to be implimented? I'd trust the market over the government anyday."

This is why libertarianism won't be implemented, people aren't smart enought to want to vote in small government, social liberal representatives, who, once they get in, actually enact libertarian policies.  This is why much of libertarian policy is pissing in the wind, how do you expect to suddenly reverse the political trend as it has proceeded for the last 50 years?  You could attempt to overthrow the government, but many americans despise radicals regardless of their political ideas, you'd lose popular support and the ancien regime would return.

>>53
THREAD OVER

>>50 "
All freedoms are important, but feminists need to get their priorities in order.  My apologies for sounding so condescending, but you apparently forget that there are women who like the 2A as well as men - it isn't one sided."

They are still equally important if you are being consistent. You say precious 2A is more important. How do you judge? What are your parameters? Your calculations and your ethics? Why do you think it is acceptable to make a distinction and prioritizing in the first place? Do you honestly believe people will realize they are boiling frogs and don their raccoon hats?

 Just because you frame the issue as the right to squish fetuses doesn't mean you are on solid ethical ground. In fact, it further reveals how inferior libertarianism with priorities is. Social liberty and financial liberty are equal. Solid progress in both is not difficult, and libertarians who let their preferences take priority betray the ethical framework in favor of utilitarianism.

People like you are the very reason I will not call myself a true-purple libertarian.

>>55
Some freedoms are more valuable that others.

Your freedom to anally sodomize a minor if he gives consent is not a freedom I would equate with the right for someone to not be but into a gulag.

>>55
Xels right...sort of. If you call yourself a libertarian you can't choose what freedoms are important, only what ones are "right". Any freedoms that are considered "right" all have equal precedence. We don’t use government like liberals or conservatives, they only see it as a means, and we see it as an end in itself. In this context you must understand that a freedom must be granted, the end, freedoms become our means. Choosing what freedom's have priority inserts a level of subjective skepticism and before you know it where conservatives/liberals (or worse), this is also why a true libertarian government will never exist in America.

Unlike xel I do call myself a true libertarian, but im very critical of others that dawn the same title.

>>55
We already know you're an active member of NAMBLA Xel, quit trying to set the stage.

>>55  "They are still equally important if you are being consistent."

I don't understand how you could possibly say a freedom that protects you from being murdered, robbed, raped, or violated is equally as important as the right to squish fetuses.  I guess we just have different priorities? LOL.  But then, in your system, if you get raped, at least you have your abortion rights.  But then on the other hand, I won't get raped, since I'll be armed.

"You say precious 2A is more important. How do you judge?"

All freedoms are important - true.  Some are more important than others.  Freedoms that protect other freedoms and rights should obviously take preference over others.  This is why the 1st and 2nd amendment are so much more important than much of the rest.  The 1st and 2nd amendment rights protect the others in two ways.  The 1st allows you to speak out against the government's violation of your rights, and in this way, possibly protect them.  And the 2nd? That's self-explanitory by now. 

"Why do you think it is acceptable to make a distinction and prioritizing in the first place?"

Why is it unacceptable?

"Do you honestly believe people will realize they are boiling frogs and don their raccoon hats?"

I think that it very well might not be necessary.  The 2A very well may prevent them from ever needing to realize that.  The simple threat of an armed populous is possibly enough. 

"Social liberty and financial liberty are equal. Solid progress in both is not difficult, and libertarians who let their preferences take priority betray the ethical framework in favor of utilitarianism."

Picking your favorite freedom does not necessarilly betray any principles or ethics.

>>57
"Xels right...sort of. If you call yourself a libertarian you can't choose what freedoms are important, only what ones are "right"."

I think you are misconstruing my viewing a freedom as being less important than another as my not supporting it.  I support all freedoms, regardless of whether or not they are important or not from my perspective. 

Nonetheless, you simply can't evade the logic that the 1st and 2nd amendments are arguably more important, as without them working to protect the rest becomes essentially impossible.

"Any freedoms that are considered "right" all have equal precedence."

I support all freedoms that can be considered 'right' from my view, of course, as I'm a libertarian.  However, I have to disagree with your notion that all liberties are equally important.  Liberties that protect other liberties are more significant, imo, than liberties that don't.  Don't get me wrong - I support all liberties.  I am just saying that this notion that abortion is anything near as important as Free Speech or the right to bear arms is pure baloney, since without the right to free speech or the right to bear arms, your ability to defend other rights (including abortion) becomes practically impossible.

>>56 Precisely my thoughts.

>>50
"The sad part is that a majority of Americans are prone to describe themselves as "socially liberal and economically conservative" - unfortunately Christianity creates wedge issues, socialists create controversy and stagnation, republicans can't introduce capitalism in an attractive manner to save their lives and suck up to retards, libertarians are hampered by semi-racist halfwits who would throw out reproductive rights in order to save guns..."

I know plenty of feminists who prefer the libertarian party who are all too happy to vote for democrats because they don't give a fuck about the 1st or 2nd amendments as long as they have the right to squish fetuses.  Yay for irrational feminists.  So yeah, I could also say:  'libertarians are hampered by semi-sexist halfwits who would throw out 1st and 2nd amendment rights in order to preserve the right to kill fetuses.'

OP here, man, I created a popular thread, but It looks like Xel has hijacked it.
I like you Xel, but come the fuck on, don't be a cockblock.

>>63 Sorry, I guess.

>>62 Of course, I think the same here. Fucking whiner...

>>56 We have minor laws because of the judgment of when consensuality isn't enough, so your analogy is irrelevant here. Nice try at a strawman though.

Lastly, just beacuse 1A and 2A are better at keeping other rights than the other way around doean't mean that it is ethical to give precedence - that is pragmatism.

Here is a useful table - why not tell me who should get your vote in '08?

I ended up with Obama at a first glance but I will revise, I think. There is a better candidate...

http://selectsmart.com/08frontrunners.html

>>65

I wouldn't vote for any of them, given a good alternative (such as libertarian).

Supposing there was no option to vote libertarian? I'd vote for Gingrich, Huckabee, Allen, Tancredo, Hagel, Brownback, Richardson, or Rice.. not necessarilly in that order.

>>65
I don't agree with a lot of what this chart has to say.  For ex, this chart has listed many people who voted for the patriot act and other reckless expansions of government power as supporting civil liberties, which is pure bullshit.  It also has people who support gun control as being supportive of civil liberties, which is also bullshit.  Gun control IS a civil liberty.  Anyhow, there aren't libertarians on there.  I would vote libertarian, since on a lot of the issues there (like civil liberties) there is no fucking difference between the candidates, regardless of what that chart says.

>>65
Democrats in general fail.  Barack Obama wants to escalate the drug war, and even cosponsored some legislation called the 'Combat Meth Act' - which is widely recognized as some of the toughest anti-meth legislation ever seen, allocating vast sums of money to  do everything from keeping tabs on people who buy 'suspicious' drugs such as cold medicine.. to jailing meth users.  A vote for Obama is a vote to escalate the drug war.

>>68
yea, i was going to vote for him purly because i thought he was the best candidate even though in general i dont like liberal policys. after learning about shit like that i think ill have to dump my vote into the libertarian party

>>65
Obama, I agreed with almost all of the stuff on the chart. Feingold was good too, but he's not running.

>>67
A civil liberty that allows you to kill people with great ease. Hence, it needs to be controlled. Not all gun control is "omg librals wanna grab muh gunz". Background checking is gun control.

>>68
Link plz. And meth is insane and incredibly dangerous to others. I'm all for legalizing soft drugs, but not stuff like meth or crack. Although it is near impossible to stop people from making meth due to it's mundane ingredients (like cold medicine), but I am for cracking down on existing meth labs.

>>70
"A civil liberty that allows you to kill people with great ease. Hence, it needs to be controlled. Not all gun control is "omg librals wanna grab muh gunz". Background checking is gun control."

Obama wants to do a hell of a lot more than background checks, and if you deny that, you are a fucking retard, or else just need to go look at congressional gun votes.  If a democrat supports gun control (and Obama does), that translates into passing just about every gun control law they can get people to accept, from gun registrations, to assault weapons bans, to handgun bans, to ammunition bans, etc.  Also, many democrats tend to support holding on to background check data for long after a firearm's purchase - ammounting to a de facto gun registry, even if they don't actually support a gun registry per se.

i have to admit it - im a capilist pigdog >< XD XD XD XD XD

>>70
"Link plz. And meth is insane and incredibly dangerous to others. I'm all for legalizing soft drugs, but not stuff like meth or crack. Although it is near impossible to stop people from making meth due to it's mundane ingredients (like cold medicine), but I am for cracking down on existing meth labs."

http://www.strike-the-root.com/61/victor/victor1.html

http://www.strike-the-root.com/61/victor/victor1.html

^ Great defense of drug legalization - even the harder drugs.  Recommended read for everyone.  The writer gives both the pro-freedom argument, as well as the consequentialist argument.

>>74
Yeah, and drug addicts spend their time working for money to buy more drugs, why do that when you can just steal shit/commit crimes to get the necessary money to buy them from your legitimate regulated source?

I really could care less about the freedoms of meth users, they are free to fuck up their own lives, but if they go nuts and end up fucking killing/robbing someone, I don't think we should tolerate their presence.  Meth users are not rational individuals, they are, like many other humans, beasts who respond only to impulse and to fulfilling want.  There is a reason we have mental institutions.  People who are not able to control themselves that pose a threat to other people should be jailed as well, or better, executed, as it's more financially sound in the long term.

I really don't buy the libertarian rhetoric that drug addicts are people who pursue a certain kind of lifestyle, a "choice".  It still stands that many drug users/dealers commit many other crimes than simply possession of drugs, how is it that you assume that simply making drugs legal will make them less likely to commit future crimes of different natures?  Or will you have me believe that drug users are in full control of their bodies and mental faculties and we should just trust them to make good decisions? Even after they made horrible ones already (Doing Meth)?

>>75
"Yeah, and drug addicts spend their time working for money to buy more drugs, why do that when you can just steal shit/commit crimes to get the necessary money to buy them from your legitimate regulated source?"

Well firslty, black market meth would likely be put out of business due to the fact that corporations could make the stuff much better and cheaper, and would take away all the black market's business for the stuff.  Anyway, drug users tend to commit crimes not out of laziness, but because they don't have enough money to fuel their addiction.  If drugs were legalized, the price would of course subsequently drop, and I couldn't say I'd be surprised if the crime levels dropped following that either.

"I really could care less about the freedoms of meth users, they are free to fuck up their own lives, but if they go nuts and end up fucking killing/robbing someone, I don't think we should tolerate their presence."

That is exactly the problem is that they and others are quite simply *not* free to 'fuck up' their own lives.  Nobody is saying meth users should be permitted to 'go nuts' or kill/rob everyone in sight.  I'm all for a tough stand on crime - real crime - like stealing or killing for example.  However, the simple act of putting something in your body that, as long as you handle yourself responsibly, will not harm anyone but yourself, is clearly a victimless crime, and should be legalized.  I am not advocating using meth while driving, nor am I advocating allowing meth users to go around killing or stealing unhindered by the same laws that are on the books for everyone else.  I am not asking you to tolerate robbery or murder, I am asking you to tolerate peaceful drug use - whatever drug that is.  If the person is managing his use of the drug in such a way that his usage of it does not harm anyone but him/herself, there is absolutely no concievable reason in my book why said individual should not be allowed to enjoy the given activity.

"I really don't buy the libertarian rhetoric that drug addicts are people who pursue a certain kind of lifestyle, a "choice".  It still stands that many drug users/dealers commit many other crimes than simply possession of drugs, how is it that you assume that simply making drugs legal will make them less likely to commit future crimes of different natures?"

I assume that simply making drugs legal will make them less likely to commit future crimes of different natures because I think the reason they commit the crimes to begin with is largely due to that they desperately want to get high, and can't do so in a legal manner, so they turn to illegal manners, such as stealing or murder to attain the money.  I think that large corporations and the market would be able to lower the cost of meth (if it was legalized) to such a point that far fewer people (if any) would need to steal or murder to get their drugs, and that the crime rate would drop subsequently, especially with the decline of gang-warfare and organized crime that I predict would follow the legalization of meth and other drugs.

"Or will you have me believe that drug users are in full control of their bodies and mental faculties and we should just trust them to make good decisions? Even after they made horrible ones already (Doing Meth)?"

I would have you believe no such thing.  If a drug user commits a crime while under the influence, I support the application of the law to the fullest extent just as I would for anyone else.  As I said, I do not think society should tolerate murder or theft.  Tolerating peaceful - as long as it is peaceful-  drug use, on the other hand, is a different thing entirely in my book.

I must concede that that was a convincing article. However, I am not entirely convinced that legalizing meth would reduce crime.