Simon Clark – Taking Liberties – How stupid is Plain Packs Protect?.
There are many reasons they’re not passed down, Tom. The Triune code, laid out in scripture in all reputable versions…

THE LAST DITCH
Simon Clark – Taking Liberties – How stupid is Plain Packs Protect?.
I appreciate the spirit in which you write, but lovers of liberty need to oppose vested commercial interests as well as the power of the State. Big CEO is as bad as Big Brother (in fact they work together quite a lot). For example, what I read in the interwebs tells me that Prohibition was actually largely popular and in terms of health and law’n’order a success, but was ended when government wanted a new source of revenue as a result of the Depression, and commercial brewers and unions backed the move. Prohibition law did not forbid you to make and consume alcolhol; it only stopped its commercial exploitation. Are libertarians being beautifully played here?
LikeLike
“I appreciate the spirit in which you write, but lovers of liberty need to oppose vested commercial interests as well as the power of the State. Big CEO is as bad as Big Brother”
This is nonesense. No matter how big they get, commercial interests are only able to sell you things. They are not able to make you do what you do not want to do against your will as government does
LikeLike
You overlook how commercial interests capture government and regulators.
You also omit to consider how providers of certain products are exploiting addictive tendencies in people (now, mental – gaming etc – as well as substance-based) but this is an issue libertarians seem unable to face.
Try not to dismiss alternative views as nonsense.
LikeLike
You write “commercial exploitation” like it was a bad thing. Prejudiced against “trade” are we? Prohibition was bad for public health as many innocents died from bad booze and gangsters. Organised crime was born in that era and lives now largely on the drug trade – modern prohibition. If you want more gangsters, more political dynasties like the Kennedy family and more tyranny, there’s nothing to beat the prohibition of pleasures enjoyed by millions.
And as tomsmith says, no-one can force you to buy a commercial product. There’s no comparison with the monopoly of force enjoyed by government. None at all. It’s as daft as the supposed cold war moral equivalence of the USA and the USSR. If you want to hear that nonsense advocated, talk to a Marxist academic. If you want to hear the truth, speak to a former citizen of the Soviet Bloc.
The effects you address are caused by big government. Corrupt CEOs can’t warp markets without state assistance – or at least not for long enough to be dangerous.
LikeLike
And you overlook that they could not be captured if they were not there. As for addiction to goods and services, I don’t buy it. It’s a euphemism for weakness and/or stupidity. That a fool and his money are soon parted is not a bug but a feature. Wealth should (and absent state interference does) gravitate towards those best able to make it grow.
LikeLike
“And you overlook that they could not be captured if they were not there.”
Even the original Tom Paine did not argue for no government at all.
“Wealth should (and absent state interference does) gravitate towards those best able to make it grow.”
Hasn’t it just!
LikeLike
Until I looked into it, I accepted the conventional view of the effects of Prohibition. Seems it’s not quite right:
http://theylaughedatnoah.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/killer-facts-about-prohibition-in-usa.html
I apologise for the lack of links in that post – for some reason my browser was having an argument with Blogger (or vice versa) at that time and I was unable to copy and paste them.
LikeLike
I do not argue for no government but for no government interference in trade. Absent such interference ministers will not be worth a CEOs time, unless he wants to sell them equipment for the three legitimate roles of government; defence, policing and the courts.
LikeLike
Would banking be included in your definition of trade?
P.S. Is there some shortcut to commenting here? I seem to have to supply name and email address every time.
LikeLike

Tom is a retired international lawyer. He was a partner in a City of London law firm and spent almost twenty years abroad serving clients from all over the world.
Returning to London on retirement in 2011, he was dismayed to discover how much liberty had been lost in the UK while he was away.
He’s a classical liberal (libertarian, if you must) who, like his illustrious namesake, considers that
“…government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.”
Receive content by email
There are many reasons they’re not passed down, Tom. The Triune code, laid out in scripture in all reputable versions…
I’ve always tried to live my life doing no wrong but life isn’t like that so you make compromised but…
Hate to tell you this, but it’s not going to end until you end it. You think people to whom…
[…] – Tom Paine […]
They are servants. Just not of the public. He gets a full pension because he did his job for his…
Leave a comment