Prohibition didn't fail; it was wildly successful.
I knew I read something on this before:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120817/02295020080/so-ma...
Readit NewsProhibition didn't fail; it was wildly successful.
For Joe Kennedy maybe.
Prohibition succeeded because they formed an alliance with the Women's Suffrage movement.
Prohibition failed because it allowed the bootleggers of the underground to fully monopolize their trade without having to abide by any legal restrictions. If a business no longer has the threat of ramifications for questionable acts, then the questionable acts increase exponentially.
That can be two-way though. Cracking down only builds a stronger underground, which is where I see the entire surveillance issue going. As with all other ails in society, the ones with the power to effect real change are precisely the ones who would suffer most by said change. So it won't happen. Petitions, demonstrations, appeals courts, etc, are all useless. And there could never be a massive, singular pro-privacy effort as there is no money to be made. The NRA and big pharma have huge lobby groups playing with billions of dollars because there's billions more to be made.
So what? It's harder to combat guerrillas than a standing army. There's not always safety in numbers, sometimes that just results in a bigger target. So what if the Feds can tap into the larger encrypted anythings, give them a thousand tiny encryption outlets to deal with instead. Not a united cause, but a million different efforts. OWS failed bigtime because there were too many cooks in the kitchen. Aligning forces means individual voices get lost in the shuffle of the crowd. And Prohibition aligning with the Suffrage movement only resulted in the Suffrage movement being falsely placated to as a new target for Capitalism. Sell them ladies some cigarettes! Sell them some clothes-washing machinery! Let them know how much we respect their struggles by giving them things to go broke on!
(Apologies for any lack in logic- still working on 1st pot of coffee.)
In communism there was no progress exactly because of laws like this. Who wants to operate hosting business in the US now? Why not Asia? HK, Singapore? Or even New Zealand at this point. See how much business is lost. See how much Google, Yahoo, MS, Facebook are hurting now. That's true people will still use them, but not for business critical stuff. No way. In the name of catching a few idiots from a desert who try to blow up themselves they just handled over the whole IT industry to the rest of the world. How stupid you must be to do that?
I'm sure some of the largest of the tech firms are getting something for their troubles.
Torkild commented on The costly criminalisation of the mentally ill economist.com/news/united... · Posted by u/qingu
Some people engage in self-destructive behaviour because their early life was destroyed by abuse. These behaviours can be things like taking drugs, risky sex, self-harm, and so on. Obviously not everyone doing these things has had awful experiences in early life.
For these people it's not acceptable to just let them get on with it. They're not happy, they're not fulfilling their potential, they are not well.
This is why I stopped voting for any politicians years ago. It's just enabling.
I am not saying they're not worthy of that contempt, merely that they don't care if they are, just if you're showing contempt for the process and violating the order