Quote from: StonedEmo on September 07, 2012, 10:20 pmQuote from: grahamgreene on September 07, 2012, 09:00 pmInstead of stating your belief, why not back up your argument? Your reply is akin to me stating "YOU'RE nonsense." It has no value, adds nothing to your argument and the only thing it achieves is making you out to look rather uneducated, which I'm sure was not your intention.. ???It applies not only to agorism, but to the biggest part of your second post, as I was not talking neither about legal drugs, nor contradicted myself telling that LE imprisons suppliers only... Got used, if anyone disagrees with them, he is uneducated.I'm sorry but what you've just posted makes absolutely no sense. I genuinely can't understand what you're trying to say here. 0.2 BTC for anyone that can translate it into English. :-\ I'll attempt to reply to the parts that do have a semblance of sense to them."Your agorism is nonsense" was your response to my first post. Seeing as you are reiterating that point, I'll again ask you to demonstrate how my "agorism is nonsense", and again ask you to back up your statement in some way.Once again, stating "your agorism is nonsense" is akin to me stating "You are nonsense." It is entirely nonsensical. If you can't explain the reasoning behind your arguments then it is absolutely pointless debating anything with you. ???Quote from: StonedEmo on September 07, 2012, 10:20 pmIt applies not only to agorism, but to the biggest part of your second post, as I was not talking neither about legal drugs...I know that you weren't talking about legal drugs but if you re-read your post you will see that you stated:Quote from: StonedEmo on September 07, 2012, 08:14 pmYour agorism is nonsense.Correct! The number of imprisoned buyers dictate the prices. ***Your drugs wouldn't cost more than useless junk if they were legal.*** The more people are in jail, the more risky the whole enterprise is, the bigger the prices. Want a principle? Here it is: May you die today so that I die tomorrow.I rebutted your statement by showing that drugs DO still cost more than useless junk when they are legal.Quote from: grahamgreene on September 07, 2012, 09:00 pmYour argument is invalid as legal drugs also command relatively high prices - pharmaceutical companies, in particular, charge outrageously high prices for their drugs; drugs which are legal, and cost mere pennies to produce, making the companies vast sums of money after the research and development costs have been satisfied.Riskier enterprise =/= "the bigger the prices." The prices are dictated by what the buyer is willing to pay for them. Sure, prices are jacked up as the risk increases, but that does not mean that people have to pay those prices. If they choose not to then the price will drop, demonstrating that the market dictates the prices, not the supplier.I will also add that pharmaceuticals is a virtually risk-free industry, or in the case of a single company, a virtually risk-free enterprise; therefore if we use your logic it would stand to reason that their drugs, which are legal, would cost the same as "useless junk". They do not, which invalidates your argument.Quote from: StonedEmo on September 07, 2012, 08:14 pm... nor contradicted myself telling that LE imprisons suppliers only...You did indeed contradict yourself, though not in the way you seem to think I am stating. I did not state that you said LE imprisons suppliers only. Did you even read my post?! :oQuote from: StonedEmo on September 07, 2012, 08:14 pmThe number of imprisoned buyers dictate the prices. The more people are in jail, the more risky the whole enterprise is, the bigger the prices.You stated that the number of buyers that are in jail dictate the prices. You then stated "the more people are in jail, the more risky the whole enterprise is, the bigger the prices." You directly contradicted yourself. How does a large amount of buyers in jail (which according to you dictates the price) increase the risk of the 'whole enterprise'?! Buyers are just buyers. They don't affect the risk profile of supplying at all. The only reason the enterprise could be considered 'riskier' is if the people being imprisoned were suppliers as the reason they would be in prison is because of the risk they're taking by supplying. Buyers going to prison does not affect the supplier's risk, ergo it does not affect the price.Suppliers are the ones taking the risk by running 'the enterprise', thereby making the latter part of your statement apply to them, and completely contradicting the former part of your statement.Another way to look at it is that you're stating the following: that imprisoned buyers are the ones that dictate the prices because they want to pay more money for something that has a higher risk of putting them in prison. This is absurd.Your statements make no sense. Literally, no sense at all.As for:Quote from: StonedEmo on September 07, 2012, 08:14 pmGot used, if anyone disagrees with them, he is uneducated.Another 0.2 BTC reward for anyone that can figure out the meaning behind that. I'm going to hazard a guess and say that English isn't your first language? If it's not, let me know and I'll attempt to make my future replies a little simpler.Quote from: StonedEmo on September 07, 2012, 08:14 pmQuote from: grahamgreene on September 07, 2012, 07:14 pmQuote from: StonedEmo on September 07, 2012, 08:14 pmWant a principle? Here it is: May you die today so that I die tomorrow.What you have stated is basically just a principle of self-preservation in quote form. It is entirely out of place here, and contributes nothing to your argument.What I have stated is what you, agorists, have adopted so easily. Price is high because of the only one reason: risk. And the more people are convicted, the bigger risks are.Are you stating that agorists have adopted the principles of self-preservation? By virtue of being a living creature, everyone and everything, agorist or otherwise, lives by that same principle. Humans, while we do express compassion, essentially have self-preservation hardwired in our brains as our number one priority. The drive to stay alive.Your statement has nothing to do with agorism and everything to do with being alive. The two, whilst not mutually exclusive, are certainly not the same.Price is not high because of one reason, it is high for a number of reasons, yes, one of them being risk. However, the argument that I am making is that prices are dictated by the markets. If I have a kilo of cocaine that I have to personally swim through shark infested waters in order to sell, and my competitor has a kilo of the exact same cocaine that was flown in, I can charge ten times more for it than my competitor because there was a lot more risk for me. However, I won't sell it, because nobody will pay for it based on risk. People will pay what they think it is worth, or else they won't buy it and will go to my competitor who is advertising lower prices. If they feel his prices are too high, they will go to another competitor, and if they're still dissatisfied with prices, they can import it themselves and charge a significantly lower price for it.Yes, risk is a FACTOR in prices charged by sellers, but what dictates the price is what the buyer is willing to pay for it. If the market is not willing to pay 50,000 for a kilo of cocaine, then it won't sell. If an enterprising individual comes along and decides to charge 25,000 by reducing their profit margin by 60 - 70%, then that will sell as it is better value than the 50,000 offering. If a coca grower and processor comes along and decides to sell a kilo of cocaine for 5,000, then it is incredibly likely that that will be snapped up, leaving the 25,000 and 50,000 sellers unable to sell their product as BUYERS will no longer pay those prices for it.QuoteAgain I'll ask:Quote from: grahamgreene on September 07, 2012, 07:14 pm... do you even know what agorism is? ??? Quote from: StonedEmo on September 07, 2012, 08:14 pmGo on! Go on! I'm already applauding here!I presume you're applauding because you think I'm going to write out a long description of what agorism is, only to be met with a 3 sentence reply from you that makes absolutely no sense and isn't backed up by any logic whatsoever.So, to reiterate: I asked you if "you even know what agorism is?" - if you are unable to answer that question, all you have to do is say 'no'.- grahamgreene