I don't think that many people would WANT someone who burglarized them to be executed for doing so, so I doubt that many people would buy such an add on package. If an agency starts killing people for minor crimes, I believe that other defense agencies will attempt to put a stop to it even if nobody is paying them to do so. Probably some will continue to fund the war on drugs, however the funding would be significantly cut. I will use silk road for an example. Silk road serves as a sort of private defense agency, it offers protection to any drug users / dealers who wish to use it, and in return for this service the operators receive a percentage of the profits made. Silk road is a purely defensive operation though. An example of an offensive operation would be an assassination market. An assassination market could exist where people put bets on the time of death of DEA agents, or the time when a "terrorist" attack is carried out against DEA agents. When such an even occurs, the person who bet closest to the event wins the entire jackpot, probably payable with Bitcoins. Now every drug dealer who desires freedom from the DEA will be encouraged to place bets on when these events occur. This will create a large sum of Bitcoins available to whoever most closely predicts the time of an event that is negative to the DEA. So if the pot for the bombing of a DEA building gets high enough, agencies and/or independent actors that wish to collect this jackpot will be encouraged to take actions that cause their predicted date of attack to be correct. Drug dealers will be encouraged to place bets if they wish for the DEA to be compromised, but even the drug dealers / users who cannot afford to place bets or who don't want to place bets, will gain an advantage from the carried out offensive action. This is one possible mechanism of action that would allow my claim to be true, although there are many others as well. Revictimization is such a bullshit claim. First of all, child porn crime scenes are the only crime scenes that it is illegal to view photographs of. Thus, there is inconsistency in the law if this is truly the reason why you think CP possession should be illegal. Why are people not tried for war crimes when they view images of the holocaust? Why is it legal to possess images of rape so long as the person being raped is not a minor? Second of all, if you want to make the claim that the child rightfully owns the image in which they appear, and you are arguing with someone who agrees that information can be owned, then it makes me wonder why are CP possessors given sentences that are more severe than child rapists are given, instead of tried in civil court with the other information property rights violators? So again there is inconsistency. Additionally, the true violator of the child's privacy is the person who publishes the image in the first place. This is the child molester, who I have already established is a criminal for engaging in child molestation. Also, what about the CP willingly and intentionally produced and distributed by young teenagers? The entire argument of re-victimization completely falls apart in such cases. Additionally, if it is a privacy violation that is the cause for child porn viewing to be illegal, then why is it not illegal to view spy cam pornography of adults? Some more inconsistency. Not to mention the fact that it is completely futile to make child porn illegal in an effort to ameliorate a victims fears that someone is viewing the material they are in, even the feds admit that once CP is released to the internet it is virtually impossible to remove it completely, and this is with laws against CP viewing already in full effect. So in short, the people who argue from this basis, believe in a magical process and additionally are entirely inconsistent when it comes to what they think the laws should be when it comes to viewing photographs of a crime scene, viewing photographs in which someones privacy has been violated and the penalties that should be given to violators of information property. Once you realize that you realize that they are just making shit up to justify the fact that they want to enslave people who view CP. Yes I do come from an immediate family of atheists and scientists, I also come from an immediate family of firm libertarians. The economic forces of supply and demand may be established, but when there is an infinite supply already existing that far exceeds the demand of essentially everybody, the model starts to become less applicable. There are millions and millions of unique CP images and videos, essentially infinite copies of these images and videos can be made for free, only the most die hard CP traders obtain even a small fraction of the currently available CP. Additionally I already said that paying for production and production should be illegal. I think that they would have made almost exactly as much because they advertised via spam, and regardless of the content they had I think the people who joined would have joined in either case. Shit, the same people would have probably joined and/or not joined even if they had no child pornography at all and it was really a sting operation from the get go. I believe that the number of people who joined would be consistent regardless of the sort of material they had, or if they had any material at all, and thus I believe the number of people who joined is representative of the current demand for commercial CP. It is likely that the demand for commercial CP would increase if it was legal to pay for CP, yet it is even more likely that the fact that CP is widely and freely available would majorly counter the amount of money going into commercialized CP. Also I have put forward a coherent explanation of why supply and demand does not apply to CP, and if I am not mistaken I gave a citation to a publication from a Ph.D holding researcher saying that there is no empirical evidence for the market theory of CP and additionally a quote from a federal employee claiming that supply and demand is not applicable to CP.