Have you noticed that the more the government prohibits, the worse it does for itself?
About prohibition, I have noticed:
"Prohibition does not prevent. Prohibition makes the good things bad and the bad things worse."
Way to hand something over to the black market where the only regulation, the only control, is the market, now inflamed by the forbidden fruit effect, making it more wanted, more expensive, and more polluted and lower quality. Orwellian language not withstanding, it’s not a controlled substance. And it’s not a taxed substance.
Gotta wonder about the incentives. The corruption. Someone’s doing better for themselves.
What do you mean? The state acts depending on the circumstances it finds itself in, and the stage of class struggle. States prohibit more as class struggle heightens and from external and internal pressures, that’s what drives it.
I apologize, as usual, I was tired and couldn’t write a post normally. I was referring to those stupid online identity verification laws that the fascists propose under the guise of security, but in fact for control.
Ah, gotcha. They are employing more draconian measures as they are forced into austerity politics by imperialist decay, because they need to exert a tighter grip on a population that does not want austerity. This, of course, breeds more resistance, as you pointed out.
Yes, and we are at the stage of the collapse of the empire, as it was in the past with Rome, for example, or am I mistaken? I just don’t know what to compare it to, because I’m not an expert in it.
I’m certainly not an “expert,” but it does appear that way, yes. The global south is rising in development, which is breaking down the system of super-exploitation the west has relied on. Without a strong industrial base, austerity is forced, which breeds discontent. Something is always rising, and something is always dying away. Dialectics at work.
Wdym by this?
