7 ms·

Actually, my response to your first point gives you a very clear and useful test for deciding whether "criminals can use $FOO, therefore $FOO must be tightly co

Actually, my response to your first point gives you a very clear and useful test for deciding whether "criminals can use $FOO, therefore $FOO must be tightly controlled" actually applies to $FOO. That test is: Is owning/dealing in large amounts of $FOO specifically relevant for having power? Three examples that lie on different points of the spectrum: Criminals can eat hamburgers. Should hamburgers be tightly controlled? Ask yourself: Is owning/dealing in large amounts of hamburgers specifically relevant for having power? Criminals drive cars. Should cars be tightly controlled? Ask yourself: Do large amounts of cars lead to power? Criminals use guns. Should guns be tightly controlled? Ask yourself: Do large amounts of guns lead to power? And so on...

smsm42 13y ago
Owning large amount of steel or wool or orange juice could make you a billionaire. Billionaires usually have a lot of power. >>> Is owning/dealing in large amounts of hamburgers specifically relevant for having power? Sure, if you control hamburger market for a large city, you would have lots of power. See also agricultural lobby - they produce a lot of food and have a lot of power because they produce food. >>> Do large amounts of cars lead to power? Definitely. Having large amount of cars, you could cause traffic jams anytime and cause immense economic harm. Or you could deliver stuff really quickly and earn billions of dollars and buy a dozen of congressmen with these billions, gaining a lot of power. Having a real lot of basically anything could give you power. And note that government controls even minute amounts of money which give you no power whatsoever - low boundary for reporting requirements if a puny $10K, which wouldn't even buy you a decent car.