"That's all great until you talk about specifics. Like stopping organized crime from taking over and controlling key industries.
"


Like it does now?

Strange how you never seem to acknowledge that organized crime only dominates those industries made black by government fiat. And how you never have any comeback except platitudes and assertions and moving of goalposts for the fact that criminals cannot dominate free markets because of factors like time preference, costs, and decision making skills. On a level playing field, businessmen outcompete criminals day in and day out. This is why businessmen dominated the alcohol industry before and after prohibition, but violent criminals dominated during. Why did the criminal grip on that industry not survive the end of Prohibition if violence is such a great market strategy, hmm? The only place criminals can dominate is in places where the playing field is made unlevel by government. High time preference individuals make poorer decisions because they cannot include long term costs and consequences into their economic planning. Criminals are the epitome of high time preference individuals; they want immediate satisfaction and damn the consequences. Violence is costly. People who made poor decisions and incur higher costs will never outcompete people who make better decisions and incur lower costs in a free market.

Oh, sorry. I guess I wasn't supposed to talk, again, about these "specifics" that you accuse me of not talking about.

It amazes me how you apologists for the state trot out the same tired old beat-down arguments over and over, as if you never heard them debunked the first thousand times.

And my favorite part is this, that your answer to "preventing organized crime from taking over and controlling key industries" is to . . . have organized criminals take over and control key industries.