From your reactionary web site:
The premise of the book is simple: the police and the government have,with few exceptions, absolutely no responsibility to protect you, and no responsibility to arrest or incarcerate criminals. You're on your own, and if you depend on the police, you do so at your own risk.
Then, pray tell, explain the MILLIONS of inmates in American prisons. Or would you have me believe they were all arrested by rent-a-cops and incarcerated in rent-a-jails? Perhaps they have all been found guilty by rent-a-juries and then sentenced by rent-a-judges?
Then you respond:
"Drug prohibition is the reason why America has 1.6 million people incarcerated, more per capita than any other country..."
-- London Daily Telegraph, Dec. 22, 1996
Doesn't that rather support MY claim that law enforcement IS---in contradistinction to your reactionary quote---busy doing the state's dirty work?
: It seems it's "criminal" to "offend" a drug. I'd say the cops and judges are quite busy finding such horrendous "criminals" that they'd have little time for protection.
You're retreating with an even more reactionary claim---i.e. that 'average' people are unprotected from (unspecified) crimes because the law must persecute drug offenders (a policy true libertarians no doubt oppose).
The state, my misinformed friend, will ALWAYS be required to do business's dirty work. At tax-payers expense, it's the cheapest bargain in town.
: Bald assertion. I could just as easily say that socialism will ALWAYS result in mass starvation and death.
You're doing violence to logic here. What would be cheaper: a business buying its OWN protection or letting the tax-payers buy its protection FOR THEM?
As Marx once pointed out, without tax payers the railroad never would have been built. No single company could afford to connect the continental United States on its own budget.
Be consistent now like a good neoliberal---and repudiate socialism for the rich!