One should understand that there are a plentiful amount of manhole covers, and if one is an enterprising person, they can exploit this resource in order to continually afford mind altering substances. No wait is needed if one expands their search.
One should also understand there is a plentiful amount of mind altering substances and those who sell and/or possess them. If one is to aquire a weapon such as a firearm they would be able quite easily aquire those substances as long as they were to pick a target who is not equally armed as this method requires having the monopoly of force in the moment. This method can be quite risky however as if this resource is exploited from a member of an criminal organization either inadvertently or intentionally one may find that they had the upper hand initially but that now their investment has led to being faced with 2 options: relocate, or find a way to gain the upper hand, this may be possible if one is able to aquire superior equipment and even possibly find people to recruit. If recruiting people to assist you may find forming your own criminal organization will lead to even more resources becoming available. For example, the mind altering substances being sought could be manufactured both for one’s personal use and as a way of making profit, however some of this revenue will need to be used to fight the conflict that was why you formed the organization initially.
Since its an image of Murray Rothbard, I cannot stop myself from quoting him:
Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive. (Again, whether or not a parent has a moralrather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)? The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such “neglect” down to a minimum.)
Someone actually had this train of thought, sat down and wrote it, published it, and other people saw it as worthy of reading and disseminating.
From the Wikipedia article written about him:
Rothbard opposed egalitarianism and the civil rights movement, and blamed women’s voting and activism for the growth of the welfare state.
Sounds like a real winner of a person. Bleh.
Imagine turning bad takes into a whole career, this dude would have fit right in on Twitter.
