They should either ban it or regulate it, depending on which is more beneficial

And do gauge that, you conduct studies

most of the time banning it causes a lot of problems

Not really

for example drugs giving money to cartels

You have to look at the empirical evidence

And in many of those cases that is failure on the part of the government

i agree

but thats how the goverment works

they are really bad at their job

No, in many other cases, govt. intervention is better than not banning or not regulating

some cases yes

a lot of cases no

As I said, it depends on how the govt. actions are undertaken

It doesn't mean you have to abandon the govt. altogether

i agree u do need government

but a limited government is much better

Difference is, you are taking it as an axiom

I'm depending on empirical evidence

Small government can be better in some instances, worse off in other

yes it does depend on factors

i honestly think certain aspects of the government should be expanded

and others should be remove or limited

Border wall is an example of a big government program that is necessary

And other forms of immigration restrictions

agreed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwSsT8IU0WE

SAIKAT CHAMRABARTI IS GONE

though i do think the government should privatize the building of the wall and other border security elements

What do you think will happen when the owner of that part of the private wall decides to let Mexicans in on his whim

not a private wall land

With the govt. wall, the govt. is accountable to the people

Private corporations are not

i mean like the government contracts someone to build the wall for them

they own the land and what not

In that case, it can be feasible

i think a lot of thing can be done well with that approach

This is why State Capitalism > Minarchy

i'm not a fan of state owned business tho

ie state monopolies

though i can agree that there needs to be more than just the military, police and courts