Greetings, Conster (Connie?): > Hello Shadow > >In a Libertarian world, your neighbors wouldn't be making meth next door > - > >Eli Lilly and Company would, in a proper chemical plant, and its products > >would be available at 7-11 and Circle K, cheaper and cleaner than your > >neighbors could make. > > Isn't this like the biggest assumption one could make? Seriously.. Why > would a "Libertarian" world not have the same criminal element that > now exist in our world. We aren't talking about heaven here, we are > talking about the same world with a different political party. To > believe that every thing would be wonderful and it would be like > "We're not in Kansas anymore Toto." isn't realistic at all.
Actually, there is considerable precedent for this "assumption." The history books call it "Prohibition." When alcohol was illegal, there were all kinds of bad effects from its manufacture, distribution, sale and consumption. Sugar (and along with it many other things) was stolen from stores and warehouses so that the Feds couldn't track who was purchasing large lots of it and investigate to see if it was involved in making alcohol. Organized crime controlled the distribution--with the usual turf wars and contract "enforcement" problems that went with distribution and sale of illegal goods. And, of course, people were harmed by consuming wood-alcohol based products. Finally, the money and opportunities for advancement (by pumping up one's "score" of arrests) corrupted the police and the justice system. Obviously, alcohol-related problems are yet with us, but cause a lower level of trouble in our society than when Prohibition was in place. People seem to have a preference for less potent beer and wine-cooler products in a relatively free and open market than they do for the more potent hard liquors. Almost no one gets blinded by wood alcohol, the smugglers and moon shiners are out of business (except for a few souls who barely make a profit and probably continue 'shining mainly out of sheer cussedness) and the police don't take bribes from alcohol producers, distributors or sellers and they don't frame people with illegal possession of alcohol. Based on the alcohol experience, one would reasonably expect a similar thing to occur if drugs were treated in a manner similar to alcohol. Large corporations with brand names to protect would make products without un-advertised impurities, legal distributors would provide the product to legal sellers who would sell the product for far less than current prices. Sales contracts and "turf" disputes would be matters for the courts to decide. And the population of people who drive under the influence, beat their spouse or children and engage in other anti-social behavior probably wouldn't change much--with the exception that when they get to the point that they have to steal to support their habit, they will need to steal less. But there'd be more space for them in jails and prisons when they get caught breaking other laws (against DUI, assault, theft, etc.). And finally, the corrupting influence on our justice system would be removed. Would all that happen? Or would something about the drugs make it so that things would get much worse? Reasonable people can take both sides of the argument. But please, understand the argument and address it. Thanks, Lowell C. Savage It's the freedom, stupid! Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly. _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [email protected] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
