"Lowell C. Savage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in part: >> 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. But there were other factors. Repeal of liquor prohibition came with the Great Depression (which was a factor in repeal), which depressed all economic activity, including, apparently, crime. In Your Sly Tribe, Robert _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [email protected] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
