I like this, a very good point about drug dealers and violence. It is hard to convince a lot of people that drug legalization would be a good thing, especially police officers I know who see the violence caused by drug-dealers, or so they think. I'll keep this argument in mind, thanks for posting it!
 

The Blackadder Says:

Bob, have you ever seen The Wire?
 

You have me thinking now...I wonder if the enforcement mechanism itself is a factor?

The government has provided an absolutely free violence service. If I want to mess with my competition, it doesn't cost me anything to send the US government after them with guns drawn.

So if I'm getting violence for free, the only way for my competitors to survive is to have better quality violence to use against my free violence...

Hahaha...I'll go back to work now..tell me if I'm being stupid.
 

Bob,

This assumes that the only real problem with drugs is criminal on criminal violence (plus the attending collateral damage, of course).

Why is it that liberals (and libertarians) always pull violence out as a trump card? If people get killed, whatever it is must be bad.

Bob, have you given sufficient attention to the possibility that civilized people don't want to be enveloped by a drug culture? Isn't an alcoholic culture bad enough?

(As you can see, I'm not bothered much by the logical inconsistency--drug legalization is foremost a practical political question that government theorists can disagree about in the abstract.)
 

"Bob, have you given sufficient attention to the possibility that civilized people don't want to be enveloped by a drug culture? Isn't an alcoholic culture bad enough?"

We already live in a drug culture.
 

Anonymous--

I'll be happy to share my ideas about how government, can change that.

Or, were you just interested in casually dismissing my rationale?
 

If we had a free market, housing development firms could build and market entire developments as "Christian" and/or "child-proof" or whatever. Drugs and their users could be banned just like porno or rap whatever they might want to ban. They could/would contain private schools with the same rules. Low-lifes wouldn't even be allowed on the private streets.

A drug free neighborhood and school is a good that the market is quite capable of providing. It is the government that criminalizes disassociation from thugs and unsavory types.

In conclusion, again, it's all the government's fault. With a lot of help from anti-market Christians who insist upon our current Soviet style bass-ackwards drug enforcement program.

Economic illiteracy does have bad consequences.
 

"It is the government that criminalizes disassociation from thugs and unsavory types."

Agreed. But there's no reason that housing development firms won't do the same thing. There is no inherent virtue in private companies that governments lack. I.e., companies grow large and unaccountable also. Human nature is corrupt. Bureaucracies happen.

At some point you're going to have to tackle the difficult task of deciding how to determine and implement/ reinforce the behavior that's acceptable for the "housing development" you live in. And, you're going to need to hire a "security firm" to enforce the standards the membership has agreed upon. Then you need to create some mechanism to determine whether the security firm is carrying out its contractual obligation or not.

Guess what? Now you've got government.

Maybe it's time to talk about what real government is & what it should look like rather than erring into the path of naive avoidance that says, "I don't like the system we've got, so I'm going to invoke a pure free market scenario that (I hope) will automatically lead to the outcome everyone desires...peace on earth!" Dream on, pal.
 

Then you need to create some mechanism to determine whether the security firm is carrying out its contractual obligation or not.

Guess what? Now you've got government.

My goodness, what a weak response. I’m shocked. My scenario does not involve government because it is a voluntary relationship. Once can choose to live wherever one desires subject to the private rules. Or not.

I would expect a vast array of different types of places to live. No need to worry about an election win where your opponent could thereafter sic a SWAT TEAM on you because of your different lifestyle choice. And there would be no black market problems.

What’s the problem with that?

"I don't like the system we've got, so I'm going to invoke a pure free market scenario that (I hope) will automatically lead to the outcome everyone desires...peace on earth!" Dream on, pal.

Well, if the initiation of force is forbidden and that rule is followed, there would be peace on earth. By definition. Is that somehow a basis for not proposing and following that rule?
 

Government does not HAVE to be Hobbesian States. Churches have governments, but they don't have states. Clubs have governments, but they don't have States.

This is hard for people to grasp, having been taught from birth that the absence of a State is necessarily rape followed by murder (which is why the pre-state west is always depicted as chaos, even though it was much safer than today). A brutal society isn't made civilized by imposing a State over it, as the State must be more brutal than the most brutal private actor. However, a State does have a gradual de-civilizing effect, which is why you can take people living perfectly well without a State, but a State over them, and in a few generations you'll have something a lot less civilized as a result.
 

I think Greg has a valid point -- the State gives one group a costless (to itself) method of inflicting violence on those it doesn't like. How can this not increase total violence?
 

Greg, you're not being stupid. I actually was grappling with how to fit that point in, but it didn't quite flow from the other points I had made, so I dropped it. But yes I think it's really big. To put it somewhat glibly, "When the government sends in SWAT teams and tanks to fight drug lords, why are we surprised that drug lords are heavily armed and violent?"

Andrew Matthews: Yes, if something causes a lot of people to die, that per se is a big strike against it in my book. If we had 4 people in the US who used cocaine, in exchange for drug gangs killing each other in turf battles, your tradeoff might be plausible. But people in prison still get drugs, and kids in middle school deal drugs. So what is the point of policies that result in lots of deaths (which you seem to be conceding) and still allow that much rampant drug use?
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Bob, a couple of paragraphs in response: First, no one is holding a gun to force drug dealers to engage in their criminality. They bring violence upon themselves by disobeying the law. The collateral deaths that occur are largely people who are associated with them, or, who have chosen to live near them, and in some sense complicit in the corruption of the community. Of course, children who have no choice suffer. A sad fact of life is that children unjustly suffer the consequences of adult actions.

Second, there have always been gangs and there will always be gangs. Drugs are merely the pretext. The government policy of outlawing drugs does not lead to criminal-on-criminal violence either directly or indirectly. To suggest otherwise is simply ludicrous. If government were the real evil and not the actual individuals who associate together in gangs, then why don’t the gangs grow rich together by cooperating to bring their goods to their loyal paying customers? They could unite their resources and create a black market so huge it would eat the conventional market from the inside out. A true free market would then arise from the ashes.

Third, as with any other war, the drug war can only be won by an absolute determination to utterly annihilate the enemy with overwhelming force.

Lastly, I’ll respond to the charge that drug-warriors hypocritically pursue bloody policies while countenancing rampant drug use in the culture. Setting aside the fact that the user is less morally culpable than the pusher, of course the demand side should be vigorously pursued.

Though unrealistic to expect in the current political climate (as is any competent prosecution of war), users should be regarded as collaborators with an enemy power, and should at least be detained as prisoners of war—if not executed—until the hostilities are over.

Anticipating the objection of those who would say that the drug culture does not warrant the extreme measure of war (i.e., it’s really not that big of a deal), my retort is, they should tell that to Mexico.

A question: do anarcho-libertarians believe in habeas corpus or Miranda rights? If so, Why? And if so, which entity would function as the guarantor of these rights in the anarcho-capitalist paradise?
 

Note: the above comment is addressed to Bob Murphy. This comment is a reply to Bob Roddis:

My scenario does not involve government because it is a voluntary relationship.

Perhaps you could explain how your scenario avoids the establishment of some sort of government.

Also, what do you mean by “voluntary”? Don’t we “voluntarily” accept the authority of the United States government to rule over us by living here?

I would expect a vast array of different types of places to live.

That’s a nice fantasy, but why would you expect it?

Well, if the initiation of force is forbidden and that rule is followed, there would be peace on earth. By definition. Is that somehow a basis for not proposing and following that rule?

Okay, Bob, on the very day you can guarantee that the rest of the world will go along with your plan I’ll start advocating non-violent solutions to the world’s problems. But, of course, you can’t and you never shall.

I don’t propose or follow principles that are manifestly useless for the world as it actually exists.