As if the consequences of alcohol prohibition could not be forgotten soon enough, the 1970s unshackled the ‘safety at any cost’ mentality of policymakers in Washington with a regained sense of restrictive goodwill. Yes, a land world renowned for its respect of individual rights reinstituted coercive public policy historically marred with disaster and unintended consequences. The government of the United States, yet again in denial of bodily autonomy, demonized another inanimate object in an unfortunately familiar fashion. What was alcohol in the 1920s became drugs in the 1970s and 1980s. Instead of respecting individuals’ right to determine what is best for their own lives, the government prohibited the use of these narcotic substances again
…show more content…
Economist Jeffrey Miron agrees. He too recognizes the subjective nature of human values. His article on public economics, The Economics of Drug Prohibition and Drug Legalization, supplements Menger’s arguments within the context of drug prohibition. While it is obvious that human values are subjective, it is also true that these subjective values drive human action and behavior. Desires (or needs or wants) are prioritized in an ordinal ranking of value; the mind hierarchy ranks what it wants. These ordinal values are subjective. When this is realized, it becomes apparent that those who voluntarily consume drugs value the drugs more than the risks associated with breaking the law. For this reason, neither a utopian philosopher nor a government can reasonably assume that all consumers in an established market will simply change their values based on government action or will (Miron 838). Then again, we are talking about the …show more content…
A market monopolized by underground suppliers is inherently violent; as such, prohibition facilitates the violence in several major ways. Number one, underground markets have no legal mechanism to settle disputes and therefore resort to violent means. In any marketplace, legal or otherwise, disputes arise between producers and consumers, multiple competitors, or any combination in between. In a legal market, where the buyers and sellers are free to trade openly, disputes are usually settled in court (or through a certain type of legally binding arbiter). Violence is averted through the courts and the legal system. In an underground marketplace, however, this is not the case. Buyers, sellers, and competitors have no legal and inherently non-violent way to settle their disputes. These disputes often lead to violence as the only means of resolution (for the purpose of historical precedence, the same consequence occurred during the prohibition of alcohol). Number two, underground markets must protect their sales from the police department. As an organization that uses force to solidify their authority and enforce the rule of law, the police department uses violence and
Economist Jeffrey Miron agrees. He too recognizes the subjective nature of human values. His article on public economics, The Economics of Drug Prohibition and Drug Legalization, supplements Menger’s arguments within the context of drug prohibition. While it is obvious that human values are subjective, it is also true that these subjective values drive human action and behavior. Desires (or needs or wants) are prioritized in an ordinal ranking of value; the mind hierarchy ranks what it wants. These ordinal values are subjective. When this is realized, it becomes apparent that those who voluntarily consume drugs value the drugs more than the risks associated with breaking the law. For this reason, neither a utopian philosopher nor a government can reasonably assume that all consumers in an established market will simply change their values based on government action or will (Miron 838). Then again, we are talking about the …show more content…
A market monopolized by underground suppliers is inherently violent; as such, prohibition facilitates the violence in several major ways. Number one, underground markets have no legal mechanism to settle disputes and therefore resort to violent means. In any marketplace, legal or otherwise, disputes arise between producers and consumers, multiple competitors, or any combination in between. In a legal market, where the buyers and sellers are free to trade openly, disputes are usually settled in court (or through a certain type of legally binding arbiter). Violence is averted through the courts and the legal system. In an underground marketplace, however, this is not the case. Buyers, sellers, and competitors have no legal and inherently non-violent way to settle their disputes. These disputes often lead to violence as the only means of resolution (for the purpose of historical precedence, the same consequence occurred during the prohibition of alcohol). Number two, underground markets must protect their sales from the police department. As an organization that uses force to solidify their authority and enforce the rule of law, the police department uses violence and