March 30, 2009

Mexican Violence

Jeffrey A. Miron, senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University, says legalize:

Prohibition creates violence because it drives the drug market underground. This means buyers and sellers cannot resolve their disputes with lawsuits, arbitration or advertising, so they resort to violence instead.

Violence was common in the alcohol industry when it was banned during Prohibition, but not before or after.

Violence is the norm in illicit gambling markets but not in legal ones. Violence is routine when prostitution is banned but not when it's permitted. Violence results from policies that create black markets, not from the characteristics of the good or activity in question.

The only way to reduce violence, therefore, is to legalize drugs. Fortuitously, legalization is the right policy for a slew of other reasons.

Prohibition of drugs corrupts politicians and law enforcement by putting police, prosecutors, judges and politicians in the position to threaten the profits of an illicit trade. This is why bribery, threats and kidnapping are common for prohibited industries but rare otherwise. Mexico's recent history illustrates this dramatically.

Prohibition erodes protections against unreasonable search and seizure because neither party to a drug transaction has an incentive to report the activity to the police. Thus, enforcement requires intrusive tactics such as warrantless searches or undercover buys. The victimless nature of this so-called crime also encourages police to engage in racial profiling.


Hat-tip: Mankiw

Posted by John Kranz at March 30, 2009 8:11 PM

The logic of this argument is so irrefutable that The Refugee has a modest proposal for extending to other areas. For example, there is no doubt that the prohibition on bank robbery forces robbers to act quickly and therefore use violence. If we simply made bank robbery legal, such activity could be done at a more leisurely pace and such violence would not be necessary. In fact, if we made murder legal, we could eliminate murder altogether!(Sure, there would still be killings, but no more murder). In fact, if we would just eliminate half of the criminal code, we'd see a 50% drop in crime! Not to mention the savings in the criminal justice system with 50% fewer criminals.

Honestly - if you believe that drug use is an acceptable behavior in our society, then fine, try to change the laws. But please don't try to justify it with some bogus reduction in crime that is nothing more than a self-fulfilling circumstance.

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at March 30, 2009 11:43 PM

One. Two. Three. Four. Five. Six. Seven. Eight. Nine. Ten. Okay.

BR, my blog brother, I reject your well though out libertarian proposal to legalize bank robbery and murder. I remain a big fan of property rights and recognize governments' legitimate purview in enforcing those of the banks and depositors. That and murder are perfect examples of the "rule of law" for which governments are constituted among men.

It has nothing to do with whether I believe "that drug use is an acceptable behavior in our society." It is not acceptable in most situations and should likely be discouraged in all. I've lost many good friends to drug use.

Yet I do not accept the US Government's right to regulate behavior in my home. There is zero Constitutional authority for this activity. Nor is there a moral claim. This is a key element of freedom.

You and I share a belief in gun rights. I was surprised at your comment because I see them as identical and indivisible. If you called for absolute protection for innocent Americans to purchase and possess firearms I could say "If you believe that school shootings and gang violence are acceptable behavior in our society..."

It's not likely because I, like you, can bifurcate between the right to acquire firearms -- for whatever purpose -- with the act of using them to harm others.

The additional opportunity for violence and loss of liberty incurred defending my bank deposits or person is a fair trade for the benefits of protection. The additional violence and loss of liberty incurred preventing trade between consenting free people is not.

Posted by: jk at March 31, 2009 11:57 AM

The Refugee is pleased to help get Blog Brother JK's heart pumping in the morning. According to the surgeon general, reading this stuff for 30 minutes a day with a target heart rate of 120-150 bps has substantial health benefits.

The Refugee can (and does) respect a principled position on the legalization drugs, although he will disagree. But it does come down to whether or not you believe that drug use is acceptable behavior, if for no other reason than it is a personal "right."

The fundamental function of a government is to formulate the framework under which a society operates. Indeed, that is what the constitution does. Because of it, we enjoy a relatively higher degree of individual liberty, but it is not unlimited, as I'm sure you'll agree.

Now, with respect to specific comments to which I must take issue. First, is the statement that "the government has no right to regulate my behavior in my home." I hope that this merely an overly broad statement. Does it mean that I cannot beat my wife on the street, but it's OK within my home? Of course not. Can we also agree that I do not have the right to manufacture products within my home that produce a toxic plume on the neighborhood (e.g., meth)? If so, then we agree that government does have some right to regulate my behavior within my home.

Secondly, and I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth, I recall something to the effect of, "individual behavior that does not hurt others should not regulated by government." Assuming I've paraphrased accurately, does that mean that drunken driving should be legal? Certainly, if I drive home from the bar looped but arrive safely, I've hurt no one. In fact, I only hurt someone else when I hit them, but that's true whether I'm three sheets to the wind or sober as a parson. Why should the police be able to arrest me on mere presumption of possible harm? Moreover, is it not possible that one person can function perfectly well at .10 blood/alcohol and other be stumbling at .07? Does the government have a right to set an arbitrary standard of .08 that will surely violate the rights of some alcohol-tolerant individuals? The answer, I believe, is that drunk driving imposes too high a risk to other in society to be acceptable.

Next, as a libertarian you support gay marraige as behavior between consenting adults. I can only assume that you support polygamy on the same basis? What about beastial marraige? Cannot I not marry my cat in my home? Mind you, I have no physical intentions on my cat (which would be illegal, because there's no way to constue consent), I just happen to like him (how's that - gay beastial marriage?); I certainly hurt no one in doing so.

Finally, with respect gun rights, even a hard-core Life NRA member such as The Refugee recognizes limits. For example, convicted felons should not be able to own a gun, for the same reason that people should not be able to drive drunk; it poses too high a risk to others in society.

I have been to Amsterdam and have seen a society where drugs are legal. I didn't like it and don't want to live in it. Strung out junkies still acost others and are not exactly a pretty sight. I've been in Germany where prostition districts are legal (as well as Las Vegas) and did not like them, either.

Are my views a subjective application of individual freedom? Absolutely. But the Founding Father recognized the subjectivity of governance and that's why they instituted a legislature and courts. If rights were absolute (as I interpret dogmatic libertarianism), then there would be no need for either. And, that's why elections count for so much.

-The Refugee, testing the limits of libertarianism and hoping not to damage a friendship

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at March 31, 2009 3:06 PM

No, no, no! It does not come down to what we deem acceptable behavior because I reject government's right to do the deeming. On one hand, they might do something stupid like legalize booze and proscribe pot -- but, more importantly, that gives them a decision I don't think is theirs to make.

I will confess that the States have certain rights in this field. Your example of driving drunk but not hitting anybody falls here. The State of Colorado, offering driving privileges, can restrict those within certain parameters.

Were all 50 states to outlaw possession and private consumption, I would find those laws stupid but legal and I would seek to change the laws within my State (as I did when I voted for medical marijuana exemptions that passed easily but fell prey to Raich v Gonzoles).

I think the wife in your example has a right to protection of her life, liberty and property that supersedes the husband's right to avoid regulation. The neighbors, likewise can seek protection from your reeking and potentially dangerous meth plant (but I still won't tell).

The felon has forfeited certain rights as a condition for release (without that, I reject any special rules for felons). He trades his 2nd Amendment rights for the right to sleep outside the pokey. I went to gun rights thinking the closer analogy to be he who wants a high-capacity magazine or large caliber, or even a "scary looking assault rifle." You and I both question why and who gets to decide. I question who gets to decide whether I can take a non-approved treatment for my MS or whether my neighbor can take a recreational trip in his own home.

The Amsterdam/Vegas argument is compelling and I think it comes down to zoning and local ordinances. At its worst, however, that remains a practical problem that is subordinate to the philosophical issue of liberty and whether we own our own persons.

Friends forever, bro. Since you have been blogging with us (an unalloyed good) I have been surprised at your social-libertarianism and non-populism (where'd I leave those labels again?) This caught me quite off guard for some reason, but I think you are in the majority around here.

Posted by: jk at March 31, 2009 3:59 PM

The Refugee can definitely jump on board with the "state's rights" thing. When it comes to Las Vegas, he hates the place but would not attempt to overturn any of its laws through federal intervention; he will be content to confine his protest to never moving there and visiting as rarely as business requires.

However, he cannot reconcile the idea that it's not OK for the feds to abbrogate individual rights, but it's ok for a state to do so. It's either a right or it isn't, and it can be regulated or it can't ("it" being defined at its indefinite best). Hmmm...

-The Refugee, happy to wear the social libertarian and non-populist labels (while noting that JK ducked the polygamy argument)

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at March 31, 2009 4:57 PM

I don't crusade for polygamy, but I'd like to get gub'mint out of the marriage business, and if that means a few legal instances, I'll live with it. Your kitty cat question hits my real distinction which is adult, informed consent.

Some States in a functioning Federalist Republic will overstep their regulatory aegis and curtail what is actually a right (I'm guessing Justice Brandeis saw this as well in his "laboratories of Democracy.") If they go too far, citizens can pursue redress in the courts. More likely, people can vote with their feet as you do vis-a-vis The Silver State.

I will ask a direct question: do you not own your own body and are you not uncomfortable giving government the authority to tell you what you can and cannot do at no harm to others?

Posted by: jk at March 31, 2009 6:04 PM

In principle, I agree that it is my body to do with as I please; same principle with respect to my property.

The slippery area that rears its ugly head is the phrase "at no harm to others." I'll take some examples.

As owner of my body and property, I have the right to engage in risky behavior. Let's first consider seat belts and motorcycle helmets. It is my personal decision to take risks of riding without either. If I get hurt, it's my problem. But wait. Suppose I require flight for life. After the helicopter is dispatched to me, another accident occurs elsewhere. The helicopter cannot be in two places at one time, and unfortunately, the other party dies. Of course, we'd need an alternate universe to know if a seatbelt/helmet would have changed the outcome, but it arguably could have. Did my behavior, possibly harming no one else, actually harm to the other party? Arguably so. Moreover, the emergency response equipment is publicly funded. (Perhaps a true Libertarian would argue that it is up to each individual to make provisions for his own emergencies, but that's just not practical.) Since the equipment attending to me will be publicly funded (even though I may be charged some fee), does the government have a right to regulate my behavior on public roads? Yes, I think so. Obviously, the degree is subjective. (For the record, I support seat belt laws but not helmet laws. Seatbelts protect passengers that should not be subjected to risks as dictated by the driver, whereas motorcycles are generally very individual.)

Now, the sticky issue of abortion. I do not believe that a fetus is part and parcel of a woman's body, and therefore not entirely subject to her whims. Nevertheless, I take a secular view to the issue. As we define death, we should also define life. Death is defined as the absence of brain waves. Therefore, I would define life as the presence of brain waves. Fetuses get brain waves at about 12 weeks. I would therefore permit abortion up to the point when brain waves are present, but not thereafter. (Exceptions for a woman's health not withstanding.) I would not permit partial birth abortion under any circumstances. Does that tell you where I stand? Any good labels? -grin-

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at March 31, 2009 10:28 PM

Segues to Libertarian joke: "So, you believe a 14 year old should be able to trade sex for drugs in a public park?" "What do you mean, public park?"

You're describing a corner case with a shortage of medical services. I would ask you to compare this to Senator Webb's piece in Parade about the US incarceration rate. You are correct in being able to point out some benefits of the War on Drugs, but the cost is a huge loss of liberty. And the externalities of creating well funded domestic and foreign drug cartels.

You and I are pretty close on abortion. I have used "viability" which is a lot more than 12 weeks, but yours is less ambiguous. They both attempt to define a line between conception and birth which I feel is required. Both would prohibit D&X, yet both would allow fertility clinics to operate.

Posted by: jk at April 1, 2009 10:19 AM

Unfortunately, I don't think it is such a corner case. It is an illustration of finite resource allocation in action and the resulting government regulation related to that resource. It is what we have to look forward to if heathcare is nationalized, as you have so ably opined in these pages previously.

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at April 1, 2009 10:31 AM

The answer to that one is easy: Don't nationalize health care. Your med-evac example is specious in a free market because entrepeneurship will expand med-evac supply to meet demand. (Coincidentally, an hour ago I spoke with a med-evac paramedic at the county service center about the proliferation of such helicopters along the front range.) In a free market no accident victim is more deserving than another, provided he has the resources to pay for the service received. Yes, sometimes there are more accidents than helicopters and it is possible that someone could die as a result. That is what we used to call "life."

I'll make the same abortion argument I've made here before, and also to some social conservatives at the CO GOP convention last year: Yes, abortion is the intentional killing of a human being (and is so at any time after conception) but any time prior to birth that fetal baby is a physically dependant human being having a parasitic relationship with the mother. The mother, and only the mother, has a moral right to decide the baby's fate prior to birth. Yes, D&X is atrocious, but it is less so than the spectre of government coercion in either direction. (If the government can forbid abortion it could just as easily demand it for whatever reasons it may choose.)

JK has done an excellent job countering BR's excellent examples. It has been worth every long paragraph.

Posted by: johngalt at April 1, 2009 1:06 PM | What do you think? [10]