One of the areas that separates conservatives and libertarians is on the desired approach to “victimless crimes”—drugs, prostitution, and gambling.
Though conservative views have begun (somewhat) to shift in a more typically libertarian direction of late, the standard conservative view has been that these activities damage families and pose a risk to children. Conservatives, though interested in limiting government in most ways, have been willing to use government force to protect families and children, and thus have generally supported keeping these activities illegal.
Conservatives will also point out that these activities impact communities, and thus create what economists call “negative externalities”—indirect, undesirable impacts of a particular activity.
Libertarians, writ large, want to reduce government force wherever possible, and since gambling, taking drugs, and securing the services of a prostitute are consensual acts between adults, and do not constitute a direct act of violence against another, there is no reason for any force to be used by government to stop these activities.
Libertarians further argue that since government prohibitions produce black markets, and thus high-stakes violence, it is those prohibitions that cause the negative externalities, as the violence spills over into communities. A bunch of people addicted to legal drugs, they argue, does not impact a community nearly as badly as does the war on drugs.
This dichotomy is generally portrayed as our only choice: The state exists so take your pick—legal or illegal. But what a terrible choice that is! Let’s take the case of drugs…
If conservatives have their way, the state continues to exist, and the war on drugs marches merrily on. Some people will indeed not do drugs because they are illegal (law is genuinely a deterrent for some), but the price of drugs will remain high, thus encouraging violence between rival gangs, and between government and all the gangs. Lots of negative externalities.
For their part, mainstream and Beltway libertarians generally follow the principle of “no particular order-ism.” In other words, they will take any reduction of government that they can get, in no particular order. So, if they get their way and drugs are legalized first, what happens?
Drugs are legal. The state still exists. Welfare still exists. This means that someone can become addicted to drugs and still receive food and other assistance from the government. The government, in essence, says, We will allow you to take drugs, and even to become hopelessly addicted to drugs. When you are addicted to dugs, we will still give you food, thus subsidizing and enabling your addiction. They will feed you, thus freeing up your money to buy drugs and freeing up your time so you can take them.
Such a system would let people languish as addicts and hover on the edge of death for years, subsidized—not dying, but never really living. How awful.
Now, take away the state—and thus take away welfare. At first, it sounds cruel. But is it? Under such a scenario, no one is going to stop you from doing drugs, but they’re not going to subsidize you either. Faced with the choice of buying drugs or buying food, some will still choose drugs and starve. But fewer will.
Without anyone to subsidize a destructive lifestyle, the iron law of reality kicks in: you have to think, choose, and act for your own survival. There will be private charities there to give you real help—to get you clean and back working to feed yourself again. And of course you can beg for help from others. But the guarantee that a faceless bureaucracy will subsidize your habit will be gone. If you want to live, you will have to act towards that goal. No one will help you destroy yourself.
Again, some people will still become hopelessly addicted and allow themselves to die. (Just as happens now.) But I believe that in a world where addiction is not subsidized by welfare, fewer people would. I believe more people’s survival instincts would kick in and keep them from getting addicted.
Call it tough love, but tough love exists for a reason. It works.
Is this another example where some form of voluntary order (none dare call it anarchy) offers a better solution than mainstream libertarianism and conservatism? I think it may be!
Coda:
In a condition of voluntary order, private-law polities would form on private land. Some might be highly restrictive or religious (the way the Amish are now, e.g.); others might be quite libertine. Some might have restrictive drug laws; others might allow a free-for-all. Each would find their own way, and the results of their experiments would be there to see. But at least these polities would be smaller and more responsive, and would not subject millions of people to a one-size-fits-all solution.
Imagine a world in which you could choose to associate with a polity that closely matched your desired style of life? Or in which you could simply contract with private agencies for the provision of security and justice? It may be 20 years, it may be 100 or more, but that world is coming.
The War on Drugs--actually a war on drug-users--seems to be one of those subjects that causes people to quit using their brains. I heard a talk-radio host just this morning--a man who generally makes sense--say that he doesn’t want marijuana legalized because then we’d have people driving while high. As if we don’t currently have people driving drunk on alcohol that remains legal. Go figure.