Are you asserting that an unfulfilled desire, even without interaction with other people, is a victimizing condition that merits criminalization? That's the logic of your statement.
RE: A Simplified Taxless State: A Proposal (part three of three)
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
A Simplified Taxless State: A Proposal (part three of three)
It's not the drug addicts that we criminalize (normally), it's the ones selling the stuff. And it isn't obvious that it's a bad thing to prevent some dangerous drugs from being sold.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
when the state criminalizes the selling of a drug that nevertheless has a significant demand from citizens who want to use it, that effectively legislates a monopoly for criminal organizations to sell that drug at outrageously steep prices. It creates an extremely lucrative business for criminals to run.
Additionally, the state's attempts at enforcing the ban will prevent the free market competition process from improving the product. Thus amplifying the risks to users.
The steep prices due to government enforcement will also be very difficult to afford, leading to addicted users having no way aside from theft to fund their addiction. This creates a lot of unnecessary property loss for people who have nothing to do with the drug market. Property loss that just wouldn't happen if selling the drug wasn't criminalized.
Also, it's at best ineffective in curtailing the use of the drug. At worst, it increases the use of the drug in practise due to young people's tendency to consider doing forbidden things cool.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Huh, so no more levels? ok, I'll write here.
Well, those are reasonable arguments, elriel. But this question highlights one of the big problems with anarchy: most people would probably behave sensibly in an anarchic environment; but not everyone can take care of themselves. Some would make some decisions which would be really bad for them. At times, very widespread drug abuse (of alcohol, in particular) have been a major social problem for certain countries (Russia, Sweden, etc). Having some government funded program to at least work with information, and helping addicts get off their drugs etc, seems reasonable. But then the list of things we want a state to do needs to be expanded. Indeed, I think most laws and most of the tasks our states have taken on to handle (besides keeping a military and policing) are justifiable, at least in principle. What about schools, for instance? Some basic education is mandatory in most countries. That's another thing I think is justifiable (mainly because I am not fond of parents brain-washing their kids, and that sort of stuff).
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit