I have written a lot about the economic consequences of bad laws, about the way not just criminal laws, but restrictions on trade, limitation upon the right to contract, trade quotas, restrictions on the practice of trades, licensing, even something as simple as improper taxation cause both economic loss and a decrease in the total satisfaction enjoyed by society. However, one thing I have failed to examine in sufficient detail is the second half of the picture, the way that such laws manage to distort our perceptions of the law, twist the shape our society takes and generally disrupt society. And so, today, I want to take a look at those consequences of improper laws, the consequences not tied directly to the costs imposed upon those whom the law directly effects, at the bigger picture, the way bad laws touch those outside of its immediate effects.

Of course, we cannot start looking at the bigger picture without understanding the smaller. I think the best place to start would be my essays "My Vision of Government" and "My Vision of Government Part II ", as they lay out the most basic rules of governing. Or, to be accurate, they lay out the rules which government most of what we call laws. As the essay suggests, criminal law is easy. The government exists to protect individual rights, those being life, liberty and property. That is very simple. When criminal law sticks to those principles it is valid, when it goes beyond, there are costs.

However, government is not just criminal law. There are civil courts, and the policies which control them. There is administrative law, governing things such as citizenship. And so on. Even a minimal government is more than just police and an army, there is, no matter how small, no matter how little power it is granted, an administrative apparatus which creates regulations and administrative law. There are also civil and criminal courts, and, beyond the law, rules of procedure for those courts. And, sadly, the basic rights of man does not tell us when these rules and laws are good or bad, when they are valid and invalid.

For purposes of civil and administrative law, there are many considerations, probably too many to examine here, but there are four which seem to provide the best guidelines. First, the arguments made in "In Praise of Contracts", that the more left to private agreement the better, law should never take from the private realm to make a matter public unless absolutely necessary. Second, as I argue in many places, such as "Traffic Lights, Predictability and Conservatism", "In Praise of Slow Changes" and "Predictability", the law must be predictable, even if the predictable answer seems "unfair" -- such as the old policy of caveat emptor -- as a predictable outcome, even one which satisfies no one, is always better than even the most well meaning inconsistency. Third, as in "Simplicity and Freedom", the law should not distinguish between any two categories unless there is a very good reason. The more we can treat things in the same manner, the fewer laws we need, and the less opportunity exists for corruption. Finally, as argued in "Symmetry and Asymmetry in Government", the law must be symmetrical with regard to citizens, unless it is absolutely impossible. In many ways, this rule is just the last rule applied to people, but it is important enough it deserves its own mention.

Let us try applying this to an example that will appear later in our essay, see how these rules determine whether a law is valid or not, and then demonstrate that in administrative law, as much a sin criminal law, such legislation causes economic woes. Afterward, we shall move on to our argument proper, and examine how bad laws cause many non-economic problems, be it criminal or civil law.

Shortly we will be looking at the way petroleum is taxed, specifically how identical gasoline is taxed differently depending on whether it is intended for automotive or nautical use. Clearly, by the standards set above, this is a bad law. I am not normally a fan of sales taxes, but I will not go so far as to call sales taxes inherently improper¹. Even granting the propriety of sales taxes, this tax clearly violates one of the basic tenets of civil legislation, it treats two types of fuel differently when not only is there no reason for the distinction, but the fuel itself is identical. So, from our perspective, this is clearly a pointless distinction and an invalid law.

Many may ask, what sort of harm could this do? Yes, it is silly to tax at two different rates, but how could it cause harm? In this case, there is actually a very well known non-economic harm, but we will deal with that in the proper location. For now, let us look at an economic problem. To prevent one fuel from being sold as the other, as they are the same substance, the government requires dye be added to nautical fuel, so it can't be used as automobile fuel. This means that at the stage in the distribution cycle where the taxes are assessed (and I admit to not knowing if this is paid at distributor or refiner level), one type of fuel effectively becomes two, and a good that could previously be substituted for another no longer can.

Perhaps a simple example will help. Let us suppose the tax is paid by the refiner. As the fuel leaves his refinery, he has to decide  whether it is boat or car fuel. He bases his judgment on a wealth of past information, and likely, in most cases comes pretty close to the actual demand. So, let us say he has 100,000 gallons of fuel, and decides to sell 20,000 as nautical fuel. Now, let us suppose after that decision is made, there is a serious fire at a storage tank and 50,000 gallons of automotive fuel is lost, leaving only 30,000 gallons to fill 80,000 gallons of demand. He will certainly begin refining additional fuel as quickly as possible, but, for the moment, prices will probably more than double. Of course, if there were no tax and dye, he could shift some of all of the 20,000 gallons of nautical fuel, reducing the impact somewhat. But now he cannot.

Of course that is a dramatic example, but in a smaller way it does the same thing every day. By forcing what is one good to become two, it prevents many small adjustments that could result in lower prices, greater profits and more satisfied consumers. As success in the market tends to hinge on having the right good at the right moment, making the company treat one product as if it were two is a constant drag on profitability. Of course the dyed fuel will eventually sell, but, at times, it would certainly bring more profit had it not been dyed. And it is in that way that what seems a silly distinction made for tax purposes can have an admittedly small, but constant, impact on the economy.

Having shown how even tax laws can have an economic impact, I think I can skip the obvious introduction, demonstrating the economic impact of bad criminal laws. After all, I have written about them enough times already, and, as I have said, our focus is on precisely those effects which fall outside the realm of economics. And so, without any additional introductory comments, let us move on to the argument proper.

As we have already mentioned nautical fuel, let us continue with that subject matter, and look at the first non-economic impact of bad law, the creation of completely new crimes.

The best example of such a crime would be smuggling. Without bad laws, smuggling simply cannot exist. Smuggling, in itself, in no way matches the definition of a traditional crime, it does not violate any individual rights. It only exists because the government is trying to prevent individuals from obtaining something they want, or else is taxing it so heavily that it is worthwhile to pay the heavy risk premium charged by a smuggler. I admit, in practice smugglers may end up committing theft, battery, murder and other crimes, but smuggling itself exists only because of the passage of bad laws. In a similar vein, bootlegging exists only because of government attempts to keep individuals from fulfilling their desires².

As my belief that the war on drugs is improper is a controversial one, let us look instead at something less contentious. Perhaps we can return to my example of nautical fuel, as it has a rather notorious legal problem. You see, nautical fuel is dyed so that inspectors can tell it from automotive fuel, but consumers very rarely actually look at their fuel, so some unscrupulous types try to sell nautical fuel as automotive fuel, selling at a small discount to sell it quickly, and then pocketing the difference in taxes, less the discount. It sounds like a perry scam, but with taxes on petroleum running, between state and federal taxes, up to ten times the profit seen by retailers, removing even half of those taxes can have a significant impact on profits.

Actually, tax discrimination is a source of many crimes. For a long time, for instance, organized crime and others ("Paved With Good Intentions") have made a tidy profit smuggling cigarettes between states, or simply forging state tax stamps, in order to undercut other suppliers, while pocketing the remaining tax savings as pure profit.³ Despite claims by Maryland that punitive state cigarette taxes would not cause smuggling, they closed down, in the first year of the tax, a multi-million dollar smuggling ring with alleged ties to terrorism. So, obviously, there are tremendous impacts to taxes which are applied in a non-uniform fashion⁴.

Another effect of many bad laws is the universal tendency to ignore such laws, and the consequences such behavior has on individuals.

I can give a simple example that almost everyone can understand. Think of everyday life, you generally think of the police as beneficial people who come to help resolve problems. You may have specific complaints with your city's police, or maybe memories of some bad specific officer, but in general you have a pretty positive impression of the police.

Now, imagine you are driving on a highway. Unless you are one of those who scrupulously obey the speed limit, think of how you now conceive of the police. The police man is the enemy, someone to avoid, as he will stop you, make you late, make you pay a fine. And why this change of mind? Because you are used to casually breaking the law when driving, and thus think of those enforcing the law as enemies. Worse, because you believe you are justified in breaking the law, you now think of the police as foolish and malevolent, as they have to enforce a law you find senseless. Even when stopped, you have a tendency yo lie to them, or try to otherwise deceive them or appease them to get out of the ticket. Your behavior is completely different than it would be were a police officer to knock at your door. The context of casual law breaking has changed your perspective completely⁵.

The same happens with more serious laws, and even when the number breaking it is much smaller. For instance, drug use is still common to a minority of Americans, but a substantial minority. If we include all those who ever used drugs, it is quite a large minority, perhaps, at times, even a slight majority. Not all of those who ever used drugs think it was a good thing, but many who used them do not understand why this drug, or that drug, is illegal, and this they see drug laws as foolish, and have that same attitude toward drug busts drivers have toward speeding tickets. Similarly, those who currently use drugs have a worse situation. As they are at permanent risk of arrest, or something close to it, they spend their entire life with the attitude of someone doing 80 on a highway, seeing every police officer as a potential threat. Obviously, this is true of all criminals, but the problem here is that we created a law which a large minority continually ignore. The same is not, and could never be, true of murder or theft⁶, but because drug laws basically make criminal an action which takes place among consenting individuals, drug use can continue for a long time without arrest.

Some may wonder what the harm is in making law breakers fearful of the police, and were the law breakers more narrowly defined, I probably would not have a problem. The problem here is that we have made law breakers of a considerable part of our citizenship, and that has serious consequences.

For example, I have written before of the romantic philosophy which is causing so many problems for our society⁷. One element of that romantic philosophy is the elevation of the "outlaw"⁸. Thanks to our creating of a considerable criminal class, and a large part of that class being involved in our cultural institutions, be they academic or artistic, Hollywood or Harvard, MOMA or MIT, we have created a culture which has turned the law breaker, the outsider, the man who breaks the rules and stands outside of cultural norms, into the ideal. We need only compare the ideals of the 1950's to the 1970's⁹. Or, for fans of westerns, say Shane to Django. Or The Searchers to High Plains Drifter¹⁰.  It is easy to see, if you just look, how this lack of respect for the law was translated into a veneration of the law breaker, and that has had some serious impact¹¹.

The most serious impact of the new found respect for lawbreakers has been a need to increase prison sentences. Back in the late 1940's, Ludwig von Mises wrote a very telling passage, describing how the increasing shame with which arrest is viewed has allowed civilized nations to impose ever less strict sentences, as the shame is enough to stop many crimes. Unfortunately, he was not prescient enough to see that such a trend would reverse in the next half century, to the point where we need special laws to handle those who commit three felonies. Yet that is precisely what happened¹². Thanks to a lack of respect for the law, and a veneration of law breakers, it is no longer shameful among many groups, to have an arrest record, and so the fear of arrest is not a factor in preventing crime, not unless coupled with the fear of a considerable sentence. This has helped to fuel our prison overcrowding issues¹³, and paradoxically resulted in earlier release for many thanks to civil rights suits about overcrowding.

There is another side to this as well. Allow me to offer up an example.

Many people mock IRS auditors as men obsessed with finding violations, who are so single minded that they see tax cheats everywhere. And, in some ways, this is true. However, there is a good reason for it. Audits are selected two ways, those that meet certain criteria indicating and a set selected randomly. However, this means that a large percentage of those the auditor sees are preselected to have a high percentage of irregularities. Which makes an auditor far more likely to see someone whose taxes are wrong than right. Now, whether the result of cheating or error, this means the auditors is expecting to ind something, and as everyone claims their error was accidental, since no one wants to say they are a cheat, to his ears, all excuses sound phony. It is the natural outcome of his constant exposure to a high percentage of bad tax returns.

As the son of a police officer I know this all too well. My father was not a Baltimore City police man, but he was assigned to the county in areas very close to the city, and so, every time we drove into the city when I was a child, all I heard were stories about thefts, stabbings, shootings and so on. And it definitely colored my view of people. I came to imagine that most people were innately dishonest, my family an friends being the rare exceptions. I eventually outgrew with mindset¹⁴, but it is easy to see how police officers in urban or otherwise high crime areas could quickly come to see lawbreakers everywhere and develop an adversarial attitude toward everyone, imagining we are all liars and everyone is hiding some serious crime.

And that is how this expansion of the number of criminals leads to the creation of new problems among police. The problems this mindset created among police in high crime areas now tend to occur everywhere, as these changes have created higher crime in even previously crime free places. Granted, there still remain areas where crime is very low, even with new crimes in existence, but they are much less common than they once were.

Lest people think I am solely concerned here with creating legal drugs and eliminating nautical fuel tax differentials, let us look at another problem of unneeded laws, corruption, and corruption of all kinds.

The most obvious is, of course, the birth of crime empires. Be it smuggling, drug dealing, tax differential schemes or what have you, all create funds that criminal need to spend. These tend to get invested into legitimate business that then launder other criminal funds. However, they have one other effect, they keep criminals in business even when we shut down their illegitimate enterprises. For example, when prohibition ended, the criminals who bought into legitimate businesses then took that money and branched out into new crimes, allowing them to persist even after their primary source of revenue had vanished.

And that is the big consequence here. Not only do criminals end up owning businesses, they corrupt those businesses, using them to launder funds, to fund other crimes, even use them in the commission of different crimes. And in so doing, criminals tend to corrupt otherwise law abiding citizens. A man who would never commit a crime may be willing to allow his boss to deposit some money in the business account under a false description and thus launder funds. Or may let him withdraw money for illicit purposes. And once he has allowed some small crimes, it becomes easier to continue, making it very easy to take a criminally owned business and slowly turn it into a fully corrupt bsuiness¹⁵.

But that is the obvious corruption, there is much more subtle corruption, or corruption we do not recognize as such.

For example, lobbying is basically corruption made legitimate. A lobbyist is effectively offering bribes for favorable laws. And he can only do so, only wants to do so, because laws can strike constituents unevenly, and so they pay to have the law most favorable to them. Were laws limited to protection of rights, there would be no reason for lobbyists, and no chance for politicians to accept the bribes of lobbyists, be they legal or otherwise.

But that is a little broad, and would require a massive change of our government to correct, so let us look at lesser corruption.

A simple example would be import duties. In general, I oppose these laws as they serve no purpose but to attempt to exclude foreign goods, and thus they definitely violate our principles for good laws, as they serve no purpose in protecting individual rights. And not only do they create smuggling, but they make it easy for corruption to exist among the supposed enforcers of the law.

Now, most will object that anyone can bribe the police, robbers, murderers and arsonists as well as smugglers or drug dealers. And that is true. However, most of those crimes which directly harm someone, such as murder and robbery, tends to be harder to convince police to accept. They tend to be much more open to accepting bribes for "victimless" crimes. In addition, whatever the profits of a given robbery or murder, the real money tends to come from repeatable, regular crimes, such as drug dealing and smuggling, and thus are far, far more likely to create the possibility of regular bribes. (The only comparable real crime is fencing of stolen goods. I did not say traditional crimes made corruption impossible, just that inventing crimes makes corruption much more likely and far more lucrative.)

And corruption goes beyond the criminals and the law and the politicians. When crime becomes commonplace, even regular citizens can become involved, or at least become oblivious to crime. We need only think of the many children employed as drug lookouts, or the many otherwise respectable citizens who in the past acted as sellers for neighborhood underground lotteries. And, as mentioned earlier, each of these citizens, in some small way, is likely to begin to see the law with a slightly jaded eye, leading to an ever increasing lack of respect for law, and an increasing veneration of law breakers.

Finally, bad laws have one final consequence I discussed before¹⁶, the tendency to require more laws. For example, the SEC required that specific information be provided to investors. When firms found ways to make that information meet SEC requirements, but present a misleading picture, the SEC passed still more regulations. Under a private system, firms would print what reports they wished. Consumers would decide which reports would govern purchases, and firms would tend to favor those. If they later proved unreliable, market forces would change how they are presented, without the need for more and more laws.

Another example would be the many laws created to seize assets of drug dealers, as well as to make prosecution of high level drug dealers possible. As the criminals learn how to insulate themselves, these laws become necessary. However, this is mostly because drug dealing and manufacture is more like a business than a crime. It is hard to imagine theft or rape or murder being run in such a remote manner, but drug dealing lends itself to such distributed organizations, necessitating more and more laws, many of which endanger individual rights (eg property forfeiture).

Actually, rather than this entire lengthy explanation, it probably would be as easy to characterize the consequences of bad laws in two broad groups. First, the acceptance of crime and criminality, and then the growth of government. I think almost everything we mentioned can be included in one or the other. Even seemingly unrelated items, such as the growth of lobbying can be seen as acceptance of crime, since lobbying is, in essence, accepting that politicians are open to undue influence and bribery of one form or another, and then allowing organized pressure and bribery. And so, I think I will leave us at that. When the law passes beyond the minimal bounds it should follow, then we begin to see people accept crime and criminals, while losing respect for the law, at the same time the state continues to grow.

It is clearly a topic which needs more explanation and thought devoted to it, but for the moment, I think this brief look will provide a good outline of the more significant consequences.

============================================================================

1. I know the FairTax is popular among many libertarian types, but I have numerous problems with it, as will be mentioned soon. Sales taxes strike me as a bad idea for several reasons, foremost among them that such taxes are terribly regressive, as most poor people spend a higher percentage of income on consumption than the rich. In addition, if it taxes only consumer goods and not wholesale or producers' goods, that creates many confusing areas ripe for exploitation (as will also be discussed), and if it does not, it has the punitive effects on manufactured goods that a VAT does. Not to mention that it implicitly says there is something wrong with consumption or trade, that requires it pay a special fee, a message we don't want to emphasize. I intend to write more about taxes very soon, but for now I recommend "An Interesting Analogy, "Why I Dislike the FairTax ", "The Best Argument Against the FairTax "" and "The FairTax's Liberal Assumptions" on the fair tax, and "The Foolishness of Corporate Taxes", "What we need", "Making Taxes Hurt", "The Benefits of Federalism", "Reframing the Debate", "One Sided History" and "A True Conservative Platform" on taxes generally.

2. I know there are many who still support the war on drugs despite otherwise supporting small government, but I have addressed that topic so many times I won't bother repeating it here. For those interested in my arguments against the war on drugs, including my belief that supporting this type of law which protects us from ourselves leads inexorably to full blown authoritarianism, see "Slippery Slopes", "Socialism on the Installment Plan" and "Drug Legalization".

3. The same has also been done with liquor in states where liquor taxes rose too high, though cigarette scams seem to predominate, probably because of greater tax differentials, and the higher profit per unit of volume. With alcohol taking up so much more volume, the profit is going to be much lower. A fifth of alcohol and a carton of cigarettes take up the same size, but thanks to high cigarette taxes, the cigarettes cost more than all but the most costly alcohol, and it is far easier to sell a carton of cigarettes, together or pack by pack, than very costly alcohol.

4. Differences in state taxes are obviously not an improper discrimination, but rather one facet of federalism. I offer them only to show that tax differences can provide massive profits. On the other hand, under a truly federalist system might see such crime. On the other hand, the increase in crime that comes with such smuggling may serve to inspire states to lower their taxes, yet another benefit of federalism.

5. I won't bother discussing whether or not speed limits are good or bad laws, as I do not believe in public roadway (""...Then Who Would Do it?""), so under ideal conditions the question would be moot. I do think the Carter era move down to 55 on highways designed for safe use at 75 was a bad idea, inspired to show some green sensibilities, and failing even there. (At that date, it was estimated best fuel mileage for the average car came at about 63, not 55.) However, it seems that many states have agreed and allowed the speed limit to creep back up on highways, so perhaps there is a place for common sense in the law after all.

6. Obviously there are career thieves and professional killers, but were nay crime against person or property carried out on the scale of drug use, or with the same frequency, it would quickly cause society to collapse. Not to mention that the sheer number of criminals and crimes would make it almost impossible not to arrest a fair number of them. Just imagine if everyone who smoked marijuana instead mugger someone every time they thought of lighting a joint. The number of muggings would drive everyone from the streets. Crimes against persons and property simply cannot operate at the same rate as crimes such as drug use and prostitution.

7. For some examples see "Cranky Old Man?", "Faux "Maturity"", "Catastrophic Thinking, The Political, Economic and Social Impact of Seeing History in the Superlative", "Pushing the Envelope", "I Blame the Romantics", "The Adoration of Youth", "In Defense of Standards", "Addenda to "In Defense of Standards"", "Deadly Cynicism", "Juvenile Intellectuals", "Congratulations, You're a Victim!", "Trophy Spouses", "O Tempora! O Mores!, or, The High Cost of Supposed Freedom" and "Self-Serving Cynicism and Our Cultural Immaturity".

8. Lest anyone think this is simply about drug use, there are a host of bad laws that have had a similar impact on society. The criminalization of homosexuality, though it was less oppressive here than it was in some other nations, still had an influence on some segments of culture. Similarly, though it has been exaggerated, the impression created by the  HUAAC did the same. We can discuss the HUAAC as a reality versus perception another time, as I know Ann Coulter wrote a rather spirited defense, with which I partly agree and partly disagree. Still, the perception in certain circles that the HUACC was criminalizing beliefs -- whatever the reality -- left its mark as well. And I could probably go on.

9. I skip the 1960, as there is a subtle transition to romanticism many miss. In the early 60's, I grant, most of the 50's sensibility remained, but there was already a hint of youth worship in our adoration of the Kennedys and the birth of beach movies emphasizing irresponsibility and youth. Yes, it was innocent wish fulfillment, but it set the stage for the later 60's and not trusting anyone over 30. But as the early change was not as overt as in the later 60's, it is easiest to skip from the 50's to the 70's in our analysis.

10. I don't mean to criticize either Django or High Plains Drifter, I adore both, but I am also aware there is a very different cultural sensibility implicit in these two films, and I know very well I would much rather live in a world ruled by a John Wayne sensibility than a Clint Eastwood "Man With No Name" sensibility.

11. It is interesting that there is a parallel to this lack of respect for the law taking place in universities. Those universities which have been foremost in the pushing of the PC movement have seen their administration mocked, and the respect for those normally viewed kindly, liberal professors and administrators erode. What is even more interesting is, now that a generation raised mocking PC in college has now come of age, the lack of respect for PC verbiage has entered the cultural mainstream, to the extent that mocking college administrators and professors has become quite common. (Actually, it has been common in more cutting edge circles for longer, but that is because the avant garde tents to come from younger writers and actors, the mainstream tends to lag a decade or two.)

12. There is more than just the romantic philosophy at work, though that is a major factor, and the other influences draw strength from our romantic tendencies. For example, as described in "How to Become a Victim of Crime" and "The Important Lesson of Racism", many racial minorities, currently mostly blacks and Hispanics, but also, at one time or another, Irish, Italians, Russians, Armenians, Chinese and others, have adopted an insular philosophy which preferred member sof that community over the police and came to see the police as adversaries. As with the romantic philosophy, this resulted in the veneration of outlaws and thus had the same outcome. As romantics tended to side with such groups, seeing in them "authentic outsiders", the romantics tended to emphasize the injustices they suffered and exacerbated the situation.

13. Overcrowding is not just the result of longer sentences, and in fact predates longer sentences. The first, and greatest causes, were the explosion of arrests arising from drug laws, especially when stricter policies tried to jailer smaller dealers and users for longer times, and, most important of all, a combination of lack of funds and local opposition to prison building which prevented the construction of new buildings when populations rose. However, when backlash against increasing crime rates did cause longer sentences, they did increase the crowding problems.

14. In some ways this early exposure to "us and them" thinking may have led to me realizing that liberalism is nothing but an extension of that sort of thinking. On the other hand, while many police officers seem to share this mindset -- not all, but a number I have met -- they seem to be less liberal than the general population. Of course, this same mindset can also support a number of other, non-liberal authoritarian belief systems, so this is not necessarily a paradox, nor does it mean they are more pro-freedom despite their beliefs.

15. Granted, many businesses are actually kept away from crime, so as to serve as fronts for all the income, but most are used at least to launder income. And some certainly are involved in crimes of all description.

16. See  "Recipe For Disaster", "The Endless Cycle of Intervention" and "Grow or Die, The Inevitable Expansion of Everything".

=================================================================

POSTSCRIPT

I apologize if this essay appears a little disjointed. I am afraid it was written in a few parts, before, during and after my recent illness, and suffered as a consequence. In addition, I realized as I wrote that I was drawing far too many examples from drug laws, mostly because they provided the most dramatic examples. I tried to add others, but I seemed to come back, as drug laws seemed to always produce the flashiest results. I didn't want this to become a drug legalization piece, but it does have that sound.

POSTSCRIPT II

When I discuss removing legal prohibitions on drugs or prostitution, people tend to imagine that every street will become Skid Row. However, the evidence does not support that. In addition, it ignores one great tool available which we have forgotten how to use.

First, the evidence. When Prohibition was in effect, alcohol was sold in seedy dives by criminals. They killed one another over turf or unpaid bills. People had to deal with all sorts of unsavory types to get alcohol. (Excluding those lucky home brewers who made their own. In the interest of disclosure, apparently my grandfather was quite adept at making a high quality "apple jack" after leaving the Navy.) Once Prohibition ended, alcohol was old in a variety of venues, from dives to four star hotels, and all the shooting and violence and criminals disappeared. Disputes were settled in courts and alcohol was made and sold by businessmen. I doubt heroin or cocaine will follow the same course, were they decriminalized, but marijuana might, as it has more mass appeal than other drugs. Still, without the need for criminals to smuggle it, the need for violence to settle disputes, and legitimate firms manufacturing, importing and selling drugs, I don't see the drug culture remaining the same. (One need only think of the laudanum addicts or the 19th century, or opium addicts, they lived in unsavory areas, but did not spread everywhere, despite the drugs being legal, either explicitly or de facto.)

Which brings me to my second argument. Why did historical opium addicts clump together in certain areas? Why did drunks and other unacceptables do the same? The tool we have forgotten how to use, disapproval. (See "Government Versus Culture - A Forgotten Distinction") We are so accepting, even on the right, that we have forgotten how to use shame and scorn to change the world. Yes, there are people who can ignore criticism, but by and large, even the worst drug addict, most dedicated frequenter of prostitutes, anyone you can name, does not want to be told he is wrong, that what he is doing is bad, shameful and detestable. If enough people show disdain for a group, even though the group may start by putting up a defiant front, they will eventually move on.

And it does work. Just ask why some neighborhoods in cities become drug markets and others do not. In large part, it is because of the indifference of many neighborhoods. The residents may not want drug dealers, but from fear or indifference or simple familiarity, they do not express their objections, and the drug dealers continue.

It may not always work, but by and large, social disapproval is a very simple way to keep away things of which we do not approve. And if not disapproval of the sellers, then disapproval of the buyers. Eventually, in one way or another, scorn can change a place. We may have forgotten it, but it does work.

I suppose this is another topic which deserves its own post, the use of societal pressure versus the use of government power. It is important to recognize the pros and cons of both, and recognize how often the former was used in the past. (Though, to be fair, at one time there was less distinction, as local government was a less formal affair. In our over litigious age, that sort of informal governance and blurring of social and government functions could not be made to work.)