(The following post is a short chapter from a book I'm in the process of writing. I only have a working title presently, but the book deals with the lessons my father, a Professor of Business Administration and Economics, taught me on matters of Economics, Government and Freedom. I was only 8 years old when my father started me on the understanding of what are now referred to as "libertarian" principles.)
Over the years, and through several discussions, my father made it clear to me that the government has been used as a tool in a steady trend of meddling into the personal affairs of the People without ever acknowledging that its activities were in frank violation of our natural liberties. As was noted before, natural liberty is the right which nature gives to all mankind to do as they wish with their persons and their property to achieve their own happiness, as long as they act within the limits of the laws of nature and that they do not abuse it to the harm of other people. Whenever a new law was passed to ‘protect us from ourselves’, my father always commented on the foolishness of those in government who believed that there was no human activity that was beyond regulation, control or taxation. He also always questioned just whom it was behind these laws and whom it was that was going to profit.
I recall asking him what he thought about ‘The War on Drugs’ and he remarked that it was the stupidest waste of the taxpayer’s money since the Prohibition of Alcohol. He told me that no one ever asks if their intentions to do ‘good’ outweigh the harm that such wrong-headed policies cause to society; they also never learn the lessons from history of the very same types of interference with the natural liberties of the People.
There was a time that anyone could order a pound of heroin, opium or cocaine from the Sears catalog for a dollar and have it delivered to their door. Were there addicts? Sure, there were, but were there the high levels of crime associated with that addiction? Did little old ladies have to worry about being clubbed over the head for the loose change in their purses? Did criminal organizations sprout up to fulfill the limited demand for those drugs? No; it was not profitable enough to bother. And, just how much did those addicts cost the taxpayers?
Anytime there are laws passed which prohibit human activities, people will always find a way to bypass them and the damage to society will increase. They also turn what would normally be law abiding citizens into criminals.
He described the general anatomy of these types of intrusions by government into the natural liberties of the People.
Someone in society will either see or invent a ‘social problem’ or a ‘cause’ to champion, claiming that their ‘cause’ is in the best interests of the People. In their extreme arrogance, they believe that the People are either too immature, too child-like, or too stupid to determine what is best for themselves and need some ‘parental’ or ‘moral’ guidance. Carrie Nation, for example, claimed to be ‘the Bulldog at Jesus’ feet, barking at the things He doesn’t like.’ The fact that Jesus himself drank wine didn’t seem to faze this champion of prohibition. These, however, are merely smokescreens for their actual desire to force their considerations and will upon the public using the government as a club. The ‘do-gooder’ will then become the ‘public face’ of the effort. There will never be an outcry from the public, in general, until their cause is marketed, sold and creates a controversy. The public will then fall into the trap of taking sides and an Hegelian dialectic ensues. Interestingly, the subset of society that espouses the controls or banning of the product or the activity is never involved in the use of said product or the activities they wish to ban.
Behind the scenes, there will be others looking for an opportunity to profit from the ban; either private citizens, business organizations, criminal enterprises or politicians looking to create a new governmental agency or police authority to enforce the new law. More often than not, the “public face” would never knowingly associate or collude with the “vested interests” looking to profit from their cause.
Politicians are then bought, cajoled or blackmailed into supporting the effort. In any other circumstance, ‘campaign contributions’ to get them on board would be considered bribes and pay-offs subject to prosecution and jail time, but not with them.
With the Volstead Act, as an example, a perfect illustration of the unforeseen effects, both positive and negative, of the unpopular banning of the manufacture, sale and transportation of intoxicating liquors can be readily seen.
Within the U.S., hidden stills for moonshine sprouted up in all of the major cities and in the mountain forests and woods from Virginia all the way down to Georgia. From Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean, the clandestine importation of huge amounts of liquor flowed in on boats and by vehicle to satisfy the demand. Rumrunners and bootleggers made fortunes. Bathtub gin and rot-gut whiskey could be found everywhere.
Then there were the gangsters and organized crime syndicates vying for control of their geographical areas, resulting in open gang warfare, death and destruction of property. Politicians, government bureaucrats, police and judges were corrupted and bribed and the citizens became scofflaws, losing all respect for the law; especially during those early depression years from 1929 until 1933 when Prohibition was finally repealed.
In south Philadelphia, as in many other neighborhoods in many other cities, the Italian immigrants ignored the law completely and continued to make home-made wines and liquors in their basements. There wasn’t even an attempt to mask the sweet smells of the fermenting process wafting out of the basement windows.
One of the loop holes in the law was that alcohol could be prescribed by doctors for ‘medicinal’ use. Many physicians supplemented their incomes by writing scrips, filled by obliging local pharmacies. Speak-easies and private saloons were the worst-kept secrets in practically every city and town. In effect, a large, very profitable, underground industry was born in the manufacture, distribution and provision of hard drink.
On the other side of this equation, was the federal enforcement of the law. Bureaucracies were created to organize their forces, control the investigations and execute enforcement. Agents were hired and paid for out of the taxes levied on the very people who were violating the law. The agents themselves were not beyond reproach and many turned a blind eye to the activities that were going on right under their noses. Even they were known to have a drink or two after their shifts had ended. Many were unwilling to risk their lives to enforce a law that even they, in their hearts, opposed.
Additionally, without real safety controls on the production of alcohol, many people became ill or died from drinking badly produced spirits.
On the positive side, many, many people gained employment during the early depression years, albeit ‘illegal’. It was probably the automobile industry that gained the most from this immoral law. People used their ingenuity to get their cars to go faster, improve engine performance and suspensions in an attempt to outrun their pursuers. These modifications found their way into the production cars and, eventually, lead to the creation of NASCAR.
My father could always tell when a proposed law was a bad idea. He basically used only two criteria. The first he repeated from Frèdéric Bastiat – any law that takes something from one group against their will and gives it to another is immoral on its face. This, he viewed, as a form of the ratified, legalized plunder of the producers in a society. The second was that any law that was passed to protect the People from themselves, against their natural liberties, was doomed to fail, though not without a high social and economic cost.
Special interest groups, through government, have absolutely no business telling the People what they may or may not do with their own bodies. If a person wishes to smoke marijuana, shoot heroin or drink a shot glass of whisky, whose business is it but their own? Why should their liberties be taken away for an activity that hurts no one but themselves? Even if one would claim that they are harming their own families, how would their families be better off if they are in jail? Why should this mass of money and resources be dedicated to preventing people from doing what they wish? Additionally, why should the taxpayers, in general, bear any cost in interfering with individuals who wish to engage in self-destructive activities?
He would say that it is always better to calculate the harm to society against the benefits before enacting such laws. Also, it is always better to err on the side of liberty than government regulation.
He once told me that the simplest, most effective way to reduce crime is to get rid of the laws which violate the free expressions of our natural liberties.
