Challenging Legalism

If a law can be routinely broken without ever violating anyone's life, liberty, or property, then what real crime does that law prevent, and how can you justify its enforcement? This is an old question, debated by philosophers, legal theorists, and activists for centuries. The Latin terms malum prohibitum and malum in se refer respectively to "wrong because it is forbidden" and "wrong in and of itself."

The problem is not confined to any single party or ideology, and it is much easier to see this conflation in play with others than with ourselves. I would like to think my efforts toward Socratic dialogue have helped me conquer my own inconsistencies, but I'm not quite arrogant enough to believe that. I recommend Lysadner Spooner's essay, Vices Are Not Crimes, for an overview of arguments against prohibitions dating back to 1875.

My go-to explanation is abolitionism. The Fugitive Slave Act was the law, and the Underground Railroad was an illegal conspiracy. It's not the only example, though. Alcohol prohibition was the "law of the land" from January 17, 1920 until December 5, 1933. Moonshiners and gangsters made boatloads of money skirting the revenuers. I recommend Lysander Spooner's essay, Vices Are Not Crimes, for an overview of arguments against prohibitions dating back to 1875.

People also tend to forget Jim Crow was imposed by law with penalties for violating segregation policy. All cross-cultural interaction during that era was an affront to the racists behind legislation. Drug prohibition was expanded an effort to divert those revenuers into a new line of work, because government never shrinks, but this time they didn't even bother with a Constitutional amendment, just claims that prohibition would prevent those terrible African and Hispanic minorities from tempting good white folk with marihuana.

In short, I have far more respect for pot-smoking hippies, no matter how much mystical nonsense they spout, than any political action committees.