How is the argument about alcohol being driven underground by legislated prohibition different from the argument of murder being driven under ground by legislated prohibition?
I don't see any difference. Is there a difference I'm supposed to be seeing? If so, what is it?
I don't think it is. Alcohol is, perhaps, pursued at a lower rate than marder.
If you're referring to the early 20th century prohibition of alcohol, then that was a vice, and vices should not be punished, for they are only self-destructive and do not harm anyone else. On the other hand, with murder, that is one person taking away somebody else's life, which of course is contrary to the idea of natural rights which states that no individual should ever deprive another individual of their liberties.
Thanks for the replies. Legislation (statist statutes) is against natural law.
I see a huge difference. A vice does not violate the person or property of another. Murder definitely does. So murder is a real crime. Now damage from alcohol overuse that damages the person or property of another can be a crime as well depending on circumstances. The rule is: No victim-No crime.
@ Bogart: thanks for reply. : ) I realize that violation of alcohol prohibition legislation doesn't hurt anyone and that murder does. What I was asking is... how does legislating prohibiiton of murder not drive it underground but legislated prohibition of alcohol does? I think the state drives murder underground just as much as the 18th Amendment drove alcohol underground.
When you say 'drive murder underground' do you mean the production of murder via hitmen?
I'm assuming that you do because 'driving alcohol underground' evokes images of moonshine and bootleggers for me, I'm not sure if this was your intent though.
Absolutely, prohibition of murder drives the murderers underground. What murder wants his crime to be know to the populace? with the exception of the President of the United States who seems to advertise his contract killings of US and NON US citizens.
Then what good does it do to legislate against murder? Even if you think it does good, it's not ethical because those who refuse to pay taxes can get murdered if they resist arrest for failure to pay taxes.
I see what people are saying about one being victimless (alcohol use) and the other is not (murder). And I don't disagree with that.
However, to address what your are asking, are we essentially considering at least a minimal state? That is, as things currently are? If so, I tend to agree that there is no difference in prohibition of either driving those things underground. Before I became a pure libertarian, I was a minarchist (Constitutionalist). Back then, I came to a conclusion that the "litmus test" on whether a law was legitimate was, "Does prohibiting such an act cause more harm than the act itself? If yes, then the law is not legitimate."
Take prohibition of alcohol or cannabis. The harm created by driving the alcohol or cannabis market underground (allowing more access to children, creating violence in disputes, driving up prices, breeding a disrespect and mistrust of law and its officers, etc.) is more harmful than the effects of alcohol or cannabis use. Thus, prohibition is an illegitimate law.
This led me to the sticky issue of murder prohibition. Under the outlaw of murder, a man that commits murder is much more likely to threaten or murder any witnesses, live on the run and possibly resort to theft or burglary, disrespect and mistrust the law and its officers, etc. It's hard to say if this result causes more harm than the first murder.
I don't know the answer. Indeed, though, it is an intriguing issue to ponder.
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.