[zasterguava]

I thought most of the ACists here supported arguments in support of the abolishment of the state for at least some of the same reasons as me. Yet, I read an extract from the ACist writer David Friedman asserting the following:

[ QUOTE ]

"If almost everyone believes strongly that heroin addiction is so horrible that it should not be permitted anywhere under any circumstances anarcho-capitalist institutions will produce laws against heroin. Laws are being produced on the market, and that is what the market wants." And he adds that "market demands are in dollars, not votes. The legality of heroin will be determined, not by how many are for or against but how high a cost each side is willing to bear in order to get its way."

[/ QUOTE ]

Heroin usage, however detrimental to society (increased currently by state intervention), is a personal choice that one should be allowed to consider based on personal conviction and ones freedom to make an educated choice regarding matters that will not harm any unwilling victim (as with most things). I thought this typical line of argument was shared amongst myself and ACist comrades and thus the notion by a respected ACist that there should be undemocratic "institutions" that PROHIBITS (makes "laws) against heroin usage "anywhere under any circumstances" (should the market demand so) took me by surprise. Why should we desire to be slaves to the market as opposed to the state? I don't care how heroin would respond to trends in the market; what matters is ones freedom and ability to choose free of extrinsic powers. I mean this line of thinking by Friedman has horrendous implications on everyday life. If it came to fruition; what else would institutions make laws against through percieved perceptions and predictions of the market? I dare not exercise such a thought.

Also, quite frankly, who in their right mind wants our lives to be decided over this way as opposed to some sort of democratic system that integrates at least some influence by a larger populous?

A Anarchist FAQ explains the following in relation to the quoted source:

[ QUOTE ]
As the market is less than equal in terms of income and wealth, such a position will mean that the capitalist class will have a higher effective demand than the working class and more resources to pay for any conflicts that arise. Thus any law codes that develop will tend to reflect the interests of the wealthy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thoughts?