I thought we were on the same page here? (ACist and freedom~drugs)

[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?

[IsaacW]

The way I see it is that these kinds of "laws" in an AC world would not be like the same kinds of laws we have in a statist world. That is, an individual will not be violently forced to abstain from heroin. However, if most people in a society view it as a bad habit, then he may find it difficult to contract for work, health insurance, or other goods and services without abstaining. His freedom to consume heroin may be in practice similar to his freedom to not eat. I do not think this would be the case, since (inexpensive without state-enforced prohibition) heroin could be safely consumed as a recreational drug, but it is certainly a possible outcome.

I think the same issues arise in an AS world as well: if no commune will let me consume heroin when I am not working, then my freedom to consume heroin is the same as my freedom to not join a commune.

[tomdemaine]

Under AC you'll be free to do any drugs you want and I'll be free not to employ you or support you in any way if I disaprove of how you spend your money.

[Borodog]

The heroin situation amounts to a pathological hypothetical. Plus, without the ability to externalize the cost of their scheme, the anti-heroin people would have to bear the full cost of implementing it, and it would rapidly collapse from anti-heroin freeriders jumping the payment ship, which increases the cost to the remaingin scheme members, which causes more of them to jump ship, etc.

[Borodog]

[ 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 ]

The vast majority of productive capital serves the masses. If the "capitalist class" (please) actually did have a "higher effective demand" than the "working class", all the world's factories would be building Lambourghinis and yachts instead of Hondas and bass boats.

Law codes that develop will by universal, or as I like to term it, "homogeneous and isotropic." People would refuse to patronize firms that promised to settle disputes for their clients according to laws that screwed them over, and since there is no monopoly and the money is in the masses, the resulting law would be equal in the only way that matters: equality before the law.

[nietzreznor]

[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yeah, there is the danger that, in a free market society, unlibertarian laws could become the norm, or unlibertarian social attitudes might prevail. But I'm not sure exactly how this is a concern solely when private companies and "undemocratic" markets are involved (markets are HIGHLY democratic)--it seems to me that the 'democracies' you tout constantly pass some highly unlibertarian legislation as well.
So I think there are two important factors here--the first is the importance of people having generally libertarian attitudes, and the second is the importance of decentralization. With respect to the first point, regardless of whether laws come intoi existence via companies on a market or people in localized democracies, if the people doing the voting are highly illiberal, then the society is going to be highly illiberal. Valling something a "democracy" won't make drugs legal if basically all the people are horrified by them and want laws against them (one could argue, I think, that it's much easier in a modern democracy to get such legislation passed, since a person who wanted heroin banned just has to go and vote and can force others to bear the costs). But while the issue of people having highly unlibertarian attitudes might be a problematic issue in some small subset of cases, in general I don't think it's a big worry since we would be talking about a society that was libertarian enough to get rid of government--I highly doubt that same society would start passing anti-drug laws (Death Star argument).

With respect to decentralization, the more decentralized things get, the less it matters if some small town or community passes unlibertarian laws, since it is much much easier to leave and go somewhere a bit more open-minded. It is also probable that some towns/communities would have more 'traditional' democratic processes for creating laws, and these law-creating processes (just like the market-based ones) would feature the same 'check'--that one could easily go elsewhere.

[WordWhiz]

The key to understanding Friedman's ideas is to realize that he is describing an unavoidable reality, not necessarily endorsing it. As an example, if 99.9% of people think that redheads are evil people who should be tortured to death, they will be, regardless of whether you have a democracy, anarcho capitalism, communist workers paradise, dictatorship etc. Such a large demand for a particular good (the torture of redheads) will be provided for. This doesn't mean it's right or moral in any sense, just unavoidable.

The key advantage to anarchy over government is what happens when, say, 90% or 70%, rather than 99% of people want redheads tortured to death. In a democracy, the majority still gets its way. In the U.S., which is a representative democracy with certain constitutionally imposed limits, you need more than 50%+1, but 70-90% is probably enough to get damn near anything through.

By contrast, on the free market, people must pay for the laws they want, including laws which violate the rights of others. But as Friedman points out, heroin addicts value the right to use heroin much more than moralists value the right to deprive others of that right. I should note that this would be especially so in an anarchocapitalist society, since I doubt such a society could ever come about without a populace that has significantly more libertarian sensibilities than our current one.

So yes, we will be slaves to the market, in much the same way that we're slaves to gravity and evolution. I too would like things to be different, and have a world in which certain rights and the principle of non aggression are fundamental and universally respected. But that's not the reality we live in.

[lehighguy]

[ QUOTE ]
The key to understanding Friedman's ideas is to realize that he is describing an unavoidable reality, not necessarily endorsing it. As an example, if 99.9% of people think that redheads are evil people who should be tortured to death, they will be, regardless of whether you have a democracy, anarcho capitalism, communist workers paradise, dictatorship etc. Such a large demand for a particular good (the torture of redheads) will be provided for. This doesn't mean it's right or moral in any sense, just unavoidable.

The key advantage to anarchy over government is what happens when, say, 90% or 70%, rather than 99% of people want redheads tortured to death. In a democracy, the majority still gets its way. In the U.S., which is a representative democracy with certain constitutionally imposed limits, you need more than 50%+1, but 70-90% is probably enough to get damn near anything through.

By contrast, on the free market, people must pay for the laws they want, including laws which violate the rights of others. But as Friedman points out, heroin addicts value the right to use heroin much more than moralists value the right to deprive others of that right. I should note that this would be especially so in an anarchocapitalist society, since I doubt such a society could ever come about without a populace that has significantly more libertarian sensibilities than our current one.

So yes, we will be slaves to the market, in much the same way that we're slaves to gravity and evolution. I too would like things to be different, and have a world in which certain rights and the principle of non aggression are fundamental and universally respected. But that's not the reality we live in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fantastic post.

Anyone can "pass a law" in AC. Not everyone can enforce it. There is no government with a 100% monopoly on force.

If you and your buddies want to stop people from using heroine you can hire the mercenaries, buy the helicopters, build the finger print database. The reality is, when the state isn't paying for it all, very few people actually want to go that far, especially if the heroin users have thier own merceneries to defend them.

A much more likely situation is that anti-drug types will try to start thier own communities and make people sign housing agreements of sorts to live there (these already exist and are widely used). So maybe the clause in your mortgage will say that if you use drugs you will have to sell your house within six months and move to a town where they allow drugs.

[AlexM]

Do you understand the meaning of "almost everyone"?