On Croft's Repealing the Law of Supply and Demand

Editor: I really liked your article Repealing the Law of Supply and Demand by J.D. Croft. In it he states that attempts by government to dictate economic activity simply produce a large black market. Dr. Croft goes on to say that attempting to enforce such measures "inevitably creates more unanticipated problems than the one it is intended to solve."

How completely true. As a Republican conservative/libertarian I would also point out that products or services for which there is a demand, regardless of their legal status, will always be supplied. Drugs, prostitution, and gambling are excellent examples. Let me state for the record that I, a long recovery alcoholic, do not consume these. So I'm not arguing for benefit of my own "habit."

However there IS a huge demand for these products/services, and attempts to suppress it have produced exactly the sort of problems the author described. The suppression of gambling and prostitution have, for centuries, merely driven the suppliers into the underground economy and produced police and political corruption.

In our own time, drug prohibition has produced the same effects while also encouraging law enforcement to trample the bill of rights in their forlorn attempt. They stop something like 10% of the drugs, fill the prisons with non violent (and mostly inoffensive) offenders, brand young people with criminal records for life, and only really succeed in raising the price of the commodity. By the way, in the process, they expand government, create powerful bureaucracy, and severely limit individual liberties; all anathema, one would think, to conservatives.

The harebrained "noble experiment" of alcohol prohibition produced the Mafia, political corruption, contempt for law, and, in the end, had to be repealed. Why do we not learn from this mistake?

I am NOT "my brother's keeper!" People who are going to use drugs, engage in prostitution, or gamble with or without either the law's or my blessing. In the case of drug users; they may, due to the artificially high price of their vice, burglarize my home or "mug" me in the street in order to support their habit.

Decriminalization is NOT the same as APPROVAL! Millions smoke cigarettes and drink whiskey. The fact that the state taxes these doesn't constitute promotion. We merely accept that people are sovereign over their own bodies. Indeed, absent the "forbidden fruit effect," drug use would likely become less "chic."

So long as they are of legal age, let them have their drugs! If a few of them overdose, they'll be assisting society by taking themselves out of the gene pool! So long as your fist does not reach my nose, swing away! Commit suicide if you must; its NOT MY PROBLEM. Bryan K. Donnelly, Pompano Beach FL

Editor:
As a socially liberal, fiscally conservative Democrat I agree with the more Libertarian approach of the Croft article. I always like the Libertarians even though they -- by their very nature -- can never effectively organize... No question about personal responsibility and accountability. However reasonable and good this sounds to those of us who are -- or at least try to be -- responsible and accountable, the challenge is what about those who aren't.

Clearly, a central religious perspective -- Christian, Jewish, Islam, Hindu, Buddhist -- would suggest that we are or at least should be our brother's keepers. Perhaps the best mainline religion for Libertarians would be classical Taoism... but I digress. Remember, no matter how odious the various incarnations of "the welfare state" are, the intentions are to preserve the social order which favors conservatism. Bread and circuses must coexist, if you will. Bodhisattva Bill

Email the Editor