The porn industry is more morally and ethically degrading than individuals using drugs, and the porn business (up til recently) was bringing in a lot of profit. (I’ve watched some lectures on the porn industry.)
Before I continue with this I’d like to explain why I single out drugs (which includes alcohol and tobacco). Drugs are (a) extremely harmful, (b) designed to be addictive, (c) alters human behavior and directly affects third parties.
Point A is not unique to drugs, indeed many products are harmful for consumers, but adults are mature enough to make their own choices. My position is that B and C makes these products entirely unique, and if we agree that the government needs to provide some sort of defense for people against criminals, defend the rich from the poor (prevent something like the 1848 reign of terror), and support a decentralized legal system, then this industry should be the sole source of revenue. If charities, for whatever reason, are nonexistent, or extremely scarce, and if there’s revenue left over, then it should go towards the most desperate members of society.
I’m not talking about “banning drugs,” and anyone who raises straw men like Mr. muffinberg will be ignored.
So please, don’t turn me into a progressive. This thread is about laissez-faire and my positions. Also, I don’t like people who openly claim that banking should be entirely regulated because “people are ignorant of how FRB operates” talking down to me.
Again, in my perfect world there are no taxes on anything but drugs and on corporations who seek legal privileges. People over the age of 35 and with property can vote. There is no interventionism/inflationism/regulations on anything–the government has no influence on the economy besides taxing the industries mentioned. If this is not consistent with laissez-faire, as it’s defined everywhere in the world but here, then please tell me why. If you simply believe that laissez-faire means anarchy, then this conversation is a waste of time.
Fine, then let’s tax automobiles so that 30,000 people a year in the USA won’t die. No wait, they are already taxed, and 30,000 people a year in the USA die.
“Before I continue with this I’d like to explain why I single out drugs (which includes alcohol and tobacco). Drugs are (a) extremely harmful, (b) designed to be addictive, (c) alters human behavior and directly affects third parties.”
So you are completely for making revenue off products that give individuals pleasure (and an act, smoking, which has been around for hundreds of years) to support defense?
This brings me to another question: defense from what? Are we keeping standing armies all over the place in peace time?
There are other dangers, and why is the number incidents relevant? Furthermore, how will making it more difficult to obtain drugs legally reduce the amount of crimes committed to obtain drugs?
This is a secondary affect (this is the fourth time I’m saying this, but the main purpose of the tax is revenue), and the reasoning is simple: taxing something reduces consumption. The physical nature and chemical properties of drugs makes it unique; no one disputes this, and yet, we’re still comparing drugs to cars for some reason.
You want to forcefully reduce consumption. You don’t want the market to work itself out, nor do you want people to think for themselves whether or not they should take it. Also, the physical and chemical properties of drugs is irrelevant if more people die per year from car crashes than drugs. You are trying to drive your point home that drugs are dangerous, yet they can be no more dangerous than driving on crowded public roads, statistically.
Taxation, of course. You’re taking the moral stand that taxing drugs, alcohol, and tobacco is The Right Thing To Do in order to obtain funding for welfare. So let me ask you… what happens if someone refuses to pay the tax? Are you still morally in the right if you imprison them? What happens if they resist arrest? Are you still morally in the right if you shoot them?
Like a mixed economy, men of mixed premises may be called “gray”; but, in both cases, the mixture does not remain “gray” for long. “Gray,” in this context, is merely a prelude to “black.” There may be “gray” men, but there can be no “gray” moral principles. Morality is a code of black and white. When and if men attempt a compromise, it is obvious which side will necessarily lose and which will necessarily profit.
Such are the reasons why—when one is asked: “Surely you don’t think in terms of black-and-white, do you?”—the proper answer (in essence, if not in form) should be: “You’re damn right I do!”
What institutional elements would you put in place which could help ensure that the government does not grow beyond the point you intend it to be? It seems pretty obvious that no government would remain that small for any length of time.
Also, as other people mentioned, there are many ways to get around taxes. If people do not comply, you think that you have the right to shut their business down and possibly economically ruin them and their families?
They would be happy to pay the taxes because they are rational actors who realize that this country allows them to sell/buy a product legally banned in all other countries (with the exception of one). Furthermore, they would love not paying income taxes, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, ect ect. They would also enjoy the fact that they get a functional legal system, a police force which protects them from criminals, and national defense.