The Cost of Morality Enforcement

Libertarians are united in saying that government exists to prevent and punish crimes that have a victim. Conversely, libertarians oppose “victimless crime laws.” Such laws are a violation of natural rights. Such laws are also notoriously hard to enforce.

For those who do note care about the natural rights argument, let us look just at the practical argument. In the process we can come up with a good workable definition of what constitutes a “victimless crime.”

If someone steals your car, you are going to call the police. We do not need a secret police force to enforce laws against theft. We have citizen participation to let the authorities know that a crime has happened. If someone you know and/or love is missing you are going to call the police. We do not need a secret police force to enforce laws against murder. We have citizen participation to let the authorities know that a crime has happened. Theft and murder are crimes that have a victim.

On the other hand, if you have neighbors down the street who discreetly smoke marijuana, do you call the police? Have you? For most people, the answer is no. To even know if your neighbors smoke marijuana, you have to either join them or spy on them. And many who do neither are still hesitant to report those who they do stumble across enjoying their favorite herb. If it were otherwise, at least half the people I went to college with would have done jail time. Responsible and discreet drug use is a victimless crime.

Laws against those who have no victim are very hard to enforce. It is for this reason that the War on Drugs has been such a failure. Sure, it prevents some of the hyper-law-abiding people from partaking, but otherwise, those who want to partake do so, and the rest do not. The people thus prevented are those least likely to abuse the privilege were marijuana to be made legal. Therefore, the benefits of the war are tiny at best.

But the cost is huge. In any effort to have a victimless crime law, we are stuck with one or both of the following options:

Having the police resort to spying, entrapment, civil asset forfeiture, witness bribing, and other techniques at odds with a free and just society.
Having a large population flouting the law, thus undermining respect for the law in general.

We can use the term “victim” broadly. If people are offended, and thus “victimized”, by seeing certain parts of the human anatomy, we can enforce laws against public display. Public nudity laws are easy to enforce. On the other hand, if those who wish to observe others in the nude do so in private, it requires greater effort to enforce the law, for there are no victims. Restricting where pornography is shown is enforceable, eliminating pornography is not.

If we were to legalize and strictly regulate where prostitution can be practiced, we can get the hookers off the street. We can restrict advertising (which is by definition public). It is harder to restrict what goes on behind closed doors. But if prostitution were legal, regulation would be possible. The government could better contain sexually transmitted diseases.

Similarly, the government can better regulate gambling when it is legal. And maybe the government could crack down on casinos that prey on the tired or the stupid. It could even reign in the borderline false advertising that is done by state lotteries. Whether the government should is an issue I leave up to you.

OK, so you don’t want a recreational drug store in your neighborhood, and you don’t want gambling or prostitution there either. If such things were legal somewhere else, then enforcing such laws in your neighborhood would far easier. Prohibition failed. On he other hand, dry counties are able to prevent local liquor sales. (But they are not able to prevent their residents from driving out to get liquor.)

By allowing garbage dumps to exist, we keep our neighborhoods free from scattered garbage and burning trash piles. Similarly, by allowing “moral garbage” in certain areas, it is easier to keep such garbage out of other neighborhoods.

But what constitutes “moral garbage?” This question is harder to answer than one might think.

Next: Whose Morality?

Spread the Word

Share |