More Taxation an Acceptable Side Effect of Legalized Prostitution and Drugs?

[YourTokah]

I'm interested in what you libertarians have to say about this -

More taxes if drugs and prostitution are legalized and regulated by the government, but more freedoms, as well.

Is it worth it?

[Compugasm]

The system you set up in your example, requires those to pay who participate, rather than the current system where everyone pays because prostitution exists. So, the answer is yes.

[YourTokah]

Well, the customer would pay for their legal pot or prostitute, but the government agencies created to regulate these industries would still be funded with citizen's tax dollars. Law enforcement officials would not simply forget about drug use and prostiution, either - they'd just have a new set of rules and rule breakers, and your taxes would still be paying for them to do their *new* jobs. So the customer is paying his sales tax and you're paying your income tax to provide him that product via a government-regulated program.

[mr.perfecto]

I'm not a libertarian, so my view is much more correct. Keep it illegal and use convicts to stamp license plates and clean the roads and parks. That way we get the best of both worlds. Encouraging those people to stay as far away as possible and lowering costs from the forced labor. My suggestion doesn't even expand government, it shrinks it!

[Osborn F Enready]

I say imprison people like Mr Perfecto for no logical reason, and see how he likes it. They have been doing it to marijuana users for years.

Make him lose his job, his family, his future because he does something as harmless as consuming a vegetable for pleasure, and then ask him what he thinks about rights and government power.

You are a blind loyalist Perfecto, and your tounge in cheek insults are getting old.

If you want to insult someone, be a man, risk being kicked from the forum, and aire your circular logic opinion on the world for all to see, don't hide it in doulble talk and nonsense, as most of your posts end up being.


ON ORIGINAL TOPIC.
As a currently practicing Libertarian, I would say there are many acceptable answers to the problem FOR NOW, as long as it keeps innocent, non-violent citizens from being imprisoned for things as ABSURD as marijuana.

I would never blindly support any more taxation, but if that is what it takes to stop innocent people who understand liberty from being put in prison, I would go for it, because we are going to need all the liberty lovers outside the walls when the revolution starts.

[belverron]

Quote by: mr.perfecto I'm not a libertarian, so my view is much more correct.

... Characterized by your self-righteousness, did you mean to say?

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: YourTokah the government agencies created to regulate these industries would still be funded with citizen's tax dollars. Law enforcement officials would not simply forget about drug use and prostiution, either - they'd just have a new set of rules and rule breakers, and your taxes would still be paying for them to do their *new* jobs.

I am not in favor of the government regulating and taxing these "industries." I also do not favor prohibition and enforcement. Just de-criminalize and walk away.

Why should regulation and taxation be necessary? These transactions are between private parties, so I don't favor interference except for fraud or violence. And who is the victim and who benefits in the present regime?

[Prometheus]

I don't like taxes, but I would accept them in order to get rid of preposterous restrictions on drugs and sex.

Only th mist radical libertarians want to eradicate *all* taxes. I am a libertarian who is willing to conpromise my dogmatism toactually get something accomplished. If a tax would get those things legalized, I'm on board.

[ihaQ]

I don't know if I'm missing something here, but shouldn't the drug + prostitution industries finance themselves?

[Prometheus]

Of course they would finance themselves. They would generate *huge* amounts of cash. The question is whether we can/should tax those revinues.

This is important, because in many states, the justification for lotteries/gaming is the tax revinues. The argument would be similar for prostitution and drugs. The reason there are similar, is that the cash incentive is enough to get many people to allow an activity they find distastefull.

[ihaQ]

Ok. I merely assumed that when YT was talking about 'more taxes', she meant that the federal regulation of drugs and prostitution would cost the public money.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: PatrickHenry I am not in favor of the government regulating and taxing these "industries." I also do not favor prohibition and enforcement. Just de-criminalize and walk away. Why should regulation and taxation be necessary? These transactions are between private parties, so I don't favor interference except for fraud or violence. And who is the victim and who benefits in the present regime?

I pretty much align with Pats position on this topic.


Government oversight, and taxation in these matters is what funds all that I dislike about government.

[SteveA]

I agree if they wanted to add taxes and regulations to marajuana and prostitution, it causes more problems than it solves and funds more intervention in other areas as well. They should instead pass these decisions of how to address them best down to local governments - some communitees may want to keep them restricted, some might not, some might want to regulate etc. Decentralization is less prone to abuse and provides a greater freedom for communities to address these issues in a manner they feel is appropriate - adding new government industries just seems like more problems awaiting (picture what motivation government would have if it effectively controlled a monopoly in these industries ... look at our commercial drug industries and the legal games they play and government subsidies we pay for to get an idea).

[Milton Bradley]

Your on the right track Steve.


The real issue seems to be the Executive branches percieved authority to rule on these matters. Federal bans allows no room for dissent, and creates the Black Market it asks for monies to defend against. It creates all of its own problems, and ours as well.


This is an issue to be left to the State, and the People, to negotiate among themselves, and to create local law if deemed necesarry.


Many people need to be reminded that lifting the Federal ban would not necesarrily mean ensuing anarchy. It means that those with authority to rule on such matters would actually have the chance to do so.


Allowing room for dissent is the price of freedom.

[SteveA]

Many people need to be reminded that lifting the Federal ban would not necesarrily mean ensuing anarchy. It means that those with authority to rule on such matters would actually have the chance to do so. Allowing room for dissent is the price of freedom.

Well said, Milton.