Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jeffrey Miron's avatar

Hi Adam. I agree with Rothbard that private police can (and do) provide some functions currently addressed, imperfectly, by government police. But I think there are reasons to see the private as an incomplete substitute. 1. private police will be difficult for the poor to employ. maybe basic protection is something that everyone should have. 2. private police might mainly SHIFT the targets of criminals, rather than providing deterrence / incapacitation. None of this denies all the problems with government police. Still, makes me think the ideal approach is to start by scaling back the aspects of current law/police that is clearly counter-productive, which will then make it easier to determine if we can go even further, a la rothbard.

Thanks for writing,

jeff

Expand full comment
Jeffrey Miron's avatar

Hi Stephen. Thanks for the comment. I fully agree with your broad point: paying taxes to support true public goods is completely consistent with individual liberty. In the case of drug abuse treatment, however, I think the case is weak. First, most of the negatives of misuse fall on the user (or close family members, but I tend to think we should lump those together). Second, the evidence that government subsidized treatment actually helps people quit, or get jobs, or whatever, is really weak. Third, the issue for the DTP position is not whether we should have any such subsidy, but whether we definitely need more; that seems even harder to defend. Finally, I fear that convincing non-libertarians to BOTH legalize drugs AND pay for treatment makes the debate even more difficult. I would still engage if the empirical case for treatment were solid, but it's not.

I probably should have addressed all of this. Maybe a good topic for another post.

all the best,

jeff

Expand full comment
6 more comments...

No posts