Prohibition and the New Deal are alike in their professed intention. Both assumed the guise of disinterested benevolence towards the body politic. We are judged incapable of setting up an adequate social defense against vicious rum-sellers and malefactors of great wealth. FULL ARTICLE by Albert Jay Nock
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/15137/the-new-deal-and-prohibition/
The New Deal and Prohibition
Previous post: Saving the State from Itself
Next post: Government to Lift Housing Prices? Fail
{ 13 comments }
As I understand it, the New Deal killed Prohibition (for the sake of money) and, as an indirect result, many people. A while back (http://theylaughedatnoah.blogspot.com/2010/08/killer-facts-about-prohibition-in-usa.html), I tried to review what really happened under Prohibition and came up with the following, but I’d be glad of further detail, correction and clarification:
“The 18th Amendment to the US Constitution allowed you to continue using alcohol, and also to make it for your own consumption. What was prohibited was its commercial manufacture and distribution.
As a result, cirrhosis death rates for men dropped by two-thirds. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis halved. The homicide rate, which had soared between 1900 and 1910, did not increase significantly during Prohibition.
Prohibition was ended in order to raise taxes for the Federal Government. It was supported by labor unions and wealthy industrialists.
The 21st Amendment, which repealed the 18th Amendment, made unregulated imports of alcohol illegal.
During Prohibition, national alcohol consumption decreased by an estimated 30 – 50%. After repeal, it increased. In 1989, alcohol was implicated in over 50% of homicides (and drugs in 10 – 20% of them). Alcohol was then also believed to be the cause of over 23,000 motor vehicle deaths – more than twice the number of drink-related homicides.
Iceland banned beer for 73 years (1915 – 1988). But for the first thirty years of its existence, Pakistan allowed the free sale and consumption of alcohol; restrictions were only introduced in 1977.”
So what’s the point? Does the state own your body or not? Answer that question then I will understand your philosphy. This government banned DDT and look at result worldwide. The deaths you speak of about alchohol and anything related does not compare to the millions of people who died as a direct or indirect cause of Malaria. I find it horrible that people will drink and cause death and destruction. I also find it horrible for the state to decide that DDT hurts the environment and lets millions of people die each year. Life isn’t fair. I’d rather help a poor family in Africa trying to survive through no fault of their own, than an individual who makes a conscience choice to consume alcohol. I wonder how many human deaths are really caused by do gooders?
Plus, the article has nothing to do with your whine. Read it again and get off of your soapbox.
DDT broadspraying was banned because the mozzies were becoming resistant. Had there been no ban whatsoever then DDT would be useless. Besides Westerners don’t have to spray to avoid malaria – think about that.
@Gil, I want to thank you for the info about mozzies and now I can stop taking my malaria pills. I understand the problem with mosquitoes becoming resistant to DDT but one must also look at the effects of excito-repellency. The whole problem with mosquitoes and people is that you try not to get them to suck your blood. The total eradication, as in the western world is another whole issue. It takes infrastructure and a dedicated consistent approach. But for Asia and Africa the DDT was a cheap solution to save lives. If sprayed on walls inside their homes and huts it would afford some protection because the excito-repellency effect would drive the little mozzies away. Here is a study that was done in Thailand that concludes a positive response to DDT spray over the years. One of the key components in preventing malaria transmission has relied mainly on methods that interrupt human-vector contact.34–36 Insecticides that have strong irritant and repellency attributes on vectors can perform this function without necessarily having to kill the mosquito to interrupt transmission. Repellency to insecticides in vectors has been recognized in several Anopheles mosquitoes.17,18,21,22,23,36–38 Compared with contact irritancy, this type of avoidance behavior could mitigate even more against selection of insecticide resistance in mosquito populations.Anopheles minimus species A in Thailand, has been subjected to routine intradomicilary DDT spraying to interrupt malaria transmission for decades. DDT was applied either once or twice a year, especially in malaria-endemic areas of western Thailand. Although DDT was used for many years, no evidence of physiologic resistance has been detected in the An. minimus complex. We believe that innate behavioral avoidance of insecticide-sprayed surfaces by mosquitoes has, and continues to play, a significant role in delaying or preventing resistance from developing. Our findings confirm that strong behavioral avoidance of chemical residues is due to excito-repellent properties of these compounds and most likely contributes to interruption of feeding by mosquitoes and transmission of malaria.Our findings indicate differences in behavioral responses between two species of the An. minimus complex in Thailand. We believe that these important observations can help explain some of the varying effectiveness of indoor residual spraying in various regions in Thailand. It is the understanding of behavioral avoidance and an appreciation for excito-repellency that indicate an important set of properties of residual insecticides and how they function to control disease transmission apart from contact toxicity alone. So intradomicillary spraying has interrupted Malaria transmission for decades. There are other areas in world where farmers used large amounts of DDT that accelerated the resistance factor. You can read the entire paper here: http://www.ajtmh.org/cgi/content/full/73/2/343
This was just one example and I don’t purport it to be the Holy Grail.
Murder rates did significantly increase during Prohibition and significantly decreased after Prohibition, increasing once again only after the acceleration of the War on Drugs. As for the increase in murder rates in the early 1900s, that increase coincides with prohibitions imposed on drugs and alcohol in individual states before the national prohibition.
From what I’ve sreen and read, Prohibition was the “feed lot” ftrom whivch ORGAIIZED CRIMEW gfre
haha. It’s like you were drinking when you wrote this.
What appears under my name was obviously “operator error”, the typing being really terrible, as should have been obvious. Additionally, being “cut off” in mid sentence, as might also be the case strikes me as questionable activity on your part, but that’s simply my take.
Prohibition was, it turns out, the feed lot from which grew ORGANIZED CRIME, something that has been the subject of legislation, discussion and the efforts of law enforcement to curb. I note that organized crime is still a problem.
Interestingly, given that Prohibition was an obvious failure, one wonders concerning whether or not the nation and it’s legislators has learned anything much from the experience. In short, one wonders as to whether or not something similar, given sufficient impetus, might be enacted today?
Re this, one is given to think on one definition of insanity. Continuing to pursue the identical course of action, all the while expecting different results.
You can use the same analogy and say the prohibition against rape and murder is constantly failing therefore it should be abolished.
yeah, except rape and murder involve one person using force against another. Same is true of prohibition in the other direction.
So what about force? Some people engage in activities that are banned anyway, so why have laws in the first place?
Great article, thanks. I don’t have my library near, but I don’t recall reading this one in any of the Nock essay compilations. So this is its first appearance since 1936, right?
There are still several Albert Jay Nock articles, including many of his American Mercury ones that have not been republished, either in print or online, since their original publication. Australian libraries do not stock the relevant American Mercury issues, and second-hand copies are too expensive for me. I was able to track down one, which contained Nock’s “Liberals Never Learn”. I typed it up here: http://economics.org.au/2010/07/liberals-never-learn-nock/ . It’s a gem. It’d be great if someone with access to U.S. libraries made the rest available. There are many Mencken pieces that have never been republished either. Surely being the first to put online “new” Mencken and Nock essays will be incentive enough for those with U.S. library access. Presumably the Mises Institute are already doing this, but I write this paragraph in case they’re not.
Comments on this entry are closed.