The immorality of illegality

Putting something outlawed - illegally - is the easiest way for politicians to show that they are "fighting something." It's the easiest way to tell people who make up the imaginary "public" that I'm doing something. That I am - as a politician - active.


However, the problem is obvious - an active politician can be more counterproductive than it may seem at first glance.

What is "legal" and "illegal" is, in the modern sense, what is "allowed" or "not allowed" by the state. The state and the state monopoly of power is what determines and maintains the law and the external social institutions that determine "legality and illegality."

The existence of a single state monopoly on power has far-reaching consequences: one center, one point in society. it cannot cover all individual and unique preferences and motivation of individuals.

Then it can quite simply happen that the state will oppose its citizens - a ban, a law has no brute force. If I am a racist (as I am not), the prohibition of racism by my law preferences do not change. I will only adapt my behavior to the new reality (I will still behave racist, but more covertly). The only law that has a chance to change my preferences is one that I recognize myself - natural law, moral.

Explicit law can work completely counterproductively. Both racism and, for example, the state's drug policy are proof of this.

The legal one that sanctifies power (the state) is in an environment where legal principles work. Principles both artificially given and natural, moral. By excluding a certain human preference or motivation from its position outside the legal space, the state excludes that preference / motivation into the space of illegality, where both artificial and natural (moral) principles do not apply.

In other words, if I illegal a group of drugs, their trafficking and use is exposed to the jungle. All participants in the shift move beyond the law, all participants in the shift are voluntarily exposed to state power. In case of fraud, neither side shifts he cannot turn to general authority, the power of the judiciary, because it is held by the state - and it punishes actions illegally.

The result is spontaneous genesis "illegal order“Which starts from scratch. At the time of the first prohibition (30s, USA, alcohol) they applied laws of honor, mafia and jungle. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Everything will lead (somewhere it has already happened) to the emergence of "parallel power“, The illegal executive, legislative and judicial powers.

Like the state-held "legal" form of order, that "illegal" form will evolve over time. In practice, this means that illegal trade operates on the principles of an order that operated in a "legal" society at the beginning of civilizations. Therefore, the functioning of the order in an illegal environment is very similar tribal establishment.

Illegality means a threat to state power. This increases the risks, but also the returns from the activity. Due to microeconomic resistance to risk (which is individual) so illegality means restricting competition in the industry - a cartel is formed.

A classic example is drug cartel. Few will dare to resist state power, and so few will expand competition in the industry and few will limit the strength of the strongest market at the same time.

It is a de-facto state-protected cartel that fears legalization. What is illegal is "outside the official space" and individuals who are afraid of risks, or their distinctiveness to state intervention is small, will stop ceasing to recognize anyone who starts moving outside the "official space". Those who move outside the "official space" thus form parallel civilization.

Parallel civilization starts from scratch. Those who, through the fault of the state, find themselves in a parallel civilization are doomed to be judged and judged according to the laws and principles we overcame millennia or centuries ago.

The consequence of illegalization is that power over the lives of individuals is not held by any generally controlled power, but a private cartel that is not bound by moral and ethical principles either. The same rules apply to the illegalization of political parties, movements or ideologies that turn into "cartel" groups, mysterious movements that all the more attract other supporters.


  1. 3,14ranha:
    "By criminalizing these drugs, society expresses respect for life at the expense of certain freedoms" -

    - That's definitely not true. The true reason is what the author wrote in the first sentence of his article:

    "Putting something outlawed - illegally - is the easiest way for politicians to show that they are" fighting something. "It's the easiest way to tell people who make up the imaginary" public "that I'm doing something. That I am - as a politician - active. "

  2. I think it would be appropriate to add that reality is not so sharply divided
    -there are different degrees of repression against "inappropriate" behavior
    murder is illegal and no one cries that criminals are not wearing gloves,
    on the other hand, alcohol and marijuana are fought mostly toothless, which gives room for the movement of ordinary citizens still on the edge of the law (if they have alcohol and marijuana needed)
    it is also necessary to remember that there is still the effect of prevention - the declaration of "weak" illegality usually does not discourage existing supporters of the activity but potential applicants (the risk and price for entering the activity will increase)

    the problem with drugs is that for some (éčko, „hard“…) sometimes there is no second chance (collapse, addiction), society by criminalizing these drugs expresses respect for life at the expense of certain freedoms - but what freedom does an addicted or collapsed drug victim have ?? ? (Of course, it is necessary to deal with this whole thing judiciously and avoid total prohibition - see the XNUMXs, USA)

Comments are off.