Have you ever wondered why New World does not organise drive-by shootings of Pak ‘N Save? Why, if Noel Leeming has a dispute with a supplier, do they take them to court rather than summarily execute them?

I’m sure that these questions seem absurd to you. But in one area of commerce—the sale of illicit narcotics—these are the decisions that enterprising firms sometimes make. What is it about the sale of drugs that causes people to commit acts of violence to defend their turf, to punish people who do not pay, and to ensure a constant supply of drugs?

Some might argue that it is the nature of drugs themselves—that drugs make people violent, and so it is natural for those who peddle drugs to end up committing acts of violence. But this hardly makes sense. Alcohol also makes people more aggressive, and yet we rarely see Mac’s Breweries undertaking rip and runs against Monteiths. Moreover, many drugs, such as marijuana, make people less violent rather than more.

Others might argue that those predisposed to purchasing and using drugs are more likely to commit acts of violence—that drug use corresponds to other indicators of violence such as race or socio-economic background. While this argument may have merit at first sight, I believe that it confuses cause and effect. Why, after all, are drug dealers more likely to come from poor backgrounds?

I think the real reason for the relationship between drugs and violence is the fact that drugs are illegal.

II: Why Illegal Drug Dealing Necessitates Violence

Drugs are valuable, and it is reasonable to assume that drug dealers want to protect their supply routes and enforce their contracts. If I agreed to supply fresh vegetables to New World for a month and then failed to do so, they would take me to court and get damages. Equally, when a drug dealer enters into a contract that is not performed, he wants recompense. He is unable to get recourse through the court system, because it refuses to enforce “unlawful contracts”. Is it surprising that to defend his property rights in drugs, a drug-dealer seeks other enforcement mechanisms outside of the court system?

What is surprising is not that violence is used, but instead that violence is so seldom used. Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher, said that life in a state of nature (that is, in the absence of a state) would result in a “war of all against all” and that life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” People thought that he was right for ages. It would take modern-day game theorists to lash him out. Game theorists have demonstrated that, with iterations, co-operation would emerge spontaneously in a state of nature. This is one of the key ideas underpinning anarcho-capitalism.
Equally, in the world of drugs, violence is not the primary mechanism to ensure contracts are upheld. In fact, given the costly nature of gang warfare (some people go to jail and others die), it seems more likely that they rely on other factors to demonstrate their willingness to abide by their contracts. Some ways they can do this are through building a reputation for upholding contracts or engaging in joint ventures to ensure the interests of the two parties are shared. In countries with more sophisticated markets in drugs, the Mafia acts as a de facto enforcement agency. Tony Soprano is the Justice Tipping of the black market. But violence is still the last resort for gangs—whereas the courts are a last resort to New World.

What this means, if you accept it, is that it is impossible to win the war on drugs. If we crack down on supply, drugs become more valuable. That means people have to go to extra lengths to protect their supply from theft. That means more guns, more violence, and more innocent victims. As soon as we come close to winning the war on drugs, we sow the seeds of our own destruction.

III: Why Some Drugs are Illegal

If you’re following so far, you’ll be seriously wondering why drugs are illegal. After all, if it is the prohibition on drugs which leads to violence, surely the obvious answer is to legalise them—especially commonly used drugs like marijuana?
Those who think like this are suffering from a disease I call democratic romanticism. This is the idea that the government does what the people want, because hey, we all get to vote occasionally. You probably also think that votes are a good indication of what people want. Most of you who support democracy are suffering under a delusion—a delusion that politicians are concerned with the public interest.

There are several problems with this. First, when the public interest comes up against a special interest, you can be sure that the general welfare is traded away to secure money or votes from the special interest. Take New Zealand’s tariffs on hats. This harms each of us in only a tiny way. We pay slightly more for hats than we ordinarily would. But the benefits to the millinery industry are massive—they are concentrated in the hands of a few people who reap excess profits. When you go to vote, you do not think “I’m really pissed off that I spent $1 extra on hats last year,” but the milliner is certainly thinking “I earned 100k from the tariffs last year—I’ll be voting to keep them.”

But the special interests are not so dumb as to make their claims in self-interested terms. They never say “we want a tariff to protect us.” They say “we want a tariff to help New Zealand workers.” Behind every special interest there is a bootlegger and a baptist. The baptist is the guy who is motivated by the softness of his heart. The bootlegger is the guy who gets the benefit of the special protection. The term came about when the United States introduced prohibition—the baptists supported prohibition because alcohol was evil, and the bootleggers supported prohibition because they would make a mint from alcohol being illegal.

Today, in regard to drugs, the baptists are the do-gooders like Jim Anderton, who is obsessed with taking away your freedom. When questioned why marijuana was illegal when alcohol was not, he threatened the questioner with the line “Don’t tempt me.” Behind Jim Anderton and the we-know-best brigade are the industries that would be harmed if marijuana and other drugs were legalised—the alcohol industry, bars, and yes, gangs.

The second problem with democracy is that talk is cheap. Have you ever seen those surveys where people say they want to eat healthier? Those surveys piss me off. If you want to eat healthier, then do it. People say they want to eat healthier, and then buy McDonalds. In fact, when McDonalds adds healthy items on to their menu, the amount of unhealthy foods they sell increases. Because a vote—like talk—hardly affects anything, we indulge our biases and fail to research things adequately. Students vote for the Greens ‘cause they love the environment. Then use the dryer. Talk is cheap.

Third, politics is necessarily short term. The reality is that drug use once someone is over 30 seldom occurs. So, there is a group of 18–30 year olds who have an interest in liberalising drug laws. But liberalising drug laws does not just benefit you—it benefits the future generations of 18–30 year olds. But they don’t get a vote, and you cannot charge them for doing the right thing and pushing for drug liberalisation. So, despite the fact that the long-term impact would be significantly beneficial, a democratic polity will continue to not act.
Contrast that with the private market. Some trees take 60 years of growing before they can be sold. Surely any person who is over the age of about 30 would be mad to invest in such a forest? You’d think so, but the cool thing about markets is that they allow you to sell to a guy 10 years later who pays a premium because he only has to wait 50 years. No such system exists in politics. That’s why politics is notoriously short-sighted.

IV: How To Get Marijuana Legalised

All I’ve told you is that when drugs are illegal, we get violence. That means unnecessary killings, brutal violence, and innocent victims. But there are other reasons why drugs should be legal. How about the fact that people really like them, enjoy taking them, and should be able to gain that pleasure without threat of arrest? I think that’s probably the best reason. Or how about the fact that I should be able to put whatever I want into my own body, even if it annoys you? Or, for the law students, how about the fact that enforcing laws against consensual acts necessarily involves a violation of rights? The reverse onus placed on defendants who have large quantities of drugs on them is inimical to a free society.

So how can we actually get drugs, especially widely used ones like marijuana, legalised? I think there’s two things we can do. First, we must normalise the usage of drugs. Normal people—lawyers, doctors, students, parents—need to come out and admit that they use or have used marijuana. Second, we need to use the delusion of democracy against itself. If enough of us decide to vote on this one issue—explicitly recognising that to do so is just as delusional as voting generally—then we can force political parties to respond. The Greens already support it. Rodney Hide has publicly stated that he supports the legalisation of all drugs. If we can get National and Labour to fight over the student vote, then where are all the do-gooders going to go?

Let’s start with probably the most idiotic of the ideas. Sam Oldham wants to “end private profit from student hostels.” This idea is particularly stupid for several reasons. The first is that profit is the price we pay for efficiency. If companies were not seeking to profit, instead merely seeking to cover their costs, then there is little incentive for them to choose less-expensive alternatives. Why would you choose a lower-cost input over a higher-cost input? You wouldn’t. Prices would ultimately increase for hostels, because there is no incentive to avoid inefficiency.

The first reason presumes that people remain in the student hostel business. But why would they? The second reason it is a stupid idea is because the first thing hostels would do is close down. Why operate a student hostel as a charity, when you can convert it into apartments, or a youth hostel, or any other enterprise, which makes money? If I told McDonalds that they could not operate at a profit, those franchises would quickly become a KFC or a Burger King. Because people like to improve their own self, the only way to prevent profit but maintain production is by coercion. Socialism will always require force and coercion. It is a philosophy based on theft and slavery.

The third reason why the idea is absurd is also the thing that will save us from Sam’s complete idiocy. VUWSA has no control over student hostels. So even if you like his idea, he can’t implement it. Then again, if you’re foolish enough to like the idea, you probably won’t understand that VUWSA has no power to implement the plan.

So that’s Sam Oldham. But the idiocy does not end there. Next we have Jasmine Freemantle. Jasmine says that she will “maintain and build student clubs, NOT SELL THEM OFF.” At first, I thought Jasmine was being generous – I thought she was personally going to build and maintain student clubs for us. But what she actually means is taking more of your money, and showering clubs with it. She’s not doing anything other than the stealing; you’re doing the rest. But what about the idea that she will not sell them off? Well, who was planning to sell them off? What does VUWSA own that it could sell?

So far as I can see, a Club is comprised of two elements. The Members of the club (who cannot be sold), and the assets of the club. VUWSA has the right to sell off the assets of clubs that dissolve. So, in those peculiar circumstances – where a club that both had assets and then dissolved – can VUWSA sell their assets. Here’s my question to Jasmine: if a club has failed, why do you want their assets taking up space someplace when clearly they’re not wanted? Although, in fact, there have been no asset sales, asset sales would be a good idea. I imagine you’d struggle to find a willing buyer for the Debating Society’s banner stand – but if you could find one, and Debsoc no longer existed, why not sell it off?

We also have Marika Pratley, who is promising cheaper text books. She’s planning to do this by reducing the amount of money that would become part of the VUWSA trust, which receives the profits from Vic Books. This probably isn’t the worst idea ever, because I don’t want some losers from VUWSA spending trust money on buildings that they’ll run poorly.

These promises are stupid, but luckily they probably won’t happen. Even stupid ideas which are possible – like Joel Cosgrove’s free printing – never came to fruition. In fact, he has been such a useless President that we should be grateful; if he had achieved more, he would have done more harm. I’d rather a lazy and incompetent President who draws a salary rather than one who actually does things.

There are some promises that are made by almost every candidate. One of those is “fighting fee increases.” This promise confuses the fundamental role that prices play in society. Prices seek to efficiently distribute scarce goods. If an apple costs $1, I may not buy it. If it costs 50c, then I may buy it. Prices determine the distribution of apples by determining different people’s subjective preferences. We know what happens when we have price freezes, which is what candidates are saying when they want to fight fee increases.

The first thing that usually happens is queueing. The market cannot respond to set the price at a level that clears a good – there is excess demand at the current price. If you would have been willing to pay a higher price, you end up in a queue. In other words, the cost of the good does not change, you pay some of it in dollars, and some of it in wasted time. Ever had to sit in the aisle of a packed-out first year law class? That’s queueing. Thanks fee-maxima policy.

The second thing that happens is the quality of the good deteriorates. Inner-city New York has had rent control for many years, where the Government fights “fee increases” by evil rapacious landlords. The thing is, the landlords are still evil and rapacious. If you couldn’t make profit from your building, would you look after it? Would you maintain it? Would you install Sky for your residents? No, you wouldn’t. That’s why those areas of inner city New York which have rent control are areas full of dilapidated buildings in which it is unsafe to live. And that’s why many of the courses that you will study at University are sub-par.

The other promise that every one makes is that they will campaign for a “Universal Student Allowance.” Some people argue that a USA would transfer wealth from the poor to the relatively wealthy. The average wealth of a University student is higher than average, and so this would seem to be correct. Often these people support targeting assistance to those “in need.” Maybe. The real answer though is to end assistance, regardless of your parents’ level of income.

When I attend University, I am the overwhelming beneficiary. I get an education, and increase the chances that I will earn more in later life. There is little positive externality. Seriously, who gives a shit if you sound smart at your next dinner party talking about post-Marxism in the context of East-Indian literature? I’ll give you hint: probably not even the people at the dinner party. If anything, there’s probably a negative externality there. I would argue that lame degrees like commerce should be taxed rather than subsidised, but for the fact that I believe all tax is theft or slavery. So, stop trying to take other people’s money to subsidise your University attendance. Get a student loan, and pay it back (and they should bring back interest too). Or get a job.

Probably the best candidate, loathe as I am to say it, is Young Labourite Sonny Thomas. His policies are probably the least harmful. Some are even sensible. He thinks that we should get a proper accountant, rather than relying on some randomly elected student. That’s a good idea. In fact, if I didn’t think that voting was immoral (because it is the initiation of coercion), then I would probably vote for him. The problem with Candidates like Sonny is that they fool us into thinking that “if we vote for the right people” things will be OK. Any institution which relies on the right person is a shit institution. The institution either needs to set up incentives for good governance (and VUWSA clearly fails in that regard), or limit the power of the institution to do harm. The best way to do that would be voluntary union membership at University. Voluntariness gives the consumer of services power. Voluntary organisations give consumers the power to go “You’re doing a shit job, I’m leaving”, rather than “You’re doing a shit job, I’m protest voting Peter Manglethwaite, and hoping like hell we don’t get another idiot like Joel Cosgrove.”

The ‘Buy Kiwi Made’ campaign will be effective in promoting the purchase of domestic goods insofar as it convinces people that there is some advantage produced in buying domestic goods rather than foreign goods. So let us consider whether such an advantage exists.

Many people believe that when we import goods we send our money overseas never to be seen again. It is true that we send our money overseas, but we send New Zealand dollars overseas. New Zealand dollars are only good in New Zealand. Now they could go and exchange them, but all that means is that someone else is going to have New Zealand dollars.

So what are all these people from whom we import goods going to do with New Zealand dollars? Well, as the Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman used to jokingly ask, “are they going to eat them?” There are two things they can do: they can buy goods or services from New Zealand, or they can lend them to New Zealanders and spark investment.

In other words, we pay for our imports through our exports. The best way to think of international trade is as a new technology, that allows us to put sheep on boats, send them out into the sea, and then return with iPods and TVs in their place. No one would say that that such a technology would be bad, but they are all too willing to complain about trade.

Or let me put it another way. You are an actor and director. That is your comparative advantage. Every day you use the wealth you have gained from your job to trade with other people – to buy a flat white at a café, to get groceries from a supermarket, etc. If trade is bad, surely you should begin to do all of those things yourself? You should have a large garden to grow your own vegetables; grow your own coffee beans and become an expert barista. No one seriously contemplates such a proposition, but if trade is really so bad, then that is the logical conclusion we should draw.

You may also know that it is currently ‘export year.’ As explained above, we use the money we make from exports to import goods. The Government’s plan to encourage both exports, and discourage imports, is literally paradoxical. There is no possible way that we can maintain this in the long term, because every export buys us an import of comparable worth. To claim we should export more and import less is to suggest that we become wealthy by showering the world in free gifts.

I ask you to kindly withdraw your services from the Buy Kiwi Made scheme. We cannot grow wealthy by restricting trade, nor by endlessly subsiding advertising undertaken by the state to tell us how to live our lives.