OCR Text |
Show An Economist's View Of Prohibition We hear a great deal about personal per-sonal liberty. As a matter of faot. the only men who have ever actually actu-ally possessed personal liberty were Adam and Robinson Crusoe and this only continued until Eve and Friday came along. Whenever more than one individual is concerned, absolute personal liberty begins to disappear and the more complex the social structure the more one's individual liberties are necessarily curtailed. Personal liberty is allowed to exist only so long as its exercisa is not detrimental to others. Individuals Indi-viduals are not permitted to operate oper-ate automobiles at any speed they may desire, or to steal, or to plunder, plun-der, or to break windows, or to do many other things. In a complex society personal liberty has little standing. The contention that prohibition has destroyed property values has somewhat the same aspect. It has been claimed that when an industry indus-try has developed under the sanction sanc-tion of law, a vested interest has arisen with subsequent legislation is bound to respect. One has frequently fre-quently heard this argument for the retention of protective tariffs. The courts have never taken the position that the right of private property conveys the unilmiteii right to make any use whatsoever :S that property. The position :aken has been that property may be used in accordance with individual indiv-idual desires only until such use becomes opposed to the welfare of society. In reality, this position has not been one of confiscation of property but only of the deleterious delet-erious use to which the property vas put. Always the owner of the property has been allowed to transform its use into channels which are not detrimental to the welfare of societv. To condemn prohibition because particular uses of property have been destroyed is not enough; to conclude thus would be to condemn many other 'ypes of prohibitive legislation which have generally been considered consid-ered socially desirable. As far as I know no one has seriously contended that the use of liquor has ever resulted In increased in-creased efficiency. Efficiency, more over, is the watchword of modern industry and industry should not be asked to sanction anything which will result in its impairment Studies into methods of scientific management have eliminated a lot of wasted energy, while the development de-velopment of personnel departments depart-ments has been responsible for a more efficient application of labor. The efficient machine one which will produce five more pounds of nails, ten more yards of cloth, or twenty more screws will displace one of less capacity. The machine which will operate over a period of 20 years is more desirable than one whose duration is but half as long. Nor are we satisfied with the degree of efficiency which we have attained. If this were true, industry would not continue to spend such large sums on laboratories labora-tories and inventions. If an employer had to pay directly di-rectly for the cost of producing nis laborer )n addition to his daily wage, as he has to pay for a new machine or horse, he would be more concerned about the length of nis productive capacity. There is, however, a cost to society in bringing a laborer to the age and maturity where Ihe has capacity for production. That laborer, therefore, who maintains this productive pro-ductive capacity for 25 years rather rath-er than 20 is the more valuable to "ociety. If alcohol, or anything else, tends to shorten the laborer's years of productivity, it is therebj responsible for a loss to society. A few months ago I picked up a newspaper in a hotel in a small city in Idaho. On the front page was printed a dream which someone some-one was purpoted to have had in which was revealed the remedy for the present industrial depression. depres-sion. Briefly, the remedy was to abolish prohibition. We would thereby begin to manufacture liquor liq-uor which would demand labor and thus alleviate the unemployment; unemploy-ment; we would demand grains and thereby absorb the agricultural agricultur-al surplus. Someone, however, must have awakened the dreamer before the end of the dream, for had it been completed the outlook couldn't have been so optimistic. These who would buy the liquor cannot at the same time spend their money mon-ey for shoes, food clothing, automobiles, auto-mobiles, or building materials. They can buy either, liquor oi these things, but they cannot buy liquor and these things with the same money. Had the dream been completed it would have shown an increase in employment and in the use of raw materials in the liquor industry, but a decrease in the need for both in other industries for whose products demand has been lessened because liquor had oeen substituted. The introduction of prohibition wiped out the large amount of revenue that the liquor industry poured into the coffers of the cities, cit-ies, states, and federal government; govern-ment; hence the conclusion thac prohibition has been responsible for an increase in the tax burden. Perhaps it would be more accurate accur-ate to say 'hat it has changed the nature of the tax burden, for cne must ii"t forget thai, in all probability prob-ability to piivMents made the liquor liq-uor industry seie to a large ex''. ;it extracted from the pockets of tbi consumers of its products. There is more te the revenue situation than ai .pears on the surface sur-face The amount formerly -;penl for iquor is now available for the puicna.se of chor commodities and these may be made a basis for taxation. Many of our localities local-ities still rely to a large extent upon up-on the general property tax. To the extent that amounts formerly spent for liquor are saved in the form of durable or productive goods, as houses, factories, furniture, furni-ture, or automobiles, the basis of the tax levy will increase. Anything Any-thing that wiU increase efficiency of production, foster savings, and minimize wasteful expenditure will increase the patrimony of the government, gov-ernment, for this is but the wealth and income of its citizens. We" hear prohibition arraigned because it has crowded our courts with litigation at a tremendous public expense We must remember, remem-ber, however, that this cannot be laid to prohibition, but to lack of it. Before prohibition was ever attempted, it was generally agreed that a part of the expenditure for courts, charities, protection, hospitals, hospi-tals, and correction could be traced either directly or indirectly, to the influence of liquor. To what ex-lent ex-lent need not concern us, but be it one half or one fiftieth of the entire en-tire burden of expenidture, to cease to use liquor would ultimately ulti-mately lessen the burden of taxes 1 1 i to that portion. How must an economist look at prohibition? If he is interested in more efficient production and a longer productive period for the laborer, he must favor it. If h'J would Increase the patrimony of the state and lessen the need for public expenditures, he must favor it. He must see, too, that to the extent that there is violation ol prohibition, society is the loser through wasteful expenditure and inefficient production, as well as through a lessened public patrimony patri-mony and increased public expenditures. expen-ditures. Merlin H. Hunter, professor profes-sor of economices, Unversity of Illinois, Il-linois, in the Christian Science Monitor, August 14, 1931. |