Unintended consequences of regulation – specifically, Prohibition

Organized crime, disrespect for law, yeah, yeah.

But David Okrent’s book Last Call suggests other, less familiar consequences of Prohibition: The growth of Walgreens. Budweiser Clydesdales. Expansion the amount of ocean that the US claims as part of its national sovereignty. The growth of home entertaining and mixed drinks. The growth of Coca Cola. Wholesale changes in California agriculture. NASCAR. Even an early version of seasteading.

Yet Prohibition had one large intended consequence: Contrary to libertarian lore, Prohibition actually succeeded in dramatically – and permanently – reducing per capita alcohol consumption.

Share this

Responding to threats

Prohibition actually succeeded in dramatically – and permanently – reducing per capita alcohol consumption.

--according to a Life magazine photo essay quoted in the article. The first academic study I hit with Google found "that Prohibition had a substantial short-term but little long-term impact."

Libertarians generally don't doubt that threats of violence can change marginal behavior. If you say you're going to hide across the street and shoot me if you see me wearing a red shirt, I'll probably avoid wearing one unless I feel strongly motivated to take the chance. What libertarians (particularly libertarian anarchists, but even non-libertarian economists) do object to is the idea that people immediately and completely follow the behavior mandated by their legislators. Libertarians generally enjoy pointing out that laws don't work the way they were intended.

You also need to take into account that consumption of alcohol is not a crime according to the Non-Aggression Principle, though using force to prevent someone from exercising their liberty is criminal.