Making arguments for the wrong reason, or, "legalize to tax it"

[Hygro]

Someone on this site woke me up. It was back in 2004ish. There was a thread on drug legalization, back in the era when most people were against it to varying degrees. So naturally the argument came up "well, if we legalize it, we can tax it".

And someone smart went "why does it matter if we tax it, we should either legalize it or not". It was a kind of "duh" moment. Yeah, tax revenues would be good, whatever. But the point of that argument is not because it in itself is remotely a good justification for legislation. Instead, it was a "tacked on" argument to sway people on the fence, and solidify support from those who were only barely on the legalization side.

Nevertheless, it was catchy, and it worked to ease enough people into the idea, that it started becoming the popular argument. "Legalize it so we can tax it!" became no longer an auxiliary argument. Posters here, students in my then (and still today) Youth & Government program would use that as the centerpoint for legalization arguments.

But it is of course a terrible justification for legalization. It's a great "oh by the way" argument. Still, it took over to the point I needed someone to literally point out that it was a red herring in the debate.

What are other popular examples of this, today?

 

[ParkCungHee]

I actually find that most arguments in politics actually work this way.
Very rarely do I find a discussion where two sides accurately represent their own views.

 

[Hygro]

That's true. There's an obvious game theory reason, which is that supporters are supporters, and detractors need to think outside the paradigm of their reasons to detract. Still, it becomes a problem when the supporters begin to believe that's the justification, not the selling point to those in the middle.

 

[Mise]

It's not a bad argument at all. A lot of people simply don't see the point in making drugs legal, because they see a lot of benefits of making it illegal, and a lot of costs to making it legal. So on a cost-benefit analysis, keeping drugs illegal is a good thing. Indeed, the main argument for keeping drugs illegal is that there are enormous social, health and personal costs to taking drugs, and therefore they should be illegal to discourage drug abuse. Drug abuse costs the taxpayer and the economy a lot of money, it destroys families, communities and people's lives. Most people can see the downsides to drug use pretty easily.

However, when you throw in the fact that everyone benefits from legal drugs through the ability to tax it, it works against that argument. It adds a benefit to the other side of the equation, and makes it easier to argue for legalising drugs. When the opponent is arguing that the social cost of drug use is too high to justify making it legal (drug use destroys homes, lives, families, etc etc), it is absolutely not a "red herring" to argue that, actually, there are social benefits too (raising tax revenues, which can be used to feed the hungry or heal the sick). It's an argument that tackles the main thrust of the opponents' argument.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

When I read the thread-title my first thought was: No, that's not the reason, but an added advantage. When I read the OP it mirrored that reasoning. But to still have a reason to post, I decided to tell my experiences going into this thread.

Other examples ... prostitution perhaps? Abortions?

No. Not abortions.

@Mise. Legalising (soft-)drugs are a good way to combat drug abuse so that argument doesn't even need taxation as a counterargument.

 

[emzie]

Well as you say, it's a fence-sitter-swaying argument. When it comes to politics, arguments are all about winning the middle. Since retaining the status quo is the default position, you need to give a concrete reason to fence sitters why the change is good for them. Saying "I just wanna smoke pot" isn'ta very convincing argument to a non-smoker. You have to bring them in and make it clear how the change benefits them as well. For a targeted audience, pointing out taxes is a pretty effective argument.

 

[ParkCungHee]

That's true. There's an obvious game theory reason, which is that supporters are supporters, and detractors need to think outside the paradigm of their reasons to detract. Still, it becomes a problem when the supporters begin to believe that's the justification, not the selling point to those in the middle.

There's an extended quote in G.K. Chesterton's What's wrong with the world, but the short version is that nobody but extremists talk about what they actually want.

As a result, this actually means the less extreme people are, the more likely they are to be vitriolic. Because no one actually accepts each others arguments anymore. In modern politics, everyone always takes their opponent's argument not to be a statement of their beliefs, but what they think they can get away with.

 

[Mise]

@Mise. Legalising (soft-)drugs are a good way to combat drug abuse so that argument doesn't even need taxation as a counterargument.

Yes, there are other ways of arguing against that argument, rather than emphasising the benefits. That doesn't mean that emphasising the benefits is a bad argument. Indeed, what you're saying is exactly that there are benefits to legalising drugs (that it lowers drug abuse). So I really don't see why this argument is considered "bad" at all -- it's an argument that tackles the main thrust of the opponents argument. It's an argument that shows an understanding of with the other side's position. Surely that's a good thing...

 

[Leoreth]

I think a good example of another current debate that works like this is the Tobin tax or similar financial transaction taxes.

They were introduced as a means to limit the volatility or excesses in speculation in financial markets. Whatever you think about the validity of these arguments, they didn't remain the center of the debate. The more politicians caught on to the idea, the more did the argument shift to "No matter if it works, it would give us some nice extra money" and then further to "Make those nasty bankers pay!". My sympathy for the idea subsequently dwindled.

 

[holy king]

it's not a bad justification, it's called realpolitik.

 

[amadeus]

If anything, it's an argument for why it should stay technically illegal.

 

[luiz]

Yep, it's a terrible argument. Drug legalization should be based on personal liberties, not generating extra revenue. By this logic every illegal activity should be legalized to generate profit. "Kids will be prostituted in poor regions anyway, so why don't we legalize it and tax it while we're at it? Those poor regions sure could use the extra revenue!" [here I am combining two terrible arguments frequently used by supporters of drug legalization: the "it will happen anyway" argument (so will murder!) and the "lets make some cash out of it" (we could make cash out of any illegal activity) ].

 

[warpus]

But it is of course a terrible justification for legalization. It's a great "oh by the way" argument. Still, it took over to the point I needed someone to literally point out that it was a red herring in the debate.

All the good arguments for legalization and/or decriminalization are usually dismissed.

America is driven by money - if you say "Hey, this will make us $$$", people will sit up and listen.

 

[Berzerker]

But it is of course a terrible justification for legalization.

why's that?

right now the drug war drains treasuries all over the country and taxing it would reduce the drain, seems like a legit argument even though I agree taxes aint the reason drugs should be legal.

 

[Hygro]

why's that?

right now the drug war drains treasuries all over the country and taxing it would reduce the drain, seems like a legit argument even though I agree taxes aint the reason drugs should be legal.

Well, your own answer is in your justification. End the drug war through legalization and you wouldn't need to tax anything to alleviate the cost of the drug war

 

[metatron]

Hygro,
I agree with you on legalization, which should happen based on the moral principles etc. not because of any sort of economic gain for society.
In my book the prohibition (and even more so the criminalisation) is fundamentally immoral, no matter what the economic ramifications are.
As a result i am in favor of legalizing kokain and heroin as well.

That being said i don't agree with the jist of your post. Citing the possibility of taxation very much touches on the fundamental motivation for legalisation once the fundamental motivation is different from mine (and presumably yours).
This is (once again) a matter of differnt ethical frameworkes resulting in different approaches and different arguments having validity (or not).
I encounter this (once again) from a point of view largely in the camp of virtue ethics and deontology: What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong - the consequences be damned. I'd be in favor of legalising heroin to if that was up for debate.

However one may have a very different motivation for favouring legalisation - and many people do.
Consequentialists and pragmatist may theoretically not care about the inherent "justice" of the matter one bit and view legalization largely as some sort of "amnesty" that serves a more significant end... say eliminating the black market and removing the inefficiencies and instabilities that go come with the illegality and add the dividend of said removal to the rest of the economy in the form of a special tax as well as payroll taxes, rent for business venues etc. (all that money that now largely seaps through the cracks in the form of gang violence and entrepeneurs losing their merchandise in countless ways other then bringing it to the customer).*

To them the tax arguments would be way closer to what they see as the core of the matter then it would be to me (or presumably you).

*I ignored the costs of the drug war here for now, but of course you are free to add those, too.

Yep, it's a terrible argument. Drug legalization should be based on personal liberties, not generating extra revenue. By this logic every illegal activity should be legalized to generate profit. "Kids will be prostituted in poor regions anyway, so why don't we legalize it and tax it while we're at it? Those poor regions sure could use the extra revenue!" [here I am combining two terrible arguments frequently used by supporters of drug legalization: the "it will happen anyway" argument (so will murder!) and the "lets make some cash out of it" (we could make cash out of any illegal activity) ].

Well, it's not like a bunch of Mafiosi built a metropolis in the middle of the desert based on that principle.


Oh wait, they did.

 

[Narz]

I don't really see it as a "wrong" reason, just not the ideal reason. You could tell people to conserve electricity for the sake of the planet but sometimes a better approach (depending on the person you're talking to) is to remind them to do it to save money.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Since the drug war literally kills people, I'm willing to overlook a few white lies and spin-doctoring to put an end to most of those killings. Although, where possible (which definitely includes the legalization subject), one should lead off with the right reasons.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Interestingly, I go for "legalize it but DON'T tax it."

Sin taxes make revenue yes, but it also becomes a sort of lifestyle regulation, almost like the obesity tax. Either something is so repulsive it should not be allowed, or we should allow it freely.

 

[NetGear]

Link to video.