Outlawry among free peasants had increased because their command of higher wages, as a result of depopulation, brought them in constant conflict with the law. The Statute of Laborers, in a world that believed in fixed conditions, still held grimly to pre-plague wage levels, blind to the realities of supply and demand. Because the provisions against leaving one employment for a better were impossible to enforce, penalties were constantly augmented. Violators who could not be caught were declared outlaws — and made lawless by the verdict. Free peasants took to the nomadic life, leaving a fixed abode so that the statute could not be executed against them, roaming from place to place, seeking day work for good wages where they could get it, resorting to thievery or beggary where they could not, breaking the social bond, living in the classic enmity to authority of Robin Hood for the Sheriff of Nottingham.

The closer you get to ‘pure freedom’ the closer you get to absolutism and anarchy.

Yes and no. There’s definitely a tipping point at which more freedom leaves you vulnerable to warlords and such, but up until that point, more freedom is better for society. You can easily see this to be true by comparing our country to a less free country like the USSR.

In order to believe we shouldn’t strive to become more free than we are now, you’d have to assume we are already nudged up against that tipping point. I find that incredibly unlikely since we’ve steadily marched away from freedom for the past 100 years. That is why I believe that the pursuit of my beliefs, even if we ultimately stop short of where I’d want to be, would bring us closer to the vision of the founders.

If it were legalized, it would have to be regulated to protect other people’s rights. I don’t want a prostitute being pimped where my kid catches the bus.

Be careful. You’re falling into the same trap the Dems live in. You don’t have a “right” not to encounter other people in public. I wouldn’t want a handful of weathered men near my son at the bus stop either, but if they’re just going about their lives, it’s my problem, not theirs.

Besides, you’re missing the paradigm shift. I’m no expert on the matter, but I doubt street-walking is the optimum business model. Legalize it and most of the unsavory aspects go away.

And again, I’m more than willing to compromise. I just want to end the death spiral.

It should be left to the States like it is.

I agree. I would not support attempts by the fed to get involved.

Regulating creates even more laws.

Yes, but this is one of the rare instances where having more laws actually increases your freedom. “You may not leave your cage. If you do, you will be executed.” is a pretty short criminal code, but it far less free than we are with our library full of laws.

The libertarian argument is based on the faulty position that the buying, selling, and use of drugs only affect the individuals involved.

First things first, that is incorrect. I don’t know anyone foolish enough to say such a thing. Everything we do affects other people.

The libertarian argument is that I have the right to do anything I please, so long as it doesn’t step on the rights of anyone else. If I injure someone else through malice or negligence, I am guilty. Mind altering substances or not. Set aside all of your arguments about how drugs affect loved ones; they don’t apply here. Abuse is abuse. Neglect is neglect.