You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Vaniver comments on Value evolution - Less Wrong Discussion

14 Post author: PhilGoetz 08 December 2011 11:47PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (111)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Vaniver 09 December 2011 09:37:16PM 0 points [-]

That's very interesting, but corrupt city machines don't gain revenue from liquor licenses if all licenses or consumption of any kind are banned

Where do you think you buy employment as a policeman?

do you have any reason to believe the nation-wide movement to push through an entire Constitutional amendment, which succeeded in 46 of the 48 states, was even slightly assisted by the interest of would-be corrupt policemen?

I suspect it was mostly pushed by identity voters who didn't know how things would turn out, but I imagine that the eyes of clever gangsters and corrupt policemen all lit up when they heard about it. I suspect that they put little effort into opposing it, which could count as assistance. If any of them did support it, I imagine it was as secretly as they could manage, and thus it might be difficult for us to know about even now.

Comment author: Prismattic 10 December 2011 01:18:51AM 2 points [-]

Minor bit of historical non-trivia here: The Eighteenth Amendment was passed in 1920, before "One man, one vote." At the time, the US still had a "rotten borrough" problem, and furthermore, the average "wet" district had far more people in it than the average "dry" district. Prohibition passed in spite of the fact that a majority of voting-age citizens probably opposed it.