But to use Hayek as an example of that you have to establish that he did in fact make such a justification, and you haven't done that.

Are we through here, Tim?

OK, then I change my statement to -

So even if your statement about their opinions and statements is correct, it still doesn't support the idea that the idea that Hayek and Friedman justified a bigger welfare state.

Here's Falcon's original question: “In what universe can a libertarian possibly justify a bigger welfare state?”

I answered that question. Note that my answer isn't saying that either Hayek or Friedman “called for” or “supported” a bigger welfare state, only that each could “justify” it.

I'm not sure this should be at all difficult to grasp, but I guess it is.

So even if your statement about their opinions and statements is correct, it still doesn't support the idea that the idea that Hayek and Friedman called for a bigger welfare state.

That said, after thinking about it a bit more, it's not clear to me that Hayek would have necessarily opposed drug prohibition. It's been a while since I've dusted off my Hayek books, and I haven't read them all, but I don't recall any lengthy discussion of drug prohibition in them. I think one could make a reasonable argument that prohibition fits Hayek's general requirements for legislation. However, my reading of Hayek generally is that he'd prefer the bigger welfare state to the drug war, particularly in a very wealthy society like ours.

I think I chose the way I did because it's easier for me to break drug laws than it is to break tax laws. Of course the philosophical distress is caused by the focus on ME in that instance; it ignores the consequences for the entire society, which I certainly wrongly assume to be similar to my own consequences. I also ignored the cost of the Drug War compared to the cost of the welfare state. It's not a decision I'm proud of. I console myself by telling myself that the question was vague.

Anyway, no, I do not attempt to justify the War On Some Drugs.

So obivously both are bad, the poll is merely asking priorities.

The crucial difference with that scenario is that both countries already exist; you're not imposing rules on anyone, just choosing where to live. I'd push the button to end the drug war in a single world, but between two worlds I'd pick the smaller welfare state and prohibition. In the first case I can eliminate a large source of injustice; in the second I can't.