Most free market advocates (and lots of people who aren't particularly inclined that way ideologically, but who analyze impacts of policy rather than superficial forms) view prohibitions (and the associated enforcement) as just one form of imposition of regulatory costs on a transaction.

> Usually, legal arguments about what can be bought or sold are settled in social/political terms, economics isn't really all that relevant.

The difference between "social/political" and "economic" is superficial.

> The difference between "social/political" and "economic" is superficial.

If you're including all issues that have economic effects, perhaps I'd agree with you. But I'm talking about the decision-making process.

We don't decide whether global warming needs to be addressed using a profit-maximization algorithm. It's a moral question.

The same is true of slavery from the North's perspective in the US civil war. (You can make an economic argument for the south, but it's still a stretch) Fundamentally it's a moral/social/political question, that has tremendous economic effects.

----

I'd actually argue the contrary. There are almost no "economic" arguments when it comes to regulation. Any argument worth having is fundamentally moral or social.

* How much taxation is "fair"

* What level of economic inequality violates "justice"

> But I'm talking about the decision-making process.

So am I. The decision making process that goes into "social/political" things is pretty much economic.

> We don't decide whether global warming needs to be addressed using a profit-maximization algorithm.

Social/political decision making is aggregating individual efforts to maximize the world's alignment with each individual's own preferences.

There's no difference between this and economic decision making.

> It's a moral question.

"Morality" is just one subset of personal preferences against which people act to optimize. The distinction between it and other subsets of preferences (like "aesthetics", etc.) is arbitrary.