[–] brother_tempus 2 points 4 points 6 points (+6|-2) ago
Regulations and taxation are just alternate forms of prohibition which can create a black market depending of the severity of such, the size of legitate demand , and lastly tie size ( in dollars ) of the market
Prohibition does not work and so logically neither does regulation and taxation
[–] cli-che-guevara ago
Your first statement is right. Severity of taxation is very important on whether a parallel marketplace develops.
But your conclusion is logically fallacious due to it's over simplification. Your first statement shows there is a gradient of severity, but your conclusion is a rule that ignores your own assertion of a vector.
Prohibition does not work if there is a market place willing to risk the punishment for operation. Someone will be willing to make money off of unlawfully supplying a restricted good or supplying a highly taxed item below the taxed value and keeping the difference. Alcohol prohibition through Constitutional regulation is a great example.
Moderate taxation, where the risks of operating a black market don't outweigh the rewards, is still a partial prohibitional taxation. These cases go against your simplified rule. Regulation and taxation can be used to change trends in usage of a good or service as long as they are implemented in a way to not incentivize the creation of a second, parallel market. A good example is tobacco use. Regulation of advertisement and slowly increasing costs due to taxation have effectively shrunk the legal marketplace domestically.
That being said, I think forcing gun owners to license their firearms is just as unconstitutional as voter ID laws. In both cases the government is adding a cost restriction on a Constitutionally given right.