...have not contributed as much as they should to the conservative movement...because they have tended to focus on secondary, or tertiary, issues of domestic policy.
A couple of years ago I was invited to a gathering on behalf of Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico who then was a libertarian candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. I was well disposed toward him, but when he started talking, his first subject was legalization of drugs. Now he is the CEO of a marijuana company. Rand Paul is probably the leading libertarian at the moment; he purports to take seriously the threat that someone drinking coffee in an American cafe will be struck by a drone-fired missile, [in addition to supporting dumbed-down drug sentences]....
A battle is being fought for the liberties of the American people and, frankly, it isn't going well. The fight has little or nothing to do with drugs and drones. If libertarians are serious about preserving and expanding liberty, they should join the fight that matters.
I agree with the author about the danger of the administrative, regulatory state. The drug war is part of that paradigm. Congress did not create the drug war, the executive agencies did.
Speaking as a libertarian, ascetic, tea-totaler; I don't think it is so silly to go after the drug war. The drug war adversely impacts US Foreign Policy. There is a fair amount of money and human capital wasted on prosecuting and incarcerating certain kinds of drug users and dealers. I say certain kinds, because more Americans die from prescription drugs than illegal drugs. More American are addicted to prescription drugs than illegal drugs. Basically, doctors are responsible for more misery from drugs than illegal drug dealers. But nobody wants to go after doctors. In fact, the administrative, regulatory state shelters them and provides them with a monopoly on drug distribution.
When you weigh all the pluses and the minuses, at best, it's a wash. I postulate that it probably is negative.
The time, money, enforcement action and penitentiary space would be better spent on additional focus in the areas of battery, theft, arson, vandalism, rape, kidnapping, murder and identity theft. Except for rape, kidnapping, and murder, the other categories tend to get short shrift, unless the cops just happen to trip over a perp in the act. Identity theft, dollar wise, is the biggest crime in the USA, yet there is very little investigation of identity theft. In my own county of Harris, Texas, we have just four officers investigating Identity theft, but hundreds investigating illegal drugs.
In your view, Bill, what are the fights that should matter to libertarians? I assume you do not want to fight government growth in any criminal justice systems OR military growth. So what is on your top 5 list of most important libertarian fights?
I know fighting the growth of government in the drug war and the war on business is high on my list, but I really want to know what is on yours since you seem against what libertarians like Paul and Johnson are talking about.
Doug,
I don't know that I wouldn't cut back "any" criminal justice systems. I would certainly look at cutting back Eric Holder's Civil Rights Division, which has become a hotbed of radical (and anti-white) politics.
But to get on to the top five lists of things I would have the feds cut:
1. Medicare (notwithstanding that I'm old enough to benefit from it if I chose).
2. Medicaid.
3. Social Security (I'm also old enough for that one).
4. Income security (i.e., transfer payments financed largely from borrowed money and sent disproportionately to -- guess what? -- Obama's constituents).
5. The budgets for the Departments of Education and Transportation.
Just to be nice, I'll throw in No. 6: Anything being spent on Obamacare.
Now that I have given you direct and specific answers, I hope you'll give me some in response to a question from last month that has been left hanging:
-- If, contrary to your hope but consistent with many years of experience nationwide, less imprisonment contributes to more crime, how much more crime should the country be willing to tolerate in order to undertake early releases?
A hundred more crimes a year? A thousand? Ten thousand? What number?
-- What kinds of crimes (Violent offenses? CP production? Meth and heroin trafficking? Car theft? Home invasion? Scams on old people? What)?
-- And how much sooner, in terms of months or years, should we be willing to see these crimes taking place?
Six months from now? A year? Two years?
P.S. At least my top four items ARE GOING TO BE CUT sooner or later, as the Bowles/Simpson Commission recommended years ago, and the President has continued to ignore while steering the country toward national bankruptcy. Drug legalization is a juvenile diversion by libertarians (mostly Republican) who simply don't want to do the hard work of real spending reduction.
Doug,
I now see that, simultaneously with my repeating the questions from June, you answered them, kind of, on the earlier thread. I'm deciding right now whether to continue the exchange on that thread (which is probably dead as far as the rest of the board is concerned) or via some other means.
Jardinero,
You essentially shatter your own theory.
Legal prescription drugs kill more people and create more addictions (I am assuming your statement as truth) because they are legal, not because they are more dangerous. If they are as dangerous as you claim, why would you want to bring MORE drugs (ones that mainly do not have near the health benefits of the legal variety) into the "legal" category and create more death and addiction?
Your call, Bill, how to continue our conversations about balancing liberty and security, especially on this day when we purportedly celebrate being the land of the free and yet still have more persons locked in cages than any other nation in human history.
I know you will say that having so man Americans locked up helps keep the rest of us safe. Maybe so, but my own commitment to freedom and personal responsibility and limited government makes me disinclined to always give big government the benefit of the doubt when it says it needs to keep more people imprisoned/controlled in order to "help" the rest of us.
Finally, I share your interest in cutting the size of federal entitlements, though I would make reforms easy by bumping the entitlement age to 70 AND limiting how long we pay people for being unemployed in one location.
Doug,
"Finally, I share your interest in cutting the size of federal entitlements, though I would make reforms easy by bumping the entitlement age to 70 AND limiting how long we pay people for being unemployed in one location."
Both excellent ideas, though neither would be easy. AARP will go ballistic about moving up the retirement age, as will the unions. And I would limit unemployment compensation to one year, period, no matter where you are. The unemployment compensation fund was never designed as a quasi-permanent, semi-welfare program. It was designed to help you through those weeks or conceivably months moving from one job to the next.
The country is simply going to have to increase the rate of labor force participation, now at the lowest level since 1979. It's a bad thing for the economy, and an even worse thing for the culture, to have such a large percentage of working age men not even looking.
The country simply cannot stop creating debt and start again creating wealth unless a much higher percentage of the working age male population gets off its backside. Reducing reliance on government is one way to incentivize this.
TarlsQtr, I never suggested that drugs legal or illegal would not hurt people. But making drugs illegal does not keep people from buying them or using them. My comparison of prescription drugs to illegal drugs was meant to illustrate where the health hazard truly lies and how misplaced our enforcement priorities are.
Consider, Bill, how "unproductive" it is to have so many working age men involved in the black market of drugs (with others than chasing and imprisoning these folks), and how many more could/would be productive if we figured out ways to tax and regulate these vices as we do with tobacco, alcohol, gambling and guns.
Notably, we had the good sense to eliminate alcohol Prohibition when the Great Depression helped us realize we could not sensibly afford to police this vice rather than utilize the human interest to relax with intoxicating substances. Slowly we are coming to this realization with marijuana, but folks like you and Talrs need to jump on his important freedom/free enterprise bandwagon ASAP>
Yes, Doug .
If those poor kids were not selling on the drug black market, they would all be teachers, doctors, and astronauts.
I stopped believing in fairy tales when I was about five. Do unicorns farting skittles pick you up and take you to work? If so, look down at the sewer that is Columbus and then tell us how the people you see would be productive if not for the "inhumanity" of the drug laws .
Jardinero,
You are engaging in a perfectionist fallacy.
Just because we will never stop all drug use does not mean that we should not do our best to limit it. OF COURSE making certain items illegal means less using it. Only a fool would believe otherwise.
Legalizing drugs means more people abusing them.
Tarls, No, you are inferring a perfectionist fallacy. Making certain items illegal may mean less using it. On the other hand, there may be other less costly means to obtain the same end. Forty years of ever increasing and costly enforcement and incarceration has hardly reduced illegal drug use. Those who abuse drugs are the least likely to be deterred by their illegality.
Jardinero,
I inferred nothing. I read the words you posted.
The other logical fallacy you commit (a very common one) is that you assume illegal drug use would have remained static without the drug war. If we take your word that it was at best "a wash", it ignores the fact that without the drug war illegal drug use could have increased threefold. Just saying that there is the same amount of drug users now as before does not cut it. You have to know how many would be drug users without the additional enforcement. That is a difficult challenge for sure but necessary to make your argument.
Finally, you say that "there may be less costly means." Yes, and Doug's unicorn may crap rainbows in addition to farting Skittles. That is why you do not get into any specifics and actually propose a strategy that will do a better job more cheaply.
If drug legalization was a university experiment (at least a non-politicized experiment), it would never pass the ethics review board for the harm it could do to the subject.
The inconsistency alarm is blaring.
Doug stated: "... if we figured out ways to tax and regulate these vices..."
And: "need to jump on his important freedom/free enterprise bandwagon ASAP>"
Because when one thinks "free market libertarian", one thinks "tax and regulate" to death.
It is clear. Doug just wants tax money.
Sorry, Congress outlawed pot and other drugs.
And the pot obessessed libertarians also support importing millions of socialist Democrat voters through amnesty and unlimited immigration. Libertarians are fundamentally unserious about liberty except for drugs and sex outside of marriage. They would surrender liberty in exchange for drugs and homosexual marriage. In fact, libertarians are the enemies of liberty.
Tarls, I changed my mind. Lets just lock them all up and throw away the key. That's what's always worked before. Pray no one you or Mr. Otis knows has ever been indiscreet. We shouldn't withhold the long arm of the law for anyone. No exceptions.
fererale86. Executive action has outlawed pot and other drugs. Congress has made no particular drugs illegal. Through various acts, Congress empowered the executive branch to create a schedule for drugs and to regulate their use. The DEA and the FDA are the particular agencies which promulgate the rules. The war on drugs is entirely the creation of the executive branch.
With regard to your statement about libertarians being "unserious about liberty except for.... ", is a slander. Such a statement requires evidence. I would challenge you to name just one libertarian, whom you know, personally, who believes what you just said. I doubt you know any libertarians, at all, and your statement is a fabrication of your imagination. I correspond with many, many libertarians of different stripes, I read a fair amount of the literature and I know not even one who thinks the way you describe.
Doesn't a tax and regulate scheme, tarls, give us more liberty than prohibition? We use such a scheme for alcohol, tobacco, gambling and guns, and thus I am at liberty to enjoy all these risky/harmful vices. I just want pot added to this list to see if we get a more free, fair and efficient world than we have now. We might not and reverse course, but my affinity for liberty makes me ever eager to try less government and more personal freedom whenever possible.
jardinero stated: "Tarls, I changed my mind. Lets just lock them all up and throw away the key. That's what's always worked before. Pray no one you or Mr. Otis knows has ever been indiscreet. We shouldn't withhold the long arm of the law for anyone. No exceptions."
Nice straw men. Thought would work better.
I guess I could say that the approach you ascribe to me is better than yours, having no key at all. Unfortunately for me, I have no interest in putting words and motives onto your lips that you may not have.
Doug,
A libertarian is a libertarian. I have never seen a REAL libertarian say, "Well, my position may not be libertarian, but it is more libertarian than yours!"
You blew up your own libertarian myth.
Not to mention, you know damn well that there will be no "reversing" course once legalization is the norm. You are being dishonest.
Two responses, Tarls, to your two points, the second with critical questions:
1. I do not think one needs to be an absolutist to be a libertarian, any more than one needs to be an absolutist to be a liberal or a conservative. I have certainly heard REAL conservatives (like many folks who comment here as well as many others), assert certain positions they hold are more or less conservative than the positions held by other REAL conservatives. Perhaps you do not think me libertarian enough on this front, but I do think a tax-and-regulate approach to risky/harmful activities is more libertarian than a prohibition regime. (If you view REAL libertarians as anarchists, who think any and all forms of government are per se bad, then I can see how you view libertarianism as an all-or-nothing proposition. But that is not my view.)
2. Why do you think, Tarls, within a democratic nation with a long history in which both individual states and the feds have often reversed course on many huge issues (e.g., slavery, alcohol Prohibition, gambling, tobacco regulations, the death penalty to name just a few) that it will not be possible or even likely that we would reverse course on marijuana legalization if/when the harms of such a regime seem greater than the benefits?
I ask this honestly and seriously, in part because it would help me better understand why opponents of reform are so concerned about reform. Is it your fear that monied interests would preclude health-needed reforms as we sometimes see with alcohol and tobacco lobbies? Is it would fear that people will enjoy this vice so much they will fail to see/care about its harms?
It is in part because I have great faith in democracy that I am eager to see states experiment with new (liberty-increasing) regimes in this arena. Do you not trust democracy here (or elsewhere) for any unique reason? Do you not think the experiences of the US reversing course in lots of ways with alcohol and tobacco laws show that we can and will always be tweaking with vice regulatory regimes?
The determination of what "vices" are legal or illegal is by definition a legislative function.
I am not aware of any logic as to why marijuana is illegal but alcohol is not. However, there is not really any need for logic - presumably the line has to be drawn somewhere.
I think prohibitions on gambling especially on the internet is incredibly poor policy. People like to play cards, bet on sports etc.. and they do in large numbers. Legalizing it would probably increase tax revenues. But, for whatever reason it remains illegal, despite the fact people continue to gamble because most people do not think gambling is a crime.
Douglas,
1) Of course one does not have to be an absolutist/anarchist to be a libertarian. I never claimed otherwise. However, there are certain core principles when associating with any group. For example, as a Catholic I cannot believe that Jesus was just some "philosopher" and still legitimately claim membership in the Church. As a conservative, supporting Soetorocare eliminates any such claim. Likewise, promoting a tax and regulate scheme to feed the big government leviathan is easily a disqualifying position.
Your error is in believing that an occasional overlap of policy goals makes you a libertarian (Actually, I believe that it is a pre-meditated charade intended to to do nothing but outflank conservatives in a cheap debating ploy rather than a sincerely held belief).
2) Douglas, let's use some of your own examples because they make my point perfectly. If this were a courtroom, I would see you as a "friendly witness".
Slavery-Once ingrained into our culture, did we get rid of it easily or did it take 750,000 deaths?
Prohibition-Because alcohol use was already ingrained into our culture, how did that work out?
Gambling-Were we able to get rid of gambling after it took hold or do we have casinos spotting the countryside?
Tobacco-Did tobacco stop killing people? Were we able to ban it once we understood the negative consequences?
Once something becomes a permanent part of mainstream culture, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to pull it back in. The Dems are finding this out with another example, gun control. Once someone sees something as a "right", God help the person who wants to take it away. And thirty years from now when old dying liberals like you are finally able to admit what we already know, that marijuana use is terrible for individuals and society, it will be too late to do anything about it.
Like I said previously, if marijuana legalization was a proposed university study, it would never make it by an ethics review board because of the harm the "research" would likely do to the patient.
I remain confused, Tarls, why you think I am a liberal in libertarian clothing, and I wonder if you have the same views about Rand Paul and others in the GOP advocating drug war and sentencing reform. No matter, I want to respond to your reasonable points.
You are right that we value freedom and rights in this nation so much that it becomes hard for government to take away freedom once that freedom gets normalized in our culture. But for me that is proof Americans love liberty and should be celebrated, not cursed. And we have through lots of regulation been able to diminish the collateral harms of alcohol, gambling and tobacco smoking while still allowing adults to be free to enjoy these vices. All I seek with reform is trying out a different balance of liberty and government prohibition/regulation.
I know some will hurt themselves and others when given more freedom, and I respect those who do not want to head down that path. But I think that is the path of big government, nanny statism that I dislike here and elsewhere. I want parents and local communities installing morals concerning these vices, not police and Congress.
Doug stated: "I remain confused, Tarls, why you think I am a liberal in libertarian clothing, and I wonder if you have the same views about Rand Paul and others in the GOP advocating drug war and sentencing reform. No matter, I want to respond to your reasonable points."
Oh, come on, Doug. I have already covered this territory. That your goals occasionally coincide with Rand Paul (who is not the totality of libertarian thought) is mere coincidence that you use as an opening to outflank conservatives. I agreed with almost all of the Dems when they voted to go into Iraq, but I am no liberal. That a handful of GOPers agree with you is meaningless.
Are you "libertarian" on Obamacare?
Are you "libertarian" on welfare?
Are you "libertarian" on gun control?
Are you "libertarian" on government funding of Ohio State University?
Are you "libertarian" on tort reform?
Are you "libertarian" on regulations?
Are you "libertarian" on K-12 public education?
Are you "libertarian" on Social Security?
Please explain with detail how your beliefs are libertarian on these issues.
You stated: "You are right that we value freedom and rights in this nation so much that it becomes hard for government to take away freedom once that freedom gets normalized in our culture. But for me that is proof Americans love liberty and should be celebrated, not cursed."
If you are accusing me of thinking otherwise, straw man. If not, irrelevant.
You stated: "And we have through lots of regulation been able to diminish the collateral harms of alcohol, gambling and tobacco smoking while still allowing adults to be free to enjoy these vices."
That is not a libertarian position. "Regulation" in order to feed the big government leviathan is anathema to libertarians. And you are dodging the truth in what I posted. EVERY example you gave proved my point, that we could not reverse course once the practice became institutionalized as legal. That we have diminished "collateral harms" by regulation in any meaningful way is highly suspect. We just created new revenue streams for the government (just what those died in the wool libertarians like you want!).
You stated: "All I seek with reform is trying out a different balance of liberty and government prohibition/regulation."
Nope, don't change course now. You made it quite clear you want tax money. And you are smart enough to know that the balance will never be returned when it fails.
You stated: "But I think that is the path of big government, nanny statism that I dislike here and elsewhere."
LOL What is the biggest university in Ohio? How much taxpayer money goes into it yearly?
Doug,
Another aspect of your position that I just do not understand. One of the main pillars your argument us that people will not listen to laws prohibiting the use of marijuana, gambling, alcohol, etc.
Yet, you constantly make the point that we can "regulate" these vices. On what basis do you believe that people will be more likely to listen to these laws than those banning it? Do you have anything from the "evidence based" archives to back this position?