“hopefully the dregs of society will OD and we can just toss the bodies in a landfill somewhere”
I was a “dreg” once. But there were laws in place that kept it from being as bad as it might have been, and as a result I survived long enough to experience redemption. That’s a good thing. Christians have for two millennia seen good law as the hand of Providence, creating a world safe enough for the Gospel to prosper, and for virtuous living to proper. Only since the Enlightenment, and particularly since the advent of Kantian autonomy, has freedom been seen as a supreme good unto itself.
Various methods have been deployed to balance freedom with virtue. Enlightened Hedonism, the real “liberty” at the root of both LIBeralism and LIBertarianism, simply redefines virtue down to the lowest common denominator, the self. Do all for self-interest alone, and everything else will work itself out. This actually works to some degree in economics. Not because it works perfectly, but because it works better than anything else we know, and significantly better than centrally controlled systems.
But the success of economic life presumes a functioning culture in which “selves” may operate with relative safety, and no culture can function without attempting to restrain certain corrosive evils, which, if left unattended, would make impossible the kind of human relationships necessary to sustain a relatively free economy.
For a blazing obvious example, no one is “free” to commit murder. Theoretically at least. Yes, murders will happen, but there are consequences, and those consequences are limits on freedom, and they are good limits.
Likewise, a law that limits access to poisons of the mind can also be good. I live in Illinois, near Springfield, but more rural than that. I want the meth labs shut down. I fear for the safety of my children. I have learned through one of my former criminal clients with “underworld” connections that not far from here is a place where young people are systematically funneled into drug dependency, then prostitution, then far worse, with the complicity of big name pols in Springfield. This corruption is not based any “prohibition makes drugs cool” meme. It is based on coercively creating “chemical slaves” who then generate an income stream.
This kind of corrupting influence cannot be fought in some hippie nirvana of a no rules society. Human nature is too perverse to permit it. “Enlightened Hedonism” based on self-interest, but without the inhibition of virtuous law, will lead many to the conclusion that clawing your way to the top over the bodies of the innocent is perfectly acceptable. That’s what’s happening here in Illinois. That is why we are so corrupt. Announce there is no real rule of law, and the animals will come out of hiding.
But the theory goes, make drugs cheap and the big money players will leave. No. Drug dependency is still power, and that temptation will not go unnoticed. Those accustomed to power through drugs will find creative new ways to use that power under any economic theory. It is better to draw a line in the sand, to start standing firm somewhere and fight a war you can never fully win, than to give up and lose entirely to the barbarians.
We cannot create Heaven on earth. The Marxists tried to do it, and they ended up killing millions on their “Road to Nirvana.” Libertine philosophy cannot do it either, because it shares a common flaw with Marxism, an undue optimism over the nobility of human nature. We are a corrupt people, and prone to great evil. The law is a preservative. It doesn’t cure the disease. That remains the province of God. But it can keep things from getting as bad as they might otherwise be, and that’s all good.
I’m glad you are off drugs, you took the time you needed; and succeeded where many have failed. But, I’m not willing to place myself, my family or my property “at risk” of some junkie who will do literally “anything” to get his next fix. I value my family, I value my life, I value my property - I have no value at all for the junkie. This is a self-destructive individual who cares nothing for himself, nor anyone else. They are a danger; and I steer clear of dangerous situations.
We agree that drugs are bad - you went against “society” and were bound and determined to embark on a path of self-destruction, hopefully your collaterial damage wasn’t too great. Hopefully you didn’t murder someone for drug money.People will always, and have always done this. It’s part of the human experience.
Liberalism seeks equality, at the expense of others. They do not espouse “Liberty” in any true sense of the word, in fact it’s actually a form of slavery. Libertarianism seeks liberty - without imposing an expense upon anyone else. Please look at the platform for Libertarianism (http://www.lp.org/platform) it’s quite clear about the fundamental philosophy.
Consider, if the drugs were cheap, legal and available - would you have done them? I could argue that you wouldn’t. Did you sniff paint? Probably not ... why? Probably because sniffing paint is considered “low class”, the paint is cheap, readily available - but still offers quite a buzz (so I hear). But, the fact remains that you likely didn’t do that.
Prior to 1937 many illegal narcotics were freely available in America. One would think that drug use would have been incredably high, that society would be on the brink of collapse. Yet, mysteriously, it wasn’t.
My suggestion is to take the money wasted on the War on Drugs, and make drugs legal. The hard core users will OD - thereby relieving the rest of society the onerous burden of putting up with their crimes, the damage they cause and the medical burdern of forcibly putting them through rehab (http://www.peele.net/lib/court.html).
How about we let people be ‘stupid’, and those that survive and actually want help - we use the money we saved on the failing War on Drugs, on saving addicts who need and are asking for help?
If you are not free to make stupid decisions, you are not free, are you?