Replies

Thank you for your kind remarks!

Your proposal seems to me an appropriate compromise for desperate circumstances; and if we're that desperate, I would support it. But are we that desperate? I believe and hope that we are not.

Or if we are, we've got much bigger problems to tackle than whether to legalize drugs. Unfortunately, when our problems get that big, an even larger majority will grant even more authority to an even bigger government, and you and I won't be discussing such "nit-picky" questions as individual liberty vs. community restrictions.

I realize this digresses from your question, but it's what underlies my objection to permissive drug laws, and it's why I would reject your proposed compromise under any but the most extreme circumstances. A weakened people are ripe pickings for any tyrant, foreign or domestic.

Neither you nor I desire to be ruled by a tyrant. The adage power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely is recognized as an immutable law of nature. So is he who will not rule himself will be ruled by another. Though there are and always will be exceptions to these general truths, to gamble that this or that circumstance is one of those exceptions is to play with fire - and to risk burning ourselves, our fellows, and our posterity.

Some may be willing to accept that risk, but with all due respect, I'm not willing to let them. To lose that gamble would not only destroy our nation, but even worse it would cast into doubt for generations the idea that we the people are fit to govern ourselves.

What the anarcho-libertarian either forgets or willingly overlooks in his zeal for liberty is that an individual's exercise of his liberties has effects beyond himself. Your compromise, by contrast, both acknowledges that such externalities exist and attempts to mitigate them. I reject your proposal only because I consider the externalities of drug use to be beyond mitigation.

Even you acknowledge (in Section I of your proposal) that the effect on society of certain drugs cannot be sufficiently mitigated, that all compromise on such drugs may reasonably be refused by the community. You're correct to recognize the risk - to society - of permitting such drugs.

We are a community, not merely a collection of individuals. And as I've argued earlier, in joining ourselves together, we relinquish that absolute freedom which that solitary man "in the state of nature" enjoys. We have formed governments because, although they're an "evil", they're a necessary one. In consenting to form these governments, we consented to be governed by "the will of the majority restrained".

If a man wishes to ruin his life, I'll let him. Not happily, but I'll let him do it rather than suggest we outlaw the means of ruination. "The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of their folly is to fill the world with fools," said one philosopher.

But the problem is not just with those who wish "to waste away their time and their money getting high in private" - as you yourself admit in Section I. Rather, there are drugs which are so powerful as to pose a threat to those who don't wish their lives affected by them. A man may be permitted to buy enough sleeping tablets to be fatal. But that doesn't mean we'll let him walking around the crowded town square with a vial of volatile nitroglycerin in his pocket.

Where you and I part ways even further is that I go a step beyond the immediate, perceived damage done by drugs. Berzerker frenzies and burglaries and superficial damage. But beneath the crime statistics is the societal rot which brings down nations and cultures.

It's a sad thing for a nation to fall because of a seductive philosophy (e.g. Marxism) or false religion (e.g. Islam). But it would be a tragedy of tragedies for our great nation to fall because we drugged our minds, fried our brains, and willingly allowed our very capacity to reason to be subverted. Wouldn't it be the ultimate irony if "the land of the free" used its freedom to choose the path to slavery?

A weakened people are ripe pickings for any tyrant, foreign or domestic.

True, but a people who fail to properly restrict the scope of their government are equally at risk to a monster of their own creation. If a people submit to any measure to stave off a potential tyrant, they will simply fall to another tyrant, though it may be one they are more familiar with.

...And as I've argued earlier, in joining ourselves together, we relinquish that absolute freedom which that solitary man "in the state of nature" enjoys. We have formed governments because, although they're an "evil", they're a necessary one. In consenting to form these governments, we consented to be governed by "the will of the majority restrained".

True. In joining society, we give up certain liberties like being able to exact private retribution against those who harm us, being able to take what we want at will regardless of the wishes of others, etc. I do not think we relinquish all liberty to the whims of the majority, however. We should cede to government only that much liberty which is necessary to preserve the remainder.

But the problem is not just with those who wish "to waste away their time and their money getting high in private" - as you yourself admit in Section I. Rather, there are drugs which are so powerful as to pose a threat to those who don't wish their lives affected by them. A man may be permitted to buy enough sleeping tablets to be fatal. But that doesn't mean we'll let him walking around the crowded town square with a vial of volatile nitroglycerin in his pocket.

Yes, and those drugs which do pose a threat to others are precisely the type that I believe the community should be empowered to prohibit. But I don't believe EVERY drug fits into this category. Any substance we ingest can, in some small measure, have an effect on others. But I don't think we want the majority to have unlimited power in deciding what we may and may not ingest. As a reasonable limitation, I propose that restrictions may only be imposed when the matter to be ingested poses a serious and almost certain risk of harming others.

...Where you and I part ways even further is that I go a step beyond the immediate, perceived damage done by drugs. Berzerker frenzies and burglaries and superficial damage. But beneath the crime statistics is the societal rot which brings down nations and cultures...

If we accept something other than rights protection as a legitimate role of government, particularly if we accept something as general as preventing "societal rot" or preserving "community strength", what limits remain on the power of government? Almost any activity can threaten the health and vibrancy of a community. Trash tv is corrosive to our values and to our ability to think independently. Racist speech and behavior are extremely destructive to social harmony and cohesiveness. Crass commercialism leaves us spiritually empty. Gluttony and sloth drag down our productivity and put strain on families. The rise of "infotainment" leaves us ignorant and susceptible to propaganda. Lack of financial discipline leads to dependence and desperation. I could go on and on.

Do we really want our governments to be empowered to regulate all of those things? What liberties would be safe if the community can restrict them in the name of community well-being?