Posted on 05/11/2011 12:16:52 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
Before last week's South Carolina Republican debate, Ron Paul supporters complained that their candidate was not getting the first-tier attention his polling and fundraising should bring. It is true that Paul has often been overlooked and dismissed, as one might treat a slightly dotty uncle. But perhaps some first-tier scrutiny is deserved.
Paul was the only candidate at the debate to make news, calling for the repeal of laws against prostitution, cocaine and heroin. The freedom to use drugs, he argued, is equivalent to the freedom of people to “practice their religion and say their prayers.” Liberty must be defended “across the board.” “It is amazing that we want freedom to pick our future in a spiritual way,” he said, “but not when it comes to our personal habits.”
This argument is strangely framed: If you tolerate Zoroastrianism, you must be able to buy heroin at the quickie mart. But it is an authentic application of libertarianism, which reduces the whole of political philosophy to a single slogan: Do what you will — pray or inject or turn a trick — as long as no one else gets hurt.
Even by this permissive standard, drug legalization fails. The de facto decriminalization of drugs in some neighborhoods — say, in Washington, D.C. — has encouraged widespread addiction. Children, freed from the care of their addicted parents, have the liberty to play in parks decorated by used needles. Addicts are liberated into lives of prostitution and homelessness.
But Paul had an answer to this criticism. “How many people here would use heroin if it were legal? I bet nobody would,” he said to applause and laughter. Paul was claiming that good people — people like the Republicans in the room — would not abuse their freedom, unlike those others who don't deserve our sympathy.
The problem, of course, is that even people in the room may have had sons or daughters who struggled with addiction. Or maybe even have personal experience with the freedom that comes from alcohol and drug abuse. One imagines they did not laugh or cheer.
Libertarians often cover their views with a powdered wig of 18th- and 19th-century philosophy. They cite Locke, Smith and Mill as advocates of a peaceable kingdom — a utopia of cooperation and spontaneous order. But the reality of libertarianism was on display in South Carolina. Paul concluded his answer by doing a jeering rendition of an addict's voice: “Oh yeah, I need the government to take care of me. I don't want to use heroin, so I need these laws.”
This is not “The Wealth of Nations” or the “Second Treatise on Government.” It is Social Darwinism. It is the arrogance of the strong. It is contempt for the vulnerable and suffering.
The conservative alternative to libertarianism is necessarily more complex. It is the teaching of classical political philosophy and the Jewish and Christian traditions that true liberty must be appropriate to human nature. The freedom to enslave oneself with drugs is the freedom of the fish to live on land, or the freedom of birds to inhabit the ocean — which is to say, it is not freedom at all. Responsible, self-governing citizens do not grow wild like blackberries. They are cultivated in institutions — families, religious communities and decent, orderly neighborhoods. And government has a limited but important role in reinforcing social norms and expectations — including laws against drugs and against the exploitation of men and women in the sex trade.
It was just 12 years ago — though it seems like a political lifetime — that a Republican presidential candidate visited a rural drug treatment center outside Des Moines, Iowa. Moved by the stories of recovering young addicts, Texas Gov. George W. Bush talked of his own struggles with alcohol. “I'm on a walk. And it's a never-ending walk as far as I'm concerned. ... I want you to know that your life's walk is shared by a lot of other people, even some who wear suits.”
In determining who is a “major” candidate for president, let's begin here. Those who support the legalization of heroin while mocking addicts are marginal. It is difficult to be a first-tier candidate while holding second-rate values.
Typical Libertarianistic Bull Squeezings.
But I'm not surprized.
Me too.
How has the “War on Drugs” been working for ya so far?
Legalize but regulate. Starve out the drug gangs and the pushers.
He is a damn fool.
You may not be able to control yourself without the threat of a prison sentence but most of us grown ups can.
This article is well written. It exposes the IDIOCY of the Libertarian mindset. Might be worthy of a moral absolutes ping.
Ron, dude, what are you on?
“How many people here would use heroin if it were legal? I bet nobody would” .
~ Ron Paul
Paul is a fool and so is anyone who believes “This idiotic war on (some) drugs has done immeasurable damage to the Constitution.”
I’d much rather see heroin addicts quietly overdose in the privacy of their own homes than see them mug a dozen little old ladies each day to pay for their drugs. It may be a stupid choice to use drugs, but it’s their own stupid choice.
—————Paul is a fool and so is anyone who believes “This idiotic war on (some) drugs has done immeasurable damage to the Constitution.”——————
See my above post.
Both Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman make that very argument, in their own ways.
Legalize but regulate. Starve out the drug gangs and the pushers.
_____________________________
Even the fruits and nuts in California knew that legislation was STUPID. It would only lead to more “drug gangs and the pushers.”
Thank God enough moral and conservative people voted down Prop. 19.
LOL I love how people just want to slant an opinion to hurt them.
Ron Paul isn’t about legalizing heroin...he is about stopping the government from making things illegal.
Granted I would never use heroin...but you know the whole government deciding what is legal or not...how is that working out for us?
The founders would advocate the same thing.
I would much rather err on the side of liberty than err on the falacy that the government WILL EVER do anything to actually help us.
If we could draft Paul as Sec of the Treasury, fine, but as president he would be a disaster. I’ve even tried to be libertarian several times in my life, but I just get hung up on common sense and come back to be a common conservative. They are great on some things and off the hook on many others. Much of the time it will come back to whores and drugs. I’m not trying to force people to be religious, but I don’t think whoring and drugs is good for society in any form. They of course think I’m trying to control them and keep them from their utopia.
Hey, Rep. Paul. It has been tried, up until a bit over a century ago narcotics and cocaine were legal and readily available. If you want to go there again you should not only discuss the problems resulting from drug criminalization, but also the problems that led to their criminalization. Maybe you can still win your case, maybe not, but pretending their is just one side to the case doesn’t help your arguments. Promoting freedom of choice is fine, but when the substances under consideration interfere with your free will regarding that choice the issues, even in adults, become more complicated.
Really? Heroin is a morally horrible drug. Anyone who uses it is morally lost. Anyone who advocates the legalization of it is a moral failure.
What could be more absolute than that?
I’d much rather see heroin addicts quietly overdose in the privacy of their own homes than see them mug a dozen little old ladies each day to pay for their drugs. It may be a stupid choice to use drugs, but it’s their own stupid choice.
__________________________________________________
Try explaining that to the dozen little old ladies. They would rather the pro-dope crowd go ... Well little old ladies might not use the kind of words I’m thinking of.
A proportionate action would be to add it back in to the normal prescription pharmacopoeia parallel to things like morphine, not to pass it out like Jolt Cola.
Who pays for the drugs given to users in Poland?
I hear Poland is a nice place to live...for druggies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.