Posted on 08/05/2014 10:27:01 AM PDT by Kaslin
Some people confuse being libertarian with being libertine.
I’m sometimes asked, for instance, if I’m a libertarian because I want to smoke pot or do other drugs.
I respond that I’ve never done drugs and have no desire to use drugs.
Then I’m asked if I’m a libertarian because I want to gamble.
I respond by saying that I don’t gamble, even when I’m in Las Vegas or some other place where it’s legal.
Sometimes I’m asked if I’m libertarian because I want to use prostitutes.
I respond by explaining that I’d never patronize a prostitute because I want to at least be under the illusion that a woman actually wants to be with me.
At this point, some people conclude I’m boring, and that may be true, but this is also the point where I try to educate them about the libertarian philosophy.
I give them the usual message about small government and free markets, but I also explain that libertarians don’t believe that government should persecute people for victimless crimes.
This doesn’t mean we think it’s good to use drugs or that we personally approve of prostitution. And it doesn’t mean we’re oblivious to the downsides of gambling.
The libertarian message is simply that prohibition makes matters worse, not better. For instance, prohibition gives government the power to behave in reprehensible ways.
Let’s look at two examples, starting with this disturbing and powerful video from Reason TV (warning, both the subject material and language are not for the faint of heart).
The Drug War, the Fourth Amendment, and Anal Cavity Searches in New Mexico
Having watched the video, now ask yourself whether you think this is an appropriate way for governments to be using our tax dollars?
Remember, we’re not talking about cops busting people for impaired driving. That’s totally legitimate, regardless of whether they’re impaired because of drugs or booze.
The question is whether cops should look for excuses to pull people over simply in hopes of finding that they have some pot. And when they don’t find drugs, should they then go through obscene efforts in hopes of finding some contraband?*
Our second example isn’t as disturbing, at least on a physical level, but it should be equally troubling if we believe in decent and humane society.
It seems that SWAT teams have too much time on their hands and are now conducting raids on old folks playing cards.
On Saturday, state and local authorities raided a monthly poker tournament at a bar in the city of Largo, after an investigation into unlawful gambling, the Tampa Bay Times reported. The Nutz Poker League, which was running a free game open to the public at Louie’s Grill and Sports Bar at the time of the crackdown, said on its Facebook page that some of the police were in “full riot gear” and had their “weapons drawn.” …One woman present described the event in a blog post: “Today, while out playing poker with this poker league, we were raided by the [Florida Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco], all with men and women officers wearing black masks so we couldn’t see their faces. We were forced (by a threat of going to jail) to place our hands on the table where they could see them and to stay there until we were told.” …Luke Lirot, an attorney involved with the matter, told Card Player that players took cell phone photos and video of the raid, and that they were “ordered by officers to delete” the material. According to the Tampa Bay Times, the undercover investigation, dubbed “Operation Cracked Aces,” had been ongoing for months prior to the bust.
The community group that runs the recreational league has an appropriately libertarian view of this costly harassment.
“The ‘crime’ here is the waste of valuable public resources, and the misguided efforts to enforce an archaic law that was never intended to be used to criminalize events such as the one here, where six individuals were unjustly arrested and terrified, and now face prosecution,” the league said. “If state statutes can be exploited and stretched to criminalize these types of events, legislation needs to be adopted to clear up this unnecessary abuse.” Nutz Poker added that the raid was an example of “tyrannical [law] enforcement.”
By the way, the Florida raid is not an isolated incident.
Here are some excerpts from a report in the Baltimore Sun.
…at the Lynch Point Social Club in Edgemere, police say, …dozens of men would meet regularly to play no limit Texas Hold ‘Em poker games and gamble on electronic machines. County police said it was all off the books and against the law, and busted the club’s members in a raid involving a tactical unit last week. The organizer and dealers were arrested and face charges. Almost immediately after our story posted, there was a quick backlash against police. The story’s been shared nearly 200 times on Facebook and generated 40 comments as of this writing… commenters had no tie to the event but were angered at an investigation they believe was a waste of police resources.…But police say games like the ones hosted in Edgemere are against the law and must be enforced, and may even put the players at risk for becoming victims of a robbery.
Here’s the bottom line: A bunch of guys want to pass the time by playing cards and making wagers. They’re not hurting anybody else, yet cops decide to send a “tactical unit” to conduct a raid.
Once again, I’m glad there’s a backlash against the police. Cops should beprotecting innocent people, not harassing them.
Or killing them.
And this is why libertarianism is a philosophy of human decency. We don’t believe in using coercive government power against people who aren’t harming others.
*I’m thinking an involuntary cavity search might be worth it if I got a $900,000 award after suing the government.
P.S. Since I feel very confident about libertarian principles, I don’t object to sharing anti-libertarian humor.
Here’s the latest example.
I’ve previously shared a cartoon with the same theme, and that post also makes the should-be-obvious point that fire departments would exist in a libertarian world.
And that link also has many more examples of libertarian humor.
Dear Dio,
It is always a 50/50 game, when using statistics to identify “the human condition”.
I would not use China, for any kind of measuring stick, when comparing things to inside the U.S., and here’s why, China’s only experience with “Freedom”, occured between the 1920’s until the invasion by Japan. shortly after the Japanese surrendered, Mao Tse Tung began his ‘long march’ to install Sino-style Communism, and the true democratic and free people of China, moved to an island called Formosa, which is now the Republic of Taiwan. So, the mainland Chinese had only a twenty and some year period of being free from the last emperor, until the first Communist Premier, only ‘half a generation’.
I would point you to take a look at our Old West, and judges like Roy Bean. Where the law was up[held, and justice for crimes committed was swift, things settled down a bit, you might say.
I do not grasp your point. In 1840 China began a long trek to massive addiction by 1900. I do not see where addiction has anything to do with freedom or Judge Roy Bean.
And here you are again telling that same bald faced lie. American involvement in hard drugs was insignificant until the Civil war
Exactly my point - thanks for the confirmation.
You point to the 1700s as a time period when drugs were legal and imply they didn't cause any problems, as evidence that the large quantities capable of being supplied now won't either. This is deliberate manipulation of differing circumstances and misleading people into thinking they are the same thing.
Whereas a comparison to 1800s China is an exact match? YOU introduced the claim that history should be taken into account ... shame it backfired on you.
when massive numbers of soldiers were exposed to these substances to relieve the pain of their battle injuries.
Which, let's note in passing, doesn't fit your 'epidemic' model of drug use.
You do not know whether it does or whether it doesn't because NOBODY KEPT ANY GOOD RECORDS AT THE TIME.
So how do you know that "massive numbers of soldiers were exposed to these substances"? Are the only good records the ones that support your preconceptions?
A war-triggered spike in opiate use would not, by definition, fit an epidemic model wherein existing drug use engendered increased drug use.
The fact is, by the end of the 19th Century, people were noticing all sorts of problems.
How do you know that if "NOBODY KEPT ANY GOOD RECORDS AT THE TIME"? What we know is that those who favored increased government power claimed to see problems - just as they do today, when we call them liberals.
Subsequent drug activity became a continuously growing problem until the early part of the 20th Century
There is no evidence for any growth - in fact, the available evidence that I have posted says it was shrinking.
Again you are lying. Your "Available Evidence" says that it was increasing, but you used the numbers they gave and concluded that it was decreasing. At the very best, that "evidence" you posted disagrees with itself
No, as I said in the thread you link to below, "the DEA found some data but wasn't bright enough to correctly interpret it." The DEA's hamfisted misconclusions from the data are not evidence and don't invalidate the data: "In 1880 [...] there were over 400,000 opium addicts in the U.S. [...] By 1900, about one American in 200 was either a cocaine or opium addict." 400,000 in a population of 50M is one in 125 - ergo, between 1880 and 1900 addiction declined.
Here is the article to which he is referring.
And here is where he posted the link to it.
[...]
If the problems were minor, then why did we ban these substances?
Your liberal faith in government shows again ... if evil businesses weren't a major problem, why do we have so many business regulations? Conservatives know that government is happy to invent crises to expand its power.
Addiction is part of the human condition, no? Whether that be sex, pornography, drugs, alcohol, money, power, prestige, knowledge, or a myriad of other things, it is still that little hollowness screaming to be filled, in the delusion that ‘that’, will make you whole. I can tell you, it does not.
The yearning of human spirit/soul to be free, is also part of the human condition, and there comes a moment of clarity, in that addiction, that that spirit/soul screams, enough is enough, and stgruggles to find a way clear.
It’s described best as, that moment that you, I or anybody else stops and realizes, ‘There’s got to be more than just this.”
I did not see ‘1840’ mentioned.
Now you are just spouting gibberish. Nothing i've presented has backfired on me. In 1830 China didn't have a major Opium Problem because it was illegal. In 1840, China had a an Opium problem because it was made legal. By 1900, the problem was serious.
In the US in 1862 we didn't have an Opium or Cocaine problem because the stuff wasn't widely known or available. By 1900 we had a pretty serious Opium and Cocaine problem. So did England.
You keep spouting that bald faced lie that it wasn't causing problem when it was legal here, because you keep leaving off the fact it wasn't widely known and widely available until the aftermath of the Civil War. More or less the last 1/4 of the 19th century. Addiction problems were just getting started when we banned the crap.
So how do you know that "massive numbers of soldiers were exposed to these substances"? Are the only good records the ones that support your preconceptions?
There are anecdotal accounts written at the time about the "Soldier's Disease". There are also casualty lists that show how much of the drugs were being used at those times.
It's not great data, but it's all there is. On the other hand, the British East India company kept pretty good data on the TONNAGE of opium they were shipping into China for the entire period from 1840 onward.
A war-triggered spike in opiate use would not, by definition, fit an epidemic model wherein existing drug use engendered increased drug use.
No it wouldn't. It would be regarded as an abnormal boost of the pathology. Without the druging of 400,000 people in the Civil War, it would have taken a great deal longer for Drug addiction to start working it's way up that logistical growth curve. But war often has unfortunate consequences. That boost in addiction was one of them.
How do you know that if "NOBODY KEPT ANY GOOD RECORDS AT THE TIME"?
Why would they? Who would keep them and why would they do so? At the time it was completely unregulated so the government wasn't watching it. It wasn't until it started killing people that it attracted the notice of Government employed Doctors (Mid 1880s) who started researching it further.
On the other hand, the British East India company had very good reasons for keeping records of their shipments of opium. They directly correlated to business profits.
What we know is that those who favored increased government power claimed to see problems - just as they do today, when we call them liberals.
And people who want to smoke dope REFUSE to see any problems. As a matter of fact, they go out of their way to portray their vice as "Freedom" and a "Right" instead of the plague that it really is. Now you may have an argument that marijuana is relatively harmless, and that not much disaster will accompany it's legalization, but for the other heavier drugs, this is utter nonsense and a dangerous misdirection of the populace.
I'm not going to even bother answering the rest of your comment.
Whereas a comparison to 1800s China is an exact match? YOU introduced the claim that history should be taken into account ... shame it backfired on you.
Now you are just spouting gibberish. Nothing i've presented has backfired on me. In 1830 China didn't have a major Opium Problem because it was illegal. In 1840, China had a an Opium problem because it was made legal. By 1900, the problem was serious.
You shot down your own argument with your "differing circumstances" beef - there are "differing circumstances" between now and 1840-1900 China just as surely as there are between now and 1862-1900 America.
In the US in 1862 we didn't have an Opium or Cocaine problem because the stuff wasn't widely known or available. By 1900 we had a pretty serious Opium and Cocaine problem.
You keep contradicting yourself: how do you know "By 1900 we had a pretty serious Opium and Cocaine problem" if as you said earlier "NOBODY KEPT ANY GOOD RECORDS AT THE TIME"?
You do not know whether it does or whether it doesn't because NOBODY KEPT ANY GOOD RECORDS AT THE TIME.
So how do you know that "massive numbers of soldiers were exposed to these substances"? Are the only good records the ones that support your preconceptions?
There are anecdotal accounts written at the time about the "Soldier's Disease". There are also casualty lists that show how much of the drugs were being used at those times.
Records of use, plus anecdotes about problems from use, do not add up to data about problems.
A war-triggered spike in opiate use would not, by definition, fit an epidemic model wherein existing drug use engendered increased drug use.
No it wouldn't.
OK, then.
The fact is, by the end of the 19th Century, people were noticing all sorts of problems.
How do you know that if "NOBODY KEPT ANY GOOD RECORDS AT THE TIME"?
Why would they? Who would keep them and why would they do so? At the time it was completely unregulated so the government wasn't watching it.
None of that answers the question: HOW do you know that "by the end of the 19th Century, people were noticing all sorts of problems" if "NOBODY KEPT ANY GOOD RECORDS AT THE TIME"?
It wasn't until it started killing people that it attracted the notice of Government employed Doctors (Mid 1880s) who started researching it further.
So are you now claiming that you know problems were seen because in the mid-1880s good records WERE kept? If so, what is the data from those good records?
Subsequent drug activity became a continuously growing problem until the early part of the 20th Century
You keep making because-I-say-so claims ... show us the data.
What we know is that those who favored increased government power claimed to see problems - just as they do today, when we call them liberals.
And people who want to smoke dope REFUSE to see any problems.
I don't smoke dope. Did those of that earlier time who didn't see problems smoke dope?
As a matter of fact, they go out of their way to portray their vice as "Freedom" and a "Right" instead of the plague that it really is.
Freedom and rights encompass all acts, even vices, that don't in and of themselves violate the rights of others.
I'm not going to even bother answering the rest of your comment.
Imagine my surprise. I'm going to leave in the unanswered part:
There is no evidence for any growth - in fact, the available evidence that I have posted says it was shrinking.
Again you are lying. Your "Available Evidence" says that it was increasing, but you used the numbers they gave and concluded that it was decreasing. At the very best, that "evidence" you posted disagrees with itself
No, as I said in the thread you link to below, "the DEA found some data but wasn't bright enough to correctly interpret it." The DEA's hamfisted misconclusions from the data are not evidence and don't invalidate the data: "In 1880 [...] there were over 400,000 opium addicts in the U.S. [...] By 1900, about one American in 200 was either a cocaine or opium addict." 400,000 in a population of 50M is one in 125 - ergo, between 1880 and 1900 addiction declined.
Here is the article to which he is referring.
And here is where he posted the link to it.
[...]
If the problems were minor, then why did we ban these substances?
Your liberal faith in government shows again ... if evil businesses weren't a major problem, why do we have so many business regulations? Conservatives know that government is happy to invent crises to expand its power.
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.