Replies

There is, in particular, nothing in libertarianism that entails that one ought to be in the least bit hostile to or even suspicious of traditional morality or traditional moralists. There is thus no reason whatsoever why libertarians and onservatives ought to be divided over the question of traditional morality

Sorry, but there's a big conflict between libertarian principles and people who want to enforce religiously-based "morality" on who people who don't share their religious beliefs, and to use the power of the state to do this via legal discrimination against the non-"traditionalists". And how do you suppose those "traditions" came to be traditional? Via the imposition of force by government authorities and by ecclesiastical authorities who had obtained government-like authority in theocratic societies. Nope, can't support that. If the social practices they advocate don't remain predominant without government coercion, then they weren't "traditional" in the first place, just vestiges of tyranny.

preoccupation with drugs and pornography

Pornography, to the extent that its production does not involve coercion of real people, should be protected by the First Amendment, though subject to the same sort of "time, place, and manner" test as other types of speech (I don't think libertarians are advocating highway billboard displays of hard-core porn). Of course, most of the situations in which conservatives get upset about pornography would go away if half the country wasn't being run by the government. Blocking access to Internet porn in public schools and public libraries? Sure it's wrong when those institutions are run with taxpayer funds, but why are they being run with taxpayer funds?

As for drugs, I part company with the extremist libertarians on this subject. Obviously, many aspects of the "War on Drugs" have been ill-advised and infringed on basic liberties, but I don't think this is a reason to make all drugs legal -- just rein in the War where it steps over the line.

Now I have no problem with making marijuana legal (simply makes no sense to have alcohol legal and marijuana not, and Prohibition was already tried and is just inneffective when it lacks widespread support and the substance in question is easily produced in any home or dorm room).

However, most "hard" drugs have an extraordinary capacity to do harm, not just to the user, but also to innocent bystanders. Just imagine if it were perfectly legal to walk around with a pocket full of OxyContin or Rohypnol. Rapes of unconscious women would be epidemic, and no one would be safe from having these substances surreptitiously dropped in their food or drink in any public place. For the highly addictive substances, dealers would have plenty of incentive to involuntarily addict people by means of repeated surreptitious placement of the drug in food or drink, and would then profit handsomely when the new addicts exercised their "freedom" to purchase and use these drugs. I disagree with the premise that the high cost of drugs, and crime induced by addicts trying to get money for drugs, are products of illegality. They are products of addiction, which is very severe for many street drugs. As long as the users are inherently desperate for the drugs, the normal supply and demand effect on pricing is inoperative. Dealers have huge incentive to undertake violent, illegal measures to prevent the market from being flooded with inexpensive drugs, because the users will buy them no matter how high the cost. This is not the case with non-drug commodities or with non-addictive or very mildly addictive drugs like marijuana -- note how still-illegal marijuana is not expensive and is not associated with high crime rates.

Bottom line: hard drugs fall into the same category as plutonium. Principles need to have exceptions made to them, where there would otherwise be tremendous harm to innocent people. Libertarians don't support people's right to buy/sell/use personal supplies of plutonium, and there's nothing wrong with treating hard drugs the same way.

The other big argument against legalizing hard drugs at the present time is that, under our current legal/political system, which is far from libertarian or conservative, it is utterly impossible to let nature take its course, and leave the addicts to die of starvation or freezing or being shot by the intended victims of their robberies, etc. The growing numbers of them would all be entitled to taxpayer-funded treatment and living expenses. Nor are employers free to randomly screen employees for hard drug use, and even when an employer manages to confirm that an employee has become a heroin or crack addict, it would be virtually impossible to fire the employee, who will claim the "disability" of addiction, and be entitled to treatment, accommodation, etc. At least now, the employer can usually make sure that the offender gets in legal trouble, and then fire them for that.

"Sorry, but there's a big conflict between libertarian principles and people who want to enforce religiously-based "morality" on who people who don't share their religious beliefs, and to use the power of the state to do this via legal discrimination against the non-"traditionalists"."

The author makes it quite clear that he is referring to moralists who do not seek to enforce their views on the public via state coercion. In fact, both Christian libertarians and early 20th Century "Old Right" conservatives, recognized that religiously based morality presupposes Free Will and can not be imposed. The very idea of "imposing" morality is itself an oxymoron. This is an argument that a large number of social conservatives understand and the notion that all social conservatives want to "enforce religiously-based "morality" on people who don't share their religious beliefs" is as falacious as the one which assumes that all libertarians are completely unconcerned with moral issues.

A case in point, the non initiation of force principle is a moral principle that originally had its roots in a religious understanding of human nature and dignity. This is a principle that those libertarians, who accept the legitimacy of the state, wish to see imposed on the public. If we are to absolutely insist that no moral principles can be inforced by the state, we arrive at an anarchist position of denying the legitimacy of the state entirely. Why should the state enforce laws against force of fraud? They are, afterall, moral principles that have a religious origin. Why not accept the ancient Sophist and Pagan notion that "Justice is the benefit of the stronger"? The truth of the matter is that minarchist libertarians DO expect the state to impose morality on the public. The differnence is that it is in a VERY limited framework, that of protecting the rights of individuals against force or fraud.

, under our current legal/political system, which is far from libertarian or conservative, it is utterly impossible to let nature take its course, and leave the addicts to die of starvation or freezing or being shot by the intended victims of their robberies, etc.

Yes I think that's the problem. Taxpayers are forced to pay the costs of hospitalizations and feeding their families. Once that happens, then they feel they should be able to control their drug use too. If the government would get completely out of it all, it would be better. The government shouldn't make laws against homosexuals but it shouldn't pay for their AIDS medicines either or force businesses to hire them.

You agree that prohibitions are useless, yet you go on to say:

Bottom line: hard drugs fall into the same category as plutonium. Principles need to have exceptions made to them, where there would otherwise be tremendous harm to innocent people. Libertarians don't support people's right to buy/sell/use personal supplies of plutonium, and there's nothing wrong with treating hard drugs the same way.

The world is full of inherently dangerous substances & objects. We have decided, in the constitution, to give states the power to regulate [with due process] public use/possession of such property - and - to criminalize their misuse.

We cannot allow the state to have the absolute power to prohibit, as it is absolutely corrupting.

Sorry, but there's a big conflict between libertarian principles and people who want to enforce religiously-based "morality" on who people who don't share their religious beliefs, and to use the power of the state to do this via legal discrimination against the non-"traditionalists".

And not everyone who believes in morality is in that category.

And how do you suppose those "traditions" came to be traditional? Via the imposition of force by government authorities and by ecclesiastical authorities who had obtained government-like authority in theocratic societies. Nope, can't support that. If the social practices they advocate don't remain predominant without government coercion, then they weren't "traditional" in the first place, just vestiges of tyranny.

Nope. They've existed apart from coercion, and as the article makes clear, their decline is the result of government interference in society, which is to say, coercion.

>>However, most "hard" drugs have an extraordinary capacity to do harm, not just to the user, but also to innocent bystanders. Just imagine if it were perfectly legal to walk around with a pocket full of OxyContin or Rohypnol. Rapes of unconscious women would be epidemic, and no one would be safe from having these substances surreptitiously dropped in their food or drink in any public place. <<

This is pure mythology. Men who are willing to rape women are very rare, and the availability of drugs to assist them hardly has any impact at all. Your accusation that thousands of men are "potential rapists" just waiting for the opportunity is callous and ridiculous.

>>For the highly addictive substances, dealers would have plenty of incentive to involuntarily addict people by means of repeated surreptitious placement of the drug in food or drink, and would then profit handsomely when the new addicts exercised their "freedom" to purchase and use these drugs.<<

This is a complete fabrication. It is a myth that people can become "involuntarily addicted". Did you read this on the back of a bubble gum wrapper?

>>I disagree with the premise that the high cost of drugs, and crime induced by addicts trying to get money for drugs, are products of illegality. They are products of addiction, which is very severe for many street drugs.<<

Sorry, wrong again. Studies in Switzerland in just the last few years have proven once again for the umpteenth time that when addicts can get heroin for reasonable prices, they hold down jobs and become responsible family members.

>>As long as the users are inherently desperate for the drugs, the normal supply and demand effect on pricing is inoperative.<<

Sorry, wrong again. The law of supply and demand is a natural law and no-one has ever found a way around it. All the laws do is raise the price and fund the worst kind of thugs with millions of dollars.

>>Dealers have huge incentive to undertake violent, illegal measures to prevent the market from being flooded with inexpensive drugs, because the users will buy them no matter how high the cost.<<

Ridiculous statement on its face. These dealers are drawn into the market because of the high profit potential, but they would be just as easily driven from it if the laws were changed.

>>This is not the case with non-drug commodities or with non-addictive or very mildly addictive drugs like marijuana -- note how still-illegal marijuana is not expensive and is not associated with high crime rates.<<

Wrong again. Marijuana is worth more than pure gold, yet it grows like a weed anywhere in the country. Explain that. It is largely a myth that drugs are associated with high crime rates. It is a self fulfilling prophecy. You makes drugs illegal and all of a sudden you have high drug related crime rates. Before drugs were made illegal, crimes related to drugs were so rare, every one made headlines. Marijuana dominates the arrests for drugs in this country.

>>Bottom line: hard drugs fall into the same category as plutonium. Principles need to have exceptions made to them, where there would otherwise be tremendous harm to innocent people. Libertarians don't support people's right to buy/sell/use personal supplies of plutonium, and there's nothing wrong with treating hard drugs the same way.<<

The problem with this argument is that multiple government sponsored studies have shown that alcohol is by far the most dangerous of all the drugs. So your plutonium idea should be applied to alcohol far before any other drug.

>>The other big argument against legalizing hard drugs at the present time is that, under our current legal/political system, which is far from libertarian or conservative, it is utterly impossible to let nature take its course, and leave the addicts to die of starvation or freezing or being shot by the intended victims of their robberies, etc. The growing numbers of them would all be entitled to taxpayer-funded treatment and living expenses. Nor are employers free to randomly screen employees for hard drug use, and even when an employer manages to confirm that an employee has become a heroin or crack addict, it would be virtually impossible to fire the employee, who will claim the "disability" of addiction, and be entitled to treatment, accommodation, etc. At least now, the employer can usually make sure that the offender gets in legal trouble, and then fire them for that.<<

This is once again based on the myth that drug users will automatically become a drag on society. Studies have shown that drug users are often the most productive of all employees. In studies of college students, they found that drug users had on average better grades than non-drug users. In studies of drug screening programs, it has been found that the employees screened out are among the best employees.