Let's Beat a Dead Horse
" It is an established fact that alcoholism, cocainism, and morphinism are deadly enemies of life, of health, and of the capacity for work and enjoyment: and a utilitarian therefore must consider them as vices. But this is far from demonstrating that the authorities must interpose to
suppress these vices by commercial prohibitions..... a Pandora’s box of other dangers, no less mischievous than alcoholism and morphinism."
Ludwig Von Mises, “Liberalism,� 1927 (From Wall Street Journal of April 28, 2006)
Yeah, I know the reversal of drug legislation is a dead horse, especially when the argument is carried on in economic terms. But that’s the wrong battlefield. A battlefield where we are outgunned by complex economics, usually based on the assumption that we taxpayers cover the care of wounded drug users. Instead, the discussion should be on ethical and pragmatic terms as Von Mises suggests above.
How can the citizens of a democratic country governed by a constitution such as ours tolerate amputation of our rights? There hasn’t been a tyranny in the history books that has mandated state control of the human body: “Made in the image of G-d,� I remind our pious readers. A rabid Nazi would have laughed at this incredible extension of this state’s authority over the human body. Goebbels couldn could never have sold it.
Even Lenin, who abolished private property, drew the line at proletarian bodies. And if Stalin’s production goals faltered with drunken workers, well, even the Marxist bible doesn’t discuss what a man puts in his body. T politburo, in it’s headiest day, didn’t criminalize Vodka lovers.
The damage to law enforcement, our judicial load, and the national treasury is obvious - studied and extensively reported by scholars, not kibitzers like me, of public policy. But the damage goes deeper. Morally, the State is on the wrong side of the ethical line. Just as the Trotsky’s Red Army, who robbed land owners. Such action may have benefited the State - may even have been salutory to the society as a whole. But that’s not the issue. Nor is it the correct algorithm for public policy. We don’t prohibit and punish theft because the cost/benefit analysis tells that it benefits the greater number of citizens. Stealing violates those ten epic rules of morality! And historically, morality, given time, has a way of winning the race.
The power of the State is as feeble as the earthworm compared to the creator of the human body and its inherent freedoms. It is immoral to invade this realm. Forget the economics. And forget the temptation to users. Let them manage it. They’ll do a better job than the government’s attempts to shield them with prohibitive legislation.
And you can blow away the favorite argument of the advocate who defends the current scheme. “It’s economically cogent to protect the addict from himself because we taxpayers gotta pay his medical bills.� By that knotted logic, if big brother can dictate what I put in my mouth because he pays my medical bill - then why not dictate my cholesterol level and a hundred other physiological indices of my well being. What do you want? Government mandated menus, issued daily? My answer to the medical bill argument is: Don’t pay the addict’s medical bill. Let him pay for it - could that be a deterrent? It’s the same catch 22 argument loved by the seat belt defenders. We gotta make this unconstitutional law about belts because we already made an unconstitutional law socializing medical care. “Those wacky unbelted bozos will cost us a fortune!� Like the song says; “ain’t nobody’s business but my own.�
Comments (19)
TGGP
Mises seems to be saying that there is a utilitarian economic argument against prohibition of drugs, but not for taking drugs. I have never heard the argument that they should stay illegal due to public expenditure on treating addicts, it surely costs more in terms of law enforcement and imprisonment (not to mention lost tax revenue from drugs!). In fact, it is always the moralists rather than economists who argue in favor of prohibition!
Published: April 28, 2006 11:41 PM
ted roberts
Yes, you're right, it usually is the moralist. But his argument is usually based upon the immoral, illegal behaviour that drugs incite. But I say he's got it wrong. The moral question to me should be who owns your body: you or the state. Seems like a simple question to me.
And I have often heard the objection that since the state (taxpayers) are now responsible for everybody's "health" the folly of the addict now becomes our collective responsibility. Thanks for your interesting commentl. ted
Published: April 29, 2006 10:38 AM
Paul Edwards
Ted,
I'm not sure that this is not in fact part of your subtle point that you are making, but if not, i'll make it now:
"How can the citizens of a democratic country governed by a constitution such as ours tolerate amputation of our rights?"
I think many people ask this, and not facetiously either, as I have occasionally. Recognition of the false assumptions behind this question answers it.
1. Democracy has nothing to do with property rights. It is majority rule regardless of property violations.
2. The constitution, at its very root represents the supreme usurpation and violation of property. It is not a contract between consenting individuals as it is sometimes assumed to be. It is a decree enacted by a small group of elites. It carries no authority to do the things it is purported to do, and its very existence flies in the face of the purposes it is purported to accomplish. It's a fraud.
3. That people will tolerate a fraud such as a constitutional democratic government, explains how they will tolerate any violation of property rights. They don't understand property and they don't understand contract. In short, anyone with authority, false as it may be, can con the people that state coercion and compulsion, if for a good enough cause, is justified. And many can be convinced the next further infringement on property is for a good cause. Bummer dude.
Published: April 29, 2006 1:38 PM
Tom Schofield
This topic is interesting to a smoker. The state taxes tobacco products heavily and strictly regulates their sale and use. The state also, out of the goodness of its heart, informs smokers that they will die before their natural time and therefore receive less than their normal share of state benefits such as Social Security and Medicare payments.
Tobacco and alcohol addicts are heavily taxed. Cocaine and heroin addicts are criminalized. How does the state make these distinctions? Why does the state make these distinctions? From whence does the state derive the power to do so?
Perhaps the answer is that we live not in a democracy but in a constitutional republic. Representatives are chosen by majority vote and these representatives all tend to be of but one psychological type: officious, supercilious, busybodies.
With apologies to Shakespeare, "The fault lies not in our Constitution, dear Brutus, but in ouselves".
Published: April 30, 2006 8:32 AM
Tom Schofield
This topic is interesting to a smoker. The state taxes tobacco products heavily and strictly regulates their sale and use. The state also, out of the goodness of its heart, informs smokers that they will die before their natural time and therefore receive less than their normal share of state benefits such as Social Security and Medicare payments.
Tobacco and alcohol addicts are heavily taxed. Cocaine and heroin addicts are criminalized. How does the state make these distinctions? Why does the state make these distinctions? From whence does the state derive the power to do so?
Perhaps the answer is that we live not in a democracy but in a constitutional republic. Representatives are chosen by majority vote and these representatives all tend to be of but one psychological type: officious, supercilious, busybodies.
With apologies to Shakespeare, "The fault lies not in our Constitution, dear Brutus, but in ouselves".
Published: April 30, 2006 8:32 AM
M E Hoffer
Paul,
to your point : "2. The constitution, at its very root represents the supreme usurpation and violation of property. It is not a contract between consenting individuals as it is sometimes assumed to be. It is a decree enacted by a small group of elites. It carries no authority to do the things it is purported to do, and its very existence flies in the face of the purposes it is purported to accomplish. It's a fraud."
I've long thought it curious that, even among the purportedly "Conservative" among us, The Federalist Papers are as deep as they care to plumb into the Nature of Our Founding. That the Anti-Federalist Papers are rarely mentioned, let alone read, is, to me, a conundrum.
To that point, can you suggest some reading materials that speak to the idea you outline above?
Thanks, in advance,
Published: April 30, 2006 10:48 PM
Paul Edwards
M.E.,
With pleasure, sir. Lysander Spooner's papers on the constitution are online and are inspirational.
http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-6.htm
Particularly, "No treason No. 6: The constitution of no authority."
Published: May 1, 2006 2:23 AM
Sione Vatu
M E Hoffer
I was unaware of Anti-federalist Papers. Please could you tell me more about them and where I could read up on them. Thanks.
Regards
Sione
Published: May 1, 2006 2:24 AM
Paul Edwards
Sione,
You can pick up a paperback version at a second hand book store for 5 dollars in the US, although you are in Australia so that’s no help. But i didn't realize until i just googled it, that it is available also online:
http://www.iahushua.com/hist/AntiFED.html
Published: May 1, 2006 2:35 AM
M E Hoffer
Paul,
Thank you very much for the link. It's been some time since I've read any of Spooner's works and didn't even know of these. After a brief read, it was easy to remember, and even easier to state, that ol' Lysander was a Lucid dude.
Thanks again,
Mark.
Published: May 1, 2006 8:50 AM
Paul Edwards
My pleasure, Mark. Spooner's a bright light right up there with Rothbard, in my books.
Published: May 1, 2006 9:26 AM
billwald
Unless our politicians are much more honest or much more intelligent than politicians were during Prohibition then nothing will change.
Ending alcohol prohibition didn't materially slow the transfer of assets from the working class to our owners because making booze is lots of work and trouble. The corruption is still in place. Only the product has changed. Our owners will never permit house plants to replace booze and ciggybutts.
Published: May 1, 2006 11:20 AM
Som
Forget about the economic arguement against drugs alltogether, it never convinced anyone i talked to about unless i brought up the arguement from morality (or more properly, justice) first. Same goes for prostitution, censorship, gay marriage etc. No one cares about the economic benefits on "moral" issues like this, just like a pro-life person does not care about the cost of banning abortion, it doesnt matter. In fact, many arguements directly on economic issues stem from morality (greed is wrong so capitalism must be bad). So take stephen molenoux's advice and take an approach from moral logic, and the moral legitimacy of the state itself. It's risky, but it works.
Published: May 1, 2006 5:41 PM
Som
Btw, listen to Sean Paul's song We'll be burning unedited version (edited not because of bad words, but because it talks about legalization!) on some more arguements for marijuana legalization (prolly the best utilitarian arguements to date), maybe he read james otrowski while making the lyrics.
Published: May 1, 2006 5:45 PM
Sione
Paul
Will do.
BTW Hoppe is an excellent read just as you recommended. I'll get some more of his work.
Sione
Published: May 1, 2006 7:15 PM
Paul Edwards
Sione,
Cool! Yeah, in my view, Hoppe rocks.
Published: May 2, 2006 9:55 AM
Roger M
Don’t pay the addict’s medical bill. Let him pay for it - could that be a deterrent?
You’re exactly right! If we could place the burden of the consequences squarely upon the drug user, I would favor legalizing drugs. I have proposed licensing drug use and if anyone commits a crime or lets his family starve because of his use, he would lose his license. But for it to work, penalties for use without a license would have to be stiff and we would have to enforce them.
However, I oppose legalizing drugs because we don’t live in a country of libertarians; we live in a country of socialists. Socialists would agree to legalizing drugs, but then never allow users to suffer the consequences of their abuse. So we would end up with the worst of both.
Alcohol is a good example. Talk to any social worker and they’ll tell you that alcohol abuse causes ten times the problems of drug abuse. Alcohol abuse causes most of the wife and child abuse, broken homes, and lot of poverty. But socialists see alcoholics as victims, so taxpayers pay for their abuse. Legalize drugs and you’ll have the same situation multiplied with drug abuse.
Published: May 2, 2006 11:51 AM
M E Hoffer
Sione,
I think I found the Anti-Federalists papers online @ http://odur.let.rug.nl/%7Eusa/D/1776-1800/federalist/anti1.htm
let me know if that works out. !~
Published: May 4, 2006 3:40 AM
Sione Vatu
M E Hoffer
Yes. Got it!
Thanks for that.
Talofa!
Sione
Published: May 10, 2006 8:57 PM