“All those libertarians seem to care about is pot”
16. March 2009Lately I’ve come across an interesting pattern of remarks by conservatives relating some past encounter they’ve had with Libertarian Party activists. The complaint runs along the lines of “all they seem to care about is pot,” or “all they seem to care about is legalizing drugs.”
Which strikes me as a bit odd because I’ve never been to a public gathering of libertarians where marijuana or drugs has been the principal focus of interest, to the exclusion of all else. Yes, libertarians are opposed to drug prohibition. Some libertarians also happen to be recreational users but most whom I’ve met are not (unless you count caffeine and alcohol).
But the libertarian argument against drug prohibition is not, “I like to use drugs and don’t want to go to jail for it.” That’s hardly different from saying “I like to rob banks and don’t want to go to jail for it,” or “I like to molest children and don’t want to go to jail for it.” It’s a ridiculous argument.
There are four principal libertarian arguments against drug prohibition: 1) Moral argument 1: It violates an individual’s right to control his body, provided he is not harming someone else. 2) Moral argument 2: Prohibiting possession or sale of a substance is a violation of private property rights. 3) Practical argument 1: Prohibition raises the prices of the prohibited substances which creates a windfall for violent criminals willing to risk jail, or willing to kill to avoid jail, and leads users to commit burglaries and robberies to finance their habits. 4) Practical argument 2: Prohibition of peaceful activities leads to corruption of law enforcement and a breakdown of legal protections against violations of privacy (4th Amendment) due process (via civil asset forfeiture and no-knock warrants) and gun rights (black-market-related violence leads to public demand for more gun control).
Conservatives will dismiss these arguments in favor of one they think trumps everything: government has an obligation or duty to uphold public health and morals, therefore it has a duty to prohibit the use of intoxicating or mind-altering substances because these things are unhealthy and immoral. (Immoral because they induce irresponsible behavior.) So as to prevent a general social collapse.
My point here is not to debate the topic of whether prohibition is good policy, but to examine this frequent reaction conservatives seem to have when dealing with libertarians. So far, I haven’t had the direct experience of sitting in on one of these meetings which are later characterized as “just about drugs,” but I have a theory about this I wanted to share.
What I think goes on is, when conservatives meet with libertarians, they tend to spend very little time discussing the things they agree on — free market is good, gun prohibition is bad — and focus on things they disagree on. And the biggest areas of disagreement tend to be drug prohibition, and foreign policy.
However, most libertarians, especially the sort of neophytes who tend to populate the Libertarian Party, are not strong on foreign policy. What I mean by that is, they tend not to be particularly well-informed, and either can’t hold their own in a protracted discussion on the matter, or in some cases tend to agree with conservatives that the United States should dominate the world and spread “freedom” everywhere.
So that leaves drug (and sometimes other vice) prohibition, where the background information is relatively simple to learn and the arguments easy to master. And so the conservatives and libertarians go round and round on the topic, each side usually arguing past the other, usually because they are each proceeding from different premises.
And the conservatives come away remembering the encounter as being mostly an argument about drugs. And both camps are frustrated because conservatives can’t understand why libertarians think prohibition is so awful, and libertarians can’t understand why conservatives don’t apply the same principles to personal vices as they apply to running a business.
Is there a way to work around this gap in cognition? I wish I knew. If libertarians strongly desire to work with conservatives on some matter of mutual interest, it may behoove them to focus on areas of agreement, and if the matter of drugs come up, state their position simply and clearly but avoid getting drawn into lengthy debates which are unlikely to be resolved. Agree to disagree and move on.
And remember that even if an ad-hoc alliance with either conservatives or progressives offers some tactical advantages, libertarians are not likely to argue them out of being conservatives or progressives. Like some smart fellow I know says, “You can’t argue someone out of a position he was never argued into.”
Kategorie anarchy | 14 Kommentare »
The other “argument” that conservatives love to puke up against libertarianism is that libertarians are against ALL use of force, not just the initiation of force, and that we disavow the use of force in self-defense.
While there are some libertarians that espouse that sort of thinking, they’re a minority of the (libertarian) population. Most of the libertarians that I know are rather outspoken in support of people defending themselves, and having the tools and skills to do so effectively.
That does come up with annoying frequency but it’s just a misunderstanding about what “initiate force” means, and is fairly easily cleared up, assuming the conservative is arguing in good faith. The pot debate goes much deeper, into the individualist/collectivist divide.
What amazes me is that conservatives seem to know nothing (or next to nothing) about either the pharmacological qualities of THC nor the industrial uses to which the products of cannabis cultivation – which had been a billion-dollar industry in the ’30s before its criminalization – can and are put without regard to the production of THC.
Which, with cannabis strains selected and grown specifically for fiber, pulp, seed, and oil, is minimal. Think “ditchweed” in terms of drug potency.
I’m of the opinion that the argument for “medical marijuana” – which is admittedly of limited use in and of itsel – tends to obscure the fact that by making marijuana a Schedule 1 substance under CDS statutes, the federal government has removed THC and many of its congeners and derivatives even from clinical research on the value of these compounds in pharmaceutical compoundings of greater consistency, longer duration, and better applicability in treatment.
What the hell is served by prohibiting *research* on THC and the other chemicals on Schedule 1? Where did this come from, and why?
Marinol (dronabinol) and Cesamet (nabilone) notwithstanding, there’s entirely too little work done in – or being done in – a potentially very promising area of pharmaceutical research, and much of this is due to the Drug War hysteria of popularity contest winners and lifetime “civil servants.”
I’ll be honest with you, the practicality of legalizing weed is going to be pretty difficult, legislation did not get rid of weed, the automobile did. You could have a license to buy and smoke weed or a license to drive a car (30 day waiting period to switch them out) You could not have both. unfortunately, most are not even willing to discuss it as a practical issue, it’s like those damned abortion iconoclasts, my way or the highway. You know how religious people are. They’d burn the whole world down to get points with God.
I’m a conservative and I disagree with you. In my opinion, a true conservative would be for the legalization of drugs, because this means less government, less control over an individual’s life. That is what it means to be conservative. And while I agree, Conservative Christians can often muddy up the waters on these issues, because of their moral beliefs it is not fair to group all conservatives together like you are doing. This is just the reverse of what you are saying conservatives say about Libertarians. And I do think drugs will be legalized, it is the logical way to go. Studies show that crime rates go down, and it can be a highly lucrative business for both individual business people and for the government through taxes.
Tori, I have from time to time run into other conservatives who are able to see the problems with drug prohibition. And I appreciate that you do. But you are a minority within your ideological category.
The way I look at it, wanting less govt. control over individual lives is an individualistic principle, not a conservative one. Modern conservatives carry around a mix of individualist and collectivist ideas, which accrete over time as a result of historical alliances and reactions. They generally do not proceed from fundamental premises, the way libertarianism does.
Yes, it does grate to be lumped in with a group of people you self-identify with, on the matter of one topic on which you disagree with most of them. But you have chosen to identify with a group which, for the most part, supports the drug war. And it is difficult to talk about politics without some generalizing.
So, I suggest that rather than complain to libertarians about lumping you in with a group you have chosen to lump yourself with already, you might get more satisfactory results by either working to persuade your group that they are in error, or ending your association with them.
Has anyone noticed a basic boilerplate tendency in right (and left) criticism of libertarianism, especially of radical libertarianism? I’m not sure whether to call it boilerplate or cant or stock catchphrases or just plain cliche, but it’s there all the same. What it tends to indicate, to me, is that rightists will read conservative criticism of libertarianism, but not the thing criticized, or if they have, they haven’t much thought about it for themselves.
this is a good example of what I mean.
Yes, I’ve noticed a tendency of “birds of a feather” to congeal into various Internet fora of their own wherein they form echo-chambers, generating fun-house-mirror distortions of whatever it is they’re criticizing, including libertarians. The lazier among them will believe that what they learn in these echo chambers comprises all they need to know about the topic.
Of course, libertarians can be guilty of this as well.
When among friends I’ll do my best to discourage that sort of behavior. If libertarianism were to devolve into a set of empty conceits, I wouldn’t blame anyone who lost interest.
My big challenge with the “party platform” of the Libertarian Party is a seemingly simplistic view of foreign relations. I agree in principle that we should attempt to follow Washington’s advice to avoid foreign entanglements, but we cannot realistically avoid all foreign treaties.
John
RDB echoes what I’ve heard from some of the most ignorant people I’ve known, who only memorize two kinds of things: rap lyrics and urban legends about what a pharmacological-industrial godlmine is locked up in the cannibis plant. Surely, Libertarians who hear people spout off like that must be repeating that quote from Labyrinth: “[Dude], stay off my side.”
The editorial staff at the New Republic, for 60 years the intellectual center of american conservatism, has long favored the legalizing of marijuana. Yet that otherwise influential magazine hasn’t made much headway among conservatives because their base, as Scott has pointed out, consists of people who believe it’s legitimate for government to regulate behavior based on certain moral conditions.
Regarding drugs and pornography, libertarians find common ground with liberals, who tend to be radical individualists. Libertarians lose common ground on property rights, though, because liberals are overwhelmingly radical egalitarians.
Republican-style conservatives are generally protective of property rights and the right to self-defense, but are not in favor of legalizing what are sometimes called victimless crimes. Libertarians defend the right to make bad choices out of absolute — one could say radical — dedication to an indivisible principle, the right of choice when such choices do not immediately or directly infringe on the well-being of others.
The second-most toxic pill that keeps Republican-style conservatives from joining effectively with Libertarians, is the drug issue. But certainly the most poisonous pill is the pro-choice Libertarian position on abortion. As in all things there are dissenting Libertarians on this issue, but overall the party and philosophy, as I understand, is pro-choice.
Am I wrong?
Well, I conclude from this that you are an honest libertarian, sir. I know too many Republicans who seem to believe that they are “libertarians” – in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Good luck to you.
An interesting theory. Personally, however, I favor the “vocal minority” theory of interaction (which, IMO, Mr. P. McConkie, above, demonstrates effectively without meaning to). While you say the libertarian argument against drug laws is not “I like to use drugs and should not be punished for doing so,” stop and consider the small but almost inevitable group of people who joined the party for that exact reason. I don’t know they exist, but my understanding of that type of mind indicates the likelihood is high enough to make it a safe assumption. And if they exist (which I argue is a given), then some of them WILL be vocal about it.
Take, for example, the “average American’s” perspective on the Muslim faith. I’m willing to bet that the actual majority of people honestly believe that most Muslims are, essentially, just like Christians without actually being Christians. Hell, in my personal experience, most Muslims are more Christian than every Christian I’ve known personally. However, I’m also willing to be that most people believe that the majority of people around them believe otherwise.
I don’t know much about libertarianism, so I will try to avoid that trap by talking in generalities. And then I’ll get up on my soapbox about my favorite political subject, anarchy, but first the generalities.
Every type of interaction between people on any scale has its advantages and disadvantages. Religion can give people hope, guide their moral decisions where empathy fails, and give people a reason to come together. It can also give people a reason to leave the important decisions in their life to someone else, foster an “us-vs-them” attitude, and cause confusion about the actual consequences of those same moral decisions.
Any organized governmental system can help protect the people under it, organize vital support infrastructure, and provide a structure for technological growth. It can also be used to oppress people, to deny access to vital support infrastructure, and censor certain “dangerous” technologies.
And then there’s anarchy, which is special and will be getting the bulk of this comment.
On the pro side, anarchy allows the ultimate in personal freedom and determinism. Virtually imitless opportunities for development in any direction one sees fit. Pure freedom of communication. Even people who are opposed to anarchy (and we’ll be getting into the whys and wherefores of that momentarily) agree on these points.
However (there’s always a however), anarchy suffers from a number of stigma:
1) “The war of all against all.” Many people believe that anarchy means violent, chaotic upheaval. Not only is this not true, it is not necessarily how an anarchy would come to be. People talk about “human nature being what it is” and assume that the only thing keeping people from running around stealing, raping, killing, and promoting rigged sporting events is the fear of punishment.
That may be true for some, but lack of laws does not mean lack of rules. The penalty for murder in an anarchy would likely be death, if only as a preventative measure. The process of determining guilt or innocence may vary, and it may take anywhere from moments to days to settle on the punishment, but the argument would be pretty heavily weighted in favor of death:
“If you want to try to ‘rehabilitate’ this poor idiot, you’re more than welcome to keep him in YOUR house. As for me, if I see him anywhere near my children, I will not hesitate to put a bullet in him. In fact, why the hell are we arguing about this? Gimme my gun, I’ll shoot the f–ker right now!”
I’ve always been fond of saying of Christians that while they fear atheists, agnostics, and pagans because there’s no one telling them “Thou shalt not kill,” I fear Christians more because they have to be told.
B) “That’s not the way we do things.” Anarchy on a large scale has yet to be tried. Like Communism, however, it is unlikely to succeed except in either a small community or in a large, completely independent, strictly isolated “nation.” Given the lessons of history, particularly of the 20th century, I see it as unlikely except in the way depicted in “Escape from Terra” – on an isolated colony world. And even in “Escape,” that colony has to put on a song and dance, convincing the Terran government that an actual government exists.
In any case, fear of the unknown is a vital survival instinct, no matter how misguided people may think it is. It keeps people from rushing headlong into things with pointy teeth the size of Volvos with nothing more than a sharp stick. It takes an effort of will, however, to realize that fear for what it is, and to use it as a reason to be cautious without panicking.
III) The stigma. When most people think of anarchy, they think of the angry punk rockers portrayed in modern popular media. (SLC Punk does a great job of not only using this trope but undermining it at the end, and I highly recommend it. Plus it’s chock full of dark humor.)
Because of this image, it’s difficult for many people to accept the idea that anarchy can be decided upon rationally, after careful consideration and deliberation. It’s much easier to picture what we’ve already been shown.
FISH) (I ran out of types of enumeration.) Herd mentality. Human beings are, essentially, herd animals. As such, they move in groups, are more prone to blind panic in larger numbers, and instinctively look to others for leadership.
The first one is not necessarily going to undermine the possibility of anarchy, and the second one has little to do with the subject at all, but the third one can be either an anarchy’s greatest threat or its saving grace.
In a time of defense, one should look to the best tacticians for leadership. In the event of a dispute, one should look to the most fair. Unfortunately, it is possible – in fact, it is disappointingly easy – for someone who craves power to pretend to be exactly the sort of person can best lead in a given situation. Look at ANY political campaign for examples.
And now we come back to libertarianism and the perception thereof.
A personal anecdote:
I was once called a pinko for disliking the country hit “God Bless the U.S.A.” My reasoning was not based on my political views, which were only just beginning to lean towards capitalist anarchy at the time, but based on the song’s aesthetic content, which I felt was almost nil. The tune is good – for country – but the lyrics are incredibly saccharine and clunky. But because the song was about America and how awesome a place it is and how it is exactly what its founders intended and God’s favorite place on Earth, it was automatically a good song and disliking it was unpatriotic.
A “pinko.” I ask you, is that a word to use in anything other than an ironic manner since the end of the Reagan administration?
By extension, it is easy for libertarians to be tarred with similar brushes based on the loosest associations.
Pro choice? You baby-killing commie!
Against gun control? Fascist! (Nevermind that in a fascist state, regulating weaponry is a necessary step to ensuring that those in power remain in power. Hint, hint, U.K. And U.S.A. for that matter, although to a much lesser extent.)
In favor of legalizing drugs? Low-life punk! (Nevermind that punk is a musical genre or a term for a juvenile delinquent, and not a political viewpoint at all.)
In the end, no amount of education will get through to absolutely everybody. And those who are most ignorant will contain among them those who will sound off with whatever they believe to be the truth, simply because such people are dispersed fairly evenly between the ignorant and the informed, the right and the wrong, the competent and the dangerously inept.
While it may not be true that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, it is definitely true that the squeaky wheel is more likely to be noticed.
And the “deviant” squeaky wheel is definitely going to be more entertaining, which means that it will get much more news coverage.
TLDR – HOLY CRAP DID I RAMBLE.