In Which Milton Friedman Defends James Delingpole
Earlier this week, James Delingpole put up a post entitled, "Why Not?", quoting Ron Paul's question, "Why is it that we can't put into our body whatever we want?"
James received a deluge of comments, many of them denouncing the libertarian position in terms that (frankly, and alas) sailed pretty close to the Ricochet CoC. Yet as unpopular as James's question may have proven, I was reminded, no less a figure than Milton Friedman would have endorsed it, completely and heartily.
In a podcast they'll be recording on Tuesday, James and Paul Rahe will be debating the war on drugs, providing us all with the intellectual equivalent of King Kong versus Godzilla.
In the meantime, I thought I'd post an excerpt from an episode of Uncommon Knowledge, dating back to 2000, in which Milton Friedman and California Gov. Pete Wilson warm up for James and Paul. (The excerpt favors Milton, but in the full exchange Pete Wilson gets in punches of his own.)
Milton Friedman: The dollars are the least of it. What the real costs is what is done to our judicial system, what is done to our civil rights, what is done to other countries. I want Pete Wilson to tell me how he can justify destroying Colombia because we cannot enforce our laws. If we can enforce our laws, our laws prohibit the consumption of illegal drugs. If we can enforce those, it would be no problem about Colombia. But, as it is, we have caused th--tens of thousands of deaths in Colombia and other Latin American countries. I think that prohibition of drugs is the most immoral program--immoral program that the United States has ever engaged in. It's destroyed civil rights at home and it's destroyed nations…
Peter Robinson: It's destroyed civil rights at home because of large numbers of Blacks and Hispanics and…
[Talking at same time]
Peter Robinson: …what do you mean by that?
Milton Friedman: No, no. It's destroyed civil rights at home for a very simple reason. If you take laws against murder or theft…
Peter Robinson: Right.
Milton Friedman: …there's a victim who has an interest in reporting it. So if somebody is--has a burglary, he calls the cops and the cops come and investigate. Now in drug use, in the--when you try to prevent somebody from ingesting something he wants to ingest, you have a willing buyer and a willing seller. There's a deal made.
Peter Robinson: No one has an interest in reporting it.
Milton Friedman: No one has an interest--and so the only way you can enforce it is through informers. That's the way in which the Soviet Union tried to enforce similar la--laws, laws which tried to prevent people from saying things they shouldn't say. Th--what's the difference, Pete, between s--p--saying to somebody, the government may tell you what you can take in your mouth but the government may not tell you what you may say out of your mouth?
- Comment (82)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Jan '12
Re: In Which Milton Friedman Defends James Delingpole
I suppose the Burkean answer is that legalizing marijuana and similar drugs runs counter to our traditions, while our ancestors have imbibed alcohol for thousands of years. Make of that argument what you will. I'll just note that while some states have attempted to legalize marijuana for certain medical uses, the plain and open use for recreational purposes has been voted down even in California.
Dec '10
Re: In Which Milton Friedman Defends James Delingpole
For me, the counter-argument is the same. The willing buyer in Friedman's formulation imposes costs on the rest of us: unless and until those costs can be turned back on the willing buyer, he ought not to do things that harm the rest of us.
May '10
Re: In Which Milton Friedman Defends James Delingpole
Even Milton could be wrong. The snippet above makes an economic case for legalization. But, the case against legalization has never been economic. The case against legalization has always been the welfare of society, both morally and behaviorally. Make that case.
The dilemma remains that the libertarian position is one that requires a relativistic position on morality. But no society long survives moral relativisim. And that because moral relativism is a fatally flawed perspective; sooner or later my relative morals are going to conflict with your relative morals. Libertarianism is fun while it lasts, but it cannot last long. It sows the seeds of its own destruction.
Furthermore, the behavioral consequences: what do the libertarians propose to do about neglected children whose parents are "one toke over the line?" There is a piper to be paid. And I don't want to pay the piper so that you can dance.
Jun '10
Re: In Which Milton Friedman Defends James Delingpole
Peter Robinson
James received a deluge of comments, many of them denouncing the libertarian position in terms that (frankly, and alas) sailed pretty close to the Ricochet CoC.
This is exactly why my posting at Ricochet has slowed to a crawl, Peter. Dealing over and over with irrational argument and personal insults starts to wear down even the most thick-skinned of people.
Feb '11
Re: In Which Milton Friedman Defends James Delingpole
Peter, thank you for the great excerpt! It is always nice to go back and watch your interviews with Friedman; if only we had a modern Friedman making the case. I look forward to hearing the Rahe Delingpole debate.
Dec '10
Re: In Which Milton Friedman Defends James Delingpole
I don't quite disagree with either Delingpole or Friedman on what people do in private. And I hate the argument that what they do in those sessions costs the rest of us. Such an argument smacks of collectivism. As long as addicts take care of their responsibilities and are willing to forgo or pay directly for treatment of medical conditions that may have come from their "private" actions, I'm jiggy with it.
On the other hand, they aren't generally willing to do these things. So their children suffer, my children suffer through contact with their children, homes are repossessed, property values drop, medical bills rise without end.
When I teach my own children not to stick needles in their arms, I want the backing of every resource. I want there to be a social taboo. I want it to be illegal. I want the church's backing as well.
Once the government has prohibited an act, to repeal that prohibition is quite painful for everyone involved. Taxing something gives explicit social acceptance of an act, dropping a prohibition gives implicit acceptance.
Feb '11
Re: In Which Milton Friedman Defends James Delingpole
Friedman absolutely did make the moral argument, and those who say his arguments were strictly economic do not understand Friedman's arguments: “Now here's somebody who wants to smoke a marijuana cigarette. If he's caught, he goes to jail. Now is that moral? Is that proper? I think it's absolutely disgraceful that our government, supposed to be our government, should be in the position of converting people who are not harming others into criminals, of destroying their lives, putting them in jail. That's the issue to me. The economic issue comes in only for explaining why it has those effects. But the economic reasons are not the reasons”
Edited on February 19, 2012 at 9:15pmFeb '11
Re: In Which Milton Friedman Defends James Delingpole
These arguments opposed to Friedman and Delingpole are all tenuous collectivist arguments that could be used to justify any/every regulation and exercise of government power: (1) My neighbor not mowing his lawn affects my home value, time for government to step in. (2) My healthy young neighbor foregoing purchasing health insurance increases my costs, time for government to step in. (3) My neighbor has bare land that he won't share, we need government to usurp some of his land for a public park. (4) My neighbor wants to compete with me in my line of work, government needs to make licensing restrictions. To those who use "externalities" as a justification, where do you stop?
Edited on February 19, 2012 at 9:25pmOct '10
Re: In Which Milton Friedman Defends James Delingpole
Casey Taylor
This is exactly why my posting at Ricochet has slowed to a crawl, Peter. Dealing over and over with irrational argument and personal insults starts to wear down even the most thick-skinned of people.
As a wise person said to me three decades ago, speaking of mainframe system programmers, “It isn't that they're thick-skinned; it's that their scales don't peel easily.”
Being a libertarian, even around here, often requires reinforced carbon-carbon scales. Works for me, but those of us inclined to agree with the estimable Delingpole may find ourselves on the outs here.
I would like to hear, in this dialogue, a defence by those who favour prohibition of the hundreds of thousands of lives destroyed by having acquired a criminal record due to possession of a substance which injures no third party.
Extra credit: defend the apparatus which seeks to entrap doctors prescribing medication to people suffering from chronic pain.
And then try to find where any of this is an enumerated power of the federal government in the Constitution.
Feb '11
Re: In Which Milton Friedman Defends James Delingpole
Ok, maybe "economic" is a poor choice of words. But it remains that Friedman is denying that indirect, hard to quantify effects could be actionable - that communities don't have an interest unless the consequences are quantifiably linked to harm amongst individuals. I disagree; the community as an extension of the individuals living within it has interests too. The difference between this and the Soviets is scale, formal acknowledgement of limits, and the ability to persuade fellow citizens and democratically change the law.
Feb '11
Re: In Which Milton Friedman Defends James Delingpole
The difference is scale? By that do you mean the Soviets limited socialism to the Soviet Union, and we have expanded our drug war around the world? Or do you mean the Soviet Union had their tyranny imposed by party leders while we have it imposed by democracy? Either way, your problem is a failure to respect individual liberty in favor of limitless government.
May '10
Re: In Which Milton Friedman Defends James Delingpole
That is exactly right. If the consequences of drug use remained completely with the user then I agree with Milton Friedman's position.
Aug '10
Re: In Which Milton Friedman Defends James Delingpole
Jerry Broaddus: I don't quite disagree with either Delingpole or Friedman on what people do in private. And I hate the argument that what they do in those sessions costs the rest of us. Such an argument smacks of collectivism. As long as addicts take care of their responsibilities and are willing to forgo or pay directly for treatment of medical conditions that may have come from their "private" actions, I'm jiggy with it.
On the other hand, they aren't generally willing to do these things.
Well, that's just it, isn't it? They aren't generally willing to do these things. Or they're at least predictably a ton less likely to do these things.
I know several fairly hardcore libertarians that nonetheless harbor serious misgivings about the legalization of all drugs, particularly in conjunction with the welfare state.
Uncle Miltie said something about how you can't have open borders and a welfare state at the same time. How can you have unrestricted drug use and a welfare state at the same time?
Yes, the question smacks of collectivism, but as long as there's a large welfare state, we have that problem.
Edited on February 19, 2012 at 9:55pmFeb '11
Re: In Which Milton Friedman Defends James Delingpole
Andrea with your externalities argument in mind, what action of yours does not have some indirect effect on third parties?
Re: In Which Milton Friedman Defends James Delingpole
There is one potential problem with the Delingpole-Rahe debate, and that is Rahe. He does not know what he thinks about the question of marijuana and is willing to entertain arguments on both sides -- which is to say, he is a squish, and that is really boring. On the question of meth, cocaine, and heroin, he is considerably firmer. But he is not willing to deny that the enforcement of laws prohibiting these is free from undesirable consequences. He will, however, fortify himself for the struggle with a Scotch.
May '10
Re: In Which Milton Friedman Defends James Delingpole
Seriously? You want to compare some behavior of mine with a drug user's? I'm not even participating in that ridiculous exercise.
Re: In Which Milton Friedman Defends James Delingpole
Scotch. Hm. Is that unregulated in Michigan?
Add me to the long, long list of those looking forward to your exchange with James.
Sep '10
Re: In Which Milton Friedman Defends James Delingpole
There's a problem with this: it just isn't true. We can and do test for unsafe drug use, particularly for people operating vehicles. You don't need a network of informers. This is just flat out false.
I'll repeat what I said in response to James Delingpole's post: if you're piloting an airplane, you'd better not "put into your body whatever you want." Even if you don't kill anyone else, it would be a loss of a good aircraft.
Aug '10
Re: In Which Milton Friedman Defends James Delingpole
It wasn't perfect, but what if we simply returned to the pre-War-on-Drugs system, where pretty much any substance was legal under a physician's prescription?
True, there was a certain amount of fraud -- physicians who became "writing fools", dispensing prescriptions to anyone who asked, no questions asked. But if you were a person capable of using drugs in an orderly fashion, all you'd have to do was check in with a physician once in a while to make sure that this was still the case.
I doubt such a system would be compatible with bureaucratized medicine, though. Or a hyper-litigious society :-(
Edited on February 20, 2012 at 1:57amJun '10
Re: In Which Milton Friedman Defends James Delingpole
Andrea Ryan
Seriously? You want to compare some behavior of mine with a drug user's? I'm not even participating in that ridiculous exercise. · 1 minute ago
Don't give up yet! If you hang in there for a second, he actually has a pretty good point. The drug trade has some fairly obvious negative consequences, but many, many other trades do, as well. Do you wear makeup? Do you drink coffee or eat chocolate? Do you drive a car? Do you use rechargeable batteries? Each one of those activities involves severe harm to human beings somewhere in the manufacturing and distribution process.
Edited on February 20, 2012 at 5:32am