Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
James Delingpole has raised a useful question. Let me start by saying that we should take Ron Paul and the radical libertarians at their word on the question he recently posed: Why is it we can’t put into our bodies whatever we want?
The simple, straightforward answer is that some substances make one a danger to everyone else. Marijuana may or may not be such a substance. That is an empirical question. That some substances have this effect is, however, perfectly clear. Which ones they are deserves debate and rumination. The abstract question can, however, easily be answered.
There is another issue that deserves reflection as well. Some substances leave one incapable of performing one's duties as a citizen. I have meth especially in mind. One of those duties is that one take proper care of one's children, and meth produces in its users (as we see in rural Michigan all too often) a lassitude incompatible with the performance of that particular duty.
In general, let me say, libertarians could learn a lot from social conservatives -- and vice-versa. Liberty presupposes responsibility, and libertines who foster irresponsibility are paving the road that leads to serfdom.
- Comment (108)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (9)
Comments:
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Gosh, all the libertarians seem to be partying at Paul's place. And all the angry social conservatives are choosing to drag their straw men over to my blog post. I think I prefer it here. Looking forward to our podcast: should be a good one.
Aug '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Stuart Creque
Misthiocracy
Alcohol, for example.
Alcohol, for example. · 59 minutes ago
Alcohol is highly regulated, in its production, distribution and consumption (more specifically, what a citizen may do under its influence).
And STILL it is abused, and STILL its abuse causes great harm to those of us who are not abusers.
So I am not sure how the legality of alcohol is a good argument for legalizing other psychotropic substances. · 5 minutes ago
If one's justifications for banning a certain substance also apply to alcohol, as I suggest Dr. Rahe's justifications do, why is alcohol legal?
(Furthermore, why was a constitutional amendment required to ban it?)
Edited on February 17, 2012 at 7:55pmMar '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Bryan G. Stephens:
Libertarians seem too caught up in legalism, and the letter of the law, that they do not see the greater contracts between people. All of life is not the contract between citizens and their government. There are other social contracts between each other.
Of course private citizens need to look after themselves and their families. But the reason we "libertarians" don't harp on about this is because we desire a society in which it is not necessary to remind people of this "duty", because incentives exist which induce this outcome organically.
Think of it this way: we all want retailers to offer us the lowest prices. But do retailers lower their prices because we as consumers are constantly going on TV and the internet and op-ed pages demanding it? Or because they fear ruin if they don't accede to the demands of society?
If parents are not responsible for and dependent on the behavior of their children, no amount of berating from television, internet fora or the pulpit will change that. That "social contract" will only be enforced by the kind of incentives that do not exist thanks to government coddling.
Mar '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
If there is anything I have learned from Ricochet, it is that a conversation where everyone agrees with each other gets boring real fast.
On the other hand, there is so much harmony emerging on this thread that it might be time to jump over to yours and start some mischief.
May '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Paul A. Rahe
Fredösphere: This also came up last year, I recall, in the UK where officials began asking if fat people ought continue to burden the National Health System disproportionately. In the context of a country with an NHS, why not use state power to tell fatties to hit the gym? . . .
Maximum liberty gets my vote. · 21 minutes ago
We are closer to being in agreement than you might think. Socialism -- which is what the NHS involves -- is incompatible with individual responsibility. Leaving it to individuals to take care of their own health is consistent with individual responsibility, and it encourages responsible conduct. When you pay for your own foolishness, you have a tendency to be less foolish. · 51 minutes ago
Doc, I'm with you 100% on this point, and in general at least 98%, but I fear I have not expressed myself clearly in some of my comments to your posts. I agreed so fully with your point that I felt free to go on a tangent.
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Skyler
Misthiocracy
I believe that the 4th and 5th amendments imply that citizens do not have an obligationto aid the police. · 3 minutes ago
And as for defending one's country and the rest of the supposed "duties," if the country is in such bad shape that it must coerce defense, then it's not much of a country worth defending.
Even if half the country is drug addled and opium addicted, in a free country we would still have plenty of people willing to defend it. Those who can't stay off drugs should have no obligations and should not have any benefits either.
Fear the ones who tell you that you have a duty to your country. · 20 minutes ago
In time of war, all countries have to resort to the draft. You are dreaming, my friend.
Dec '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Mendel
Bryan G. Stephens:
Libertarians seem too caught up in legalism, and the letter of the law, that they do not see the greater contracts between people. All of life is not the contract between citizens and their government. There are other social contracts between each other.
Of course private citizens need to look after themselves and their families. But the reason we "libertarians" don't harp on about this is because we desire a society in which it is not necessary to remind people of this "duty", because incentives exist which induce this outcome organically.
I am not sympathetic to arguments for legalizing illicit drugs so long as I have to pay for the consequences of others' abuse of those drugs. If a substance abuser lapses into dependency on others and cannot provide food and shelter for himself, much less his dependents, may we at long last be allowed to let him starve or die of exposure or die of untreated disease or injury, rather than being forced to pay taxes to deal with the consequences of his choices?
May '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Paul A. Rahe
Skyler: Just what, pray tell, are these "duties of a citizen?"
Meth is a nasty drug, as is cocaine and opium, but I'll be hanged if anyone tells me I have "duties of a citizen" that go beyond jury duty and otherwise minding my business. · 2 minutes ago
You have plenty of such duties. One is to help defend your country. Another is to come to the aid of the police in matters of crime. A third is to rear your children to be lawabiding and responsible citizens. I could go on. Freedom is inseparable from obligation. · 56 minutes ago
Maybe if Dr. Rahe specified moral duties and Skyler specified legal duties, we could have an agreement here.
Or, to put it another way, libertarianism is only a theory of government, not life. Wasn't it John Adams that said our Constitution assumed a devout people, and was doomed for any other? Liberty without self-control equals chaos.
Apr '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Mendel I don't think we can just reduce social contract to economic incentives. People care about more than just money, status, peace of mind, etc...The only way to enforce the moral norms is through constant social reprimands against transgressors. If you can shame people why fine them? I think it is good if people are constantly reminding you of your duty and responsibility, other wise you forget. Also the problem with the financial incentive is that for some it is financially very favorable to promote addiction to harmful substances.
If I am Jim Beam I would profit very greatly if every one drank a lot more. If I can keep my own neighborhood free of drunks what do I care how many are wondering through yours. That is your problem not mine. That kind of attitude leads to the breakdown of civilization. Profits can fail as a motivator, society need altruism to survive not just self interest (regardless of what Rand thinks).
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Mr. Younger, you are a man of faith. The market for alcohol increased enormously when prohibition ended, and the rate of alcoholism went up. I do not mean to assert that Prohibition was a good thing. It brought with it certain untoward consequences that may well have been worse than the gains. I mean only to assert that the claim you advance in your first sentence is implausible. With regard to alcohol, we engaged in a great experiment; we ended the experiment; and we can see the difference.
Aug '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
There was no right to private property in ancient Rome, as all land was the property of the Republic. It was acceptable, and preferred, to extract confessions through the use of torture. While ancient Rome is an example of a republic, is not an example of a free and democratic republic.
Also, I do not believe there were any laws against the use of recreational drugs in Ancient Rome. Cannabis and Opium were not unknown to them. Roman understanding of a citizen's "duty" did not extend to pharmaceutical abstinence.
(The earliest recorded legal prohibition of a recreational drug is the prohibition of alcohol ... under Sharia.)
Dec '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Bryan G. Stephens: . In fact, every civilization uses alcohol, and being able to process it is very strongly selected for in our genes.
· 36 minutes ago
No, every society does not. Muslim societies, for example.
May '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Paul A. Rahe
In time of war, all countries have to resort to the draft. You are dreaming, my friend. · 1 minute ago
Even if this were true and even if it were just, what does this have to do with peace time and civilian use of drugs?
I'm not saying one should use drugs. I'm not saying that people in the military, for instance, shouldn't be prohibited from using drugs whether they are volunteers or conscripts. But if someone is not in the military, does not have a critical job like pilot or . . . can't think of many others . . . then why should the government care if they use drugs?
That is, we can all agree that it is unwise to use drugs at any time. And we can even agree (not sure I do, but let's let it go) that citizens have duties that can be coerced. Is it then wise to require that all people at all times behave in a way that is consistent with whatever those duties might at some time be?
This is the same mushy logic that makes people think that light bulbs can be regulated.
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Jeff Younger
Those are statutory duties. One could fulfill all those duties and still be a poor citizen. In fact, your list is a subset of the Italian Fascist list of duties of citizens. It sheds no light on what a good citizen might be.
It might be useful to describe how your duties differ from the duties of men under fascism, socialism, and a free republic. · 49 minutes ago
Statutory duties? Maybe. I had in mind moral duties -- obligations implicit in being a citizen.
You are right that would be useful to consider how one's duties might differ under fascism, socialism, and a free republic. But that is not germane to this discussion.
You should write a post on the question. It might well be enlightening.
Dec '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Jim Beam is distilled in a dry county.
Mar '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Paul A. Rahe
In time of war, all countries have to resort to the draft. You are dreaming, my friend.
To bring things full circle, the last time our country resorted to a draft, the military was plagued by soldiers putting dangerous substances into their bodies.
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Misthiocracy
I believe that the 4th and 5th amendments imply that citizens do not have anobligationto aid the police.
In much the same way that there is a difference between agoodand aright, there is also a difference between agoodand anobligation.
It is good to be allowed to drive a car, but it is not a right to be allowed to drive a car. To make it a right would be to give individual too much power over the safety of others.
It is good to aid the police, but it is not an obligation. To make it an obligation would be to give the police too much power over the behavior of citizens. · 41 minutes ago
Edited 37 minutes ago
You mean that it is not a legal obligation, and in some cases it is not. It is a moral obligation, which is what I was talking about. Remember that I was responding to someone who did not think we had almost no moral obligations to the political community to which we belong.
May '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Foxman
Bryan G. Stephens: . In fact, every civilization uses alcohol, and being able to process it is very strongly selected for in our genes.
· 36 minutes ago
No, every society does not. Muslim societies, for example. · 1 minute ago
Apparently you've never been to a Muslim society!
Dec '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Misthiocracy
Stuart Creque
Alcohol is highly regulated, in its production, distribution and consumption (more specifically, what a citizen may do under its influence).
And STILL it is abused, and STILL its abuse causes great harm to those of us who are not abusers.
So I am not sure how the legality of alcohol is a good argument for legalizing other psychotropic substances. · 5 minutes ago
If one's justifications for banning a certain substance also apply to alcohol, as I suggest Dr. Rahe's justifications do, why is alcohol legal?
(Furthermore, why was a constitutional amendment required to ban it?)
Your second question answers your first. Alcohol has deep cultural roots in the West and the prevalence of alcohol use was nearly universal at the time the Volstead Act was passed. A vocal minority used political pressure to impose a solution on the majority, and eventually the majority reversed that solution.
So the majority said, "Yes, we know all about the evils of Demon Rum that the Temperance Ladies told us about, and we are willing to tolerate alcohol's damage and cost to society so that most of us can have harmless fun."
Can we say that about meth?
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Skyler
Paul A. Rahe
In time of war, all countries have to resort to the draft. You are dreaming, my friend. · 1 minute ago
Even if this were true and even if it were just, what does this have to do with peace time and civilian use of drugs? 3 minutes ago
You would do well to read comments in context. I was responding to someone who asserted that we have next to no duties to the political community.