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.Milton.jpg

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? 

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 81 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Profile Photo Member
    @EdG
    ultra vires: Ed, I appreciate your defense of our Republican form of government and I think many times it has worked. But, the problems with the drug war outlined in Peter’s post still stand, countless American and foreign lives have been destroyed not because of drugs – which they may be perfectly capable of doing – but because of the government’s attempt to abolish drug use. Perhaps this is a case that should fall under the “well defined limits” of what the federal government is prohibited from regulating. · 17 minutes ago

    Like Paul Rahe, I don’t have any firm opinions of the war on drugs (except probably the more potent varieties), and I’m not really trying to argue the merits of any particular policy. I’m more interested in the claim by some opponents that even having a policy is an illegitimate infringement of individual liberty, regardless of the effectiveness (or lack of). 

    • #31
  2. Profile Photo Inactive
    @StuartCreque
    Aodhan: So, why not prohibit the harm the drugs causes directly?

    Stuart Creque: 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.

    Good idea.

    We can, for example, authorize the police to remove derelicts made insensate by substance abuse from the doorways of businesses and from public parks and dump them at their homes, or in vacant lots if they have no homes.  Under no circumstances should we take them to hospital emergency rooms unless they have proof of financial responsibility.

    We can remove children from parents whose substance abuse has rendered them incapable of caring for their kids.  Not sure who pays for the care and feeding of those kids, though.  And of course, we can sterilize the incompetent parents (maybe temporarily, if they have a desire and hope of becoming competent again someday).

    We already have laws for substance abusers who can’t keep a job and resort to crime to pay for drugs.  Too bad about their victims, though.

    • #32
  3. Profile Photo Inactive
    @ultravires
    Ed G.

    Like Paul Rahe, I don’t have any firm opinions of the war on drugs (except probably the more potent varieties), and I’m not really trying to argue the merits of any particular policy. I’m more interested in the claim by some opponents that even having a policy is an illegitimate infringement of individual liberty, regardless of the effectiveness (or lack of).  · 8 minutes ago

    It is understandable to be skeptical of a policy complete individual liberty, but might I ask that you favor a presumption in favor of individual liberty rather than the usurpation of such liberty? (i.e., Place the burden on government to show why an outright ban of any use/sale of drugs substantially outweighs the principal of individual liberty and the actual use of that liberty.)

    • #33
  4. Profile Photo Inactive
    @dogsbody
    jetstream: Dogs, amphetamines were used by military pilots in WWII, Vietnam and I believe Desert Storm….

    Jets, on a much smaller scale, I’ve used coffee to be alert before a flight or two.  But James Delingpole’s original question was, “Why can’t we put whatever we want in our bodies” and that’s what I was responding to.

    On a tangent–someday we Ricochet pilots should have a fly-in….

    • #34
  5. Profile Photo Inactive
    @ultravires
    Aodhan: 

    Irony aside: once the principle of personal freedom is ceded, the engrenage begins. Today crack, tomorrow Sudafed. · 21 minutes ago

    What is today, but yesterday’s tomorrow?

    • #35
  6. Profile Photo Inactive
    @LowcountryJoe

    As a rule, I took whatever Friedman’s position was and adopted it for myself.  Very often, there was no need second guess myself as he made complete sense.  On those rare occasions where I felt uncomfortable with his positions, I did some serious reflection on balancing my preferences with what was best for the cause of liberty…and, needless to say, Friedman makes sense to me 99 times out of 100.  This topic is not one of those exceptions…for me at least.

    • #36
  7. Profile Photo Member
    @

    The fundamental disagreement is a priori…and insoluble.

    • #37
  8. Profile Photo Member
    @Midge

    Some musings…

    Libertarian philosophy rests on the idea that adults should be entrusted to look after their own selves.

    Few libertarians (if any) consider it an injustice that parents have a custodial role over children. Perhaps more might consider it an injustice that a retarded or psychotic adult may not be considered fit to decide for himself, but even here, I believe that most libertarians wouldn’t consider it a grave injustice if such adults were consigned to custodial care.

    But there are some drugs — like meth, for example — that routinely cause adults who are perfectly able (if not willing) to look after themselves to become unable to look after themselves for a very long time, if ever. These drugs turn adults into infants.

    Some people take jobs with a high risk of permanent injury, but they don’t go to their jobs looking to get injured. Drug abusers are looking to become (temporarily, at least) incapacitated…

    Suppose a libertarian society permits unrestricted drug use. Wouldn’t it also stigmatize the use of some of these drugs?

    For what could be worse, to a libertarian, than having done something to yourself that causes you to be incapable of individual autonomy?

    • #38
  9. Profile Photo Member
    @
    ultra vires

    Ed G.

    Like Paul Rahe, I don’t have any firm opinions of the war on drugs (except probably the more potent varieties), and I’m not really trying to argue the merits of any particular policy. I’m more interested in the claim by some opponents that even having a policy is an illegitimate infringement of individual liberty, regardless of the effectiveness (or lack of).  · 8 minutes ago

    It is understandable to be skeptical of a policy complete individual liberty, but might I ask that you favor a presumption in favor of individual liberty rather than the usurpation of such liberty? (i.e., Place the burden on government to show why an outright ban of any use/sale of drugs substantially outweighs the principal of individual liberty and the actual use of that liberty.) · 6 minutes ago

    Ask the child of a serious alcoholic or hard drug user.

    • #39
  10. Profile Photo Inactive
    @ultravires
    Stuart Creque

    Good idea.

    We can, for example, authorize the police to remove derelicts made insensate by substance abuse from the doorways of businesses and from public parks and dump them at their homes, or in vacant lots if they have no homes.  Under no circumstances should we take them to hospital emergency rooms unless they have proof of financial responsibility.

    We can remove children from parents whose substance abuse has rendered them incapable of caring for their kids.  Not sure who pays for the care and feeding of those kids, though.  And of course, we can sterilize the incompetent parents (maybe temporarily, if they have a desire and hope of becoming competent again someday).

    We already have laws for substance abusers who can’t keep a job and resort to crime to pay for drugs.  Too bad about their victims, though. · 8 minutes ago

    May you elaborate on this?  Are you saying the external costs from drug users imposed on society are (1) hospital costs the rest of us have to pay, (2) the aesthetic harm of seeing them at public parks, and (3) protective child services?

    • #40
  11. Profile Photo Inactive
    @Palaeologus
    Aodhan:

    Irony aside: once the principle of personal freedom is ceded, the engrenage begins. Today crack, tomorrow Sudafed. · 10 minutes ago

    Come now.

    One may as well say once a license is granted, the gears turn. Today mary jane may be ingested, tomorrow Mary Jane (voluntary cannibalism) may be ingested.

    It’s a harder call than that.

    Aodhan:

    As long as it’speople like uscalling the shots forpeople like them, it’ll all be fine.

    Funny, that is exactly how I see the calls for legalization from people whose neighborhoods won’t end up with a dope shop on every corner. We passed medical marijuana in MI in 2008. For months in advance there was a veritable army of glaucoma sufferers marching for relief.

    Let me tell you, it’s been nothing but a local economic boom to see 10 dope dispensaries pop-up within 2 miles of my house. Meanwhile, the ratio of home owners to renters has plummeted, along with property values. Did one cause the other? Certainly not. Did it exacerbate it? Possibly.

    This is a tough issue.

    The reactionary in me says: If the leftists are for it, I’m agin it.

    • #41
  12. Profile Photo Inactive
    @ultravires
    Tom Lindholtz

    ultra vires

    Ed G.

    Like Paul Rahe, I don’t have any firm opinions of the war on drugs (except probably the more potent varieties), and I’m not really trying to argue the merits of any particular policy. I’m more interested in the claim by some opponents that even having a policy is an illegitimate infringement of individual liberty, regardless of the effectiveness (or lack of).  · 8 minutes ago

    It is understandable to be skeptical of a policy complete individual liberty, but might I ask that you favor a presumption in favor of individual liberty rather than the usurpation of such liberty? (i.e., Place the burden on government to show why an outright ban of any use/sale of drugs substantially outweighs the principal of individual liberty and the actual use of that liberty.) · 6 minutes ago

    Ask the child of a serious alcoholic or hard drug user. · 4 minutes ago

    Are you arguing to for the prohibition of alcohol?

    • #42
  13. Profile Photo Member
    @EdG
    ultra vires

    Ed G.

    Like Paul Rahe, I don’t have any firm opinions of the war on drugs (except probably the more potent varieties), and I’m not really trying to argue the merits of any particular policy. I’m more interested in the claim by some opponents that even having a policy is an illegitimate infringement of individual liberty, regardless of the effectiveness (or lack of).  

    It is understandable to be skeptical of a policy complete individual liberty, but might I ask that you favor a presumption in favor of individual liberty rather than the usurpation of such liberty? (i.e., Place the burden on government to show why an outright ban of any use/sale of drugs substantially outweighs the principal of individual liberty …..

    Yes, I agree that there should be a presumption of individual liberty. Who’s to determine whether the burden of proof has been met? Who’s going to determine what the burden of proof even is? At some point the citizens of a community do make those determinations and act on them with votes; it’s not as if the war on drugs is being imposed without regard to the legitimate democratic process. 

    • #43
  14. Profile Photo Inactive
    @JohnMulder

    We often debate the merits of marajuana and other recreational drugs. What about the controlled status of the vast number of prescription drugs? What is the societal costs of regulating these demonstrably helpful substances by requiring a medical doctor’s approval for each dispensation?

    • #44
  15. Profile Photo Inactive
    @Viator

    Tax the hell out of it and regulate it.  Win -win.

    • #45
  16. Profile Photo Inactive
    @ultravires
    Ed G.

    Yes, I agree that there should be a presumption of individual liberty. Who’s to determine whether the burden of proof has been met? Who’s going to determine what the burden of proof even is? At some point the citizens of a community do make those determinations and act on them with votes; it’s not as if the war on drugs is being imposed without regard to the legitimate democratic process.  · 0 minutes ago

    Well at the federal level it should be the Constitution – for the same reason we do not subject your freedom of speech to a popular vote we should not subject your other individual liberties to a popular vote – and at the local level I concede (so did Friedman) it is a closer call.  At least as long as this drug war is conducted on a local scale individuals are free to move elsewhere within the country to live their lives without interference of the nanny state.

    • #46
  17. Profile Photo Member
    @GeorgeSavage
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake: 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. · 2 hours ago

    MFR, this has long been my own position.  Devolve drug policy to the states.  If certain drugs of abuse should be prohibited, then prohibit them.  However, the War on Drugs is another matter altogether, leading over time to the militarization of police forces as well as all manner of sting operations, draconian minimum mandatory sentences applying disproportionately to lower-income inner city residents and, yes, entrapment of physicians for writing “too many” opioid prescriptions.

    • #47
  18. Profile Photo Member
    @

    I’m curious when Michelle Obama’s Brownshirts begin cracking down on the sale of corndogs outside schools and who she’s recruiting right now as informers.

    • #48
  19. Profile Photo Contributor
    @PeterRobinson
    George Savage

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake: 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. · 2 hours ago

    MFR, this has long been my own position.  Devolve drug policy to the states.  If certain drugs of abuse should be prohibited, then prohibit them.  . · 4 minutes ago

    “Devolve drug policy to the states.”  No doubt I should be embarrassed to admit this, but that had simply never occurred to me.

    If it’s good enough for Midget and George, it’s good enough for me.  As of now–if provisionally (I’ll need to sleep on it, I suppose)–this is my position, too.

    • #49
  20. Profile Photo Inactive
    @FeliciaB

    Here is a little real world example of legalizing and “regulating” marijuana.  Recently a marijuana dispensary in my town got a business license under the guise of being a “natural health products” store.  Once the competing dispensaries heard of their success, they began to line up and start their own store fronts.  

    Eventually, a quiet business area turned into a drug dealer’s party zone with the majority of the clientele high school students.  See, according to California’s poorly written law legalizing “medical” marijuana, the customer only needs a Dr.’s recommendation.  

    I forgot to mention that prostitution was also being conducted from the dispensary sites.  That’s the problem with places that dispense marijuana or other illegal substances, they always attract the loser crowd.  Like in Paleologus’ story above, other cities who have been trying to get rid of the dispensaries have seen a marked rise in crime and general lowering in property values.

    • #50
  21. Profile Photo Inactive
    @FredCole

    The War on Drugs is an example of horrible self perpetuating public policy.  

    But, don’t take my word for it, I’m a crazy anarchist.

    Let’s throw this to National Review.  Their 12 Feb 1996 was on Drug Legalization was entitled The War On Drugs is Lost.

    • #51
  22. Profile Photo Member
    @AndreaRyan
    Casey Taylor

    Don’t give up yet!  If you hand in there for a second, he actually has a pretty good point….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.

    Casey, I like you and I like the tone you generally use in conversations.  I can see that you’re trying in a light way to engage me.  I will always listen to what you have to say, but you need to make your point using your own behavior.  Not mine.  And I don’t see us as being on different sides, in general.  This topic, yes.  I’m sure I have libertarian tendencies in some of my views and I can certainly understand arguments that you make.  I just may not always agree.  It should be OK that I disagree.  Just like I think it’s OK when you disagree with me.  That’s the great part about Ricochet.  I leave with my brain heavily exercised and, hopefully, I learn something new.  Or think about something differently.

    • #52
  23. Profile Photo Member
    @AndreaRyan
    Peter Robinson

    George Savage

    MFR, this has long been my own position.  Devolve drug policy to the states.  If certain drugs of abuse should be prohibited, then prohibit them.  . · 4 minutes ago

    “Devolve drug policy to the states.”  No doubt I should be embarrassed to admit this, but that had simply never occurred to me.

    If it’s good enough for Midget and George, it’s good enough for me.  As of now–if provisionally (I’ll need to sleep on it, I suppose)–this is my position, too. · 1 hour ago

    Great!  Let’s start with your state, Peter. :-)  Just kidding.  I’m probably OK with that, too.  I’m almost always in favor of leaving the power to the states.  I’m too tired right now to remember who made the comment that states make great incubators, but I like that metaphor.  This is certainly a topic I’m not going to die on a hill over.

    • #53
  24. Profile Photo Member
    @AndreaRyan
    James Delingpole: @caseytaylor anonymous @ultravires

    Thanks chaps. You have restored my faith in, well, in at least one part of America… · 3 hours ago

    Hey, that’s not fair.  I’m not a Libertarian, but there’s still a lot of grey area we agree on.  And your podcasts are my absolute favorites to listen to.  So, don’t count me out.  Besides, I just bought your autobiography. :-)

    • #54
  25. Profile Photo Inactive
    @CaseyTaylor
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake

    Casey Taylor

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake

    Umm… Casey. Coffee and chocolate are drugs. At least in my book. (For the record, I love them both.) · 2 minutes ago

    When you say drugs, I think you mean necessities. And please, call me Roget.

    Isn’t that what addicts alwayssay, Roget? · 3 hours ago

    Edited 3 hours ago

    When you say addicts, I hear devotees.  Like with a fanzine, even.

    • #55
  26. Profile Photo Member
    @AndreaRyan
    jetstream: Dogs, amphetamines were used by military pilots in WWII, Vietnam and I believe Desert Storm.  Provigil, an alertness drug with minimal side affects, has been claimed to be widely used by the military – I was told, it was used by pilots during the first mission against Libya in the 1980’s.  Maybe Casey Taylor can  speak to it’s current use. · 3 hours ago

    My husband was a flight surgeon and has about 1,000 hours of flight time in F/A-18s and F-15s, so I just asked him.  The answer is yes.  They use amphetamine derivatives, similar to ADD drugs.  But they are usually only given when acute concentration is required for long periods of time…i.e on a transpac when you’re tanking fighter jets across the Pacific.  But, always under physician prescription and supervision.

    • #56
  27. Profile Photo Inactive
    @CaseyTaylor
    Leslie Watkins: Devil’s definitely in the details with this one!

    3 hours ago

    Most certainly.  The more important the details, the larger the devil, unfortunately.

    • #57
  28. Profile Photo Inactive
    @CaseyTaylor
    dogsbody

    Your interpretation is more charitable than mine–I just thought he was engaging in sloppy reasoning for the sake of making a rhetorical point.

    I’m not in favor of the War on Drugs–just to choose one example, I believe the heavily armed “no-knock” raids on American homes are absolutely unacceptable.  But I don’t think the only alternative is just to legalize them. 

    Uncle Miltie certainly had a tendency toward scoring rhetorical points, but I’ve found that he could always defend his reasoning when called upon to do so. 

    You and Leslie are both absolutely correct.  Getting this right is a matter of utmost urgency — 47,500 dead Mexicans in five years tells us so, if nothing else does — for reasons greater than the militarization of our police forces (though that’s a huge concern of mine, as well).  Since marijuana makes up over 60% of the profits for cross-border drug trade, I think there’s a very strong case to be made that legalization would do more harm to the cartels than what we’ve tried so far. 

    • #58
  29. Profile Photo Inactive
    @CaseyTaylor
    jetstream: Dogs, amphetamines were used by military pilots in WWII, Vietnam and I believe Desert Storm.  Provigil, an alertness drug with minimal side affects, has been claimed to be widely used by the military – I was told, it was used by pilots during the first mission against Libya in the 1980’s.  Maybe Casey Taylor can  speak to it’s current use. · 4 hours ago

    Modafinil!  That stuff’s amazing.  Not real great when you’re also taking anti-malaria medicine plus super-antibiotics, and recovering from a long series of vaccinations for everything ranging from pneumonia to plague.  My poor liver…

    • #59
  30. Profile Photo Member
    @DuaneOyen

    As with all such debates, there are valid arguments on both sides.  The differences depend on the weight you apply to the collateral consequences of either extreme.   My strongest drug is the level of caffeine you get from 2 liters of Dr. Pepper every day…..

    You can make a very good case that marijuana should be completely decriminalized for adults (my libertarian side speaks, not my religious side; unlike Mr. Santorum, I am pretty good at separating the two when appropriate), but only after blocking down and establishing the upper threshold “do no harm” THC concentration, and if you could keep the stuff away from minors.  

    And any of this stuff should be available at physician’s prescription discretion, if they abuse it, string ’em up.  There is no excuse whatever for medical MJ,  by prescription, not to be legal.  To quote Rick Brookheiser, “Stop arresting sick people.”

    Hardly any0ne these days is nailed for use- it is always about dealing.   So license a distribution franchise  for sale below the THC limit  (no other drugs- go read about China and opium). 

    But execute anyone who gives the stuff to kids.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.