Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
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.)
Published in GeneralMilton 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?
Thanks chaps. You have restored my faith in, well, in at least one part of America… ·4 hours ago
…and just like that I’m starstruck.
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. ·1 hour ago
You just made my month, Andrea. That is the best oppositional reply to one of my comments that I’ve had since I starting posting again. Thank you for that, and thank you for helping keep the tone here at Ricochet the reason I sacrifice one Grande Latter per month to stay here.
I always have, Lady. Just a very opinionated one. :D ·11 hours ago
Oh, bummer. Really? I don’t want to come across as opinionated. I’ll work on that. Thanks for saying something. :-)
Professor Rahe, here’s an argument you might entertain. If is has merit, it would be, perhaps surprisingly, a libertarian argument for at least some paternalism—some restrictions on drug use by our fellow citizens:
(contd.)
(contd.)
I’m so glad, Casey. Many months ago, another subscriber, Caryn, and I went at it over some stupid disagreement. We both walked away and then came back and apologized to each other. She then found me on Facebook and we became very good friends. In fact, I absolutely love her and am bummed to think if we had never ended that dispute with the apologies. But then again we wouldn’t have discovered each other if we hadn’t fought in the first place. :-) Hopefully, you consider me a friend, now. As I do you.
Big, virtual, squeezy hug on the count of 3…
I always have, Lady. Just a very opinionated one. :D
I believe Theodore Dalrymple falls firmly in the no camp.
Y’all are going to ruin my rep. Thank goodness my Joes are too preoccupied with Call of Duty 4 to pay attention to politics and center-right cultural discussion.
Hope I’m not too late! (You meant a virtual count of three didn’tcha?)
Wouldn’t want to miss a big ol’ hug with Felicia, Casey (excuse me, Roget), and Angela. It’s nearly too much virtual tactility for my snaky lil’ self.
Oh, and can Pseud join, too?
Yes! Because that works really well for all of us with tobacco, alcohol, and gasoline.
Hope I’m not too late! (You meant avirtualcount of three didn’tcha?)
Wouldn’t want to miss a hug with Felicia, Casey (excuse me,Roget),andAngela. It’s nearly too much tactile experience for my snaky lil’ self.
Oh, and can Pseud join, too? ·5 minutes ago
C’mere, you lil’ reptile…
Bring the kitty. Tell him I have catnip and sparklies.
“Devolve drug policy to the states.” No doubt I should be embarrassed to admit this, but that had simply never occurred to me.
Devolve taxation to the states, too!
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.
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.
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.
King Kong vs. Godzilla would not be a fair fight. Godzilla shoots nuclear fire from his mouth.
How about Batman vs. Captain America? They’re pretty evenly matched.
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 :-( ·23 hours ago
Edited 20 hours ago
Furthermore, it will be subsidized under Federally mandated prescription drug coverage.
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 :-( ·23 hours ago
Edited 20 hours ago
Furthermore, it will be subsidized under Federally mandated prescription drug coverage. ·2 hours ago
Yeah, that’s part of what I meant by “not compatible with bureaucratized medicine”…
I doubt anything can be done to change drug policy for the better (in any of our eyes) unless we first get ourselves a much smaller Leviathan.
The libertarian argument for the legalization of drugs, like the Libertarian argument against illegal immigration, works well when there is not a big nanny state subsidizing people’s choices.