What It Means To Be A Libertarian
I was very kindly invited yesterday to a lunch hosted by Greg Lindsay, head of the CIS. The guest speaker was Charles Murray, W. H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, controversial author, innovative thinker and one of the earliest proponents of a radical rethink of the welfare system. Murray is currently touring Australia giving a series of lectures criticising Australia’s tall-poppy syndrome and encouraging us to promote elitism rather than egalitarianism. You can find an article he wrote for the SMH here.
However, the topic of his talk was not elitism but ‘Why Bother To Be Libertarian‘.
Murray posed the question that the real problem we face in an age of prosperity and security is how to live meaningful lives. Should we just while away the time until we die or is there more to life?
He identified four institutions that humans invest their time in; family, faith, vocation and community. He argued that the government’s job is to get out of the way of these four areas as much as possible.
It was at this point that he parted company from the traditional libertarian script. He encouraged us not to become profit maximisers but to possess a sense of virtue, a habit that is acquired by daily practice not a quality that can be taught. His major criticism of welfare was not that it is inefficient, nor that it exacerbates the problems it tries to solve, but that it drains the stuff of life from life itself.
I asked the question of why classical liberal ideas have gained so little traction, of why the vast majority of the middle classes have disengaged from politics and how to reignite their interest.
Murray’s response was controversial. He cited Adam Smith as one of history’s greatest thinkers but encouraged us not to focus on ‘The Wealth of Nations‘ and the selfish invisible hand but to read instead ‘The Theory of Moral Sentiments’ and discover his message of civic society, the volunteer ethic and virtue.
He ended by perfectly defining the difference between a Libertarian and a Conservative.
‘Libertarians have more faith in humanity. Now go and preach that gospel.’
48 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
-
Recent Comments
Catallaxy Files- Evaluating Rudd’s Fiscal Stimulus February 11, 2012I am just giving you a sneak preview of my piece in the Inquirer section of The Australian today. You will all have to run up to the newsagency or go on-line to read it. No doubt, it will make me popular with parts of the blogosphere! Gosh, at least Alesina’s paper was published in [...]Judith Sloan
- Should the RBA intervene to lower the Australian dollar? February 10, 2012I had this piece in The Australian during the week. I became interested in the topic during my visit to Switzerland. I conclude that the RBA will not, and probably should not, intervene but it is an interesting topic. The value of the Australian dollar is putting many of our trade-exposed industries under real pressure. [...]Judith Sloan
- Open Forum: February 11, 2012 February 10, 2012 Sinclair Davidson
- Evaluating Rudd’s Fiscal Stimulus February 11, 2012
- inCISe
- Oliver Hartwich:Greece’s austerity package February 11, 2012 Editor
- Amnesty on truth February 10, 2012I’m ashamed to admit I was a member of Amnesty International in high school. Back then I proudly wore an Amnesty badge on a black beret. Now I cringe at the memory of my naive self lapping up their hyperbole. The Sydney Morning Herald recently reported that Amnesty International is urging a parliamentary human rights watchdog to investigate the federal gover […]Sara Hudson
- More on PHI rebate means test February 10, 2012When I wrote in Incise yesterday, ‘Rebate should not be means tested,’ I did not expect events to move quite as quickly as they have. The government seems confident it has the numbers to get the means test through. I wouldn’t be surprised if Rob Oakshott and Andrew Wilkie have indeed swallowed the government’s nonsensical arguments, but it will be interestin […]Robert Carling
- IPA news
- Let European dogs lie February 9, 2012Australians will be surprised to learn that, apparently, the federal government now has responsibility to help the city of...
- It's time to bring back the thrift February 9, 2012Ted Baillieu plans to shave 3600 jobs from Victoria's bloated public service. The state of Wisconsin in the US, with a...
- We'll huff, we'll puff, we'll blow the budget into surplus February 8, 2012Bill Clinton famously said, "It's the economy, stupid". So it is. Unsuccessful politicians might be inclined to argue,...
- Let European dogs lie February 9, 2012
“The guest speaker was Charles Murray”
Club Troppo will be outraged!
The folks at Club Troppo seem to be easily het up over symbolic issues – research apparently has to be perfect if there is a possibility it may be mis-used. Such delicate flowers.
On topic, I was there too. I refrained from commenting during the general discussion as some of the more vocal participants asked the same questions I’d have wanted to ask anyway. But personally I must say his ideas this time didn’t appeal to me.
Government is just a piece of machinery for engaging in collective action like any other, there is a tendency to anthromorphise it too much among libertarians. It definitely can and has been misused. I am sceptical of the idea that there is a perfect crowding out of all the supposedly desirable soft and fluffy stuff that Murray wants us to do more of. He reassured the audience at one point ‘That doesn’t mean everyone should be a social worker’ nonetheless that was the impression I got from how he described his ideal society. And I most definitely don’t want to be a social worker.
Of the 4 important things he alleged people focus on the most
family, faith, vocation and community
Well – family I guess, if it includes close friends, etc.
Faith – zilch for me.
Community – I work from home most of the time and for most of the week the only engagement I have with the community is saying ‘morning’ to the reception at my local gym. Doesn’t bother me the least. I’m assuming community excludes friends or partners we choose – they aren’t really community. Community are people we are forced to associate with in the daily hub-bub of life. I assume friends, partners etc are in family. I don’t have much interest in community.
Really the only bit which really gelled for me was ‘vocation’ as in a sense of work well done, a sense of productive achievement and stimulation in one’s career and interests.
Maybe his new libertarianism is more suitable for older more settled types. I don’t see it taking off better than traditional approaches.
Jason – you put a lot of energy into a particular Internet based community. And you clearly do it for reasons unrelated to monetary reward. Your advocacy of certain ideas (eg free markets) must stem from some sense of what makes for a good society.
I do feel that sometimes free market, small government types do over emphasise the material rewards that associated policies will bring. The material rewards are not to be sneered at however there are reasons to advocate economic and social freedom that go beyond mere materialism. Even in regards to vocation money is obviously not the only consideration for most people.
The left-wing deal with some of this by segmenting social and economic freedom into different spheres and then pretending that material prosperity only matters in relation to financial equality. However I’ve never had any real satisfaction with that left-wing worldview. In particular I loath the way that some on the left implies that those that disagree with them are automatically self centred, anti-community, every man for himself, narcisists.
I don’t get the fluffy stuff. When lefties start pushing it I pretty much always feel that they’re covering for their own personal deficiencies. I’m much more of a believer in courageous individualism as a path to ‘spiritual’ satisfaction, which I think pretty much means happiness. That doesn’t mean I don’t believe in family; it’s quite high on my list. Vocation; productive achievement is number one! Faith; for me that’s intellectualism. And as for community I’m with Jason, your commuity is who you choose to engage with, not the people who by chance happen to live near you. No need for fluffiness, it’s quit pathetic actually, just heroic living!
Family is No.1 for me. No contest. Nothing else comes close.
Community – i’m with Terje. Contrary to what he believes, I think Jason has built a great community in Catallaxy. That’s exactly what Murray was talking about. He didn’t mean one of physical proximity but a volunteer network of kindred spirits.
Faith – doesn’t need to be faith in God. Just faith in life and faith in humans. Something the Left have abandoned.
Jason has a fair point. This talk definitely resonates more for those of us with families. Ten years ago i would have been bored by it. Yesterday i was inspired.
“I’m much more of a believer in courageous individualism as a path to ’spiritual’ satisfaction, which I think pretty much means happiness.”
I think in modern times, people are obsessed with happiness and the search for single outcomes in life. Why equate things that you believe in with happiness or spiritualism? Why not just have courageous individualism?
I do ‘just have courageous individualism’. I don’t know what the fuck everyone else is talking about, I’m just trying to join the conversation! Like I said ‘I don’t get the fluffy stuff’!
However, while that’s certainly my policy for life I do believe, and all evidence would suggest, that it leads to happiness for the individual.
Family, faith, vocation and community are not at all inconsistent with “courageous individualism” or any other attribute we associate with libertarianism.
Family is obvious. The idea of doing everything purely for our own personal benefit is bizarre. Working for the betterment of our nearest and dearest gives us reason to keep doing it. Libertarians clearly prefer to look after their families themselves and not rely on the government.
Faith is simply optimism. The glass is half full. Some feel optimistic when they think there is a god looking over them. Others rely on a different source. The point is to believe the future will be better than the past. As libertarians have a vision of society, they are clearly optimistic.
Vocation relates to family and also faith. Working will make our own lives and those of our family better, and may make the world a better place as well. Libertarians know that free individuals working voluntarily are the best way to achieve that.
Community is no more than doing things for others who are not your family, rather than expecting ‘someone’ to do it (eg the government). There are millions of examples. It might be as simple as picking up some litter rather than expecting the council to do it. I find myself helping people who don’t read and write English well to fill in forms and write letters to beat off the bureaucracy.
Libertarianism is not about selfishness, it’s about self interest. Family, faith, vocation and community are part of our ‘self’.
I take a week off, and you guys are squabbling over definitions!
My own idea is that Libertarianism means less government, and more individual responsiveness. My ideal would be for everyone to absolutely own their own properties. Then the local governments would be the strongest part of my re-worked federal system, power radiating outwards and becoming weaker.
Finally, the UN would be the weakest tier of government, much as it is now.
This leaves plenty of scope for people to choose to help their community, or stay out of it, as they choose.
I don’t know much about Charles Murray.
But whereas I think intelligence is mainly due to how you develop your brain, he seems to have placed emphasis on the genetic development of intelligence? Sure, more afro-americans have lower IQs. But are they born this way? I don’t know, it’s something I’ll probably look into when I get time but does anyone has opinions on this?
For me the purpose of life and libertarianism is long term happiness. This often involves money/materialism, but the goal of happiness is definitely what should be “preached”, not the goal of money.
So I think Murray’s message is a good one.
I agree with David’s point about libertarianism being about self interest. Perhaps even the main fundamental to libertarianism. Because from self interest follows the need for freedom.
The self interest goal is quite different to the ideals of collectivism, or excessive sacrifice to God.
When you take collectivism to its logical conclusions it becomes quite confusing and impossible to implement: if everyone lived for others, then who are the “others” who would benefit? How can you accept things from others if you’re living for others? It is also impossible not to act in self interest (because you have to keep yourself alive) to be able to live for others. So altruism for the sake of it creates guilt and mental conflict.
Personally I don’t like the word faith. To me it brings up associations with the supernatural.
I prefer the thinking in terms of probability. And this can be used to create optimism/hope. eg/ The techno-optimism posting from a while back.
I am not even sure where altruism came from- the Christian’s ideal is the golden rule, treat others as you would like to be treated. The Jewish state had a similar commandment- ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’. Neither of these leads to altruism.
(Personally, I also define evil as the reverse of the Golden rule- An evil person treats others in ways that they would hate if someone treated them that way!)
Yes I agree that “do unto others as thou woulds’t have them do to unto you” (or however they used to say it) is a good way to summarize self interest. And a good libertarian message.
Some, err, strident views on Mr. Murray at LeftWrites.
I am not even sure where altruism came from- the Christian’s ideal is the golden rule, treat others as you would like to be treated. The Jewish state had a similar commandment- ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’. Neither of these leads to altruism.
What drugs are you on, nicholas? The Christian ideal is completely altruistic. The Christian embodiment of the perfect man is Jesus Christ, the sinless sacrifice who gave himself to save others, although possessing no guilt of his own, and on the cross not wanting to perish but saying to the Almighty ‘Your will, not mine’ even forgoing his own will! If you’re a Christian you are called to be like Jesus, Nicholas? How much more altruistic can you get?
False statements make baby Jesus cry, Nicholas.
As for the Jewish commandment of altruism; have you ever worked with Jews?!
The LeftWrites’ comments on Murray are ridiculous, especially seen as the CIS accepts no government funding.
The racism allegations remind me of Law Professor Andrew Fraser, from Macquarie University in Sydney. He said Afro-Americans commit more crime because of lower IQ. I’m not sure if he is saying they are born this way or not.
I think he was eventually allowed to keep his job, he did have wide student support.
Also reminds me of an article “My Battle With The Thought Police” by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, http://www.mises.org/story/1792
“In March of 2004, during a 75-minute lecture …… I presented numerous examples designed to illustrate the concept of time preference ….. As one brief example, I referred to homosexuals as a group which, because they typically do not have children, tend to have a higher degree of time preference and are more present-oriented.
He almost got fired after a complaint by an anonymous homosexual student. And was treated very badly by the Dean. His salary suffered too.
It appears some on the left cannot even be trusted to endorse free speech.
I don’t know about the other contributors at Club Troppo but I’d have more respect for the CIS if they hadn’t invited Murray to speak.
I think there’s something very ugly lurking beneath Murray’s veneer of reasonableness.
But even I have to admit that Michael at Leftwrites goes too far.
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2007/08/11/charles-murray-vs-mal-brough/
And calling Murray a fascist is just silly.
The Foundation for Economic Education has an audio file of a speech given by Charles Murray in 2005 about his book. It runs for around 50 mins.
Here:
http://www.fee.org/events/detail.asp?id=6232
You can either play it on-line or download and play offline.
E.D.
Michael, Jesus is supposed to be God AND Man, and can therefore act in ways that Mankind cannot. The rule jesus told us to live by was love our neighbours as ourselves, and to be the first to treat people as we would like them to treat us. We are not all supposed to be crucified. (I wonder if we can see Democracy at work in the trinity- Jesus wants one thing, but is outvoted by the father and the holy ghost, 2 to 1 against.)
You want to get biblical, Nick? I can feel a holy takedown comin’ on! To be frank, there’s so many options I can’t decide where to begin with destroying your position. To start, I’ll be kind:
About the only logical thing Jesus said with regards to the altruism/egoism debate was ‘first remove the log from your own eye……….’. You could say ‘give unto Ceaser what is Ceaser’s………….’ could be construed to say don’t pay taxes for services you aren’t being provided, but that’s not the Christian interpretation, which is much more along the lines of pay the taxes in order to obey the law of the land and you shouldn’t be worried about money anyway ’cause the Lord Almightly will provide for you just like the birds in the sky.
I’m a reformed Christian. Are you religious or do you have a religious background, Nick?
Don
In my more idealistic and naive student days, i used to hang out with the lefties. Anyone who disagreed with our views were labelled ‘fascists’.
It’s a term used by bigoted schoolyard bullies. It bears no relation to the actual meaning of the word (xenophobic statists).
Don, after your infantile attempts to caricature (literally) Peter Saunders and anyone else you don’t agree with or don’t understand, I don’t imagine CIS cares too much what you think.
The Left needed to redefine the word ‘fascist’.
It helped avoid a certain amount of, ahem, embarrassment at being associated with ‘National Socialism’.
Michael, say 200,000 ‘hale, maryes’ for the sin of trying to interpret scripture according to your own understanding. Then I would recommend a course of self-flagellation, just on general principles.
I would label my own beliefs ‘Highly Unorthodox Christian’. I apply the Cabbalah to both testaments. Jesus then becomes a role-model who attained perfection, and is an example to us all. But don’t upset ordinary Christians with such views- they can get quite defensive.
Nicholas, I made an error in comment 12. The golden rule should be: “do NOT do unto others as you would NOT have them do unto you”.
This would imply that you should live and let live. And is basically the libertarian philosophy of don’t initiate force.
The golden rule “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” can depending on the ideology of the person using the quote be used to justify altruism and many other things for that matter.
I agree with Michael that the Christian religion throughout history is largely responsible for promoting altruism as a virtue for its own sake. I’d argue that altruism is a part of all religions however it is clearly central to Christian teaching and the teachings on Jesus’ life. There is no doubting the irrational guilt doctrine promoted by the Christian religion in the middle ages for example.
I have a few questions on Libertarianism.
I believe i have heard the term “Privatising Roads” tossed around, And i was wondering how this were to be done?
If the full Libertarian wishes were made, and roads were privatised with a much smaller government system and no taxes, How would roads be upkept without the government paying for them? Would it be reliant on people who use the roads to pay for them?
It seems to me that no matter how small a government you have, there will still be a need for government to do some things which will require funding, How would this work? Im aware that the government in Dubai does not impose taxes upon its citizens, Is this the style of government that libertarians are interested in?
And what about defence and policing? If these sectors were privatised then firstly, They would loose some of the soverign immunity that they enjoy, secondly, Who would be giving the orders? Even if we reduced ourselves from foreign military association, there would still be a need for defence of Australian borders, would this be done through private companies?
What are Libertarian views on alcohol and prostitution? Should the service of alcohol still be age restricted? Should prositution be legal? If so should there be a legal age limit on this?
Perry – there are many shades of libertarianism so you won’t get a single or simple answer. However, it is worth noting that libertarianism does not seek abolition of government per se. It just envisages a substantial shrinkage.
Most libertarians regard the protection of our lives, freedom and property to be valid government functions and therefore do not seek privatisation of defence, the police and legal systems. Accordingly, some level of tax is required. The Dubai government taxes oil exports rather than personal incomes.
Most also accept that the government has a greater role in relation to children than adults. Thus, while alcohol (or any drug) and prostitution are regarded as none of the government’s business in respect of adults, most accept it may have a role in protecting children from harm as they are not able to make a rational choice.
Privatising roads already exists in the case of motorways, where users pay a toll. Private ownership of suburban streets could be similar funded if the owners wanted, or allow free movement on a reciprocal basis with other road owners. The point is that it would not be decided by the government.
Considering how intrusive the government is at present, some of these issues are a little academic right now.
Perry – The LDP have policies on many of these issues, try their website at http://www.ldp.org.au for some well thought out ideas, but as David says, libertarians have many diverse ideas on the issues you raise.
On roads, you’d have to categorise the type of road to distinguish how it might be privatised. Local roads (suburban roads) could be gifted to adjacent landowners as they essentially paid for them already when the suburb was developed. However ownership of local roads are unlikely to lead to any toll windfall for homeowners, since they are the ones who mainly benefit, they’d pay for the upkeep. Suburbs could have body corporate like structures to pay for their maintenance, and this would be reflected in lower local taxes.
Larger arterial highways and freeways could be sold off to organisations like Macquarie Bank, who then charge users a toll for usage.
I read some of the website that Brendan posted, thankyou it was very informative.
However, I am still confused about the freedom of drugs that Libertarians support, Do you support freedom of all drugs? Hard and soft, or do you think that there should be some kind of management over the distribution of drugs such as heroin?
While personally i could see legalizing some drugs as being positive, such as Cannabis, However legalizing drugs such as Heroin, LSD and Cocaine seems to be on a much more slippery sloap.
Drug criminalisation usually doesn’t work and can actually increase drug use by increasing supply via increasing profit margins.
When you factor in the wasted police resources, the formation of gangs and organised crime and increased crime rates due to black market profitability and desperate drug users, I think most libertarians would be for legalizing drugs.
People at the top of the drug game are seriously wealthy. And are made wealthy through fairly worthless products that are either natural extracts or very easy to manufacture.
The most famous example of detrimental results from illegalization is the period of alcohol prohibition in the US. The murder rate increased 10X during this period and alcohol was easily available. This period also saw large increases in female drinking.
The Asian countries are also a good example. Drug dealing (ie: possessing greater than x amount of a drug) is punishable by death. But these countries are rife in illicit drugs.
Recently in Columbia, about 20 police were shot dead in a shoot out with a drug lord. A very literal waste of police resources.
In Australia the state and federal governments spent about 3.2 billion dollars on illicit drugs programs in 2003. 42% of this amount was law enforcement. So that’s about 1.35 billion dollars of law enforcement that could not only be better spent policing real crimes, but is in my opinion directly creating more crime and ensuring drug dealer profits. Then politicians benefit by saying they’ll be tough on bikie gangs etc.
Also, from what I could gather this figure doesn’t include the costs to the courts and the prison systems.
Personally I think all drugs should be legalized but I hold the view that it is a wrong for governments to criminalise or regulate any human vices. It’s not human rights protection, it’s a violation of human rights. Although I think it is immoral to knowingly damage your body. It is your right to do so and has got nothing to do with the government. Just like suicide and euthanasia should be legal. This view may clash with pragmatist libertarians.
Heroin isn’t some evil substance that takes control of your mind and makes you into a madman like the public believe. It often takes about a year of using heroin to become addicted. The drug user is not the victim that people like to think. They are often all too eager to experiment with drugs. And the drug dealer usually isn’t the nasty pusher forcing people to use like TV shows like to make out.
I’m not really involved in the LDP and hence the following comments are speculative. From what I understand, drug legalization is not a major focus of the LDP. Unfortunately it’s not currently a vote winner.
And in addition I think LDP members would rather focus on their particular strengths in economics and law. It would probably be political suicide to promote legalization of all drugs because the media and public would focus on this radical view and dismiss your other policies.
However I do think illicit drug legalization is inevitable, because younger generations have been exposed to many more drugs than older generations and are more informed on the issue. Over a long enough time, the lies just can’t continue. No person in our society regards the “crime” of drug use as seriously as violent crimes or property crimes. But looking at government expenditure you wouldn’t know it.
Perry, re Roads.
My ideal solution is to turn local councils into road-owning entities, public companies. People could own one share and vote on any and all issues, with the democratic majority making laws over public properties, like roads. You would freely pay to be a citizen, or you could stay an unvoting guest.
As for drugs, they should be decriminalised, though users could be stigmatised socially, like smokers and alcoholics.
As for the outrageous comments on altruism, the golden rule does not lead to altruism. The people who came after Jesus were not as good as he was, and so his message was often taken out of context.
For instance, “Rend unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”. Let’s look at the context. Judea was an occupied nation. Rebellion had never gotten them anywhere. The smart thing to do was to tolerate the occupation and stay jewish as best they could. The same message was repeated in the letters of Paul, when Christians were under the control of non-Christian Magistrates.
However, the rules could be different when the magistrate also belonged to your faith- he could be subject to a covenant, and rejected if he broke the covenant. The context alters the message. When John Calvin researched the subject, he came to the belief that Christians could rebel against rulers under some conditions- indeed, they had a right to rebel.
So Christians don’t have to be supine victims- it depends on the context. This was something the Americans believed, that the king was only to be obeyed if he lived up to the implied contract. They were good christians who rebelled against a bad christian, and they believed they had a right to do so.
Nicholas the religion Christianity is altruistic, what Jesus actually did and said may have been different. Altruism is everywhere and most people subscribe to it as been good, largely due to religious influence on morality over centuries. The opposite, egoism is still shunned and dispised by most people.
The golden rule suffers from subjectivity. Everyone’s version could be different. Clearly the rule justifies altruism in the eyes of an altruistic person. eg/ a starving altruistic person would believe that people should give them free food because if they had surplus food, then they’d give it away.
I tried to turn it into the negative putting the “nots” in. I think this is better but it’s still a matter of judgement of what you would not want people to do to you. “Do not initiate force” is a much more accurate way to concisely express natural rights.
Incidentally, I recently ran across a biblical based essay alleging Jesus was anti-tax and that this was a major motive in his exectution.
Thought you may be interested, http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com/
Ayn Rand tended to rail against altruism, which tends to give it a bad name among some libertarians, however it is not evil in it’s own right.
Personal altruism is very positive, however the only way a tax collecting authority can be altruistic is to pass the hat around its own members, to finance its own altruism.
Tim R;
You are correct in going for the virtue in the negative context, much of what we value is best seen as what it is not.
Liberty for example is the absence of oppression.
It would probably be political suicide to promote legalization of all drugs because the media and public would focus on this radical view and dismiss your other policies.
Indeed
Tim – just out of curiosity, how would you make Class A drugs such as heroin legal? via doctor prescription?
Tim, do you agree with my definition of evil as the reverse of the golden rule? That an evil person is one who treats others as automatically inferior, and behaves in ways that would be hautily rejected if such behaviour was applied to them?
If you don’t, can you come up with a better definition?
Pommygranate- why not just let people market and sell heroin just like they do aspirin? Just go to the chemist’s shop, and go for the prettiest wrapper? What’s wrong with the free market?
How I’d make heroin (and other drugs – including perhaps tobacco and alcohol) legal is via a licence – adults do a one or two day course to ensure they have the knowledge, and show they have private health insurance. Then they can buy it through a restricted sale – say pharmacists. And retain penalties for sale to unlicenced people.
If and when that becomes accepted by society we can wait for another generation of angry libertarians to come along and agitate for the abolition of licencing.
More generally, making libertarian choices opt in for people initially may be a better way to sell it to the public?
Are Libertarians for or against Affirmative Action?
I mean Affirmative Action and not Positive Discrimination.
Pommy, I’m fairly sure that by making a drug legal, you’re not going to increase its usage. Especially with heroin which has been around for a while and has become culturally unpopular due to famous people dying from it, its unsocial effects (ie: turns you into a zombie for a couple of hours), and change in market strategy in Asia. So operating from the perspective that the situation will not become worse than it is now, I would not use a prescription system. I don’t see why you should burden the health industry unless it’s for medical purposes, like morphine for pain relief (heroin breaks down into morphine and codeine very quickly in the blood).
I would definitely not have injecting rooms, or free drug testing, or special rehab programs or any other government programs. I think private enterprise could handle this, like how people attempt to check their ecstasy pills at local internet sites.
In our society where people can’t remember a time when recreational substance use was legal, I imagine you’d have to take drug legalization slowly.
Maybe start decriminalising the safer drugs such as Marijuana and even ecstasy and amphetamines, and study the effects on usage rates etc. (most ecstasy deaths are due to PMA not MDMA, ie: incorrect black market manufacture). I can’t see the government not getting involved via sales taxes and I think this is fair enough initially. Just like alcohol, cigarettes gambling (the sin taxes).
But I think it’s all about culture change and familiarizing the public with libertarian ideas.
For example, the Netherlands is a country big on personal freedoms. In this social climate, marijuana was legalized and studies have seen no increase in Marijuana usage among citizens. (they’ve probably increased tourism though).
Contrast this to a social climate like Indonesia where people are not willing to accept responsibility for their actions in terms of drug use. Drug usage rates are high and parent’s who’ve lost kids to heroin will blame the drug and the drug dealers, not their darling innocent child. I suspect these mothers (like Ann Bressington in SA parliament who lost a daughter to heroin) would be strictly anti-legalization.
During the Schapelle Corby trials in Bali, there were a group of protesters saying drug laws were too lenient! So I think it’s all about getting people to understand libertarian ideas. And once this is done, I think routes to legalization would be fairly straight forward like the prostitution decriminialisation was in Melbourne. (prostitution is still illegal in SA).
Australia has just banned the commercial importation of Kava. A plant root popular in the pacific islands. A mild relaxant that in the US is availabe off the shelf in tablet form. And this highlights the ridiculous view points of most in society towards drugs. So I think increasing people’s understanding of the issue is more important than any legalization strategy. Advertise the economic benefits (less burden on tax payers) and the social benefits (less crime). My view is that the quicker all substances are legalized the better. But as to how the legal frame work would proceed, I have no idea. Politics isn’t my strong point. Tim Quilty’s idea, although fairly repulsive to me, may be a good initial approach. Also, privitising health care would alleviate people’s fears that they were paying for the treatment of drug addicts (like they do now).
Nicholas, I think the golden rule is good but not golden. It’s like common sense. Most people get it but it’s not explicit enough for me. eg/ One man’s common sense is not another man’s common sense.
My problem with the golden rule is its subjectivity. What one person would/wouldn’t do to another could be quite different to what another person would/wouldn’t do.
My definition of immorality is basically anything that’s bad for you. But we all make mistakes and should be free to make them.
So my definition of what is both immoral and should also be legislated against is “initiation of force against others”. It’s basically just Ayn Rand’s idea.
I think the reverse of the golden rule you describe is fine but I think Ayn Rand did a better job.
In regards to altruism, I am not enough of an objectivist to say it is always bad. But I am primarily an egoist. And I think in most cases, altruistic acts are usually good for you in some way.
For example, by giving the poor some money, you may be reducing the chance they commit a crime (costing you money through policing) and you also fulfill a need most people feel to help others.
But Christianity still doesn’t seem to understand this. Publicly announcing charitable donations is looked down upon. And the religion has focused on matyrdom being a virtue, rich people being evil (camel throught the eye of a needle), the first being last and last being first in heaven etc. Due to logical inconsistencies with altruism a psychology of guilt can infect people making them more obedient to their leaders. (how convenient)
Chirstians even banned sex for non-procreation at some stages and masturbation was not allowed. This is the perfect example of the nasty possibilities of altruism ideology. To the point where having pleasure for your own sake is considered wrong. Have you read/seen the Da Vinci code, where that monk keeps inflicting pain on himself? How is that rational behaviour? If he does that to himself, I can imagine he’d think it was OK to inflict pain on others!
Perry, can you give some quick definitions which detail how Affirmative Action is different to Positive Discrimination?
Affirmative Action is more of a right wing ideal, By allowing people to start a race at the same time, giving people the equal opportunities to succeed. Whereas Postive Discrimination is more about putting a person ahead because they arent as qualified or are from a lower social economic background etc.
So affirmative action is free education for poor people, where positive discrimination is a quota of poor people that a company must employee?
Most libertarians are against affirmative action. Libertarians want equal rights, not equal opportunities. (basically capitalism vs communism)
The only way to forcibly make people equal is to bring everyone down to the lowest level thereby ultimately harming society overall. (ie: harming more people than you help). And there are ways in which affirmative action ultimately harms the very people the policies are supposed to help.
Affirmative action policies are inherently either racist/sexist or elitist.
Perry, libertarians have absolutely no problem with privately funded charities that seek to give education and career advancement opportunities to the less privileged. What we are not for is forcing people to fund such programmes through their taxation. Privately (voluntarily)initiated and funded affirmative action and even positive discrimination are perfectly acceptable. It is your money and time, do with it what gives you the most satisfaction.
The flipside of this is that I don’t see a role for the state in enforcing anti-discrimination. If you want to run about wearing KKK bed sheets and refusing to employ non-whites, that is also your prerogative. Again, it is your capital and your time, do with it what you will.
Personally, I think the market will sort you out quick smart. First off, you are voluntarily restricting your access to the labour market, so it is likely you will need to pay more in wages than your competitors or end up accepting lower quality workers, both have costs. Second, you are restricting your customer base, since even if you will sell to non-whites, most non-whites and many whites will avoid your business like the plague. Thirdly, activist groups would be free to highlight your employment policy, further increasing the peer pressure on you, your employees and your customers. You’d either change your racist ways or be forced to accept a lower return on your investment.
Michael i tend to agree with your definition, I see Positive Discrimination as a left wing ideal and not very connected with Affirmative Action.
From my understand of Affirmative action it is not to make people equal but to give everybody the same starting opportunities, Milton Friedman was interested in the same thing with his School voucher system, There is a considerable difference in ensuring everybody has the option to go to school and giving somebody a job because they are from a lower socioeconomic background than somebody else with better skills.
I think you’d have a hard time selling school vouchers to a crowd that identifies with ‘affirmative action’. Just goes to show how confused some people can be.
Perry,
You are not using the term “affirmative action” in the normal way. It is generally associated with employment quotas and is generally regarded as a left wing initiative.
I don’t much believe that equal opportunity is worth enforcing but I do wish to live in a society where at every level people have opportunities to advance themselves socially and materially. Opportunity matters, equal opportunity doesn’t. Ironically it is in nations like France that champion the ideals of equality that an entire underclass of immigrants now believe that society offers no opportunities at all for them. And it is left wing initiatives such as minimum wage laws that destroy opportunties at the margin.
Regards,
Terje.
Perry, both Affirmative action and Positive discrimination have the government dictating conditions. Usually libertarians favour less regulations in people’s lives, so our average response could easily be predicted.
Tim, everything you said about the Christian Church sounds great!!! The only thing wrong is the element of compulsion. As a libertarian, people should be free to make their own moral choices. As an esoteric Christian, I will hope that they choose the high moral code, but it should always be up to them!