From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org]
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 8:09 AM
To: Anton Sherwood; ba-liberty@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [ba-liberty] Answer to Mr. Sherwood on Drugs


> From: anton [mailto:anton]On Behalf Of Anton Sherwood
>
> > Would you
> > maintain that there is no value in immunizing the party and
> > the cause from charges of "my drugs and my taxes" selfishness?
>
> Not if it's impossible, as I suggest below.

It's ludicrous to claim that all market-oriented policy
proposals are equally subject to charges that the policy's
supporter is merely self-interested.  Or do you see no difference
between me advocating energy deregulation and an Enron
executive doing so?

> > As does the fact that this mailing list exploded with
> > traffic as soon as someone dared criticize the libertarian
> > emphasis on drug policy. 
> 
> I suspect Mr Arne's position on drugs is immune to 
> rational argument

So you think that libertarians emphasize drug policy just enough
(or perhaps even too little), rather than too much?  Such
a judgment is incredibly myopic.

Your argument that "the drugs issue forces
a binary choice between prohibition and toleration" is flawed.
In addition to medical management (i.e. modes of legal
access), there are also non-binary aspects related to access 
by minors, types of psychotropics, impairment standards,
use by government employees (e.g. the recent pot-smoking 
death-penalty-sentencing judge), treatment policy in 
(not yet repealed) government health programs, etc. 
It's just not tenable to claim that drug policy is the 
best issue for turning mainstream voters to libertarianism.

> > but it's just not smart to make
> > either drug use or atheism the poster child for libertarianism.
>
> I agree that I'm not the ideal speaker on drug policy

You utterly miss the point.  I'm not talking about who is a good
poster child for the drug issue.  I'm talking about WHAT ISSUE
is a good poster child for libertarianism.

> > > When was the last libertarian rally for (say) market-
> > > oriented environmental protection (or anything else that
> > > couldn't be interpreted as "my drugs and my taxes")?
> >
> > > Couldn't?  "You must own stock in timber companies."
>
> any market-oriented proposal will draw from `progressives'
> the allegation that you're only advancing
> it because it will make you richer.

But I DON'T own stock in timber companies.  You, by contrast,
smoke pot.  See the difference?

(Note: you guys are now 0 for 3 on identifying a libertarian
rally for something other than drugs or taxes.)

> I challenge you to name a
> libertarian proposal (anarchist, minarchist, `compassionate',
> you name it) that cannot be so spun.

Easy: every one of my alternative Libertarian issues
(except for the one about GMOs, as my wife holds stock options
at Genentech). 

> Pollution credits?  "You want to reduce everything to money, 
> and let rich manufacturers pollute with impunity."

1. I'm not a rich manufacturer; I'm a Yahoo employee.
2. Under a default emissions trading policy there would be 
precisely the same amount of pollution as generated now, only
a) society would reap more benefits from it, and 
b) environmentalists could buy emissions licenses to retire them.

> School choice?  "Rather than try to improve schools for all, 
> you want subsidies to put your precious Trevor in an elite 
> school and let your neighbor's LaKweesha make do with
> the dregs."

No, a default school choice program would be financially
neutral to each parent, and any extra costs for public
safety-net schools would be borne by the general taxpayer
-- i.e. high-tax-bracket people like me, as opposed to
low- or no-tax-bracket people like LaKweesha's parents.

See, it's easy for me to demonstrate that these policies
do nothing to single me out as a beneficiary.  You simply
cannot say the same thing about drug legalization. QED.

> > If you've got a place and date for the most recent
> > libertarian rally that was a defensible candidate as not
> > being about "my drugs or my taxes", let's hear it.
> > So far, you guys are 0 for 2 on answering this question.
>
> It's not my job.

If you're going to claim that libertarians do not inordinately
focus their efforts on "my drugs and my taxes", then it IS
your job to substantiate that claim.
-- 
brian@holtz.org
http://humanknowledge.net