From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 7:30 AM
To: Anton Sherwood
Cc: ba-liberty@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [ba-liberty] Answer to Mr. Sherwood on Drugs

> From: anton [mailto:anton]On Behalf Of Anton Sherwood
> 
> > So you think that libertarians emphasize drug policy just enough
> > (or perhaps even too little), rather than too much?
> 
> Nationally, too little; I heard it took months to get Browne to mention
> the issue at all.

Let's think, who's more likely to have a better sense of
the PR value of the drug issue, a national candidate facing
daily interaction with voters and press all across the country,
or a bay area drug user?  Hmmm....

> Locally, I dunno; until
> this week, most of the traffic on this list was about 
> non-drug issues in Santa Clara County

1. As I pointed out earlier, the only protests announced on this
list in the last four months have been about drugs.  An "ASA"
meeting was announced just last night!

2. Criticism on this list of anarchotarian dogma regarding
currency, pollution, or natural monopoly barely raises
a whimper of protest. By contrast, criticism of the
sacred cow of drugs -- which you users all seem to have
easy access to anyway -- raises a firestorm.

> Fine, you caught me exaggerating for brevity's sake (again).
> The choice is between prohibition and
> regulation-broadly-similar-to-that-of-alcohol-and-tobacco 
> (for ALL drugs, not just marijuana, because the killing 
> won't stop so long as Coca-Cola Original Recipe is banned)
> -- which seems not much easier to
> sell than any other policy short of anarchy.

I'm not talking about which drug policy libertarians should
emphasize.  I'm talking about whether libertarians should
emphasize drug policy over other issues.  How many ways
can you find to avoid addressing this point? :-)

> > It's just not tenable to claim that drug policy is the
> > best issue for turning mainstream voters to libertarianism.
> 
> Nobody is stopping you from campaigning on other issues.

If most libertarians sound "my drugs and my taxes"
selfish, then my credibility as libertarian on other issues
is diminished.

> Nor, come to think of it, did I mention drugs in my token Assembly
> campaigns, or make drugs a centerpiece when I was active in
> talk.politics.*.

That's encouraging to hear.  There's hope for you yet. :-)

> > But I DON'T own stock in timber companies.  You, by contrast,
> > smoke pot.  See the difference?
> 
> If I hadn't said so (and I almost didn't) who'd know?

Do you seriously think it's hard to discern that supporters
of drug legalization are drawn quite disproportionately from
the millions of illegal drug users?
 
> How do I know you own no timber stock?
> Can you prove it between Monday, when the 
> carefully-worded smear hits your neighbor's doorsteps, 
> and Tuesday?

It's far easier to prove that I am not a timber magnate or
an energy arbitrageur or a private school headmaster or
a monopolist than to prove that I am not a drug user.

> I specifically deny using cocaine or opiates, and yet I call for
> legalizing them as well, when I could stop at marijuana

I'm not saying you're unprincipled.  I'm just saying you're
unwise if you think that drug policy is the best issue for 
turning mainstream voters to libertarianism.

> > No, a default school choice program would be financially
> > neutral to each parent,
> 
> I hope your program is more than a choice between State Indoctrination
> Camp East and State Indoctrination Camp West; I can't see offhand how
> anything else can be `financially neutral'.

If the voucher is for the same amount as what a parent is
already paying in taxes for schools, it's neutral to that
parent.

> "So you admit that your proposal will do nothing to improve 
> the public schools."

Only as much as I "admit" that competition in long-distance
service did "nothing" to improve the rates charged by what
was once the "public" long-distance company.

> > 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.
> 
> So it's no use for me to appeal to other people's concern for other
> people's children's safety?

On the contrary, that's the sort of not-overtly-self-interested
appeal that libertarians make too little of.  By contrast,
libertarians complaining about "my drugs and my taxes" come
off like Christopher Reeve lobbying for public funding of
spinal research.  (He and Michael J. Fox should cut a deal to
each plead for the other's cause. There's something distasteful
about millionaires seeking tax dollars for a cause as soon as it
becomes personally life-altering for them.)

> > 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.
> 
> Or to refute the claim that such an emphasis is "inordinate".

How are those two jobs different?  And aside from your now-abandoned
claim that drugs are a perfectly "binary" issue, what argument
have you presented to this effect?
--
brian@holtz.org
http://humanknowledge.net