From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org]
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 12:08 AM
To: Anton Sherwood
Subject: RE: [ba-liberty] Answer to Mr. Sherwood on Drugs

> Most of the other issues lately mentioned, apart from abolition of
> income tax, have the property that incremental reform is possible,
> beneficial *and* already widely debated outside libertarian circles.

Drugs and income tax too admit of incremental reform, but
are distinct in another way: they are much more susceptible to
charges of self-interest than any of the other policies
lately mentioned.
 
> > > > 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?
> > >
> > > And Abolitionists were disproportionately likely to have curly hair.
> > 
> > Thus you apparently do not "seriously think it's hard...", and
> > by implication concede that there are other issues for which
> > it's easier for a libertarian to disavow self-interest.
> 
> On the contrary.

Do you or do you not "seriously think it's hard"?  If you're
at all interested in my continued participation in this
exercise, you're going to have to pick up on the general
idea that the '?' character marks a point to which I'd like
a particularized response.

> I'm saying (again) that almost any sound policy will
> have conspicuous "special" beneficiaries, who will be used by the
> opposition as targets of resentment.

I again note that you do not even attempt to argue apparent
libertarian self-interest on the issues of monetary policy, 
agricultural subsidies, rent control, campaign finance, 
term limits, GMOs, genomics, and negative income tax. 
The distinction between these issues and "my drugs and 
my taxes" is blatantly obvious, and I can understand why
you wouldn't want to debate this issue.  For my part, I
have little interest in discussing this outside a public
archived forum.

> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Aha, so it is about "my taxes" after all.
> > 
> > I just said that it would be financially neutral to most
> > parents and cost more for high-tax-bracket parents like me.
> > Now, how does this expose me to charges of "my taxes"
> > self-interest?
> 
> "If the voucher is for the same amount as ... taxes"
>  then you're talking about a tax giveaway to the rich!

I was talking of course about the average or median parent,
which should have been clear from my statement that it
is financially negative for high-income parents.  Sorry,
thanks for playing, please enjoy a copy of our home game. :-)

> If you mean tax credits, that means that you selfishly want 
> to control how the money is spent, rather than contribute 
> your democratic share to the common pot.

Sorry, proposing to increase my own tax burden just can't
be sold as 'selfish', even in this lame communitarian way.

> I thought the idea was to put money *into* the parents' hands.

You're thinking like a socialist if you think the money
just rains down from the sky.  No, the idea is to give
the parents *control* over how their education contribution
is spent, not to change how much they contribute.

> > > Why should public schools respond to price signals?
> > 
> > Because they would be like any private school, except that they
> > would get an extra subsidy for being a school of last resort. ...
> 
> Okay.
> 
> > > > > > 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?
> > >
> > > Keep punching, you have that straw man on the ropes.
> > 
> > If you think me asking you to restate your argument is a
> > "straw man", you might want to invest in a dictionary. :-)
> 
> The straw man was the word "perfectly".

Binary implies on or off, yes or no, true or false.  I take
the charge of "straw man" seriously, and if this is how you
throw it around then I think we're done here.

> You challenge me to deny
> "focus", i.e. argue that there is no such focus

I don't see how you could have interpreted me that way,
since all I've been talking about here is the "my drugs and
my taxes" focus of cannibitarians and propertarians.

> *sigh*  It's so tedious to spell things out, I'm 
> forever saying things obliquely and being misunderstood.

Then let's agree to disagree.  I thank you for the reference to
Friedman, but I think my time will be better spent rebutting him
publicly then helping you clarify yourself privately.
--
brian@holtz.org
http://humanknowledge.net