About Me

Name: Andrews
Location: Riva, MD
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
Our Sister Site

The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism

Originally posted on Random Notes on September 8, 2009

People are drawn to all manner of authoritarianism, almost everyone, at some point in his life has thought, if only in a moment of weakness, that this act or that should be banned. Rare is the individual who has unflinchingly understood at every moment the principle that by respecting the choices of others he also receives from them respect for his own. We all have stumbled and thought that the state may be able to solve some particularly vexing problem. Some of us later relented, realized the state was a poor choice of tools, and moved on. Many more have continued to believe that the state is the answer. Nor am I talking of just socialists, or even liberals, even on the nominally conservative side of the equation many dilute their commitment to small government with a liberal helping of exceptions ( "Smaller Government , Fair Weather Friends and Special Cases","Inescapable Logic", "Negative and Positive Rights", "All Or Nothing Thinking")1. For example, social conservatives, many of whom argue that the state power should never be allowed to meddle in private enterprise, unless it is to uphold decency and public morals. Or the many supposedly free market conservatives who accept that trade should be unfettered by any regulations, until it crosses national boundaries, at which point their commitment to freedom vanishes.

Whatever their motive, whatever their overall political ideology, there is one thing that all those calling for statist2 solutions have in common, and that is the disappointment they will almost inevitably feel should they get their wish.

Before anyone makes the mistake of thinking this another discourse on the inefficiency of state management3, allow me to dispel that belief. I have written plenty on that topic, and probably will again, but for now I am interested in another, related topic. That is the reason people make such calls, the motives behind their call for state intervention, and more important, the reality that shall greet the success of their plans, and how likely it is that they shall find the reality disappointing when compared to the dream that spawned it.

There are essentially three reasons for adopting statist solutions. Though two of them are just variations on the same argument. First, there is the solution adopted because "life's not fair", that is the statist solution adopted in an effort to address something that is seen as inequitable in the nature of reality itself. Sometimes this may be the outcome of past human action, but the solution itself is aimed at addressing a state of affairs and not ongoing human behavior4. The second set are those adopted because it is believed that people have malicious motives and are exploiting others. Finally, there are those statist solutions adopted because people are inclined to make bad decisions from which they must be protected. It is this final pair which can be lumped together, as it is unlikely people can be exploited unless they also make bad decisions, and, even if they can, in practice efforts to restrain malicious motives and discourage bad decisions tend to come across in the same manner5.

Most often the argument is some combination of these arguments, for instance, the argument for a heavy inheritance tax is presented as both an existential inequity (some people inherit more than others) and human folly (the rich unfairly favor their offspring). Sometimes the combination is not even obviously one of these arguments6, for example the current push for universal health care, but once looked at carefully, it will be evident that every statist proposition rests on these arguments. For example, in the case of universal health care, the argument is based on unfair reality, in the argument that many are too poor to get health care, or do not have jobs that provide it, human malice, in terms of greedy insurers and bosses unwilling to cover low level workers, and human folly, in terms of people abusing emergency rooms for primary care, not planning ahead, and not providing for their own health care. Generally the focus is on the first, unless a scapegoat is needed, when the argument from malice comes to the fore. The argument from folly is generally ignored, as it casts doubts on the merit of the uninsured, but from time to time it is brought up, especially when someone wants to lament our overcrowded hospitals.

There is one other factor that must be present. One can see a situation where life is unfair, or even where people are making bad decisions, and still not be motivated to involve the government in resolving it. What is required for a statist solution to seem reasonable is a belief that one knows better than the principals involved how to resolve the situation. That is, to put it in slightly critical terms, one must be sufficiently arrogant to think he knows best how to solve the problem. (See  "Appealing to Arrogance".)

And that is the primary source for dissatisfaction for those who promote statist solutions. Von Mises said that socialism is an expression of petty resentments. I won't go that far, but it is true that everyone who imagines a command economy always pictures it being run as if the dictator shared all of his own valuations and prejudices. But, in reality, except for the lucky few who end up being the dictator, or staffing the ruling administration, their wishes get no more consideration than those who did not support socialism, that is, none at all. Instead, they find themselves in the same position as the man in the street, petitioning the state to get their wishes honored. In other words, rather than the small but definite voice they had in a free society, both in their role of free citizen and int heir role as consumer, driving the economy, they now have only as much power as the administrators choose to give them, that is, usually,  none at ll.

In fact, for the most part, those who promote state intervention will find that their total satisfaction will be even less than it was before they got their wish. As, in the free market, they might not have had any power over others, but at least they had absolute control over their own affairs. Once they manage to give the state absolute power over whatever topic strikes their fancy, they will find, not only dot heir wishes have little control over the state, and thus no control over others, just as before, but now they no longer have control over their own affairs as well. In other words, they certainly sacrificed total control over their own affairs for the slight chance that the state may enact their wishes in terms of controlling the affairs of others.

It is a situation destined to disappoint almost everyone. Excepting the dictator or the ruling bureaucracy, no one who promoted intervention will find themselves more satisfied with the reality.

But that is a bit abstract, so let us look at a few concrete examples.

First, let us look at the authoritarians of the right, in their most mild form. Let us start with social conservatives and then move on to paleo-con protectionists (who are identical to protectionists of the left in that regard). After that, let us move along to the full scale socialists, and look at all out income redistribution. And finally, let us take a very quick glance at nationalized health care. In every case, I can promise that the likelihood of dissatisfaction is quite high.

Let's start with those promoting government oversight of content in the media, be it all media or just broadcasts on the public airwaves. Everyone who promotes such a policy has in mind some very specific rules, what they consider "common decency", and they also assume that their own views are so self-evident that all right thinking people share them. The problem is, that is hardly ever the case. While everyone promoting such a view thinks that a regime of "moral censorship" would correspond with their own personal morality, the truth is, unless they are running the system odds are good that the censors will either allow some things they consider immoral or prohibit something they consider ethical. And that is where the problem arises. Under a free market, they could protest, contact advertisers, stop spending money on advertised goods, cancel cable service and so on, using their own actions to influence the decisions of each private broadcaster. Under a censorship regime, they can do none of that. The broadcasters have the ultimate excuse, what they have broadcast meets the guidelines, so it must be acceptable. And so those who disagree with the censors' opinions have only one recourse,  protesting the actions of government. And we all know how well that works.

It is ironic, but those who advocate decency in broadcasting would be far better off with a government which did nothing to control content than under the strong censorship regime they tend to favor.

Protectionism presents a similar problem7. Generally it is presented by any proponents as a means to prevent the "shipping of jobs overseas" and to "protect jobs in our nation." But there is another truth that often goes unnoticed. As I hinted in my parody "I Have Seen The Light", there is no such thing as a consistent protectionist8. As those promoting protectionism are almost always doing so with an eye toward promoting some industry, or perhaps the workers in some industry, they are also aware that some degree of foreign trade is necessary for prosperity. And foreign trade is only possible if it is trad,e that is a two way exchange, which requires admitting foreign goods. And so protectionists, while decrying the entry of foreign workers, or foreign goods, in the are of their interest, also have to quietly ignore foreign goods or workers entering in other industries. Which means that each protectionist has to imagine that a protectionist regime would share his own particular perspective. However, in practice, this is rarely the case, and even if it were, with the next change of government, or even with the existing government changing which lobbyists catch their attention, the rules change form those the protectionist supports to those which harm rather than help him. And so, though a protectionist may imagine that a regime excluding foreign goods will be beneficial, he is far more likely to find, at the end  of the day, that protectionism is more harmful than helpful and he is completely disappointed after receiving what he desired for so long.

And that brings us to the most comprehensive redistributionist system imaginable, full communism. Now, in most cases, those advocating communism imagine that there is a small majority holding tremendous troves of wealth, and that enacting a communist system will end up improving their lot in life9.  Except under the most extraordinary circumstances, the sheer numbers of the poor and middle classes mean that the amount of wealth they hold will be considerable. Expropriating the rich will not produce the sort of wealth many imagine, and, even if the numbers are impressive, once divided by the monumental number of poor, it will provide very little. And that does not take into account the wealth which must be used to run the intrusive state, as well as the money needed to fund state ventures, which can no longer rely upon private investment, the great stores of private capital having been taken and redistributed. Even ignoring the gradual decline of industry under communism, and the probability of nepotism and corruption, a tremendous number of those who thought they would be recipients end up being donors.

Worse still, once they find the true results of their leveling,t hey have no recourse. Having been reduced to the same level of poverty as everyone else, they find they have no alternative but to accept it. With accumulation of wealth forbidden, with no ability to gather money or to even won anything more than his fellows, he loses all the alternatives of the free market, and finds his only choice is to meekly accept the poverty the state has forced upon him. Anything else is against the law.

And that brings us, at long last, to the current debate over medical reform. Specifically the question of rationing. There are many, many other issues with medical reform10, but I want to focus on rationing alone. And make no mistake, rationing will be an issue. Whatever our initial reform, be it a "public option" nominally competing with private insurance, a single payer insurance system, or outright nationalization of all medical services and free provision, the result will be the same11, eventually the state will be the single source determining what care is available to everyone.

The fact is that there are only so many doctors, only so much equipment, only so many beds, only so much medicine and only so many organs. Everything medical is, in a very real sense, of limited quantity. There is a second fact that many people do not mention. If medial care were free, there is effectively unlimited demand. As medical services take time to use, and some are uncomfortable, there are non-economic factors limiting individual demand (eg. people would want to spend some of their time doing non-medial tasks), but even with those slight checks on demand, free medical care would clearly create a demand far greater than our available supply, or any conceivable supply in the near future.

And so any system, be it private or public, will have limits on what can be provided. As I described in "Who Will Decide", the private system relies upon simple price. By setting the price properly, all who are willing to pay can get the service, and as a bonus, the added money will attract more resources tot he most demanded services, making them eventually cheaper12. Those promoting statist solutions are unhappy with this, and so imagine a system wherein everyone can have access tot he same services without being required to pay, without price deciding who will and won't have access. But, in this, they are setting themselves up for disappointment.

I am sure after the last three examples, you can see how this will work. Those promoting this answer imagine their personal prejudices will control the assignment of medial resources, while, in reality, others will be assigning priorities, which may not match their own. Under a free system, that would make little difference. If they felt treatment of an individual for disease X were important,t hey could contribute money to that person, who would then be able to buy treatment. But once th estate decides who does and does not get care, if the state makes disease X low priority, then there is no way to get treatment for that individual, he simply cannot be treated. Again, the state system looks great, as long as you are the one making all the decisions. Once that is no longer the case, you realize you not only deprived others of their choices, but yourself as well.

Which brings me to a final example, a "bonus example" if you will. That is the many, many nanny state laws we have passed. Laws against smoking, against transfats, against tanning beds, against all manner of items we consider dangerous. The argument being that people cannot be allowed to decide for themselves whether to assume the risk, the risk is too great, and people's ability to reason too limited to let them choose.

What is interesting is to watch the backlash among some who once supported such measures. People who happily exiled smokers tot he outside, then to posts 40 feet from any doorway, and eventually tried to ban smoking even outdoors, find themselves upset that their favorite foods, or their cherished tanning beds, are also banned. And those who once argued that smokers could not make a rational decision about the risks of cigarettes suddenly find themselves imagining that those who could not decide about cigarettes CAN decide about UV-A, UV-B and transfats.

And that is perhaps the best example of all. Having cast man as unable to decide, they did not consider what that truly meant in practice. As they were banning a vice they did not share ("It Doesn't Matter to ME...", "Drug Legalization", "Who Does It Harm?"), they could smugly wonder how anyone could possibly think smoking was worth the risk. But now that they find others looking down upon them for their "foolish" choice, they have rediscovered individual rights, relative risks and benefits ("Absolute Values") and all those other arguments they once dismissed.

As I have argued all along in this post, the statist system is a wonderful answer, at least in many minds, so long as you are making the decisions, or agree with those who do. But such harmony is unlikely to last forever, while the power you confer upon the state will, so, in the end it is far more likely you will not get what you want, will not cast the world in your image, but will instead find yourself being told what to do by someone who thinks you just as foolish as you find the hoi polloi around you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Recently, with the loss of John McCain many have argued that conservatism not only needs such exceptions, but should focus on them, becoming in effect a less statist version of liberalism. I argue against these positions in "Conservatives and the "Big Picture"", "The Party of 'No'?", "Activism As The Only Acceptable Position? ", "I Told You So!", "The Big Lie", "The Big Lie Part II", "A Question" and "Don't Panic". The again, variations of this argument have been going on ever since Goldwater began to move part of the party in a more freedom-oriented direction, and even more so since many libertarians embraced the modern Republican party (myself included, though I no longer embrace the title libertarian). For example, the paleo-cons have long been trying to move the party in a different direction, as I describe in "Misplaced Blame and A Power Play" and "Remember I Predicted It". (Just to clarify my beliefs, as I mention my one time libertarianism, I suggest reading  "The Benefits of Federalism" and "Why I Am Not A Libertarian".)

2. By "statist" I mean those solutions involving government intervention not intended solely to protect individual rights. The type of solutions I termed "asymmetrical" in "Symmetry and Asymmetry in Government" and  "The Single Greatest Weakness". The state is a proper tool for the collective protection of rights or settlement of honest disputes, as I explained in "My Vision of Government", "My Vision of Government Part II", "Revisiting an Old Post" and "Prelude". Beyond that, use of the state is an inappropriate application of physical force, or the threat of physical force, ("An Analogy For Government") and those are the solutions I term "statist".

3. For those interested in that more technical analyses, I deal with education in  "You Don't Drown in a Glass of Water - Vouchers Revisited", "Why Vouchers are not the Answer", "Never Ascribe To Evil, A Discussion of Education", "Reforming Education", "Why Private Schools Win", "A Contradiction" and "Skeptics? Really? I Beg to Differ", and the proposed changes to health care in  "The Insurance Sham", "First Kill All the Lawyers, Looking Back at Katrina", "A Cure for Cancer?", "Government Efficiency", "High Cost of Medical Care", "The Problem With Tort Reform", "Clarification of My Argument for a Free Market in Medicine", "Cutting "Costs"", "Misunderstanding Profits", "Contradiction",  "AARP Proves They Are Partisan Hacks and other Thoughts on Health Care Reform", "Can Anyone Make Sense of This?", "Envy And Analogy", "Confirmation, Yet Again", "Red Herring", "Who Will Decide" and "My Health Care Plan". I treat this argument in more general terms in "Liberalism's False Dichotomy ",  "Greed Versus Evil", "Fairness and the Free Market" and "Planning For Imperfection". Finally, I treat the topic of motivation in the posts  "Bureaucratic Management" , "The Bureaucratic Mind", "The Inevitability of Bureaucratic Management in Government Enterprises" and  "Killing the Railroads".

4. I include in this category, for the most part, efforts to streamiline the economy and otherwise scientifically manage the economy ("The Limits of Technocracy", "Technocrats", "The Limits of Econometrics", "The Limits of "Scientific" Management", "Knowing Our Limits", "Greed Versus Evil").  Some of these overlap with the other motives, as I discuss, but for the most part technocratic solutions tend to be sold on existing inefficiencies, rather than human mistakes. So they fall under the category of life's unfairness rather than human fallibility.

5. Long time readers are quite familiar with this argument, that statism almost inevitably rests on the argument for human incompetence or evil. My more recent writing on this topic can be found in  "The Citizen Dichotomy", "Man's Nature and Government" ,"In A Nutshell", "Cognitive Dissonance Part 2". The difference here is the addition of the argument that sometimes statism is also justified by appeals to life's unfairness independent of humans. In some ways I addressed this in "Life Is Not Fair - And Trying To Make It So Makes Things Worse", "Subsidizing Irresponsibility and Poor Planning" and others, but the explicit statement of this principle is new to this post.

6. I was at one time going to mention envy as a possible additional motive, when it struck me that I had myself fallen into the error I describe, mistaking a combination of these motives for something else. After all, what is envy but one individual's belief that life has treated him unfairly and given another unjust rewards? So even simple envy is nothing more than the first motive in disguise. (Sometimes with the addition of malice, as those envious of others often ascribe sinister motives or evil deeds to them.)

7. I have covered this topic so many times that I cannot provide all relevant links. If you want to get a more technical understanding of protectionism and the arguments against it, you can start with "Proof Keynes (and Krugman) Are Insane", "Technocrats",  "Some Confirmation", "Has No One Heard Of Lord Say?", "The Rubber Yardstick" and "Protectionism Right and Left". Links in those posts should take you to most of my writing on the topic.

8. In many ways, protectionism parallels the practice of pragmatism as I described in "Pragmatism Revistied, Again", "The Shortcomings of Pragmatism" and "Pragmatism Revisited". They also match the argument I made in "The Endless Cycle of Intervention", "Don't Blame the Politicians", "Pragmatism Revistied, Again", "The Political Spectrum", "Inconsistencies in Historical Perspectives" and "Cigarettes, Sudan and Abortion" . They adopt what sounds like a consistent position, but in practice allow so many exceptions that their "theory" is more like a set of specific unrelated rules. Then again, as the theory underlying protectionism is itself self-contradictory, it makes sense that the implementation would, of necessity, be inconsistent and riddled with exceptions.

9. For our purposes we will ignore the fact that lack of a price structure means communism will inherently be less productive than a free market, and will suffer from a chronic misdirection of resources. This would mean that the communist state would become ever less wealthy, seeing its accumulated riches slowly erode, and so even the small pie which was redistributed would begin to shrink, leaving everyone less and less wealthy with time. See "Misunderstanding Profits", "Cutting "Costs"", "Utopian Pipe Dream" and "The Limits of "Scientific" Management".

10. See footnote 3, above, for links to relevant articles.

11. I will not make the argument here, but there is every reason to believe that a "public option" will inevitably lead to a de facto or de jure single payer system, and there is little difference in practice between single payer system, where medical providers are nominally privately employed, and outright nationalization. If the state is paying all bills, the service might as well be nationalized. For some arguments on this topic see "Clarification of My Argument for a Free Market in Medicine",  "AARP Proves They Are Partisan Hacks and other Thoughts on Health Care Reform" and "One Real Life Example".

12. As I described in  "High Cost of Medical Care" and "The Insurance Sham", the way insurance is handle din the US has short circuited this system somewhat. However, the obvious solution is to remove the statist intrusion which caused the malformation, not to add yet more distortions in hopes that eventually the various twistings will balance one another out.

--------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

Clearly this builds upon a number of concepts established in earlier posts. I mentioned several in the footnotes, but there are countless other posts which also relate tot his topic. As a start, I would recommend looking at the articles linked in  "Planning For Imperfection", "Greed Versus Evil", "First Kill All the Lawyers, Looking Back at Katrina", "When Help Hurts", "My Vision of Government Part II", "The Triumph of Good",  "Monetary Issues Made Simple Part II" and  "The Benefits of Federalism", and following the links in those posts to my earlier arguments. If any other articles come to mind as being especially apropos, I will add another postscript listing them.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Utopianism and Disaster

Originally published in Random Notes August 10, 2009

I have written a lot about the mindset of liberals. I wrote about the generally negative view of their fellow man ( "The Citizen Dichotomy", "Man's Nature and Government" ,"In A Nutshell", "Cognitive Dissonance Part 2"). About the arrogance inherent in much liberalism("Arrogance and Gun Control", "Appealing to Arrogance"). About the anti-man agenda of many environmentalists("The Lie of Environmentalism", "Anti-Man Intellectuals"). About the pessimism inherent in much of liberalism's view of mankind ("Two Kinds of Liberal"). About their failure to recognize their own limitations ("The Limits of "Scientific" Management","Knowing Our Limits","Greed Versus Evil"). Even about their condescension, bordering on chauvinism ("Eurocentrism? Racism? Liberal Traits All"). However, today I plan to write about something positive. Unfortunately, like many good things, it has been somewhat misdirected, and as a result has rather negative outcomes, but still, it is one of the more positive aspects of liberalism.

That is the liberal tendency toward utopianism.

Now, let's start by saying there is nothing wrong with striving for perfection. It is unreachable, but striving toward perfection can lead individuals to better themselves. So utopianism is not, in itself, a bad thing. The problem here is that desire to push toward perfection is, in liberalism, coupled with a lack of faith in one's fellow man, combined with a faith in the omnipotence of government, and that has dire results.

For instance, let us look at the course torts have taken over the years. Originally torts was, as other's have described it, the sleepy backwater of the legal system. It was mostly concerned with auto accidents and other encounters between strangers. Most of what we now think of as tort law was instead included in contract law. When individuals entered into consensual agreements, by sales, hiring of services, employment, or any other voluntary contact, they would assign liability in the contract formed, explicit or implicit, and if they failed to do so, excluding a few very narrow areas where statute controlled, the principle of "caveat emptor" controlled. It was not a perfect system, but it was predictable, it gave the greatest control to the individual, and required the least interpretation on the part of judges. In short, it was perfectly in accord with the idea that anything not touching on public policy should be controlled by private agreement.

But some judges and other legal theorists noticed that the system often produced less than ideal outcomes. Many times buyers and sellers failed to foresee possible accidents and individuals were injured without being compensated. Or, as every first year law student learns in the MacPherson case, buyers of second hand goods, even if defective, had no action against the manufacturer, as no contractual relation existed. (Though they did have a cause of action against the individual who sold to them, provided they contracted properly.) And, of course, as always, there was the argument that big companies were so huge and powerful that they could simply force any terms they wished upon consumers. And so, they theorized, the law needed to change.

But rather than wait for the legislature to step in, to force some sort of standard of care upon sellers, or adjust the presumption of "caveat emptor", or, to wait for the free market to favor those sellers who provided better warranties (provided consumers wanted them), the theorists were driven by these utopian impulses to immediately reshape the law into a system which provided a fair outcome for all.

The result is what we have today, a system where contractual assignment of liability is all but impossible, where lawyers seek deep pockets regardless of relative liability, where some services are simply not provided due to the risk of suit. Instead of a system where individuals sometimes went without compensation, but outcomes were predictable, we have a system where some individuals get tremendous payouts, while others still get nothing, but now where nothing is predictable and contracts have been gutted.

But it was a predictable outcome. Justice, in the sense of predictability, is possible. Justice, in the sense of everyone getting precisely what they deserve, is not. The first existed under the old system. It was not perfect, sometimes innocent victims got nothing, sometimes those who did wrong walked away unscathed, but it was a fair system in the sense that everyone knew what they were getting into from the beginning. On the other hand, the utopian goal of giving each his due is impossible, primarily because no one can know in advance what a given judge or jury will think is "just". As a result, the utopian system, seeking perfect justice, instead results in random outcomes, unpredictable from the outset, which cause many companies to either cease production or to scale back operations, simply to avoid the possibility of litigation.

And that tends to be the outcome of chasing perfection, at least chasing it through the use of the government. But perhaps another example will help to illustrate this.

Let us look at a topic I mentioned earlier ("In Defense of Discrimination", "Private Versus Public Racism", "How to Handle Idiots"), eliminating racism.

Racism was a very real problem, especially in areas where it had gained the force of law through legislation enforcing segregation or banning interracial marriage1. The was also racism on the part of individuals, what I describe as "private racism", but such racism had a limited scope, being restricted tot he property of the racist individual himself, and was clearly not universally held, as evidenced by the need to use laws to enforce segregation, rather than relying on individual racist business owners. Still, there was clearly a problem with racial discrimination.

However, the solution eventually adopted was the utopian one, and hence both the most expansive and most disastrous. Rather than simply end government enforced racism, and then allow societal pressures to eventually bring around the majority, the solution adopted was to not only force government to treat races equally, but private individuals as well. And, not even that was enough. Instead, citing the impact of past racism and the injustice of leaving such a legacy uncorrected, the left began pushing for various affirmative action schemes to attempt to put minorities back in the position they would have been but for racism2.

The problems with affirmative action are manifold. First there are the speculative nature of its goals. Where WOULD minorities have been but for racism? without slavery most blacks would not be in the US at all, so any response is simple guesswork or fiction. Which means that no one can tell when affirmative actions has met its goals, and so makes it an ultimately open ended program without any clearly defined goals or measures of success. Second, by favoring one group at the expense of another, it opens up future claims of discrimination by other groups, with the possibility of a "reverse affirmative action" at some date, logically followed by yet another reversal, and another. Which brings me tot he final complaint, that by breaking people into competing pressure groups it ends up exacerbating, rather than healing, racial divides, by making race a primary category of thought and keeping concepts of race foremost in everyone's minds. In fact, by openly favoring one race over others, it creates feelings of hostility where there were previously none, likely creating racism it is trying to redress3.

But even without taking affirmative action into account, the equal opportunity component was itself overreaching, thanks to utopian goals. The obvious answer to racism supported by law is to repeal the laws, but in the liberal mind that would do too little, as it would leave individuals free to discriminate. In their utopian vision, nothing would be enough unless it ended all racism in one blow, and so we ended up destroying individual property rights and rights of assembly, setting the stage for countless discrimination suits, tremendous costs to avoid such suits, and providing a justification for ever increasing government intervention.

At the same time, the laws themselves have done nothing to change social attitudes. Yes, racism is declining, and yes people have in general come to see racism as a bad thing, but that was in the cards with or without the laws. If anything, as I mentioned above, the laws have served to keep racism alive, and keep racial animosity active. Politicians, proposing new racial preferences, need to play up the amount of racism remaining, while the need to hire minorities to "keep the numbers right' make whites denied jobs wondering if they lost out solely because of their race, while minorities are often stigmatized, fairly or unfairly, as token hires, making others, and sometimes themselves, doubt their abilities. The entire system does nothing but perpetuate the racial problems it was supposed to cure, and in a way simply eliminating racist laws, or requiring the government to be colorblind, would not4.

The topic of racism leads naturally into the more general topic of trying to eliminate "bad ideas", a concept I criticized in "The Danger Inherent in Banning "Bad Ideas"". While this is less popular among those on the left, mainly due to their very vocal support for the first amendment, there are still some utopians whose schemes involve this idea.

For instance, many feminists think that their task not only involves opening the workplace to women, but changing the workplace to eliminate any "hostile environments". That is, basically banning any ideas critical of the feminist goals. And again, by over-reaching, the outcomes are predictable. As with the attempts to change the world to reach all their goals at once concerning race, their efforts to transform the world in terms of sex have had similar outcomes.

I could go on, but I think that should make it clear. There is no reason to go into the many other utopian dreams such as the efforts to eliminate unfair advantages of birth through confiscatory inheritance taxes. From the examples above, it should be obvious that the pursuit of perfection, the utopian strain inherent in liberalism, is a damaging trend, at least when combined with liberalism's view of man and faith in government. But why?

First, and most obviously, the utopian solutions require giving tremendous power to the state. As with most solutions on the left, the tool used to redress any wrongs is the government in some form or another, as only the government has the requisite power to enact the instant leveling utopians desire. And so, for any solution to work, the government must be granted tremendous power.

However, as I wrote elsewhere, once you have handed the government power, and given it a mission, the logic of that mission becomes a force unto itself. You may only want to ban transfats, but once you admit the government can stop us form doing anything harmful to ourselves, how can you resist draconian laws against pre or extra marital sex, sky diving or motorcycles? After all, each is no more necessary than tranfats, and carries health risks of its own. And that is the primary problem with utopian levelers, they want to create a secular heaven, but they end up crafting a totalitarian hell. Speech codes may seem a good idea when you are banning racist slurs, but who is to say that same logic cannot be turned against words or thoughts that are important to you?

And that is the primary problem with many liberal solutions, they are crafted by those on the left who think they will be the benevolent despot, or that the despot will be someone just like them. But there is no guarantee. Any state which depends for its existence and prosperity upon "good people" is doomed to failure. Once you unleash that sort of power, it is inevitable at least once it will fall into the wrong hands. Any plan should account for that reality, yet most utopians never even consider the possibility.

But even if trying to create "justice" did not entail creating an all powerful, constantly meddling, destructive state, if it could be done without those costs, would it work?

The answer is clearly no, for a number of reasons.

First, there are very often side effects, usually unanticipated, and often producing results exactly opposite those desired. For instance the way that many laws combating racism manage instead to keep racism alive, or even make it worse. Many times this is the outcome of the "keyhole thinking" I described in "Negative and Positive Rights" and "The Devil is in the Definitions (And Assumptions)", or the "pragmatism" I criticized in "Pragmatism Revistied, Again",  "The Shortcomings of Pragmatism" and "Pragmatism Revisited". Confronted by a problem the utopians, themselves no great proponents of consistent political theories, instead adopt the approach that seems "to make sense", which is inevitably a "comprehensive" answer, that being one requiring the maximum intervention. As a result, they often overlook the possible side effects.

However, such side effects are not necessary consequences, they just seem to occur more often than not, so let us move on to those problems which are inherent in all utopian solutions.

First, and probably greatest, there is the simple problem of how to define justice. As I said when describing the change sin the old tort system, the original solution may not have been fair, but it was consistent. Everyone knew the way the law would rule in the vast majority of cases. Contracts controlled, and in general the meaning of those contracts was clear, even if many could argue the outcome was unfair.

The new tort system seeks to achieve "justice" or "equity"5 or "social insurance". The problem is, what do those terms mean? Under the old system, even in a tortious encounter between strangers, the goal set the limits to the case. Torts existed to "make the parties whole". So, whatever was lost was the limit of restitution. That is no longer the case, damages now can include suffering, punitive damages, and a host of other nebulous terms that allow juries to enact the theorists' vision of torts as a tool for justice.

The problem being, no one knows what a given judge or jury will think constitutes justice. That is why certain counties or certain judges are so sought after by trial lawyers, they have a record of ruling against companies and in favor of plaintiffs. On the other hand, in most cases, neither party has any idea what the ruling will be, nor what damages might result. And that is hardly a recipe for justice in either sense. Instead it creates an environment where some plaintiffs effectively "win the lottery" getting many times in damages what they once would, while others go home with nothing. On the other hand, this uncertainty often causes companies to refuse to provide much needed goods and services6.

Even ignoring the fact that often justice or even perfection is a difficult term to define, making utopian schemes impossible, or at the least resulting in contradictory interpretations, there are even greater problems. Often, despite the belief that there is "one proper way", the utopians fail to see that there can be honest disagreement, not just on what constitutes justice, but on a host of decisions. Many times seeming conflicts which the utopians hope to resolve are not the result of an innocent and a villain, but of a conflict between two innocents. In such cases the utopian system usually ends up making a villain of one innocent, picking sides and then pretending one innocent was really a villain7.

And that leads to the last problem with many utopian schemes. I touched upon it in my post "Life Is Not Fair - And Trying To Make It So Makes Things Worse". Many times, injustice, at least as defined by the utopians, is not the fault of some villain, nor even another innocent they can cast as villain, but simply the outcome of an impersonal, random event, be it a birth defect or a natural disaster. The problem being that to "make right" such people, the utopians need resources with which to pay for such remedies. However, without a villain to expropriate, they end up having to take from the rest of us, effectively punishing everyone for the injustice of the universe. Even were such solutions fully efficient, it would mean taking for a large number to make right a small number, which could not help but breed some resentment. But, given the inefficiency of most government solutions, not only does it breed such resentment, but it does so at the same time that it takes far more than ever reaches the beneficiary, leaving everyone as a whole less satisfied in the end.

There is probably more to argue here, but I think that should be more than enough to make my point. Utopian solutions, at least utopian governmental solutions, inevitably over-reach, giving the government excessive power, usually bringing negative reactions from those int he vicinity, lack clear goals or even certain definitions, and often end up making others feel as if they are being punished for nothing, breeding resentment. All in all, utopianism, at least when coupled with the power of government, is perhaps even more harmful than simple corruption or lust for power or wealth. At least honest thieves and tyrants usually stop at some point, true believers, as most utopians are, respond to failure with still more effort.

And that means an even bigger disaster.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. There were also cases where private racism had caused the legal system to break down, for instance areas where juries would not convict those guilty of racially-motivated crimes. However, that is a problem that is not easily solved, by any political system. Despite much ballyhoo about federal efforts to prosecute race-based crimes in the south, until attitudes changed, no government intervention accomplished much. The truth is majority antipathy is a hard thing to overcome. Short of military occupation and martial law, any reform needs to wait for eventual changes in attitude. Anything else will have little impact. I mention this as these cases are often thrown up as argument against federalism or local empowerment. However, for all the federal intervention and all the law making, the fact remains that little changed in those regions until people changed their own minds, which was hardly the result of government intervention.

2. Even beyond affirmative action and quotas, we now have pressure for reparations as well. Rather than explain the flaws of the reasoning behind reparations, I will point to my past criticism in "Some Logical Problems With Reparations".

3. It is an arguable point whether there is or is not a causal link, but it is interesting that the number of racial incidents on college campuses tends to vary with the aggressiveness of the "diversity" programs at the school. I have not seen numbers on this in some time, but it did hold in studies many years ago, as evidenced by the prevalence of racial incidents on campuses in the northeast, where race-based recruiting is also most popular. What is more interesting are the low number fo racial incidents on southern campuses, where traditional stereotypes would argue for the most. (Though in recent years southern elite schools have begun adopting many practices of the elite north eastern schools, as well as poaching teachers and administrators, so it would be interesting to see if this trend continues or changes.)

4. I have dealt with these topics in more detail in my posts "Private Versus Public Racism", "Mainstreaming hate", "Some Logical Problems With Reparations", "More Thoughts on Slavery", "The Important Lesson of Racism", "How to Become a Victim of Crime", "In Defense of Discrimination","A Statute of Limitations for Race","How to Handle Idiots" and "Back Again".

5. It is interesting that "courts of equity" in common law states have a similar reputation for inconsistency. While you can predict in broad outlines how a probate court or custodial hearing may go, you are often unable to predict the specifics. That is, because like the new tort system, equity courts are generally endowed with much more discretion, and as a result are much less predictable.

6. Many have pointed out that goods and services related to the greatest risks, as well as to the most severe health problems, are the ones most likely to be removed from the market, as they are the most likely targets for suits. So, instead of making the world safer, the tort system means the most needed safety measures and the most urgent medical procedures are often the ones which can no longer be obtained.

7. A perfect example is found in my post "An Old Bone of Contention". The question of women in the military is often painted by those on the left as being a conflict between right thinkers and neanderthals, but the truth is many who question women in combat, or even in the military at all, are not opposed to equality for women, but instead have questions about readiness, morale and recruiting. And as the many issues with pregnancies during the first Persian Gulf conflict show, some of thsoe readiness concerns were legitimate. However, because utopians cannot accept that those who oppose them are anything other than completely wrong, those questions were declare off limits by many on the left.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

I have written on specific aspects of this problem before, though without voicing the more general principle. For example, in "The "Lucky" Rich", I pointed out that most wealthy individuals earn that wealth through their own efforts not through any innate advantage. In "Greed Versus Evil", as well as "A Great Quote",  I argue that even the few who do inherit a fortune and maintain it through investment may not produce anything themselves, but serve a valuable social function by providing funds for new ventures, more than justifying their income. And in "Life Is Not Fair - And Trying To Make It So Makes Things Worse", I made the more general argument that trying to "level the playing field", being a subjective undertaking, tends to create more inequalities than it resolves, as well as creating massive problems for society in general.  Finally, though not exactly on point, "Inescapable Logic" describes the way that one intervention justifies yet another, providing a good explanation of why such utopian measures not only grow in size, but often see their scope stretch beyond their original topic into seemingly unrelated areas.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Danger Inherent in Banning "Bad Ideas"

Originally published in Random Notes July 22, 2009

I am glad I finally read all those comments I received over the past few days. As usual they have inspired a number of new posts. However, rather than following my usual practice of listing each and every idea here, let me save us both some time and just dive into writing. The list can always come later if I start running out of steam.

The first thing I noticed in reading my comments was how much Caday5 writes. Not that I am one to comment on excessive writing, and even if I were, that isn't exactly the basis of a scintillating post. But I did note two recurring themes in Caday5's posts on my various articles on racism ("In Defense of Discrimination","A Statute of Limitations for Race","How to Handle Idiots","Back Again"). First, an inability to distinguish between action by the government and action by private individuals (especially when those private individuals banded together into businesses or clubs or other groups). Second, an argument that basically ran thus: Racism is a bad thing, and it hurts people, so we need to ban it, whether private or state in origin. It is that second position I plan to address here, though, in the process, we will also need to address the first.

The problem here is simple, and one the left usually understands, in fact one they obsess about in other contexts.Think about their vehement defense of the first amendment. They understand that once you start banning unpopular ideas you run the risk of destroying individual freedom. After all, persecution always begins by demonizing the opponent, making their ideas unpopular and then banning those ideas. So, in other contexts, the left understands that allowing the banning of even "bad" ideas is the first step in the destruction of personal liberty, but somehow, once you move on to "business" and "public accommodations", they lose this understanding, and think they can "draw lines" and limit the state in ways they would never accept in terms of personal liberties.

Since it seems there is some confusion, let me begin with the most basic points, ones on which we can all agree, and move on to the more difficult positions, such as the lack of difference between "individual liberties" or "civil rights" and "economic rights" ("Economic Versus Social", "A Question for Artists of the Left", "Cognitive Dissonance Part 2", "Liberal Bait and Switch"), the lack of distinction between "public accommodations" and private action ("In Defense of Discrimination"), or the significant differences between state and private action ("Private Versus Public Racism","Economic Versus Social").

So, starting with the basics. Banning "bad" ideas is dangerous. No one is going to argue that there are not certain ideas which may be dangerous, ideas which, through their simple expression, can cause problems for society. To return to the comments on which this post is based, racism is one such concept.In a society made up of many races, ethnic groups, cultures, religions, and so on, in short, in a pluralistic society, the existence of openly bigoted groups can cause tensions which can lead to all manner of social problems. Granted, if individuals respect one another's rights there will be much less trouble, but the existence of such bigotry tends to fuel tensions which can lead to violations of the law.

Having said all that, yes, it is clear there are "bad" ideas, ideas which the vast majority consider dangerous to society, destructive and harmful. For example, freedom of speech or religion. Open homosexuality. Voting rights for women. Labor activism. I'll stop now, as you probably got the picture.

And that is the point. Any idea which is sacrosanct today was once dangerous and viewed as harmful to society. Freedom of religion led at one time to just such tensions as we are arguing arise from open bigotry. And that brings me to my first point. Now, I highly doubt that racist views we find offensive today will ever be acceptable again, or will prove to be correct, but I can't KNOW with certainty. And since I can't know with certainty, every time I ban an idea, or prevent the open expression of that idea, I run the risk of being cast in the future as the inquisitors of Galileo. Yes, we are fairly certain that racism is bad, we can even make logical arguments against it, but so could they. No one ever thinks they are wrong, but from history we can see they often were. So, without absolute, inhuman certainty, banning any idea runs the risk of placing one on the wrong side of history, and harming society by preventing the expression of a possibly beneficial idea.

Of course, making that argument using racism is unlikely to win many converts, even though the argument is correct. So let me move to the second argument. Yes, everyone agrees that racism is bad, but is that a valid standard? What if tomorrow the majority were to agree your treasured ideas were wrong? What if they decided liberalism, Christianity, pluralism, or some other idea precious to you was as unacceptable as we find racism? You see, once you allow that the majority can ban something it finds "bad" there is no way to draw a line1. Any belief is a possible target, including those you find most precious. Short of placing yourself as a dictator, and thus above the reach of the law, the only way to ensure your beliefs will be respected is to extend the same respect to all others. As I described in "A Rational Approach to Punishment", we all would love a legal system which bound all others and gave us infinite freedom, but as I responded in the same post, that is not going to happen. The only viable system is for us to extend the same respect to others, even when their beliefs offend us, we ask them to extend to us.

So, unless you are willing to risk having your rights violated and your beliefs branded impermissible, unless you are willing to risk being jailed for holding the wrong thoughts, then you ,must accept that ideas, even those you find offensive2, must have the same protections your thoughts do.

Which brings me to the usual rebuttal. Liberals often argue that, yes, individuals do have unfettered rights, but those rights no longer apply when they provide a "public accommodation". In that case, because they are acting in some sort of quasi-governmental capacity, they are subject to different rules.

I wrote before ("In Defense of Discrimination"), that this is absurd for a number of reasons, foremost because it is almost impossible to know where to draw a line. Is a dinner party a "public accommodation"? How about a party where I ask people to help[ pay for the beer? What is the entry fee is fixed? If strangers are allowed? If poster are put up? If it is held on a regular schedule? At a fixed location? How about if the place where it is held is used only for such parties3?When does it stop being a private party and become a public accommodation? Were my college parties subject to nose counting by the EEOC and was I open to suit if I turned away black guest without adequate justification or a similar number of rejected white guests?

But even if we accept that somehow this line can be drawn, if we approve some sort of Potter Stewart "I know it when I see it" argument for the definition of "public accommodation", there are still issues with applying rules intended for government to "public accommodations." The most obvious example would be applying the establishment clause, now modified into the "separation of church and state". To see how this would be a problem, ask whether a church is a "public accommodation", and try to imagine how a church could comply with today's definition of the establishment clause. Or try to imagine censorship rules to theaters hosting plays and movies. It should be clear trying to apply all the rules under which government operates to "public accommodations" would be impossible.

But let us ignore that for now, and, despite the illogic of it, let us accept that public accommodations are restricted by only a limited subset of restrictions that apply to government.  Which brings us, at least, to asking the final two questions. First, why should public accommodations be treated differently (even if we could identify them with certainty, and even if we accept that they are under only a limited range of restrictions)? Second, is it beneficial to limit public accommodations differently than individuals?

The first is easy to answer, or at least easy to recite the justification.The argument is that because the businesses, clubs and so on deal with the public, they are subject to different rules.  Beyond that, some very large entities, such as malls and resorts, are often argued to be acting "in loco government" as they are large and provide security and similar services.

As the second is the most incorrect, let us dismiss that now. Businesses are NOT anything like a government. Yes, a shopping mall may employ security and may detain individuals, they may make rules for those visiting, but those are only extensions of private property rights. I can detain someone I think stole from me4, and I can make rules for my house or business. Malls, resorts and stores do not have the right to take life, to deprive an individual of property, or otherwise to carry out acts we associate with government power. And that makes it absurd to hold them to higher standards than ordinary citizens.

And what about the claim that businesses, by "dealing with the public" have to forgo property rights and the right of association? The problem there is, what does "dealing with the public" mean? I deal with the public daily, seeing coworkers, strangers, all manner of people. Does that mean I lose the right of freedom of association? And what about private clubs? They allow in new members, and thus "deal with the public", but they are also closed, private associations. So how do we determine if they "deal with the public" or not?

I could go on, but let me just point out what should already be obvious.

YOU CANNOT DRAW LINES.

When you say "it is bad to ban holding and expressing ideas, but we will do just that, but only for 'public accommodations'," you set yourself up for failure. And for two reasons. First, because there is no clear line to draw. Once you start banning the expression of ideas in public accommodations, people will exploit those grey areas I mentioned to expand that to ever larger bodies. Just as the banning of smoking extended from small "common sense" rules to near total prohibition ("In Defense of Discrimination"), the banning of ideas in "public accommodations" will spread, as we have seen in university speech codes, anti "hate speech" proposals and other efforts to limit even the private holding or expression of "bad" ideas.

Second, even if the lines could be drawn, one cannot fight logic. In any dispute, the more consistent side will win. ("Inescapable Logic II") Just look at the last election. McCain wobbled back and forth between conservative and "moderate", but mostly supported larger government, Obama supported larger government, and more of it, and so he won.("Need to Change Direction?", "The Big Lie", "Why Obama Won, And Why He Is Losing Support Now") He was more consistent. Similarly, once we allow that speech can be restrained, that ideas can be banned, that freedom of association, of speech and so on can be abrogated, there is no logical limit ("A Strange Reaction"). If rights are not absolute("The Wrong Way to Argue", "It Is So Simple"), then they cease to exist.

Oh, it may not happen right away5, but it will. History shows that is inevitable. Unless we change course, unless we repeal the old laws, once we accept an argument which logically leads to a conclusion, be it in favor of freedom or tyranny ("Conservatives and the "Big Picture"","WSJ Misses the Mark AGAIN"), we will start ourselves on the path to that final conclusion. To think anything else will happen is pure fantasy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. As a geeky aside, this is why I always thought Spock's "logical" principles were so illogical. "The needs oft he many outweigh the needs of the few" would lead simply to mass metaphorical cannibalism. The many would basically expropriate the minority. Once only the majority remained, it would fragment, with the new majority consuming the new minority, and so on and so on. Unfettered majority rule is far from logical and leads to little but gang warfare. Spock's "logical" society would not resemble the Vulcan culture we saw, but the culture of the Road Warrior. (And thus ends my geeky aside.)

2. As has been pointed out repeatedly, it is the offensive which needs protection most of all. Popular thoughts are never at risk of being banned, only those without broad support. No politician will try to ban the majority's biases, they will attack a convenient, unpopular minority. Which means that one who fights for principles will always end up defending the most reprehensible. It is an unfortunate truth, but one we have to recognize. It is part of why principle stands often arouse such scorn, while those willing to "compromise" and sell out their principles when they prove inconvenient often enjoy much greater popularity.

3. Some may think a regularly scheduled party, with a fixed entry cost, held in a location specially built for that event and where nothing else is held sounds like a clear "public accommodation", but think a bit. What if you have a $10 buy-in poker party every Saturday, held in a basement room you sue for nothing but poker games. Is your game a public accommodation? It meets all those criteria. And if you allow friends to bring their friends, you are even "open to strangers". Hopefully this makes clear how vague such definitions can become.

4. Yes, if I am wrong, I may later be sued or even criminally charged if I acted improperly, but citizens do have the right to detain fugitive felons or those they see committing a crime. So the shopping mall or store owner is acting in no way differently than any private citizen could.

5. Some will argue that we have had these laws for years and yet have not seen the total restriction of freedom of conscience. My response would be that just because something has not yet happened does not mean it will not. You haven't died yet, but does that mean you are immortal? Did my youthful lack of sexual encounters mean I would always be a virgin? Things can be delayed and yet still be inevitable. Those who take such a position are akin to those who ahve skin cancer yet refuse to have it removed as "it didn't hurt me so far". Just because we have delayed the logical outcomes of violating our rights does not mean we will forever.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Drug Legalization

Originally posted on Random Notes June 13, 2009

I have been arguing this topic for some time, and I have come to realize that it is an argument where the rational approach is unlikely to change minds. Because of the rather emotional overtones the fight has taken on, both sides have dug in their heels and won't budge. Those fighting for legalization will not budge an inch, convinced any restrictions will open the door to ever increasing regulations (and I am firmly in this camp), while those who want to continue fighting the war on drugs simply cannot accept "giving up".

So, perhaps it is time to try a new approach. Rather than argue the points I have been arguing for so long, I should try a new tack.

I once before argued that the logic of the war on drugs, that we can pass laws to keep people from "harming themselves" is the same foundation upon which every totalitarian law is based. I also argued that once we admit some concession tot eh view that people need to be protected by those who know better, we simply cannot draw the line, the logic will be followed to its final conclusion, going from drug prohibition to nanny state oversight to total regimentation.

When I made that argument before, many dismissed it, arguing that "line drawing" is required in all laws, and that the law can be made to go "this far and no farther". However, I think recent news makes that argument weaker than ever. As I argued when Boumedine was handed down, the end result would be treating all battle field captures as if they were arrests, and, lo and behold, the Obama administration does have CIA agents mirandizing those captured in Afghanistan, or at least some of them. They say it is just the continuation of a policy of the Bush administration, but that makes my point even more forcefully. Just a short time after Boumedine, Bush was already mirandizing prisoners in order to avoid future complications. Why? Because it is impossible to draw a line. As Griswold led to Roe v Wade through the operation of inexorable logic, so Boumedine leads to full criminal civil rights for prisoners of war and "unlawful combatants". Drawing lines is pointless, the law follows the logic behind the argument, not the lines we try to draw.

That being the case, then we have two choices. We can ban drugs, knowing that in doing so we are saying "people cannot be trusted to make their own decisions and in some cases the state may have to tell them what to do, and imprison them if they fail to obey." And in so doing we have set the stage for the state to enact whatever restrictions it may wish, as long as it can argue it is acting "for our own good". Or, we can say "people may make decisions we think wrong, but out fo respect for human dignity we will admit we may not know better than they do, and will allow them to choose whatever they want so long as they do not violate the rights of others." By so doing we would remove the government's most powerful argument for intruding into our lives and business. If we are competent and the merit of our decisions is left for each of us to decide for ourselves, then the state has no argument for passing laws about what we can eat, what pay we can accept, the sorts of contracts we can and can't sign and so on.

Now, there is a cost. However, it does not seem too steep. Even granting the worst assumptions of the drug warriors are true, and many people use drugs who previously would not have done so, the only people who suffer would be those who choose to use drugs. Admittedly, they will be worse off, but they chose to make themselves that way. On the other hand, the rest of us would be freed of government meddling. And that really is the choice. Do we allow those who chose to use drugs to suffer the consequences of those choices, or do we instead imprison them and open the door for a full fledged dictatorship over all of us? That is the only choice.

POSTSCRIPT

I actually deny that drug use would increase drastically. Many people may try drugs if they were legal, but even now the number of teens who tried drugs are pretty high, so I doubt usage would increase greatly. On the other hand, criminality would seriously decline, for two reasons. First, drug dealers would no longer be criminals required to settle disputes by force. Just as Bush and Budweiser do not act the way bootleggers did, legal drug merchants would not behave the way drug dealers do now. Second, because the risk premium added by smugglers and dealers would disappear, the cost of drugs would decline greatly, meaning addicts who choose to live a life of crime would need less money, and, as a result, would commit fewer crimes.  (I know many find that logic somehow offensive, but if we must have crime, isn't it better to have the least crime possible? Being realistic about it is not immoral, it is simply recognizing that criminals will always be with us, and we should do what we can to minimize the harm they do.)

POSTSCRIPT II

For those interested in my previous arguments (both on drug decriminalization and medical deregulation, as they are related), they can be found here:
Standing By My Principles
For Your Own Good
Medical Regulations
It Is Time
Shameless Self-Promotion
Unintended Consequences I
Unintended Consequences II
A Question
Who Does It Harm?
Manipulating the Law
It Doesn't Matter to ME...
Medical Regulation II
We're From the Government and We're Here To Help You
Another Thought on Regulation
The Endless Cycle of Intervention
Trusting Mankind
The Intellectual Elite
Absolute Values
Government's Abusive Behavior
The Secret Behind the Rhetoric
A Great Article
Two Questions About Health Care
Cognitive Dissonance Part 2
You can also find quite a few articles in my recently neglected blog "Examining the War on Drugs".

POSTSCRIPT III


Ideally, I would like to see the drug war simply stopped at the federal level, the individual states could then establish their own, individual policies, and we would have 50 samples to allow us to see how various approaches work.  However, as the federal government seems determined to impose a single law upon the whole nation, I have to argue for blanket decriminalization.

My best writing on federalism (and limited government) can be found here:
A New Record
What we need
Why I Am Not A Libertarian
Standing By My Principles
A Simple Analogy
For Once A Concise Post
Prelude
The Virtue of Humility
A Brief Update
One Final Brief Note
Prelude
Misunderstanding Democracy
What I Want in a President
My Vision of Government
My Vision of Government Part II
The Benefits of Federalism
A Passing Thought
Majority Does Not Obviate the Rule of Law
I'm Fed Up
There is Some Sanity in the World
We're From the Government and We're Here To Help You
My Entire Philosophy
Below His Pay Grade
An Analogy For Government
Planning For Imperfection
Thoughts on Parliametary Systems
Transparency, Corruption and Reform
Why Term Limits Will Fail (And Should)
The Wrong People
Conservatism, Incremental Change and Federalism
The Case Against the 14th Amendment
Extra-Legal Control
Of course, I mention federalism at least once a day, so a comprehensive list would be far too long. Though for those who don't mind mixing theology and politics, my post "The Triumph of Good" provides another take on limited government and its inherent benefits.

POSTSCRIPT IV


Just to make clear something I have stated indirectly a number of times. A federalist system is not guaranteed to produce ideal results. However, by producing so many different systems, the odds of a single error taking over all fifty states is much lower than when a single solution is imposed at the federal level. In addition, you can always move in a federal system to live under laws you like, an option not possible under a monolithic federal system.

POSTSCRIPT V


Last postscript. I promise.

I would also like to emphasize that, unlike the libertarian party, I think leading with drug decriminalization is a losing political proposition. As at least half my readers disagree with me on this topic, I know it is a sure way to alienate those who would otherwise support you. So, while I think it is an important question and one we will eventually need to address, it needs to remain  low on the list of priorities. Once the government has been stripped of much of its excess power, authority returned to the states and citizens have had their rights restored, then we can address this question. of course, by that time it may be irrelevant, as the states themselves, with their powers restored, may have already resolved it locally.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Government's Abusive Behavior

Originally posted on Random Notes April 25, 2009

I have a question, but I need to phrase it in the abstract first, as we have grown so used to the specific mistreatment that we accept it as normal. Actually, even that may make it too clear of what I am speaking, so let us provide another example that has not yet come to pass, but might.

Let us suppose you manufacture sodas. It is your livelihood. You make a product that people enjoy, you make quite a bit of money, but you also provide a quality product.

Now, let us imagine a new health crusade arises, supported by doctors who prove, quite rightly, that too much soda is not healthy, that children who drink a lot of soda tend to become obese, and many other things. You do not dispute this, but start arguing that sodas are intended for occasional consumption, and can be quite enjoyable. However, the government, joining the popular health crusade, begins to threaten to prosecute you if you dispute these findings. Instead, they make you display prominent health warnings about the risks of soda consumption. And, should you dare to dispute any of these findings, or even place them in a context which the government finds "misleading", they threaten to prosecute you for false advertising.

But that isn't all. They start to ban sodas. First they cannot be sold in schools. Then they can't be sold to children at all. And then adults can only buy them in certain, specified shops. They also restrict advertising, first forbidding any ad they consider "targeted to children", then banning all advertising on television, finally even restricting what can and cannot be shown in print ads.

Seizing on popular outrage and confident of government support, layers start filing ever more absurd liability cases against you, starting with obese children with health issues, progressing to adults who consumed gallons of soda a day and suffered because of it. Finally, the states themselves file a massive suit. To avoid bankruptcy, you settle, agreeing, among other things, to provide money to be used to create ads showing the dangers of your product. In other words, agreeing to fund advertisements against your own product.

By now, I am sure readers have figured out this isn't about sodas, well not yet. Some may even have decided it is actually about tobacco. But that isn't quite true. Some of the specifics are about tobacco, but in reality, the general outline applies to many "bad" products, including tobacco, alcohol and firearms, and gradually including fast food, candy, sodas and other products as well. In fact, some of this also applies to pornographic movie theaters, bars, and other businesses which have faced similar attacks on a local level.

Now, the problem is, being only human, many conservatives have accepted the rationale that these attacks are justified as these are "bad" products. But that is the very problem. What is a bad product? Who decides? And why?

There should logically be only two products: legal and illegal. If a product is legal, then it should be sold, without prohibitions, except those that apply to all products. If it is illegal, then it should be prohibited. What makes cigarettes and alcohol and guns and pornography "bad"? They are harmful? So are hundreds of other products that are sold without restriction. That they lead people to make bad decisions? First of all, no product makes anyone do anything, people choose to do what they do. But even if products did somehow lead people astray, many perfectly legal goods do so as well. Shopaholics can be led into debt by any good, should we ban all purchases? Or at least restrict them?

There is just something grotesque about saying that a product is legal then treating the purveyors as villains because we decide their product is "bad". If it is "bad", in the sense of harmful with no benefit, then no one would buy it. Obviously some consumers find it beneficial, at least enough to outweigh any harm. In their eyes, it is not "bad". So, unless we are willing to say they are wrong, and not entitled to their beliefs, then we should allow the "bad" products to sell a any other good. (Unless we are going to argue some people know better than others, and must be put in charge. But that seems contrary to both libertarian and conservative beliefs in the sovereignty of the individual.)

Even if you think that some goods are "bad" and should be regulated, everyone must agree that it is simply obscene to prevent a company from pleading their side, and, worse still, forcing them to fund advertisements against themselves. I know the cigarette settlement was technically a civil liability case, and so not government action, but as the states commissioned the lawyers, that is the thinnest of fig leaves for what is, in all but name, government extortion. If nothing else, cigarette companies should be forgiven from having to pay for self-destructive advertisements.

Then again, I am sure some will find reasons to disagree with me, they will argue that these things really are "bad" and regulating them is sensible. However,  I have to ask them, by what standard? And are they sure that everyone agrees with their beliefs? And if not, what gives government the right to impose one person's belief on another? If even one persons thinks a product gives more benefit than harm, who are we to tell him it is not his choice to make?

POSTSCRIPT


I deal with this topics at greater length in the following posts:
Standing By My Principles
For Your Own Good
Medical Regulations
It Is Time
Shameless Self-Promotion
Unintended Consequences I
Unintended Consequences II
A Question
Who Does It Harm?
Manipulating the Law
It Doesn't Matter to ME...
Medical Regulation II
We're From the Government and We're Here To Help You
Another Thought on Regulation
Absolute Values
I have also written a few posts on the role of government which seem specifically relevant to this argument:
Why I Am Not A Libertarian
The Citizen Dichotomy
My Vision of Government
My Vision of Government Part II
Smaller Government , Fair Weather Friends and Special Cases
The Benefits of Federalism
Fairness and the Free Market
A Question of Perception
The Endless Cycle of Intervention
An Analogy For Government
Planning For Imperfection
The Intellectual Elite
Appealing to Arrogance
Conservatives and the "Big Picture"
Conspiracy Theories
As many observant readers may have noticed, this argument also would work to support decriminalizing drugs. And, as I support that as well, that is not a mark against it in my mind. However I am sure that will figure in at least some arguments against this post. (My own thoughts are covered pretty well in my sorely neglected blog "Examining the War on Drugs", as well as several posts mentioned above.)

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Back From the Dead?

This blog has been sorely neglect over the past year. I admit it. Thanks to the election, the stimulus, cap and trade, medical reform, inflation, other monetary issues, and a whole host of other topics, I have just not had the energy to devote to the war on drugs that I did before the election.

Except that I did. Some time ago, I started writing on drug legalization again. Not a lot, but a handful of posts. Well, one. Still, I had returned to the topic, and simply forgot to include it on this site.

But, as it has obviously caught my interest once more, I am reviving this blog. Initially I am just going to copy posts from my main blog (Random Notes) that are relevant, but after that I hope to start writing for this blog independently.

I don't know how much interest there is in these topics, but that never stopped me on my other blogs, so why should I change now? However, if you are one of those few who might be interested, check back in a day or so, as there will certainly be at least some reprint content, if not some new writing.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It Doesn't Matter to ME...

Earlier I wrote about the argument that drugs should be banned because they have health costs that society must pay. Usually when I bring up such arguments, comparing the risk and health costs of drugs to other legal activities, and even arguing that making drugs illegal is an infringement upon rights, someone will argue "but you don't NEED to take drugs." And, more often than not, many listeners will silently agree.

The problem with this argument is that it takes the speaker's personal preferenc3es and assumes they are universal. However, that is a dangerous way to define rights. For example, there ar epeople who will never say anything that would offend anyone, to them the right to free speech is irrelevant, and they see no need for it. Likewise, for many atheists, the freedom of religion is unimportant, so long as religion is not imposed upon them. And there are others who would have no problem with eliminating the right to privacy, as they would have no worries if the government chose to listen to every phone call made.

Would you want to turn to these people to define your rights? But many are willing to use the same argument concerning drugs. They see no need for people to sue drugs, so they don't think it is a right.

Now, I'll start with the obvious, not all drug use is recreational. My life would be much easier if I could buy my pain medication in the quantity I need, rather than remaining in pain for months while I convince my doctor I need a higher dosage, and he tries various inadequate doses to make sure I get only the minimum I need. And make no mistake, I NEED drugs. When a previous doctor decided I was a drug seeker and cut me off, after the withdrawal symptoms ended all I could do was lie on a sofa and moan. Without drugs I cannot function.

But even if we discount people such as me, who would be spared immense amounts of suffering by removing the medical gatekeepers from the drugs they need, there is still a question of recreational users. Just because you cannot imagine that it is important for them to have drugs does not mean it is not important to them. Many people can't imagine why others want to listen to certain music or see certain televisions shows or go to church or read certain books or look at certain art or visit certain places. Should these activities be banned as unimportant because some can't see how much they matter to you? Just because drugs are not essential to life does not mean they are unimportant. Short of food and water and shelter, nothing is essential to life, yet that is no reason to allow the state to ban it.

So, next time someone tells you that drugs are not essential, please point out how little actual is essential and ask if you could ban everything else. It probably won't change minds, but it may bring a bit of perspective and sanity back to this argument.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

If We Were Consistent

I have written before on similar topics, but I have another question for those who would ban drugs because of the "social costs".

When people argue for drug decriminalization on a libertarian basis, one of the most often heard responses is that the medical costs society pays are so great that drugs need to be illegal. Ignoring for the moment the fact that many of these costs are due to the laws themselves (diseases due to dirty needles, overdoses due to uncertain dosages, drugs cut with dangerous substances, counterfeit drugs composed of unhealthy products, etc.),  I have to ask, are we even consistent in applying this rule?

For example, aren't cars and motorcycles equivalent means of transportation? Yet aren't motorcycles responsible for much worse injuries when involved in an accident? So, if we can remove rights based on societal medical costs, shouldn't we ban motorcycles as well?

Likewise, homosexuality increases the chances of certain diseases. Also, as, statistically homosexuals, at least male homosexuals, are more promiscuous (or so say several relatively gay-friendly health agencies), even a monogamous homosexual man is at greater risk for STDs due to his partner's statistically higher promiscuity, or that of his partner's past partners, and so on. If we can send drug users to jail for their health expenses, shouldn't we make homosexuality illegal as well?

And I won't even mention recreational activities such as skydiving, scuba diving, auto racing, and so on. All of which are not essential activities, yet drive up society's medical costs horribly.

Now, I am not saying I would actually want to see any of these laws passed. Far from it. What I AM saying is that, before you say you want to remove people's rights and allow them to be imprisoned for an act which harms no one but themselves, think about all the other acts which fit that description and ask why they are not banned as well.

POSTSCRIPT

Of course, the simple solution to "social costs" is simply to stop having society pay them. If we don't want to pay for drug users' health costs, then end socialized medicine. Make everyone carry their own weight, or be carried voluntarily by a friend, family member or charity. That way no one pays for a drug user's medical costs unless they choose to do so.

Simple answer, is it not?

NOTE

I admit this article is fairly strongly in favor of drug decriminalization. However, even for those who do not believe in making drugs legal, I think it is a question which needs to be answered. If we are going to justify laws simply because of medical costs, then how can you allow the practices mentioned above to continue? Should the law not be consistent in its treatment of human activities?

By the way, it is not only  a question relevant to drug decriminalization. The efforts to regulate food composition, ban smoking, ban transfats and so on all rest on the same spurious logic. So bear that in mind as well when arguing for drug criminalization. If we can ban drugs based on costs, then why not tell us what to eat as well?

UPDATE

By accident this was posted on Random Notes rather than this blog. So if anyone saw it there before I copied and deleted it, you ar enot crazy, it was on my other blog originally.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Manipulating the Law

It is an old belief among conspiracy theorists that the push to make marijuana illegal was a tactical move by Dow Chemical to take hemp off the market allowing them to sell more nylon and other synthetic fibers. Of course this is absurd. There was public worry about marijuana long before nylon was synthesized, as well as some local legislation against marijuana and opiates, not to mention alcohol prohibition. The drug war being simply a variation on the temperance movement, we do not need a conspiracy to explain it.

However, that does not mean that companies will not take advantage of the law when it works to their benefit.

One recent example is the legislation against flavored cigarettes, excluding menthol. The argument, of course, is that it is for the children, but that is the explanation for almost everything in recent times. But it is likely true. Most of the supporters are probably legislators who really believe that mint or citrus flavored tobacco will make children smoke. So, why exclude menthol? Well, because one of the few supporters from the tobacco industry is Phillip Morris, who sell no flavored tobacco products, but make a lot of money from menthol cigarettes. Of course, their competition is doing well selling currently legal flavored tobaccos. Which may explain why they are welcoming more regulation of their industry.

Another area where existing industries benefit from regulation is the pharmaceutical industry. I have mentioned this before in passing, but there are many examples. For instance, under a free market if a doctor prescribed a medicine by name, you could choose to take a generic or not. However, under our extremely regulated market, a doctor can force you to buy only the brand name, which is beneficial to the company owning that name. Likewise, the regulation serves to insulate these companies from competitors, as even the generic market is handled by only a handful of labs. The incredible amount of regulation simply makes the barriers to entry excessively high. Even with the elevated profits from effective cartelization, the entry barriers keep the cartel closed.

And that is the truth of regulation. While many libertarians will tell you industry suffers from regulation, that is not entirely true. Many businesses suffer from regulation, but not all. Existing companies can often benefit from regulation, either by giving them an advantage over competitors or by keeping out competitors entirely. So, while the economy as a whole is harmed by regulation, it does not always harm individual companies.

So, how does this relate to my topic? Why isn't this over on Random Notes with the rest of the general economic and political essays?

Well, because I think that ending  pharmaceutical regulation is just as important as decriminalizing illicit drugs. While most "dug legalization sites" focus purely on allowing people to use marijuana and cocaine, I think that those freedoms are meaningless if we keep the current prescription laws. What sense does it make to allow citizens to buy cocaine if they need a doctor's approval to get antibiotics? Not only does it make no sense to have heroin sold on the street while morphine sulfate is kept under lock and key, but it also sets up a precedent which has the potential to restore drug prohibition.

Let us imagine that all of the prohibitions on marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, heroin, and so on have been removed, yet we still have our prescription laws in place. Is it not likely that someone, seeing all the ahrm done by drugs, will propose that perhaps we should make recreational drugs prescription? There is even an already existing argument. Birth control pills are by prescription because, among other reasons, it is a way to get women to see their gynecologist. And while I think this is more of a make work than public health measure, obviously others do not. So with that nominally benevolent example, is it not a good idea to have drug users see their doctor every so often? After all they have lots of health problems, so what is the argument against making drugs prescription?

And so, once again, drugs are under lock and key once more. Admittedly, the control is handed to doctors rather than judges, but that fits with our modern health-oriented nanny state. And who really cares? If my tyrant is a doctor or a politician, it matters little to me. What does matter is that someone else has legal control over something that should be my decision alone.

So, if there is to be decriminalization, I would argue that the prescription system is clearly part of the system that needs to be eliminated. Without that reform, any other changes will be simply meaningless.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mental Illness

As the subject of mental illness has come up several times in recent essays, I think it is time for me to clarify my position. I have several times made mention of the fact that I have some problems with current views and so I feel I should probably explain why. It also will make much easier when I finally write on my thoughts about the problem of involuntary commitment and other mental health issues.

My first problem is that there are no real objective diagnostic criteria. While some postulate a physical or genetic cause, the fact remains that, outside of a few dementias, we have found physical markers for none of our mental illnesses. Which means that diagnosis is based on arbitrary criteria. And more than that. Arbitrary criteria which cannot even be quantified.

And that is the real difference. You see, I am sure when I mentioned arbitrary criteria, some clever person would mention that a blood sugar of , say 60, is arbitrarily set as the cutoff for a "low" value. And it is true that what is the borderline for high and low is something of an arbitrary choice. But he difference is that there is still a blood sugar to measure, and numbers can be compared, values can be measured and so on. We can describe physical conditions at various numeric values.

Can we do that with sadness? What value of sadness is too sad? When does depression become an illness?

But it is not just the lack of quantification, it is also the fact that these supposed illnesses are just exaggerations of normal behavior, or even behaviors which could be normal in other contexts. If I am sad the day after my wife dies, most agree it is normal. If I am just as sad a week later, it is ok for most. A month, maybe. A year, and many think I have a problem.

And therein lies the problem. Some would and some wouldn't. Whether I am just sad or clinically depressed in the end comes down to judgment call on the part of the therapist, and is based more on what the cultural norms say about depression than any real diagnostic criteria. But, in my mind at least, cultural norms do not an illness create. Which means mental illness is more in the nature of behavior than an illness. When we say someone is mentally ill, more often than not we simply mean he has transgressed too far against our cultural norms.

And that isn't an illness. And it certainly doesn't sound like something biological in origin.

Now, usually by the time I reach this point, someone who has a friend or family member with a problem becomes offended and says "If you knew someone with [whatever] you wouldn't doubt it was a real disease!" Or maybe "it was biological!" But the truth is I have known many people with mental disorders, yet that does not change the facts. Mental illnesses are basically either an inability to meet certain social norms or the exaggeration of a specific trait or behavior. Why must that be a disease and not just a sign of normal human variability? We accept that there are virtuosos who excel in positive directions without calling it a disease. So if there are piano prodigies, why not fear prodigies, which we call paranoia? Why must the bad extreme of behavior be a disease while the good extreme is a virtue?

It seems to me that what we call mental illness is much more likely simply a problem of behavior or acculturation, sometimes simply an extreme of  temperament, and in some case, simple play acting by someone whose situation is improved by being thought "crazy".

Now, to blame much of it on aculturation and behavior is not to lay the blame on parents, as was common in the past. Likely some percentage of personality is innate, established form birth. And given that, an individual's reaction to stimulus can be rather unpredictable, even at a very early age. It also explains how two children from the same environment can grow into quite different adults. Parents play some role, but so does everything that goes into the environment surrounding a child. Which means that the behavioral and cognitive problems which we label mental illness could come from any number of sources, or even from the interaction of several.

Now having said that, I am sure some will come back with some very extreme example and argue that it "just couldn't be" due to behavioral or acculturation issues. But that ignores how little change it takes to result in completely bizarre behavior. For example, try this tomorrow. Whenever anyone uses a word beginning with the letter S take great offense. It is but one small change, a simple matter of a strange connotation no one expects or shares with you, but see how bizarre your behavior becomes. If that one small change can make you seem completely erratic, then imagine someone with a library of literally hundreds of idiosyncratic connotations, who has their own personal set of meanings attached to actions or words.

Now, I am not arguing here for a return to General Semantics, arguing that all of mental illness is a linguistic phenomenon. But I do think that added or missing connotations for words can explain much of the strange verbal and emotional behavior exhibited by some. Of course, that is not the only cause. A failure to understand rules of reasoning and association can be another. Psychiatrists even seem to recognize this, pointing out the superficial way schizophrenics associate ideas, yet they do not make the logical conclusion that schizophrenics simply don't know how to properly link ideas, and instead see it as a symptom. On top of this we can add extremes of personality, including an excess or lack of affect, as well as poor control of impulses, and maybe poor understanding of behavioral norms, and we can find an explanation for nearly everything that we are told is the result of  "mental illness".

It is less comforting to think that the crazy person is that way simply because he never learned what he needed to behave better. It makes us feel better to think he is sick. But just because something is comforting does not make it true.

POSTSCRIPT

Many will argue that I can't be right because psychological drugs "work".

I would argue that many work only in a very vague sense. For example potent sedatives do make some pliable and docile, but that does not mean they are cured, just drugged.

Others work, but not for the reason supposed. For example, many supposed anti-depressants (eg Paxil) are also sometimes abused for their euphoric effect. Is it any wonder that a euphoria producing drug will make people less depressed? That shows nothing about serotonin or dopamine. It just proves getting high makes people feel better for a time.Likewise, drugs which have a stimulant effect tend to be prescribed to those with lethargy, and not surprisingly have some beneficial effect. In the long run, a lot of psych drugs differ from self-medication with illegal drugs only in the view of the law.

But even those cases where a drug does not produce euphoric or stimulant effects and yet serves to elevate mood, that does nothing to prove problems are an "illness". The fact that inducing chemical change in the mind can effect mood proves nothing it all, except that mood, like all thought, is an electrochemical process. We know that. But it says nothing about the origin of depressions, autism, or any other disorder.

NOTE: As this is relevant for both of my blogs, it has been simultaneously posted on Random Notes and Examining the War on Drugs.

ADDENDUM

In some ways my thoughts mirror those of Thomas Szasz and Peter Breggin. I know that both are not held in high esteem by many in the medical community, but that does not mean they are wrong. While working in social services I had interaction with many supposedly suffering from mental illness and saw the supposedly minimal side effects of psychiatric medications. I also saw real organic brain damage while working with the retarded, so I have seen the difference between a real physical problem and the array of misbehavior and confusion we call mental illness.

Having said all that, I am open to the possibility that I am wrong, either in specific cases, or in general. Perhaps some mental illnesses do have an as yet unknown physical cause, but, as I said, excluding dementia of various types, I have not seen any persuasive evidence. And the ever changing genetic markers for schizophrenia have convinced me that media reports on the topic tend to insufficiently research before announcing breakthroughs.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Medical Approach

Often a proponent for removing criminal penalties for drug use will propose that drug use should be treated "as a public health issue". This position seems to be more common among the left wing proponents of decriminalization than among the libertarian/conservative proponents, but from time to time I have heard it from representatives of almost every political position. To many it must sound the same as outright decriminalization. However, I will argue that not only is it not the same as simple decriminalization, but it represents an approach potentially as harmful as the one we have today.

The first problem is that the statement itself is not clear, and admits to at least two different readings. As the listener can choose the more or less extreme meaning, it allows the speaker to propose something more extreme than the listeners hear without doing so obviously. However, while I believe most of those proposing it are suggesting the more invasive meaning, I will examine both possible understandings.

The far less intrusive meaning is that we should decriminalize drugs and leave it to the state to deal with the related health problems. While I personally have a problem with a state funded health care system, I doubt it will vanish with drug decriminalization, so this seems a strange thing to propose. It would be like proposing "after decriminalization the sun will still rise in the east". However, doubtless this is how many hear the proposal, and so many support this "medical model" who would not agree with the more intrusive meaning.

The more intrusive, and far more likely, meaning is that we would remove criminal penalties, but would treat drug addiction as a disease we need to combat. Which sounds fine, until you ask about the specifics, and how it would really differ from our present system.

Now, let us look at the first problem, the assumption that every drug user is an addict suffering from a disease. Now, I have written elsewhere, and will doubtless write again, about my problem with seeing human behavior as a disease, but for purposes of this argument let us assume that drug addiction is a disease, and can be treated. Even so, these proposals seem to assume that most or all of drug users are addicts. Now, I now that some argue that anyone who has even tried a drug is on the path to addiction, but I don't think that is anywhere close to the truth. Any number of polls show that a huge percentage of the population has tried one drug or another, yet a very small percentage are addicted.

I suppose the proponents would say that they do not feel that every drug user is an addict, they would simply taker steps to prevent casual users from becoming addicts. However, as that involves treating all users as teetering on the verge of addiction, the difference seems insignificant to me. Whether we treat all users as addicts or teat them as addicts and likely addicts is not that important, it means that every drug user will be of interest to those trying to treat drug addiction.

And why does this matter? Because the proponents never quite make it clear how they plan on handling the "public health question" of drug addiction.

The problem is that there are many ways that a public health issue can be handled. When most people hear the phrase "treating it as a public health measure" they imagine public awareness advertising, clinics, treatment centers and so on. And that may even be the way some mean it. Were this wjhat was meant, it would not be much different from decriminalization. True it would involve added money spent on all there "programs", and it would still allow drug users accused of crimes to claim sort sort of "disease" in an attempt to eschew personal responsibility, but other than that it differs little from decriminalization.

But there is the other side of public health, the sort characterized by the involuntary commitment of those who are a threat to themselves or others. And that too is a public health response. That is the possibility that troubles me, the public health approach which attempts to coercively treat.

Now, it is possible that those promoting a medical approach do not intend to use coercive means, they intend to simply use "education" and provide "treatment", but in the end I do not doubt that they will end up using coercion. At first it will probably be applied in limited areas, likely those convicted of other crimes who are also addicts will be forced into treatment. Maybe those who have interactions with family services. Or traffic offenses. But, once we have admitted that those who have legal problems can be forced into treatment, what is the argument against forcing addicts who have not run afoul of the law? Which leads us, in the end, to the same situation we have today, the only difference being that we use coercive treatment rather than jails. But ask any Soviet dissident who was found "schizophrenic" how much difference there is between hospitals and jails.

The problem with the medical approach is very simple. So long as we believe that drug use is a problem, and one with which the state must deal, we will end up adopting coercive approaches. Whether we jail or force them into treatment, as long as we think the state has an interest in the drug use of citizens we will end up with citizens being treated coercively. It is an inevitable outcome of the way we view our state. As long as the state has the right to protect people form themselves, can force them to avoid things it considers harmful, then it matters little whether we do so on moral or legal or medical grounds.

In other words, there really is no difference between our current penal system and the "medical" model in the long run. And so there is no reason to switch from one to the other. The only solution which produces substantially different results is for the state to declare that it does not care what substances its citizens ingest, for good or ill.

Any other solution is just dressing up the current solution in different terminology. Does it really matter if you are jailed, or hospitalized, if you are held against your will the name doesn't matter.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Legalization"

Though it seems to have passed into common usage, I have to say that the term "legalization" to mean the removal of criminal penalties for drug sale, use and possession is a particularly bad choice. 

The problem with legalization as the term for removing criminal penalties is that it implies there was something inherently criminal in the first place, or that drug crimes are rightly criminal but we have chosen not to prosecute. We never talk of legalizing property ownership, or working, or marriage. Things which are not proper concerns of the criminal justice system are not "legalized". Even things which were wrongly made illegal at one time (eg. miscegenation, alcohol) are not "legalized" but "decriminalized".

I know it is a petty concern in the scheme of things, and I would not reject a solution over terminology, but it just struck me that the term was a particularly bad choice, and I had to mention it. As it has become the most common term, I will continue to use it (or the better "decriminalization") and won't complain again, just wanted to point this out.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Coming Attractions

Sorry for the silence on this blog, but it appears that I lack the truly manic energy needd to regularly post four or five articles a day on two different blogs. Thanks to work on my other blog, and a rather busy week at my real job, this one has suffered a bit.

But don't despair! I have two new topic I plan to write next week. Admittedly, these two are all I have in mind for the immediate future, but at least something is coming.

The first is a bit of a cheat, as I plan to take the best from the old posts on my other blog and write a kind of "round up" of my best work. But the second is much better, a look at the difference between legalization and the often mentioned "medical model" of drug regulation. I may also write a cross-posted article, posted simultaneously on both blogs, looking at views of addiction, insanity, legal competence, and the question of involuntary commitment. As it relates to both the drug war and many other political questions it is a good choice for a simultaneous post. However, as it is a rather heavy piece, it may take  awhile to finish it.

After that we will have to wait and see.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Costs of Legalization

Whenever I mention legalization, someone will inevitably reply "I don't have a problem as long as I don't have to pay for their choices". And that is a legitimate concern. My argument for legalization often follows a similar argument I make for open immigration, starting with the caveat "if we can first eliminate the welfare state". And just as open immigration would be a disaster with our current welfare state in place1 , legalization will be more costly if enacted with our current laws in effect. However, unlike open immigration, I do not think the costs of legalization would be prohibitive.

Still, as I want to be fair, let us look at the most likely costs, and see what we can discover.

The most obvious cost would clearly be health care, as drug users are prone to health complaints. And, if we assume that legalization would increase the number of those using drugs, then we would need to take that into account. However, I think there are a few factors which argue against a greatly increased cost, as well as an analogous situation which supports some of those arguments.

First, as I argued before, I think most addicts not likely to be deterred from drug use by laws, which means legalizing drugs would create mostly casual users. As casual use of non-intravenous drugs produce relatively few health problems, and as casual users are unlikely to use intravenous drugs, this means the health problems resulting from drug use would likely be very similar to what we see now. There may be a slight increase, but I doubt it will even be noticeable.

However, let us assume that there were a huge increase in drug related illness, what would be the cost? Drug abusers are not likely to wait until late in life to begin, so most will exhibit the effects of long term use early in middle age. As the most common illnesses resulting from drug abuse, AIDS and hepatitis, are often fatal, it is likely that these drug users will die at a relatively early age. As some studies with smokers suggest, even if the disease itself is medically costly, by dying at an early age these people will still result in a net savings to the health care system2. It is not absolutely certain, as I am unsure how the costs of AIDS or hepatitis compare to emphysema and lung cancer, but it is quite possible that an increase in drug use could actually save the system money3.

Finally, I would argue that we cannot base public policy entirely on banning acts which cost the system money. Were we to consistently do so, we would certainly have to ban alcohol, as the consequences of long term alcoholism are just as damaging, if not more so, than long term drug abuse. And, as they are not usually fatal, but are debilitating, those costs last much longer than the comparable costs from an intravenous drug user4. Nor is that enough. If we base policy on the "social cost", then we must go beyond even the most silly CSPI request, and place legal limits upon food intake based on weight, as obesity clearly kills many more than drugs ever will.

I could go on, but you can see my point. There may be increased medical costs, there may not, but that cannot be the sole basis for our decision. If we worry that legalization will cause skyrocketing medical costs, then the answer is not to keep a ban on drugs, but to reform how we handle medical costs. Why keep a bad law to balance out another bad law? We should fix the original problem.

Moving on from medical costs, the next problem area is public welfare.

As a former social services employee, I can state that some fears are based on a mistaken belief, though one with a grain of truth behind it. The mistaken belief is that drug addiction is a disability, and entitles addicts to welfare money or medical assistance, that is not true5. Drug addiction alone does not qualify anyone as disabled. However, drug addiction does often make it easier to convince a mental health professional that one has other underlying mental illnesses, which may serve to make one disabled, and thus qualified for monetary or medical benefits. Still, strictly speaking, drug addiction alone does not qualify anyone as disabled.

Of course, there are any number of well meaning psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers and others out there who would be happy to declare a drug addict "bipolar" or a "borderline personality" in order to help them get medical benefits, so this may be something of a moot point. On the other hand, I would argue that it really doesn't matter. As I have argued before, the only real increase in drug use would likely be among casual users, who are hardly the group which will be applying for welfare. The hard core addicts are already with us, and those who would seek a place on the welfare roles are already doing so. Legalization will probably change very little in terms of the number of addicts applying for or receiving welfare.

The only other significant area of cost will be in law enforcement, and here it is arguably a savings rather than a loss.

Many have proposed that legalization will add to the number of crimes as the number of addicts swells. I just cannot imagine this would be true. First, as I continue to argue, I think the number of addicts will not increase. But even if we imagine that it will, does anyone think drugs will be more expensive when legal? Thanks to markup and risk premiums, as well as the relatively closed market, drug prices are absurdly high now, legalization, as with alcohol in the 1930's, will cause a massive price drop. With drugs much cheaper, addicts will have less reason to rob, not more. Even if their numbers swell, the amount of crime per addict should drop more than enough to offset the increased numbers.

However, for the sake of argument, let us agree that the number of addicts will grow, and that they will commit more crimes, I still say the net cost of law enforcement will drop. How so? Because while addicts may be committing more petty crimes, the former drug dealers themselves, no longer fighting over turf, will have much less cause to murder one another, reducing the number of very costly homicide investigations and prosecutions. In addition, all of the money spent on drug enforcement, interdiction, surveillance, and all the rest, will be free for other uses. Considering the net savings in those two areas, I just cannot see petty crime rising enough to outweigh the savings.

Of course, it is possible some of my predictions are wrong, and there is some cost I have missed. Or perhaps I have been overly optimistic in my estimates. Both are always possible. But, as it see it now, legalization will, on the whole, result in a net savings rather than loss, at least in financial terms. Of course, it will be an uneven savings. In some areas we may even spend a bit more, while others will see a tremendous savings, but, on the whole, I think we will find that the final balance will show that we will come out ahead.

--------------------------------------------

1. Costs of welfare for new immigrants is not the only argument against open immigration in today's world. Obviously security concerns would need to be considered. Even when I claim to support "open" immigration, I do not propose a suicidal allowance of every immigrant. My proposal for open immigration, provided welfare as we know it no longer exists, would still allow the state to bar known criminals, citizens of declared  hostile nations, known terrorists, and those with infectious diseases. I do believe that free mobility of labor is beneficial to all concerned, but I also am realistic enough to recognize that there are concerns other than purely economic. However, this is a topic for my other blog, so I will stop this footnote now.

2. Not so sound mercenary, but as many drug abusers manage to get themselves declared mentally ill as well to collect SSI from social security, an early death also results in a net savings for social security, making the state's savings from an early death even greater.

3. To be fair there may be some additional costs from unforeseen events among casual users such as strokes from excessive cocaine use, and overdoses from inexperienced casual users of heroin, but as these are most likely to prove fatal to casual users, their net effect will likely be to reduce, rather than increase health care costs. There may be the rare case where a casual user has a mishap which increases his overall health costs while not shortening his life (eg. a cocaine induced stroke causes nonlethal brain damage), but such things are not likely to be that much more frequent with legalization than they are now. As they will be rare events, by definition they will have only a minimal impact on overall costs.

4. My wife is a nurse, as I have mentioned before, and her descriptions of the dementia suffered by chronic alcoholics has convinced me that alcoholism and the subsequent long term care, is clearly much more expensive than any IV drug user could ever be. Not to mention that her, admittedly subjective, perception is that alcoholics simply have more problems than even the worst drug abusers. (And she previously worked at a Baltimore hospital filled with addicts, some of whom went so far as putting toilet water on wounds to cause an infection so they could get drugs.)

5.  My first hand knowledge ended in 1996 when I left social services. However, when I thought my condition was growing worse, I checked out my employer's long term disability policy, and saw that they used the social security criteria (for the most part). Looking at SSA's rules, it appears they are much the same as I remember. Drug addiction and alcoholism do not, in themselves, qualify one as disabled, and may even serve to undermine some claims. So, it appears that my impression, though a bit out of date, is correct.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Question

This is not directly related to my topic, but I will tie it in eventually, so please bear with me.

Earlier I described some of my difficulties with finding pain medication, and the lack of results I had from non-opiate pain relievers. I often thought that the horrible side effects and lack of benefits were a quirk of my physiology, but I have recently had another thought. What it everyone, or almost everyone receives little benefit and suffers horrible side effects, but fears to tell their doctor because they worry about having their truly effective opiates cut off? After all, the only reason I stopped taking them was that I had been cut off from the opiates I needed at the same time the side effects became so severe I was becoming suicidal.1 Now I know it is possible that my side effects are unique, or maybe I suffer them with greater intensity than others, but it is also possible that fear over being cut off from opiates may skew clinical trials and subsequent reports of effectiveness.

Now, I know clinical trials are double blind studies, but if a medication has any obvious side effects, it is not that hard to tell if you have a placebo or a real medication. Not everyone may notice them, but in general it is impossible to have a truly double blind study if there are any identifiable side effects tot he medication. So, knowing that their medicine depends on pleasing the doctor, and knowing the doctor hopes for favorable results, is it not possible that patients in the study might misreport the pain relieving benefits of the drugs?

And one the drugs are in general use, I can personally attest to the pressures doctors apply. I was given several drugs which did absolutely nothing. However, my condition was variable enough that I could always report some variation in the pain. A doctor would often latch on to this and force even more ineffective medicine on me. Combined with the doctor's obvious reluctance to prescribe any opiates, the message was clear, I was expected to say the medication worked. And I did so, if only to ensure the trickle of truly effective opiates. Only once I realized how many absolutely horrible side effects some of these medicines had did I find the nerve to reject any more.2

So, why is this on my blog? Why mention my speculations about patients misreporting drug benefits?

Because it is caused by precisely the sort of laws I am discussing. Were medications freely available without prescriptions,  none of us would have to worry that a doctor would refuse to provide them, and we would not find ourselves in the position of having to lie to a doctor to prevent him from cutting off necessary pain relief.  Barring that, if the government did not treat pain doctors as if they were drug dealers, those doctors may be a little less reluctant to provide opiates which have proven effective3, and they may be a little less eager to prescribe something else simply because it is not monitored by the DEA.

Of course, perhaps I am wrong, and doctors would fear opiates just as much even without drug laws. Or maybe the fondness for psychiatric medications would cause them to push them even without the threat of the DEA, but somehow I doubt it.

--------------------------------------------------------

1. This is not an exaggeration. I had trouble digesting food, awaking every night choking and then vomiting up undigested food. I was so confused that requests such as "what do you want for lunch?" could reduce me to tears. And my photosensitivity meant that I could not leave the house. Thanks to the side effects of the medications they had prescribed, the neurologists were worried that I was suffering from ALS (among other possibilities), yet no one could find any clear cut diagnostic signs. At that point, fearing that my symptoms would only get worse, I finally asked why the signs of my supposed ALS started when I started taking these medications. As an earlier medicine had caused deafness that "it wasn't supposed to", I figured that other medications may have unlisted side effects and so I stopped taking them.

2. My present pain doctor is truly a wonder, as he has been open to my statements that I suffer terrible side effects and no benefits from a number of medicines. I did allow him to try two other medications, as well as a lidocaine infusion, and a lot of injections in my neck and spine, but he has been very willing to accept my honest statements regarding their effectiveness. Unfortunately, that is a rarity. Even the supposed expert diagnosticians at Johns Hopkins to whom he once referred me were more like my earlier judgmental doctor who assumed a report of ill effects indicated drug seeking.  A doctor who believes his patients is almost unknown in the field of pain management.

3. It is amusing to read medical sources on neuropathies and other nerve pains. They constantly insist that these conditions never respond to opiates and to claim that opiates are completely inappropriate, yet the treatments listed always include opiates. Either opiates work or they don't, yet the authors seem to want to have it both ways. My thought is that if opiates suppress all nerve signals, they surely should work on neuropathies as well as they work on any other condition, but lacking an MD perhaps I am unqualified. All I can say is that, though my condition is supposedly impossible to treat with opiates, opiates are the only treatment which allowed me to resume my job, raise my son and have something approaching a normal life. Then again, as this anti-opiate stance appears to be of recent provenance, at least when I consult older versions of the Merck manual it appears to indicate so,  it may be more politically driven than medical. And before any doctor says that politics would never enter into medicine, explain the removal of homosexuality form the DSM IV, or the sudden disappearance of "paraphilic rapism", not to mention all the dramatic changes in what is and is not appropriate pain management, or the battle of "complementary medicine", where the effectiveness of qi gong and acupuncture varies with congressional funding. Politics exists in medicine as much as it does in any field. (By the way, as a person who suffers from crippling pain whenever he suffers an injury, I find it horrifying that the JHU experts actually suggested acupuncture. As I lost use of both arms for almost a day after having blood drawn, does acupuncture make ANY sense?)

---------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

As I have gone on a bit about my medical condition, I suppose I should come clean about the details before anyone asks.

Officially it is designated "Complex Migratory Pain Syndrome", but I have a feeling that was sort of made up by the diagnostician I saw to have something to put in the blank. It is supposedly a cousin of better known Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy, except my condition has spread from only my legs, to my torso, arms and even face. Pain tends to originate in one limb and spread following certain rules, moving generally from left to right, and from legs to arms, so stubbing my toe can end up with piercing pains in both of my arms, or muscles spasms in my hands so severe I can't write.

Then again, a number of my symptoms don't fit at all. I suffer tremors and muscle weakness that are not symptoms. I do not seem to have the surface pain most people report, but have a lot more deep tissue pain. I have hair loss, mottling and swelling in my feet and shins, and some in my hands, but nothing like the horrible disfiguring swelling I have seen in journals. And I have a lot of sensory distortions that just don't fit. My hands and feet constantly feel as if they are covered in fine grit, and I often feel as if cold water is dripping along my arms or legs. I also get pinpoint pains, kind of like cigarette burns, that I have never heard described, and I suffer from numb patches I have never heard mentioned as part of RSD. I have difficulty regulating my body temperature, either sweating uncontrollably for prolonged periods or else failing to sweat even when my body temperature rises, neither of which I have heard as a sign of RSD.  Finally, my facial pain, which feels like a bad toothache that jumps from place to place and side to side, is something I have never heard described anywhere.

On the other hand, I do fit a lot of symptoms as well. I do have skin changes and hair loss. When they injected anesthetics into the ganglia at the base of my spine, and in my neck, my extremities did see a temperature decrease. Those are supposed to be good indicators. So I suppose it is possible I have the condition, but have a very unusual form.

Anyway, to wrap this up, for those unfamiliar with the condition, it is basically a short circuit of the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system in which the body begins to read nerve signals which are supposed to regulate things like the lymphatic system as pain signals (or perhaps as sensory signals, as I suffer sensory distortions other than pain). It seems to be aggravated by injury or cold, and it seems to follow certain patterns As I mentioned before, mine tends to move left to right and bottom to top. For instance, I had blood drawn from my left arm. About fifteen minutes later, it turned bright red, swelled, and felt like it had been flayed. Ten minutes later, an identical reaction began in my right arm.  Sometimes it appears strain can cause the same results, as there are days where typing triggers spams in my hand, or walking triggers them in my feet or shins. Spasms are usually followed by color changes, heating, and various sorts of pain. Sometimes burning, sometimes itching, sometimes piercing, or others. It is hard to catalog all the different kinds of sensations.

And that is a brief summary of what is wrong with me. I was having treatment for spinal stenosis in my lumbar spine in later 2005 when this started. After a third course of steroid injections into my spine had cleared up my back problems, I started to notice numbness in my feet and shins. A little later, I began to feel as if my feet were always dirty, and at night they would suddenly feel cold, followed by burning pain and muscle cramps. I thought it was related to my back, and saw another orthopedist, but then in June 2006, I suffered a major episode, losing use of my legs, control of my bladder, and generally scaring myself horribly. (That episode still hasn't been explained. None of that relates to RSD, but as it hasn't happened again, I suppose I can live without a diagnosis.)

After that the pain just got worse and worse, spreading to my arms before the end of 2006. I spent the year of 2006, and part of 2007 looking for a diagnosis. After MRIs of every bit of my body, muscle and nerve conduction tests, five spinal taps, blood tests, three neurologists, two orthopedists and a vascular specialist, I was still without a diagnosis. At various times I had feared I was going to die of ALS or MS, or worried that I had a variety of peculiar cancers, autoimmune diseases or porphyria. But each was dismissed in turn, leaving me even more worried as we had no idea what was wrong.

My pain management was a bit of a mess as well. I had voluntarily gone through withdrawal once already, when my back got better, preferring to get it finished rather than letting my doctor wean me off. But when my pain returned, I was back on oxycodone,  whose shortcoming I mentioned before. And as a result of my incredible pain, I was constantly exceeding the prescribed dose. Which led to two involuntary withdrawals as doctors cut me off. I was careful to never finish my medication early, but apparently taking the maximum prescribed dose is enough to upset a neurologist.

But I finally did receive a diagnosis, and found a competent pain doctor. But my misadventures left me with a changed perspective on the war on drugs. I had always been a proponent of legalization, but, to be honest, I always thought it was a lost cause. I thought, and still do, that it was a mistake for the libertarians to emphasize it so strongly in their platform. But, still, having seen firsthand how badly the war on drugs can harm an innocent whose only crime is a defective nervous system, I have come to think that I need to take a bit more involved stand on the issue, and put a bit more effort into seeing that the issue gets the attention it receives.

But I seem to have turned a short postscript into a second article, so I will cut myself off now. I have mroe than described what is wrong, and that was all I intended to do. But when you are as long winded as I am, even a brief note seems to grow into several pages of text.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »