A response to someone about drugs and the relationship between a moral and legal framework:

You hinted at the main reason why libertarians are libertarians, and it exactly boils down to the moral justification for the use of force. Libertarians believe force is only justified in self-defense i.e. when force (or the immediate threat of force) is present. More concisely, libertarians are completely against the initiation of force. This ultimately stems from their belief in property rights, namely that people have a legal right to their body, and any elements of nature they ‘mix their labor with’, or any good they receive via exchange or gift.

Ultimately, though, whether or not you find something (whether it be a belief in property rights, a belief in the non-initiation of force, or something else) morally compelling is attributable to your epistemology. There are atheists who contend that you can argue for a ‘rational ethics’; that is, that people can argue about what is objectively morally right and wrong. There are also atheists who argue that humanity’s sense of ethics is merely a result of sociobiology, an objectively insignificant evolutionary result of the development of human societies. These people would fall in the group you mentioned, who think that there is no basis for objective morality, and that therefore what is right or wrong in one culture has no bearing on what is right or wrong in another. My boilerplate response to people who hold this view is to bring up past human atrocities such as Nazi Germany, or even hypotheticals such as slashing a baby across the face. Most people will not deny that these actions are inherently evil.

As Christians, we believe in a transcendent being whose very existence ascribes an objective moral ethic to our lives. Thus, we believe murder, adultery, jealousy, etc. are morally wrong for us, as well as for the next guy, regardless of his cultural background and upbringing. But, like you said, the real question is how to transcribe this sense of morality into a legal framework, in which we Christians are to live harmoniously with our fellow human beings, whether they are Christians or non-Christians, all while not violating our own Christian moral principles.

The key to answering this question is seeing the ethical judgement that is rooted in deeming something ‘illegal’. What does it mean to say action X is illegal? It means that if a person performs action X, the agency in society that is responsible for enforcing the law has a legal right to use force against that person to stop action X. The ethical judgement is precisely this use of force. Whether or not you’re a libertarian, using force against somebody must be justified. The libertarian says it is only justified when action X is itself invasive; that is, if the person performing action X is invading another person’s person or property.

So, it is clear that one’s ethical framework should not be equated with one’s legal framework. That is, we should not deem actions illegal just because we believe they are immoral. This is clear to most people in the context of sins such as jealousy, lust, and other ‘sins of the mind’. The use of force should not be permitted to stop somebody from thinking lustful thoughts. (If you think it should, then you have to justify this use of force on some grounds).

Then what criterion should we use, from a Christian perspective, for establishing the law? What is sufficient for declaring something illegal? It has to be something. And hopefully it is clear that it shouldn’t be our moral compass, since this involves the initiation of force (which I would argue is also part of a Christian’s moral compass). I think the libertarian answer is the most satisfactory, that we only use force when someone else has already used force (or is about to).

How does the libertarian principle stack up with our obligation to live moral lives as Christians? Well, living moral lives has to do with our own actions. The bible teaches us that individuals sin against the father, and that we ought to strive to sin less in our own personal lives. In other words, just because something is legal in a libertarian society, does not mean it is morally right. (Conversely, as already stated, the fact that something is immoral is not a sufficient condition for it being illegal). Thus, just because jealousy would be legal in a libertarian society, does not mean that I am morally justified in being jealous. Being a libertarian is different from being a libertine.

I’m sure you knew a lot of this, but I just wanted to state it clearly before coming full circle back to your original question. At the end of your email you said:

For me, my “moral position” on the matter is unchanged. I think drugs are bad. But the question is, what is the appropriate moral response?

So you see, the question for me is not what is the appropriate moral response. Because a moral response is different from a legal response. The moral response has to do with my epistemology as a Christian, which ultimately tells me that consuming drugs is objectively immoral. But does this mean they should be illegal? The personal moral answer should have no bearing on this question. If you say drugs are illegal, you are saying it is O.K. to use force against somebody to stop them from consuming drugs. I would argue that you then must justify why this use of force is acceptable. Rather, when posed with the question of whether or not the use of drugs should be illegal, my response would be that they should not be illegal, since their use does not invade any other person’s body or property.

This is the principle that I consistently apply to the law. In my opinion, it is the only legal principle consistent with the Christian worldview, as the use of force against another person is itself an immoral act.

(from ihatethemedia)

I just read a book review for the book “Eaarth,” which is about the ecological crisis our planet will face if we “continue on our present course.” Just to present some perspective on the issue, here are some of the hilarious, spectacularly wrong predictions made (by experts) on the occasion of Earth Day in 1970:

“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.” 
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” 
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.” 
• Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist

“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
• New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.” 
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” 
• Life Magazine, January 1970

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” 
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”

• Martin Litton, Sierra Club director

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

Keep these predictions in mind when you hear the same predictions made today. They’ve been making the same predictions for 39 years. And they’re going to continue making them until…well…forever.

A common cry today among politicians, professors and even the laity is that of job protection. They say we must increase tariffs to protect American workers; subsidize car companies to protect auto workers; and even ‘tax the rich’ to protect the middle-class workers.

All of these claims suffer the fatal economic flaw of focusing on the immediate effects of a change in the economy, while ignoring the distant consequences that follow and that are just as real and important. If the Chinese sell American consumers tires at a lower price than American tire producers can, it is true that American tire producers may lose their jobs. But to keep them in business by arbitrarily raising the price (i.e. instating a tariff) would mean to keep these producers in an industry in which they are relatively worse at than their Chinese counterparts. This means real resources would be diverted into a comparatively less-efficient industry, and would not be available for alternative production processes.

And what of the now jobless tire producers? If we ignore the other side of the story, we may think that their unemployment will persist. But since American consumers now spend less money purchasing tires (because of the lower Chinese price), they will have more money left over. And since everyone has an infinite amount of wants - that is, we all desire to make ourselves better off in the future compared with today - consumers will spend their additional savings on even more goods and services. It is in these respective industries, spurred by the increase in demand brought about by the lower-priced Chinese tires, that the American producers will find work. Specialization and comparative advantage will thus increase the total number of goods and services, making society as a whole better off.

The same can be said for newly-developed productive machinery, which ultimately eliminates (comparatively worse) jobs. But there is something even more subtle which can have the same effect. I’ll let Henry Hazlitt (writing in 1946, but sounding as fresh and relevant as if he were writing today) explain:

“Just as there is no technical improvement that would not hurt someone, so there is no change in public taste or morals, even for the better, that would not hurt someone. An increase in sobriety would put thousands of bartenders out of business. A decline in gambling would force croupiers and racing touts to seek more productive occupations. A growth of male chastity would ruin the oldest profession in the world.”

And if we can see (hopefully clearly) that pouring resources into propping up the production and sale of alcohol in the name of protecting jobs is folly, so too should we see that punishing American consumers with tariffs, subsidies and taxes for the same purpose is simply not prudent.

Here’s a response I posted to a discussion about the causes of man’s creation of wealth.

I think you’re giving the State all the credit for man’s achievements. To be clear, I define the State as an entity which claims sole right to the use of force, and extracts its tax revenues via coercion.

It is true that private property enforcement is a precondition for prosperous free markets; however, this enforcement need not be provided by the State. In fact, the State violates private property rights by simply existing, as it is an institution based on coercion. But let’s put that aside for now.

It must be understood that the State is not now or can not ever be responsible for the gains made through the institution of capitalism. By its very nature, it is anti-capitalist, for its method of capital accumulation requires that capital in some form already exist. In other words, since the State finds its lifeblood in stealing, something must already exist for it to steal.

You may respond to my claim in the following way: After creation, the State does in fact allow capitalism to function by ‘establishing the rules of the game’ and acting as an ‘umpire’ to prevent potentially disastrous machinations of greedy individuals. It is only because the State has devised the Rule of Law, with proper enforcement, that free markets are ‘permitted to function’.

But this perspective confuses the Rule of Law with rules. The (true) Rule of Law always, by necessity, emerges from the citizenry. It is the fundamental belief in man’s natural right to his own property. To the extent that rules - enacted and enforced by the State - conform to the Rule of Law, people obey them. To the extent that they do not, people think less of them, and eventually, as history has shown us, rid of them altogether.

So we see that man has two ways of making himself better off. First, he can respect the Rule of Law, use his property for production, and trade with his fellow man. As Adam Smith teaches us, this process, through specialization and economies of scale, makes society better off.

Second, he can beat his fellow man over the head with a stick and steal his property. Predation of this sort - which is, of course, the essence of the State - obviously violates the Rule of Law, and discourages man from using this first method to make himself better off. In actuality, the extent to which the second means of acquisition violates the Rule of Law is the extent to which the first means will be diminished.

This resolves the apparent paradox that exists between my claims and your account of history. It may be true that productivity was first achieved in the presence of a State that was somewhat tolerant of the Rule of Law. But we must be completely clear that this betterment of man came about in spite of, and not because of, the existence of the State. 

The State, as I’ve said before, is fundamentally anti-capitalist. The standard of living we enjoy today is the result of an abundance of goods and services. This abundance could have only been brought about by the first means, and not the second.

Private property can be enforced without the State, as it was in ancient Ireland; but that is an entirely different discussion. More relevant here is the understanding of how wealth is and is not created. Only then can we see the State for what it really is: an inhibitor of freedom, and a destroyer of prosperity. 

I highly suggest reading Murray Rothbard’s “Anatomy of the State.” You’ll never look at the government the same way again.

This protectionist nonsense coming out of Congress is killing me. If China subsidizes sectors of its manufacturing industry, and sells those goods to us at the reduced price, we are better off. That is, so long as we allow US firms using these goods as inputs to purchase them tariff-free from China. This would be undeniably clear if the situation were taken to absudity. If China decided to give us valuable goods in exhange for nothing in return, we should surely be willing to accept this deal. We would be able to produce the same amount of goods and services with fewer resources, which is the definition of an increase in productivity. The US manufacturing workers would have new opportunities for work in the US as a result of the free Chinese inputs.

Instead, some in Congress (Gene Taylor, for one) seem keen on “leveling the playing field for US manufacturing firms” - by which they really mean punishing US firms that use these goods as inputs, US consumers that buy goods made of these inputs, and Chinese laborers working in plants that produce these goods. The only group that benefits is - suprise! - a small group of US producers highly interested in getting a bureaucrat or two to champion our “public interest” and warn people of “issues of national security” all while effectively funneling hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into their hands.

I guess my point is, if we want to discourage increases in the productivity of Americans, and penalize US taxpayers, I can think of many simpler ways. For example, we could get rid of cell phones & modern communications equipment and pay people to operate switchboards. Or, better yet, why not just break the windows of every large building in all the country’s major cities, and pay people to put them back together?

How basic economic truths continue to remain enshrouded in darkness on Capitol Hill amazes me.

I wrote this in response to a statement about American consumers’ detachment from the means of production of the goods they consume:

It may seem at times that Americans are getting fat off of the labor of others in the world. But once you understand the mutually beneficial nature of free markets, you’ll see this picture quite differently. Americans used to be just as poor as everyone else. But nearly 100 years of unfettered free markets and little government intervention gave rise to 19th century America, in which there was more economic growth and more people escaping from grinding poverty than during any other 100-year period of time in all of human history. It is a truly amazing phenomenon, and something I think we should keep in mind when talking about this kind of poverty and how it still occupies many countries in the present.

Bangladesh is a particularly good case study, because they gained independence after a war in 1971. For a couple of decades they suffered famines and extreme poverty, but democracy was restored in 1991. Since then they have experienced tremendous economic growth, and poverty has fallen dramatically. I think economic freedom has a huge part to do with it. That freedom allows them to trade with countries that are richer than them so they may develop more goods and services for themselves. It allows them to compete on a global stage on the basis of cheap (to us) labor, and rewards them for this competitive edge. This is the hallmark of a well-lubricated international market system, and it benefits all of its participants through specialization, the same way it benefitted America in the 1900s.

You raise an ethical issue about Americans’ detachment from the production of our consumer goods. On the surface, I see how it could come off as a negative. But if you stop and think about what’s happening, I think you’ll see this as a side effect of an increasingly larger and more global marketplace. Consider for a moment the price system. Prices do more than just tell a consumer what something costs. Price changes reflect shifts in demand and supply. Suppose I am a firm that produces cans, and I buy my tin from Indonesia. Then suppose that either supply contracts or demand increases (either one will have the same effect for our purposes, which is important). Tin has become more scarce. Accordingly, the price increases. This signal tells me that one of my inputs (tin) has become less productive, which means I can substitute some of my resources into another input (perhaps aluminum). All of the buyers of tin adjust accordingly. And the producers of aluminum will also adjust to fill in this new gap - which means they are shifting the balance of their inputs as well; and so on, throughout the entire system. The whole acts as one market, because the price system allows all of their particular knowledge to transmit to each other.

This same price system is what gives Bangladeshis work. Since Americans are wont to buy cheap goods and services, and firms are wont to use cheap inputs, people in Bangladesh that have recently been introduced to the global economy can compete and sell their labor. It is truly incredible when you think about how producers and consumers in America are continually and voluntarily making mutually beneficial trades with people in Bangladesh, Peru, China, and all over the world. Free markets and prices allow this to happen.

But what’s really at the heart of your concern is the question, what ought we do about the world’s poor? Is American consumption really the best means to utilizing our wealth and knowledge to help the destitute? To this I would respond that this is not the first time this question has been asked. Indeed, one of the answers given by intellectuals and bureaucrats came about at the beginning of the Progressive Movement in the early 20th century. Their answer? Soviet Russia. They saw the manifestation of Marxian theory as the answer to “evils” like the income gap and the emergence of a middle class. But we know better. The 20th century is behind us, and freedom beat the most adverse circumstances and central planners such as Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Since the end of WWII most of the world has integrated democracy in some form into its present system of government, and the result has been tremendous decreases in poverty and death on a global level.

Markets aren’t perfect. But every system that has been developed to help the poor, whether US welfare or Chavez’s Venezuela, has done precisely the opposite. Even if these programs offer goals that are ostensibly more noble than that of a free market (helping the poor vs. economic self-interest), you have to look not at these honorable intentions but the actual results. There is yet to be discovered a system of organizing economic resources that holds a candle to the productive capacities unleashed by free markets, which allows the ordinary man the best chances to improve his lot in life. Modern-day trade among the US and other countries, and their subsequent increases in prosperity, is simply an example of this.

Here is the essay Daniel Danta and I submitted to the NR Institute 2010 contest:

Newton’s law of universal gravitation says that the force one object has over another decreases exponentially as their distance increases. Surprisingly, this idea holds true in modern-day politics. Any hope that a resident has of influencing his civic representatives is eroded the day he sends his tax dollars 2,000 miles away. While the thrust of this claim may seem to have its origins in conservatism, we claim that it is in fact axiomatic: there is no reason why liberals and conservatives cannot agree on the virtue of decentralized government power.

Imagine you’re an investor living in San Francisco, California who specializes in residential rental property. Where do you suppose you’d have the most difficulty maintaining the property, collecting rent, and keeping an eye on your manager: San Francisco, Sacramento, or Washington, D.C.? The obvious answer is Washington. It is going to be more difficult to take care of your property because it’s thousands of miles away. Even if you had the time to travel back and forth, your visits wouldn’t be as frequent, and the tenants and managers could get away with things more easily.

Now, where do you suppose you would have the most difficulty keeping an eye on how your tax dollars are spent or on what policies are put in place: San Francisco, Sacramento, or Washington, D.C.?

If you polled leftists, conservatives, liberals, libertarians, and maybe even some Marxists, they’d all answer Washington D.C. to the first question. It’s common sense. Why then is that same logic and common sense lost on modern-day liberals when they answer the second question? The idea is the same: the investor has more direct control over his property by being near to it, as does the voter over his representatives. The loosened tie between voter and politician caused by this distance is rarely denounced.

Not only does the voter lose democratic control because of the separation between himself and his representative, but centralized power also subjects him to the will of the majority. Decentralized power, on the other hand, limits the ability of a majority to impose its will on other groups. As an example, suppose that the people of New York decide to pass legislation that changes state policy on healthcare. Californians– who are uninformed about healthcare in New York – don’t have a say. Moreover, if this legislation is detrimental to New York’s well being, California’s economy is unaffected. New York pays the price: either the legislation is corrected, or people have the ability to leave (what economists call “voting with your feet”). This same principle can be applied to smaller levels of bodies politic, such as cities and towns.

This principle, however, is not present for policy passed in our capital. Federal law is written by those who are farthest away – and thus know the least – about the millions of Americans it affects. What is the result if new legislation turns out to be poor? People all over the country pay the price. Furthermore, the special interests and congressmen that are responsible for making the decision are not held accountable for being wrong.

The only way to unclench the fist of the federal government on the states’ usurped powers is to build a coalition of the Left and Right opposed to the central government. Regardless of political affiliation, all citizens should agree that centralized government power poisons the democratic process by shielding voters from the direct consequence of their decisions and by allowing special interests to impose their will on the majority.

The latest stroke of brilliance from Mr. Obama: “We know that we need insurance reform, that the health insurance companies are taking advantage of people.”

Insurance companies add value to markets by pooling risk. This reduces uncertainty in people’s lives. This is the service that insurance companies provide. They cannot “take advantage of people” for the same reason McDonald’s cannot: people have a choice to either give their money to these firms, or keep it.

I’m not saying I don’t understand what Mr. Obama is referring to when he makes inane statements like this; he’s referring to a market that isn’t performing efficiently. The problem with saying that insurance companies are actively out to take advantage of people is that it completely misses the cause of this inefficiency. Firms aren’t out to take advantage of people. They are out to make a profit - which is simply another word for providing the most value to the most number of people for the lowest cost. Indeed, only when government gets involved and props up various parts of an industry through complicated regulatory structure is one entity even capable of taking advantage of another.

It is angering to hear our president obfuscate the system of exchange which has done more for the ordinary man than all of history’s good intentions. It will become harder to educate a majority of citizens on basic economic truths when upper-level politicians continue to ignore them.