From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 8:32 AM To: Anton Sherwood Cc: ba-liberty@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [ba-liberty] Answer to Mr. Sherwood on Drugs > > 1. As I pointed out earlier, the only protests announced on this > > list in the last four months have been about drugs. > > What, Johann's announcements of planning board meetings and so on > don't count because they're not "protests"? Libertarians don't set the agenda of government meetings, but they do set the agenda of their own protests. And I note that one of the government meetings announced on the list in this period was about drug sentencing. > > 2. Criticism on this list of anarchotarian dogma regarding > > currency, pollution, or natural monopoly barely raises > > a whimper of protest. By contrast, criticism of the > > sacred cow of drugs -- which you users all seem to have > > easy access to anyway -- raises a firestorm. > > When a complete stranger comes in and starts insulting people for > fretting about irrelevant losers with cancer I didn't notice any insults from Mr. Arne until the firestorm had already started, and I'm not sure that your "irrelevant losers with cancer" paraphrase is anywhere near accurate. > > I'm not talking about which drug policy libertarians should > > emphasize. I'm talking about whether libertarians should > > emphasize drug policy over other issues. > > I was explaining, in case you had forgotten, why I think > the drug issue is a good one to illustrate the case > for libertarianism. You said it's a good one because it "forces a binary choice". I pointed out that it doesn't. You conceded the point, but added that regulated legalization of all drugs "seems not much easier to sell than any other drug policy short of anarchy". So how is a comparison of possible libertarian drug policies a demonstration that drug policy is the best issue for turning mainstream voters to libertarianism? Shouldn't such a demonstration involve, at some point, a mention of and comparison with other issues? > I'm sorry if you can't handle an > argument that needs more than one level of outline. I'd advise you not to rely too heavily on your apparent inferences about what kind of arguments I can "handle". :-) > > Do you seriously think it's hard to discern that supporters > > of drug legalization are drawn quite disproportionately from > > the millions of illegal drug users? > > And Abolitionists were disproportionately likely to have curly hair. Thus you apparently do not "seriously think it's hard...", and by implication concede that there are other issues for which it's easier for a libertarian to disavow self-interest. > > I'm just saying you're > > unwise if you think that drug policy is the best issue for > > turning mainstream voters to libertarianism. > > Oh, is THAT what you're on about? Give the man a prize. :-) Jun 15: I too think that an over-emphasis on substance decriminalization is a suboptimal PR strategy for the party. the party needs to emphasize issues that make it clear that LP members care about YOUR liberty and not just THEIR tax bill and dope stash. [..] why not instead emphasize market-oriented approaches to the environment, social justice [..]? Jun 16: The widespread "my drugs and my taxes" perception of libertarians is hardly that of just "an occasional shithead" libertarians spend too much of their energy making themselves look selfish: "my drugs and my taxes". Jun 17: It's just not tenable to claim that drug policy is the best issue for turning mainstream voters to libertarianism. Jun 18: I'm talking about whether libertarians should emphasize drug policy over other issues. > > If the voucher is for the same amount as what a parent is > > already paying in taxes for schools, it's neutral to that > > parent. > > Aha, so it is about "my taxes" after all. I just said that it would be financially neutral to most parents and cost more for high-tax-bracket parents like me. Now, how does this expose me to charges of "my taxes" self-interest? > Why should public schools respond to price signals? Because they would be like any private school, except that they would get an extra subsidy for being a school of last resort. Indeed, we could offer that subsidy to any private school with such an open admissions policy, and so "public" schools would just be businesses run by legacy school districts. At some point they would probably just be privatized. > I have raised [children's safety] a dozen times in this > thread. And each time, you or Arne came back with "yeah > yeah yeah stoner, it's all about your bong, > why don't you get a clue and shut up about `my drugs'?". I never said "shut up about" drugs. I simply denied that drug policy is the best issue for turning mainstream voters to libertarianism. (I've yet to hear you muster any explicit disagreement with my position here.) > > > > If you're going to claim that libertarians do not inordinately > > > > focus their efforts on "my drugs and my taxes", then it IS > > > > your job to substantiate that claim. > > > > > > Or to refute the claim that such an emphasis is "inordinate". > > > > How are those two jobs different? And aside from your now-abandoned > > claim that drugs are a perfectly "binary" issue, what argument have > > you presented to this effect? > > Keep punching, you have that straw man on the ropes. If you think me asking you to restate your argument is a "straw man", you might want to invest in a dictionary. :-) -- brian@holtz.org http://humanknowledge.net