The Mouse On "Conservatism" (Part V)
To achieve that end we must first correct the thinking that has led the true libertarians to believe that government is evil. They at least will not have to be convinced of the goodness – and usefulness – of liberty.
Pure libertarian thought can be disposed of rather quickly by considering the distribution of only one available resource, opium. If we are to permit individuals absolute freedom of choice, then we must presume that the distribution and marketing of opium is to be carried out without restriction. Due to the addictive properties of the opium product, once a person becomes a customer he will remain one. To the entrepreneurial mind, the market in opium would thus seem the finest conceivable, for it can only grow. True, as the market increases and the available supply of poppy becomes stressed, the price of opium may rise beyond the reach of the average non-customer. Not to worry. The invisible hand of economic equilibrium will automatically see to it that we convert arable land currently producing food to the growth of poppies. In this conversion the pains of technological unemployment will be minimized since the labor force currently employed in harvesting and processing food can easily be converted to the narcotics business. Nor must we fret that the effects of opium upon the mind – and thus upon the ability of workers to work – may greatly endanger the supply of labor. The human mind, “God’s greatest invention,” will invent “soma-normalizing” drugs which render the worker capable of performing his duties while leaving his opium-induced raptures untouched. The spin-off market in these “productivity enhancing” drugs will produce wealth beyond the wildest imaginings of those oil-mongering entrepreneurs of modern times who consider themselves fortunate if they’re able to create a windfall every decade or so by the stirring of minor wars in minor nations. As for the unintended consequences of widespread opium addiction, that people will begin to die at a much earlier age, “Fear not,” the slick commercials will argue, “for unto you is given this day a new way of living that will make life truly worth living. Better one year of bliss than ten of boredom.” And who says the consequences were “unintended”? “See how cleverly we have solved the population problem, the Social Security shortfall, and traffic congestion. Opium is the opiate of the people.”
A more rational libertarian may argue that laws barring the opium trade can be passed, but the true believing libertarian, placing human freedom above all other concerns, will insist that any inhibition of individual desire (beyond that necessary for national defense and the recruitment of judges), so long as it harms no one other than the individual, is by definition wrong. They will argue that those people foolish enough to fall for Madison Avenue’s pimping of narcotics will deserve what they get. “If people wish to sacrifice years of their lives for momentary enjoyment, who are you to tell them they can’t do it?” Well, let us for the moment accept the premises of that rejoinder and presume that (1) opium will indeed shorten its user’s life and (2) that the users know that it will. The decision to use opium sounds, under those conditions, as rational as, say, the decision to forego wearing a raincoat in the rain. One may well decide that “a little rain ain’t gonna hurt me, and that damn raincoat is too hot,” trading a minor inconvenience (wet clothes) for a moment of satisfaction (relief from the heat). But then, one could always change one’s mind about the raincoat, especially if the consequences of the choice become a bit more uncomfortable than anticipated. But when a person chooses opium addiction he makes a choice that will be difficult to reverse. It is a choice only a trifle less permanent than that other crank-libertarian platform plank, the “right” to commit suicide. Opium addiction and suicide limit the most widely exercised “right” possessed by human beings, the “right” to be wrong. Unless a particular wrong choice condemns us eternally to remain wrong, we may feel free to take the risk of being wrong as often as we wish. Suicide and opium addiction both strike me as non-reversible choices. To pass laws against them is thus, not too much different from placing warning labels on cigarette packages. Any fool who chooses to violate those warnings – and those laws – will indeed “deserve what he gets.” But it seems reasonable to me that when governments pass laws against the opium trade and suicide, when they apply warning labels and impose excise taxes on the sale of poison, they perform legitimate functions. One wonders how many people would know that tobacco kills if it had been left to Phillip Morris to inform them.
[To be continued]
Pure libertarian thought can be disposed of rather quickly by considering the distribution of only one available resource, opium. If we are to permit individuals absolute freedom of choice, then we must presume that the distribution and marketing of opium is to be carried out without restriction. Due to the addictive properties of the opium product, once a person becomes a customer he will remain one. To the entrepreneurial mind, the market in opium would thus seem the finest conceivable, for it can only grow. True, as the market increases and the available supply of poppy becomes stressed, the price of opium may rise beyond the reach of the average non-customer. Not to worry. The invisible hand of economic equilibrium will automatically see to it that we convert arable land currently producing food to the growth of poppies. In this conversion the pains of technological unemployment will be minimized since the labor force currently employed in harvesting and processing food can easily be converted to the narcotics business. Nor must we fret that the effects of opium upon the mind – and thus upon the ability of workers to work – may greatly endanger the supply of labor. The human mind, “God’s greatest invention,” will invent “soma-normalizing” drugs which render the worker capable of performing his duties while leaving his opium-induced raptures untouched. The spin-off market in these “productivity enhancing” drugs will produce wealth beyond the wildest imaginings of those oil-mongering entrepreneurs of modern times who consider themselves fortunate if they’re able to create a windfall every decade or so by the stirring of minor wars in minor nations. As for the unintended consequences of widespread opium addiction, that people will begin to die at a much earlier age, “Fear not,” the slick commercials will argue, “for unto you is given this day a new way of living that will make life truly worth living. Better one year of bliss than ten of boredom.” And who says the consequences were “unintended”? “See how cleverly we have solved the population problem, the Social Security shortfall, and traffic congestion. Opium is the opiate of the people.”
A more rational libertarian may argue that laws barring the opium trade can be passed, but the true believing libertarian, placing human freedom above all other concerns, will insist that any inhibition of individual desire (beyond that necessary for national defense and the recruitment of judges), so long as it harms no one other than the individual, is by definition wrong. They will argue that those people foolish enough to fall for Madison Avenue’s pimping of narcotics will deserve what they get. “If people wish to sacrifice years of their lives for momentary enjoyment, who are you to tell them they can’t do it?” Well, let us for the moment accept the premises of that rejoinder and presume that (1) opium will indeed shorten its user’s life and (2) that the users know that it will. The decision to use opium sounds, under those conditions, as rational as, say, the decision to forego wearing a raincoat in the rain. One may well decide that “a little rain ain’t gonna hurt me, and that damn raincoat is too hot,” trading a minor inconvenience (wet clothes) for a moment of satisfaction (relief from the heat). But then, one could always change one’s mind about the raincoat, especially if the consequences of the choice become a bit more uncomfortable than anticipated. But when a person chooses opium addiction he makes a choice that will be difficult to reverse. It is a choice only a trifle less permanent than that other crank-libertarian platform plank, the “right” to commit suicide. Opium addiction and suicide limit the most widely exercised “right” possessed by human beings, the “right” to be wrong. Unless a particular wrong choice condemns us eternally to remain wrong, we may feel free to take the risk of being wrong as often as we wish. Suicide and opium addiction both strike me as non-reversible choices. To pass laws against them is thus, not too much different from placing warning labels on cigarette packages. Any fool who chooses to violate those warnings – and those laws – will indeed “deserve what he gets.” But it seems reasonable to me that when governments pass laws against the opium trade and suicide, when they apply warning labels and impose excise taxes on the sale of poison, they perform legitimate functions. One wonders how many people would know that tobacco kills if it had been left to Phillip Morris to inform them.
[To be continued]
posted by Benedict S. at 9:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home