Milton Friedman, Nobel prize winning economist — and one of my personal idols — was among the most influential libertarian thinkers of the last century. Friedman was primarily a consequentialist, meaning he advocated libertarian policies based on the fact that they work better. Such an approach has the great advantage of political effectiveness. If you can demonstrate that greater freedom also leads to better economic results — better solutions to the Roti, Kapra aur Makaan issues — you will have a much easier time swaying the public to your point of view.
However there were some issues were Friedman advocated for liberty on purely moral grounds. The video below — one of Friedman’s last interviews — is a wonderful example:
This is not to say that there is no consequentialist argument for drug legalization — on the contrary, it is perhaps the finest candidate for such analysis. Hell, even Barack Obama accepts that the war on drugs has been an utter failure. The reason, I think, that Friedman took the moral path here is that some things are just too fundamental to leave to utilitarian analysis. They are worth fighting for their own sake, discounting everything else, for they go to the heart of human existence.
Liberty should only be defended on moral grounds. Utilitarian analysis is a poor and dangerous substitute, a double-edged sword that hurts more than it protects. If you tell people A is good because it “works better”, and it does not, for some reason, that is the end of A.
Quoting Karl Popper selectively, “Philosophers should consider the fact that the greatest happiness principle can easily be made an excuse for a benevolent dictatorship.” The only problem is, a dictatorship can never be benevolent; if it is, it means that there was no need for one.
Yes, it can be a double edged sword. But realize that it is not ‘obvious’ for a lot of people why liberty is precious and needs to be defended. We live in a real world, and it is important to consider the consequences of any policy.
U.S. State Department says Canada the top source for ecstasy
Fri Feb 27, 6:27 PM WASHINGTON – The U.S. State Department says Canada should do more to curb the production and trade in ecstasy and other illicit drugs.The 2009 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, released Friday, highlights the growth of methamphetamine “superlabs” throughout the country, particularly in British Columbia and Ontario. The report says Canada has become the No. 1 source of ecstasy south of the border.
The report also quoted Canadian officials as saying Prime Minister Stephen Harper wanted to increase penalties for drug production and trafficking, but not for drug use. ( Typical Harper Hypocrisy, false partiality)
http://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/tories-revive-tough-anti-drug-bill/
Friedman was a very bright man, and I agree with his moral stance on prohibition of drugs, at least as it applies to marijuana. But to me there is a simpler justification for the legalization of marijuana. The war on drugs cost a lot of money, and takes a lot of manpower to facilitate it. There are no capital earnings that can be associated with implementation of the program. Conversely, legalization would end the monopoly that drug lords have over distribution of the product, reducing crime. Americans who use the drug would no longer be treated as criminals for enjoying a substance less dangerous than is alcohol. And while, as President Obama says “No, legalization of marijuana won’t grow the economy”, it’s a no brainer that businesses that legally sell the product will make money, and so state and federal taxes would benefit as well. It’s a drop in the bucket, but every little bit helps.