Recognizing Power Structures is Not in Tension with Individual Liberty

Individual liberty is perhaps the most fundamental value I hold dear. Intelligent, well-meaning people may disagree, but I wanted to make my priors clear at the outset. However, I also am aware that--particularly this country, but certainly over the course of world history--power structures often punish or reward people based on issues such as class, race, gender, religion, sexuality, or whatever. This seems to me quite obvious and beyond reasonable debate.

Over at the Foundation for Economic Education website, however, two libertarians--Cathy Reisenwitz and Julie Borowski-- debate whether libertarians should be more aware of "privilege" or if they should stick to protecting individual rights. It is completely unclear to me why the two are necessarily in tension, but having had my share of arguments with dogmatic libertarians who chafe at considering race or privilege, I suppose it is an argument worth examining.

Privilege, as it is commonly used today, is shorthand for the benefit an individual or group of people holds in contrast to another individual or group of people, particularly in relation to class, race, and the other categories I named above. This is a particularly salient topic when dealing with the abuses of state power. As Ms. Reisenwitz describes in her essay, statistics clearly bear out racial disparities in the criminal justice system and laws still on the books discriminate against people of different national origin or sexual orientation. Government uses differences, real and imagined, to punish individuals for nothing more than who they are or are perceived to be.

Ms. Borowski's position is one I've heard many times before, in various iterations, but it's less a cogent argument than it is a forceful restatement of priors to rationalize ignoring the world as it exists. Sure, it would be great if we were all judged as individuals and not by race or gender or whatever arbitrary assignment those in power would like to punish or diminish, but throughout history, people have been sorted into groups and those in power often exploit marginal or otherwise detested groups when they get the opportunity. To say otherwise is to say that six million Jews just happened to have been gassed in the Holocaust or several million black people just happened to be enslaved for a few hundred years in North America.

The crux of Ms. Borowski's argument is this, and I quote:

These are not white people issues. These are not black people issues. These are not rich people issues. These are not poor people issues. These are human issues.

Ah, but when laws and customs skew against certain humans on a regular and systematic basis, her argument is essentially, 'Race is a collectivist construct! LIBERTY! SMASH!'

I get that libertarians are uncomfortable dealing with privilege because it's not something that is confined to government action. People who were humiliated and beaten for sitting in at segregated lunch counters were not attacked by the state--they were attacked by other private citizens in an effort to maintain their own social status. Such events are much rarer today, granted, but let's not forget that government is often a tool of the majority against the rights of the minority in innumerable settings. Dismissing this with atomistic claptrap is fine for a libertarian summer seminar, but is useless and, frankly, childish when discussing the real-world impact of public policy.

To wit, privilege is what blinded people to the explosion of the militarism of our police forces and the growing problem of overcriminalization in our legal and regulatory codes. When black and brown people were thrown up against the wall in the inner cities or having their homes broken into by militarily armed police on drug missions, many people--of all colors--thought it was a good thing. Because drug dealers were demonized and kept on the margins of society, massive amounts of tax money fueled a war on a segment of the American people by the government, and the privileged folks who didn't have to suffer such treatment were fine with it. Now, as it spills into everyone else's life because our prisons are overflowing and our budgets are being stretched thin, NOW people are thinking "Hey, maybe this wasn't such a good idea after all!" and "Why does Lafayette, Indiana need an armored personnel carrier?" That is privilege blindness, and it has multiple applications in many aspects of society.

'Privilege vs. Individual Rights' is a false dichotomy that masks the fact libertarianism doesn't always have the answers for society's ills, especially when they're not solely government caused. 'Recognizing privilege' is understanding power dynamics and how the world works; rejecting it for some ethereal ideal of the individual is ahistoric, self-marginalizing nonsense.

Check yourselves, libertarians.

bellum medicamenti delenda est

David Brooks's Flaccid Defense of Drug Prohibition

Most talking heads who are willing to go on record against drug legalization are deeply invested in preserving it--either to maintain their antiquated view of 'law and order,' or because they hold the singular belief that drugs are evil and invariably rot the human soul. Neither of these can possibly justify the punitive structure of our drug laws, let alone the United States' criminal justice leviathan, but such arguments, while misguided, at least approach the issue from principle.

Today, however, the New York Times's David Brooks finds a third way--a stunningly flaccid defense of the status quo. In my years of arguing against drug prohibition, I cannot recall a less-inspired, more ineffectual, and heartless piece of writing against my position. To say this column was phoned in insults the effort it takes to pick up a phone, find stored contact information, and press send.

Missing among the 803 words used to defend impotently mutter his position were: "criminal," "arrest," "incarceration," "jail," "prison," "misdemeanor," or "felony." (Note also that the piece is utterly devoid of conviction in any sense of the word.) To completely ignore the criminal implications of our current laws is even more dishonest than the mealy mouthed nonsense that usually comes from the ONDCP. The state of American criminal justice has even forced them, the federal government's anti-drug mouthpiece, to acknowledge that criminalization has had devastating unintended consequences and that, as a result, their tactics must change (if only rhetorically). Brooks, apparently, could not muster even that much honesty.

For shame.

bellum medicamenti delenda est

Southern Avenger Breaks His Silence

I wish I had time to comment further on this, but I have a lot I want to get done this week. But I did want to commend Jack Hunter for writing this. There are some things I think he needs to think about more deeply, and I wish Ron Paul could be nearly as forthright as he is, but this is what I was hoping for when the Southern Avenger story broke. Good for you, Jack.

Read the whole thing here.

bellum medicamenti delenda est

Some Suggestions for Future Budget Cuts

As I wrote yesterday, I think the government shutdown is stupid. But so long as people are listing things that are no longer operating (that, it follows,we usually pay for), let's see if we can find some things we fund that we can all agree are a giant waste of time and money.

Government social media presence--Twitter, Instagram, etc. Why on God's earth do we pay people to update the First Lady's Twitter account or the White House Instagram feed? I'm sure the WH has a staff photog--and they should for history's sake, I think--but real time updates of what is going on in the Oval Office is no more useful than the pic of what my friends had for brunch on Sunday. At best it's useless, at worst it's propaganda. Chuck them.

The DEA: Seriously, they are worthless. Drugs are cheaper and purer than they've been at any point over the last 20 years. Billions of dollars absolutely and unquestionably wasted, not to mention the lives ruined and lost in the process. Kill it.

E-Verify: Doesn't work, costs a lot of money, is a blatant privacy violation, and is going to cost jobs when false positives reject American citizens from jobs for which they are eligible. This last bit will be due to some administrative snafu, which comes standard with any government program. We don't need a national ID.

Child Soldier Subsidies: No, really. Congress passed a law in 2008 banning financial and military support to regimes that actively use child soldiers. The White House just waived that ban for three countries that use child soldiers on Friday. Here, for once, it's perfectly reasonable to say "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!"

There are plenty more, but even the most strident good government type has to admit we spend too much money on government that ranges from banal to deplorable. Surely we can cut some of this.

bellum medicamenti delenda est

My Very Brief Thoughts on the Impending Government Shutdown

Though I prefer the term 'classical liberal,' I'm a libertarian. I am highly skeptical of government, both in intent and general competence. I wish the government, and the federal government in particular, did a lot less than it is currently charged with. All that being said, a federal government shutdown will likely be a disaster and a mindless exercise of political self-mutilation.

For one, it won't stop ObamaCare or any other entitlement or longstanding government program. Thus, all this is about being obstinate for its own sake. It won't be the end of the world if it's shut down for a few days, but what will happen is that government services upon which people depend, rely, or otherwise enjoy will be unavailable to much of the public or otherwise crippled in their effectiveness. And who will get the blame for this absence/dramatic reduction in service? Tea party/libertarian/small government types because the people responsible pay hollow lipservice to their ideals.

This is the wrong way to sell smaller government.

Think of it this way: take an addicted cigarette smoker. You want to convince him to quit for his own good, but he's not ready. Well, instead of reasoning with him or convincing him there are alternatives to smoking--nicotine gums, patches, e-cigs, jogging, whatever--you just steal his cigarettes and prevent him from getting his fix by whatever means you can.

Now this guy is going to be pissed at you. This is because you haven't convinced him he doesn't really want that cigarette--you have just taken it from him and made him angry. Very, very angry. Even though smokers know the stuff is bad for them, many who may want to quit haven't found a way that works for them. You've now made that decision for them, but you know it's only a temporary one.

But as soon as you give this guy access to cigarettes again, he'll go buy another pack and may even smoke more. You haven't convinced him there are concrete steps he can take to get over his addiction--you just convinced him you're a stubborn prig who'll make other people miserable just to prove a point. You, and others perceived to be like you, will likely have much less sway with him from that point on because you were an unthinking, uncaring, self-righteous S.O.B.

The GOP is that S.O.B.

bellum medicamenti delenda est

An Open Letter to My Congressman, Jim Moran

I submitted this to Congressman Jim Moran's website just a few moments ago:

Congressman Moran, 

From what I understand, you intend to back the president on Syrian intervention. I implore you change your mind. You have encouraged me with your stand on marijuana and other social issues, but I see no reason why we should get involved in Syria without a measurable and articulable objective. 

Right now, the best the administration has done is to make the case to quite literally just throw ordnance at the problem. That is a waste of resources that takes no real account of unintended consequences. 

I urge you to reconsider your position, 

Jonathan Blanks 
Alexandria, VA

bellum medicamenti delenda est

It's Going to Take More than a Memo to Fix the Drug War

Today, the DOJ released a memorandum (PDF, hereafter "Cole memo") sent to all US Attorneys' offices to "update [the DOJ's previous] guidance" on federal policy as it relates to liberalized state marijuana laws. A lot of drug reformers are hailing this memo as a great step forward for the government. I'm less convinced.

As I've written elsewhere, we've seen DOJ memos on this topic before. Indeed, the opening lines of the Cole memo directly reference the 2009 Ogden memo and its 2011 clarification. The latter,  also written by Cole, effectively gutted the spirit of the Ogden memo's message to de-prioritize state-law compliant medical marijuana distributors: "The Ogden Memorandum was never intended to shield such activities from federal enforcement action and prosecution, even where those activities purport to comply with state law."

Looking at the language of today's memo, there is no concrete change in policy by the DOJ. Yes, it is encouraging  that the Attorney General wants to de-emphasize regulated marijuana distribution as a prosecutorial priority, from a politically symbolic standpoint. But U.S. Attorneys don't primarily operate within the realm of politics--they prosecute people for the federal government. They have the widest discretion imaginable and literally countless federal laws with criminal and civil sanctions from which to choose to prosecute any person in their jurisdiction. Those prosecutions cost money to investigate and they have finite resources with which to work--though much larger than the resources of the would-be defendants facing federal prosecution.