Libertarians Focus On Drugs

By: Rob Casapulla

Posted: 2/16/06

I hunted around the National Libertarian Party's web site and found some interesting facts that support my growing notion that Libertarianism is basically a copout for people who don't want to identify with a real political ideology. The Libertarian platform is self-defeating and its one claim to fame is its attempts to legalize drugs. If you talk to a Libertarian, especially a college Libertarian, chances are that they are not actually a Libertarian but rather just a conservative or liberal trying to avoid answering a question, or they are someone who just thinks smoking pot should be legalized. If you have the chance to meet a Libertarian who actually knows what Libertarians stand for, they profess a desire to roll back government to the point where people can do whatever they want to make them happy as long as they do not interfere with any one else's happiness.

Now at first this seems to be a pretty good idea, I mean who wouldn't want to just go around doing whatever they want. Unfortunately, that situation where people walked around without government is the state of nature Thomas Hobbes described when he wrote that life was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short," and that it would lead to a "war of everyman against everyman." All of a sudden a "no rules" society doesn't seem that good.

Even if you put aside Hobbes' state of nature the Libertarian logic has severe holes in it. For example who is supposed to prevent people from stepping on other people's happiness. With no government, who should enforce the one law that would govern this anarchial system? A similar situation arises when you look at the Libertarians' dedication to their property. A house and the land it's located on is yours if you hold a deed to it. But what is a deed? In a country with a government and laws a deed is a legal document that the government uses to recognize a piece of property as legally yours. If there is no government, as Libertarians would have, then a deed is just a silly piece of paper with writing on it. There is nothing to keep that property yours if you cannot defend it and there is no legal recourse for you to get it back if it is taken from you.

Now some Libertarians will no doubt play off the above as a hypothetical situation, much like the Hobbesian state of nature. So to get through to them I'll draw some examples from the National Libertarian Party's web site. First of all, having a national organization and being a Libertarian is like being a vegetarian and hunting, it just doesn't seem right. Second, the Libertarians advocate an open immigration policy that would endanger our national security, not to mention bring an end to many people's happiness when their jobs are taken away by someone willing to work for less. This brings up a third point, the Libertarians don't account for national security. It doesn't appear on their web site. Apparently just running around and being free and happy will make people love America - except for the people who hate America for being free and happy. Even if you don't want to accept that people hate America because it is a free and happy country, you have to imagine that an "ideology" that would end government would want to get rid of one of the biggest government institutions - the U.S. military.

Finally we get to the root of the Libertarian problem - drug legalization. I'll use marijuana as the example for drug legalization, since that's the only reason why most college kids like to play "Libertarian." The concept of legalizing marijuana, is a ridiculous notion and just illustrates how the impementation of the Libertarian principle would play out. The Libertarians use the end of prohibition to illustrate how legalizing marijuana will drop the overall crime rate in this country. They say that if only the government took control of marijuana and regulated it, crime rate would drop and gangs would disappear. This is just a ludicrous position for a number of reasons. First in the early 1900s alchohol was in widespread legal use (emphasis on legal). Prohibition enacted in 1920 made a substance which was used by an overwhelming majority of people in the country illegal. There was no real way for the government to control prohibition and by the end of its time prohibition had little public support. Legalizing marijuana on the other hand has very little popular support and would not cause crimes in the United States to drop. In fact, it would do little more than open the door to the legalization of all illegal substances, which is the Libertarians true goal. Not to mention that since government will not exist in the Libertarian world it's hard to see how they can regulate the sale of drugs.

You may think I am exaggerating, but while many college "Libertarians" want to legalize pot but none of the "bad drugs," the National Libertarian Party's web site calls for the end of prohibition on all drugs. Yes, that means cocaine, heroin, acid, ecstasy, crystal meth, well you get the point. I guess the good thing about legalizing drugs is it would eliminate the need for health class in grades four through eight.

Libertarians just try to blend as best they can with both parties. They use their inability to decide where they stand as a shield and claim to be "Libertarian." Their only purpose is to legalize drugs, which is why they will probably not have a candidate make it on a significant ballot, and if they do, all the Libertarians in the area will probably be too stoned to remember to vote.