Rand and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), and U.S. Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) yesterday reintroduced the Reclassification to Ensure Smarter and Equal Treatment Act of 2015, known as the RESET Act.
This legislation would reclassify specific low-level, non-violent drug possession felonies as misdemeanors, eliminate the distinction between crack and powder cocaine for sentencing, and ensure that food products containing drugs are weighed fairly.
Must I point out that in a libertarian world drug-possession would not be a criminal offense? Reclassifying drug possession as a misdemeanor instead of a felony, is a small positive step, but the entire Act gives too much respect for government involvement in the drug sector. There should be none.
"The RESET Act will end the worst sentencing injustices for non-violent offenses in our criminal justice system. It will more closely align punishment with the severity of the offense and make it possible for someone to get a second chance after a non-violent youthful mistake, instead of a lifetime punishment,” Rand said.
Why is selling drugs a "mistake," when selling alcohol is not. Why should those in possession of drugs be punished at all. Rand is much too much of a statist busybody for me. He buys into, or pretends to, statist intrusions into voluntary exchanges.
-RW
Didn't you say Ulbricht made a mistake by selling drugs?
ReplyDeleteI said that it was a mistake for Ulbricht to run Silk Road and think he could get away with it without a response from government. That is an entirely separate issue from the ethical view on drug selling.
DeleteAll forms of drugs are a crucible in which we seek relief, experience, and evolution of mind and body. Ninety five years ago the ascendent godhood of the state was rankled by the concept of healing thy self because it sought to subordinate our will to it's own. In my own lifetime I have witnessed drugs go from a virtual non-issue to one of such overriding importance to the state that it ground to dust the Bill of Rights in order to pacify Nancy Reagan, and the little wooden plaything that addressed her as "Mommy".
ReplyDeleteSo Rand, if I venture into the 100 mile wide constitution free zone will you bail me out if my newly purchased vehicle contains an illegal substance from the previous owner, or will I suffer in federal prison until hell freezes over. Sorry, but I will only go where I have a reasonable hope of returning home unmolested.
"Let’s put it this way: Suppose we were slaves in the Old South, and that for some reason, each plantation had a system where the slaves were allowed to choose every four years between two alternative masters. Would it be evil, and sanctioning slavery, to participate in such a choice? Suppose one master was a monster who systematically tortured all the slaves, while the other one was kindly, enforced almost no work rules, freed one slave a year, or whatever. It would seem to me not only not aggression to vote for the kinder master, but idiotic if we failed to do so." ~ Rothbard
ReplyDeleteInteresting quote.
DeleteThe only thing I'd say in response to that is the scenario is drastically different than voting today and I don't think it translates, even in principle:
#1 If Rand was elected(which it very doubtful to begin with), would he actually successfully bring about any substantial change for "liberty"? Aside from the disturbing question of whether he actually holds any libertarian views(as he himself, denies being a libertarian) and actually wants any significant level of freedom as you and I might define it, how would he accomplish said liberty if the Congress and SCOTUS are not on board?
In Rothbard's example, the "Master" has far greater power than the President does and the AMOUNT of change is significant as a result.
That's a huge problem in trying to translate Rothbard's principle to a larger framework.
#2 As alluded to in #1, even if Rand decided he wanted to be libertarian, there is no way for him to enact the degree of change that Rothbard referenced but even more importantly, Rothbard assumes the elections aren't rigged(which I think doesn't translate to today, see Ron Paul 2012 Iowa primary).
So not only is the election process itself compromised, unlike Rothbard's example, but further Rothbard's setup has the assumption that your "vote" has some statistical relevance because ostensibly the slave population would have numbered hundreds, not millions.
So in the end, I really think Rothbard failed to make his case relevant....and I say that loving 95% of Rothbard's stuff. I've just always disagreed with his rationalization for participating in the violence of voting.
Also in Rothbard's example, the violence is always being unwound after said vote, never ramped up....that doesn't reflect the reality of any candidate running today, including Rand Paul:
"Senator Rand Paul has voted for Iran sanctions and continues to believe that Iran should be forbidden from acquiring nuclear weapons,” senior adviser Doug Stafford said in a statement."
I said "always disagreed", I need to qualify that....AFTER I became a hardcore libertarian and then had a chance to think about it...so "always" isn't very long for me...just a couple of years.
Delete