 |
| Murray Sabrin |
Below is an email exchange between Prof. Murray Sabrin and USA Today Network columnist Michael Kelly.
It is good to see Murray go after Kelly toe-to-toe as it will be clear in the reading of the below that Kelly is a very skilled polemicist.
This is a heavyweight fight. It starts out as a discussion about legalizing marijuana but soon expands into a debate about libertarianism.
Enjoy (and take notes).
From: Murray Sabrin
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2019 7:46:06 AM
To: Kelly, Michael
Cc: Lowry, Bruce; Forbes, Ed; Bergmann, Randy
Subject: Sen. Rice and marijuana
Mike:
Hope all is well. Just read your column about Rice's objection to marijuana legalization [Ronald Rice's lonely quest to block legal pot]. The senator's position is untenable, to say the least.
First, his complaint that legal pot money will not flow into the black community sounds like sour grapes. The primary beneficiaries – financially – from pot legalization would be those who have the necessary capital to engage in marijuana cultivation and pot distribution. However, if Murphy's legislation does not allow for cultivation of small amounts of pot and taxes it substantially, then small-scale businesses would not be created. Presumably that would mean black entrepreneurs in Newark, Camden and other cities would be shut out of the market. Rice does have a point here.
Second, whatever happened to the mantra "a woman's right to choose"? Don't all adults have the right to choose what to eat, smoke, drink, read, view, etc.? It never ceases to amaze me that politicians who are passionately pro-choice on abortion could be so anti-choice when it comes to really controlling our own bodies.
Third, if Sen. Rice wants to improve the conditions in Newark and those of his constituents, he would spend his time working to reduce crime, helping to strengthen families, improving the education of youngsters, removing barriers to creating a business (such as unnecessary regulations) and making Newark an attractive place to do business.
What Newark and other cities need are straightforward: opportunities for young people that a vibrant free enterprise economy provides, safety so people can walk the streets without dodging bullets from turf wars, school choice, which would help students grow intellectually to become productive employees or successful entrepreneurs.
Regards,
Murray
Murray Sabrin, Ph.D.
Professor of Finance,
Sabrin Center for Free Enterprise (founder)
Ramapo College of New Jersey
www.ramapo.edu/sabrincenter/
---
Hi Murray,
I agree with you on the economic opportunities for cities. I just think legal pot is the wrong way to go. The public health issues are serious, as I have noted in previous columns.
Keep in touch.
mk
Mike Kelly
Columnist
The Bergen Record / NorthJersey.com
USA Today Network
---
Mike:
Thanks for the response. Public health is one of those slippery concepts that gives the government virtual carte blanche to impose more and more onerous regulations and mandates on the people to "protect" them from their foolishness. In a humane society (where the government is bound by the rule of law that protects individual rights and liberties), people are responsible for their own lives and are held accountable for any aggressions they commit, including fraud. Currently, the government is the greatest threat to creating a humane America. I could spell this out in a guest column if that is ok with Bruce.
Regards,
Murray
---
Murray - Why don't you reach out to Bruce. I have to say, however, that public health is NECESSARY. It prevents this nation from becoming a Third World nation. Public health keeps our water clean (for the most part), our meat free of bacteria, our vegetables untainted. You get the picture. I don't get the libertarian view of "Anything goes" when it comes to pot. Would you feel the same way about fentanyl?
mk
---
Thanks Mike. Bruce invited me to be a guest columnist. I will ask him if he would like a piece on the role of government. All the egregious acts by individuals--private citizens, business owners or corporate executives--are punishable after it is proven in a court of law of the violation of property and person that someone committed. Government regulations seem reasonable but the history of how they came about is not a cut and dry as we are led to believe. There is a vast literature about the crony capitalist nature of economic regulations, for example.
See the classic essay by economist and libertarian philosopher Murray Rothbard, https://mises.org/library/law-property-rights-and-air-pollution, regarding dealing with pollution.
Also, the extensive essays here, https://mises.org/search/node/regulations
Murray
---
Murray - Name one country that is a success primarily b/c of Libertarian philosophies in govt? Go ahead; make my day.
Libertarianism, to me, is just another way of letting rich guys abuse the people, the land and all sorts of other elements of society, from banking, to public health, etc.
mk
---
The fundamental principle of Libertarianism is nonaggression. Thus, this principle can be found as far back as the Ten Commandments (no killing or stealing), the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. If people, especially government officials, do not embrace voluntary exchange, rule of law protecting property rights, peaceful international relations, etc, then the flaw is not in the philosophy but in the transgressors--private citizens or government officials who commit acts of aggression against their neighbors.
Running "roughshod" over people in America--slavery, genocide against the Plain Indians, are examples of non libertarian acts. In addition, bombing the hell out of Korea, Southeast Asia and the Middle East, and let's not forget the Holocaust, all examples of big government run amuck. No government limited by constitutional restraints could not engage in mass murder. Unfortunately, the political and financial elites abetted by the courts have turned American into a warfare state.
I don't fear the "rich" because the people have the power of the purse. In today's era of instant communications, egregious behavior gets publicized in a nano second. I fear our government and those around the world with nukes.
Murray
---
Murray - I get it; big govt can be bad. But govt also does necessary things. It builds roads. It educates kids. It stops people from urinating in the drinking water. And when an idiot-demon like Hitler tries to take over the world, govt organizes an army to stop him. (Do you thnk a bunch of Libertarians would have landed at Omaha Beach? Puleeeeze. Don't make me laugh.)
So name me a country that succeeded at any time in history b/c of libertarian principles???
I'm waiting.
mk
---
The answer is straight forward. Cause and effect. When countries--any country--had relatively free markets and confined itself to protecting the fundamental rights of the citizenry, living standards rose and general prosperity ensued. America in the last third of the 19th century is a well established historical example. Today, we have a welfare-warfare state and crony capitalism, but with enough free enterprise to provide an abundance of goods and searches. Oversea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore (not good on some civil liberties, however), Japan, S. Korea, West Germany after Ludwig Erhard lifted draconian controls imposed by the Americans in 1948/49, I believe, and the emergence of former Soviet satellites since 1991, as well as the Nordic countries that are "social democracies" and have vibrant market economies, are some of the best examples of countries that have prospered in spite of various elements of government intervention.
In other words, there has never been a pure libertarian society any time in history, but there are countries that eschewed the top down, command and control policies that have been all too common in the past 200 years. The bottom line is: the more freedom, the better the outcomes. The less freedom, the more poverty, imprisonment, torture, etc. For example, Venezuela, Cuba, etc.
Murray
That was awesome. Concise, friendly, devastating....
ReplyDeleteKelly's argument comes down to: "Libertarianism (vastly scaled-back central-planning, the elimination of rule by winners of popularity contests, and reduction in government intervention) simply won't work if we try it. And besides, no other country is trying it, so therefore why should we?"
ReplyDeleteBut he's wrong---anarchy, spontaneous order, and the free market, are everywhere if you look. It's "between the lines and in the cracks" as I say: It's people forming lines at a fast-food counter without direction from a planner; It's cars taking turns proceeding through an intersection without a traffic cop telling them what to do; It's people organizing, laboring and donating to help victims of a natural disaster; It's neighbors chasing down and apprehending a hit-and-run driver or other criminal that commits a criminal act; it's garage sales and bake sales and people being courteous to each other and people selling things on Craigslist and Ebay and Amazon, and a myriad of millions of other acts and transactions going on each and every day, where chaos does NOT erupt, notwithstanding the absence of a government presence.
Beautiful!!
DeleteHayek's spontaneous order!
It's right in front of those who care to look.
Perfect observation. I've worked within the state, as an intermediary between private business and the state, and privately. In all cases, the free interactions between people where the state and it's workers are involved are immensely more enjoyable.
DeleteThat Murray Sabrin is something. Has he ever thought about running for public office?
ReplyDeleteI think a little urine in the drinking water would be an improvement here in LA.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that there has never been a libertarian society is both false and irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteConsider medieval Ireland, which was stateless for longer than the US has existed. In addition, the current international community is an example of political anarchy: there is no world government, and among the governments of nation-states there is implicit recognition of the NAP, self-defense, relationships based solely on voluntary agreements (treaties), etc. The problem is that the governments of nation-states don't extend their libertarian principles to the people they rule internally, but only to their peers.
However, this argument is irrelevant. As an analogy, there has never been a world without murder, but that doesn't mean that murder is good or should be acceptable. In addition, political forms evolve; at some point there had never been democracy in the world, but then it came about; at some point there hadn't been monarchies in the world, but then they came about. Who is to say that we're at the end point of the history of political forms? Or, imagine when the abolitionists were making their case, and someone argued "But there has never been a society without slavery!" Would that have been a compelling argument?
Just visited Ireland, gorgeous. If they hadn't been fighting the British state for all those years they may still be stateless and free.
Delete