Forward Biased (Less-than-current Events)

I'm with Patterico

In case you were wondering, if when the FEC comes to tell me that bloggers like myself can no longer post on political topics or within so many days of an election, I will not obey their rules.

I will not attempt to change the characterization of this blog in an attempt to get off on a technicality.  I am going to excercise my first amendment rights with no particular eye toward their regulations one way or another.  And if I am arrested, or otherwised sanctioned for doing so, you will all know, as well as knowing about the thousands of others more well-known than I doing the same thing but with more impact.  And I believe that if the FEC tries to make an example out of me or any other small fry out there, nothing would make someone a martyr any faster than that.

I realize that this opens me to possible peril, particularly since I have a family that depends on me.  But this is too important an issue.  The fact that I believe that they can't possibly arrest several thousands of bloggers committing civil disobedience all at once is comforting, but not at all a guarantee of getting off scot-free.

Patterico explains:

Quite simply, I intend to go on blogging like I did before. Regardless of whether the FEC promulgates rules for political speech on the Internet, I plan to express my opinions just as I did before. If I need to link to a politician’s campaign web site in order to make my point, I’m going to do so. If I decide to endorse a candidate, I will. If I think my readers should send that candidate money, I will encourage them to do so.

I’ll do this during the next congressional election, and during the next presidential election. I will engage in this core political speech whenever I feel like it. And I will not change my behavior in the slightest, regardless of any FEC regulations.

For example, if the FEC warns me that one more link to a certain politician’s web site will not be permitted, but that link is necessary for me to make my point, I am going to include that link.

I am not going to sign any petitions asking for government’s permission to do this, and I am not going to seek out media credentials to obtain special permission to do this.

... I would welcome such a case, because it would expose, once and for all, the fraud that is campaign finance reform. If the American public saw a citizen dragged off to jail for expressing his political views, maybe this insanity would finally end. Maybe even the editorial board of the New York Times would finally see the light! Since the Supreme Court is little more than a puppet of elite opinionmakers, we might get a ruling upholding our God-given right to free speech.

And if we don’t get such a ruling, maybe we’ll get a Constitutional amendment overruling McCain/Feingold.

I fundamentally don’t believe that Americans, who routinely fight and die for our basic liberties, are just going to stand by and watch someone imprisoned for expressing political beliefs.

But we need to shake them awake.

... Our freedom of speech cannot be held hostage by government bureaucrats and politicians. John McCain and Russ Feingold have engineered the most serious attack on Americans’ most fundamental rights in recent history. We have to fight it.

Don’t go hat in hand asking the government for permission to speak.

Fight!

For the record, I'm taking his pledge.  Know all who come by these presents, that

If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules.

There.  Now I guess they know where to tell the IRS that I am.

There oughta be a law...!

Buckle up.  This is going to take a few minutes.

After having written a couple of admittedly self-centered rants about the War On (Some) Drugs and why I so passionately oppose it, I realized that I should be clearer about why I do, especially for people unaquainted with ("small l") libertarianism.

(The "small-l" thing is just to distinguish libertarianism as a political philosophy from the Libertarian Party, which, while being ostensibly libertarian, has unfortunately mutated into an infectious strain of political flu.  It's populated largely by people who equate "libertarian" with "libertine" and other associated whackjobs.  No, libertarians (as a rule) aren't interested in the "libertarian lifestyle," whatever the heck that is.  (Actually, any time I hear the word "lifestyle" I run as fast as my short legs can hobble me away.))

You can tell I'm an Excel user by those three levels of nested parentheses.

But I digress.  (Badly.)  It's not my intent to launch into a detailed poli-sci discussion of libertarianism, especially since there are others who can do it much better, being much more educated in the matter, but I do intend to explain just one aspect of libertarianism that I hold particularly dear.

(Now, again, there are different flavors of libertarianism, including anarchists, minarchists (like me), other-archists, rugged anti-collectivists, and off-spouters, and I'm merely expounding on one thing I believe.  And, while there are very many beliefs common to both conservatives and libertarians, this is a point where they will usually disagree.)

To wit:  not everything that is wrong should be illegal.  In other words, people should be free to be stupid, foolish, without foresight, merely incorrect, and otherwise wrong, but there should be as few laws as possible to constrain their bad or unwise behavior.  If it is not destructive of another's property, or otherwise does not infringe on another's liberty, the behavior should not be proscribed by law.

However, this belief grates quite harshly upon many good people's sensibilities.  They witness People Behaving Badly and say (all together, now) "there oughta be a law!"  But the law is not, or should not be, a tool used to coerce others to conform to my standards of behavior.   It is, unfortunately, very frequently exactly that.

What manner of system would this create, though?  Would we not live in an unbearably chaotic society if this were true?  What would we call a philosophy that allows for such behavior?

We call it LIBERTY, and we founded a country upon that philosophy.

Here is where many folks make the mistake of believing that, if a thing is legal, that this is tantamount to government's endorsement of that behavior, and the thing should be illegal just for the principle of it, to demonstrate that we do not approve of you if you do this or that.  This kind of thinking is the source of many coercive laws that fill our jails with people who should not be there.  We pass laws against behavior such as smoking marijuana, against which many good arguments have been made, and for which I do not intend to argue here.  The thinking is that, because this is deemed harmful to the individual doing the smoking, it should be illegal.

All I ask is: why?  Why go to the trouble of passing such a law?  What do you hope to accomplish? To make yourself feel better?  To convince yourself that you've done your part to better the society in which you live?  To protect our children?  (Yes, the latter reason is very often invoked when passing laws of this type.)

But are you not capable of protecting your own children without enlisting the government's help?  Can you not sit them down and explain to them the dangers you believe are associated with smoking marijuana so that they are prepared to resist the temptation to do so?  Are you so unsure of your own parenting ability that you must attempt to coerce "good behavior" in your fellow citizens just because you're fearful that your children will emulate any "bad behavior" they witness?

And, most importantly of all, do you really, honestly believe that the consequence of this law will be a better, more peaceful society in which to live?

My answer to that question comes thusly: first of all, it's simply human nature to attempt to coerce others to do what one believes is right, and most political battles center on this principle, since there are obviously many differing opinions in this vast country on what is indeed right.  The result of our machinations and "clever" dealings to pass such laws is that said law will be summarily ignored by a large portion of our population who do not believe as you do. 

And whenever a law is so ignored in a widespread manner, respect for the law in general suffers.

How much respect do you have for, say, speed laws on our highways?  See what I mean?  (Yes, I know some of you are scrupulous in your obedience to speed laws.  But many more of you are not, and you know who you are.)

It comes to the point that the police will not arrest just any person exceeding the speed limit, only those doing so at, say, more than ten mph above the limit.  Even then they pick and choose among drivers—after all, one officer can't pull a dozen drivers over at once.

But the worst example, by far, of this mentality, in my opinion, passionately held, is the War on (Some) Drugs.  This is Prohibition Revisited, and like Prohibition, it has caused much more destruction and pain to our citizens and society than the drug use itself.  Without drug laws the Medellin Cartel would cease to exist, as would all drug lords and their "kingdoms."  There would no longer be such immense profit in drug sales.  We have created the market for illegal drug cartels by the very act of prohibiting drug use.  It is our own fault that the murders and wasted lives caused by illegal drug trade even exist in the first place.

It is an immutable law that, whenever there is a demand for something, there will also be a supply.  Always.  We can try all we like to squash that supply, but as quickly as we chop one head off of the Hydra, two more grow back in its place.  We cannot win.  Ever.

Worst of all, drug use offends our sensibilities of civilized behavior so badly that we just know that it should be illegal, and any arguments based on actual facts fall on deaf ears.  Don't bother us with logic—we feel strongly that it should be illegal, and therefore, illegal it shall be!

And what of the society we would create if drug use were de-criminalized, and drugs were regulated and taxed by the state as alcohol, the very most destructive drug of all, is regulated and taxed today?  Do you imagine that the streets would be overrun with crazed addicts wreaking havoc on the whole world?

Well, can you honestly compare the drunken spouse who beats and terrifies his or her family to the one who casually puffs on a joint in his home, causing pain or terror to no one?

We have this image of crazed drug users roaming the streets inflicting mayhem on anyone in their path, but it is a myth.  The mayhem is caused directly by the law.  Without drug laws, the violence would have no point and no profit, and would therefore cease.

This is a classic case of Unintended Consequences, but not unforeseeable ones.  We knew about Prohibition and all it entailed, but chose to ignore its lessons.  We marched bravely into a world we believed would be better, and even after it became undeniably evident that the Drug War was not only failing, but unwinnable, we ignored all evidence and clung to our myths.  Drug use must remain illegal, just—just because it should be.  This is how we believe It Should Be, in the very face of How It Is.

If we simply let people behave badly, as long as they injure no on except perhaps themselves, we would be shocked at the suddenly peaceful turn our would has become.  Gone would be the street corner dealers and the "neighborhood connection" across the street.  The fact is that anyone who wants a drug, e.g. marijuana, can get it quite easily as it is now.  But their money will help to finance murder and mayhem instead of helping to reduce the federal deficit.  And it will be entirely our fault that it does.

The poor soul who has become addicted to heroin commits a crime, not because he is under the influence of a drug, but because our laws have made his drug too expensive to afford without stealing money to finance his habit.  I am not defending his habit or drug use at all—I am merely stating the fact that his crime is motivated by price, which is caused by our laws.  Without them, he could get his daily fix down the street for $2.93 (plus tax), and go about his life so quietly that most would never suspect his addiction.  Yes, he would  hold down an ordinary job as easily as any of us, as long as his employer does not require that he pee in a cup firstly.

You have the right to swing your fist around any way you see fit, as long as you don't hit my nose.  There is where your liberty ends, but not before.  I don't have to legislate a three-foot "safety zone" around my nose to insure my safety (and enrich legions of lawyers due to alleged infractions of that zone), but that is exactly what we do every day via our government, which is ever willing to do whatever it takes to win your vote, including legislating away your own liberties "for the children" or some such.

Just because it is dumb, foolish or otherwise wrong doesn't mean we should give our precious liberty away.  We have the right to be wrong in America—the very knowledge of the consequences of being wrong was what so deeply etched the rugged lines in the faces of our ancestors as they strove for a better life in a country where they had the liberty to do what they believed they should do, as well as the liberty to fail.  No law was needed then to protect us from ourselves, and none is needed now.

In the words of a man much smarter than I am, "End the failed War on (Some) Drugs. End it now."