Mailvox: smoke what thou wilt

FS finds it hard to believe I really don’t want to ban anything:

Can you conceive of a chemical that you would ban? Just as an exercise. Define it’s attraction and affects and then say, “Nope, we cant go there.” I bet you can. So it all boils down to a question of degree. The chemicals we have today don’t cross the line for you. You call it recreational drug use, maybe not the best thing but a matter of personnel choice. The drugs we have now crossed my line years ago and I call it national suicide. And I’m glad there are laws against suicide.

You won’t get your way but even if you did there would come a day when the magic in the periodic table would force you to change your tune. I think you know that, but hay it’s Monday, you’ve got to get the column out whether or not you’ve got any good ideas. And by the way, I read that Washington was a little embarrassed about the hemp and tried kept it quiet.

I love your column though, Libertarians are awesome. Libertarians are the true ideological descendents of the founders. I think they are the most hopeful, optimistic and idealistic people in the country. They really believe in the “better angels of our nature”. And in that vein I’d rather have Ron Paul as President than Lincoln, he’s more idealistic and purer. I wish we could live in a libertarian world but we’re addicted to the drugs of selfish partisanship and expedient compromise. Don’t you wish they were prohibited?

No, there is no chemical that I believe should be prohibited from personal consumption. While a theoretical case can be made to prohibit a drug that would directly lead to the inevitable harming of others who did not take it, that’s simply not true of even the most dangerous illegal drugs known today. Nor do I wish to ban either “selfish partisanship” or “expedient compromise”. In that desire to control the behavior of other individuals is the seed of every totalitarian nightmare ever created or contemplated.

I appreciate the kind words, but FS simply doesn’t understand that libertarianism is not an optimistic or idealistic perspective, but rather a pessimistic one. It is also the only rational one. If one does not trust the ability of individuals to control themselves, how does it make sense to place one’s trust in individuals with the power to control others?