Classical Liberalism as a Voting Guide

Classical liberalism, as espoused by John Locke, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill, was based on the concepts of individualism, liberty, and equal rights. Our Declaration of Independence was conceived upon those same values. This was heady stuff and freed uncounted millions from under the heavy boots of dukes and kings.

It wasn’t until many years later that liberalism became associated with statism, that is, using the power of the state to regulate the affairs of her citizens. A more topsy-turvy reversal could not be imagined.

The upcoming election, only five days hence, offers some befuddling choices. Let’s take a look at it through the lens of classical liberalism, the very values upon which our country was founded.

Massachusetts ballot question one, expanded slot-machine gaming, is an easy start. Who are you to tell your neighbor that she can’t start a slot-machine business? Or order her potential customers to not gamble in any case? How Stalinist, Hitlerian. You have the free choice of not gambling nor supporting such an enterprise, but what business is it of yours to order others not to do so?

Now you’re beginning to get the hang of classical liberalism.

On to question two, charter school expansion. Public charter schools are subject to long waiting lists of parents anxious to get their children into them. Are they all deluded? Do they breathe noxious fumes? Nay, they anticipate a better outcome for dear Billy Joe than if he were to attend a district school. We need not question that belief, only recognize that it exists. Who are you to tell Billy that he can’t attend the school of his choice?

Competition is the natural adjudicator of such contests. If district schools demonstrate better results, then the charters will wither. Let this process play itself out.

Question three, conditions for farm animals, has many weepy supporters who seem fixated on feces. But perhaps, instead of mandating husbandry standards from folks who don’t even know what husbandry is, we take a different tack. The question, perhaps, should ask farm producers to report the conditions under which their animals were husbanded. This information would follow the animal products to the supermarkets, and shoppers could make their choices based on their family budget vs. highly held principles.

Another clear “no” for the classical liberal. You are getting the idea now.

And then there is question four, the legalization, regulation, and taxation of marijuana. This question is a bit more complex, and the classical liberal would vote “yes, but…”

The “yes” is clearly based on liberal principles – the freedom of the individual to choose. However the “but” is related to unintended consequences that would arise therefrom.  Human nature being what it is, once marijuana is legalized, the drug cartels will find some other way to make money. In January 2015, the Washington Post published a report entitled “Losing marijuana business, Mexican cartels push heroin and meth.” These guys aren’t stupid, and finding that marijuana was no longer profitable, they simply shifted to other drugs.

So the classical liberal would vote yes on question four, but would ask that we prepare for a flood of replacement illegal drugs. Perhaps the long term fix is to legalize them as well, a kind-of Swiss model.

And then finally to the presidential election.

What a farce. The Democratic candidate is a grifter, grown enormously wealthy through “public service.” The Republican candidate is a complete whack-a-doodle, adolescent, emotionally volatile.

What is a classical liberal to do?

First let’s recognize the growth of the regulatory state over the last fifty years. The inertia of the FRB, FDA, FCC, FDA, EPA, FTC, NLRB, OSHA, and SEC will be scarcely influenced by whomever wins the next election. It is a sad fact that the bureaucratic, unelected mass of the federal regulatory apparatus is little affected by whoever is president.

But we do need to recognize the importance of Supreme Court nominations. The court can reinterpret our constitution at will, and, as classical liberals, we would hope that that interpretation would favor individualism, liberty, and equal rights.

In the end, our choice as classical liberals must be to defend the rights of the individual citizen. Take a big gulp, cross yourselves, and vote for Mr. Trump.

God knows we have the best intentions at heart.  Fingers crossed. 

Occupy Brain Cells

Legislating in the streets

It is a complex world in which we live. We’re sure we know what we want, our grand vision. Social activists protest, lobby, and press. The President wields his pen and his phone. Legislators legislate. Bureaucrats regulate. The politically correct cudgel us into their approved mindsets. Humiliation is used as a weapon to ensure lock-step thinking. Yes, we are a happy people, all happy together, thinking our approved, happy thoughts.

But sometimes this man-made nirvana falls short. Here are a few examples.

The Cecil Effect

You may recall Walter Palmer, the dentist who shot Cecil the lion. The outcry was enormous, Palmer thoroughly villainized, and trophy hunting put into the shame locker. All as it should be, you might observe.

Except that it’s not.

On February 23, the Los Angeles Daily News published a piece entitled “Why the Cecil effect is bad news.” Apparently trophy hunting has dropped sharply in Africa. The Bubye Valley Conservancy, a huge wildlife reserve in Zimbabwe, is reporting a sharp overpopulation of lions.

According to the article, “Bubye Valley Conservancy has more than 500 lions, and they may have to cull 200 in order to reach a level that is sustainable.” (To those not in the know, a cull is a selective slaughter).

The other animals in the conservancy are suffering as a result. Hungry lions are “eating up way too many antelope, giraffe, cheetah, leopards and wild dogs.”

It is also reported that villagers who had relied on the hunters’ trade are sinking deeper into poverty.

This is a perfect example of an unintended consequence. Activists and lobbyists and shamers were quick to jump on Dr. Palmer in particular and trophy hunting in general with no thought of the predictable outcome.

That’s a good start… here’s another one closer to home.

Legalized Marijuana and Heroin Deaths

There has been a sea change in how marijuana is viewed in our nation.  According to Governing Magazine, “Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia currently have laws legalizing marijuana in some form.”

One of those states is Massachusetts, where medical marijuana has been legalized and personal use decriminalized. This is the right thing to do from a classic libertarian point of view. But perhaps not without consequences.

While the pot smokers are happy, there has been a disturbing, and very deadly, increase in deaths from opioid overdoses. (This includes heroin and painkillers).

For Massachusetts, according to Masslive, “the number of confirmed cases of unintentional opioid overdose deaths for 2014 was 1,089 – a 63 percent increase from the 668 deaths in 2012, and a 20 percent increase over the 911 cases in 2013.”

It’s not just a local issue. The Boston Globe tells us that “nationally, 125 people a day die from overdosing on heroin and painkillers.” That’s over 45,000 deaths per year, about the same as automobile deaths and gun homicides combined. Where is this plague coming from?

The Washington Post has a clue. In a January 11^th article, they tell us “Mexican traffickers are sending a flood of cheap heroin and methamphetamine across the U.S. border, the latest drug seizure statistics show, in a new sign that America’s marijuana decriminalization trend is upending the North American narcotics trade.”

We shouldn’t have been surprised by the outcome of legalizing weed. It was perfectly predictable, and could have been accompanied by mitigating actions with only a little foresight. (For instance, the Swiss drug policy model, which offers free, safe opioid substitutes to addicts).

Alright, time for just one more.

Shootings double in Chicago

The Chicago Tribune reported just a few weeks ago that the homicide rate in Chicago has doubled compared to a year ago.

In Chicago, “The city has recorded at least 95 homicides since the first of the year, compared to 47 last year, according to data kept by the Tribune. The city has also more than doubled the amount of people shot - about 420 this year compared to 193 last year.”

What is happening?

One theory is this – police are pulling back. They have reportedly seized far fewer illegal guns so far this year as compared to last. “Evidence of a pullback starts with an 80 percent decrease in the number of street stops that the officers have made since the first of the year.”

Again, it is not entirely a surprise that if we vilify our police, they may feel less anxious to put their lives and careers on the line for us.

We have now seen several instances of social or public policy which seem to have backfired. What is the common theme here? One is the preeminence of emotion over logic. Public policy should be carefully based on reason and fact, not on feelings and sentiments. We are far too often tempted by emotion – but should always pause and calculate.

Better public policy is possible. Perhaps, one day, when the computers are in charge…