"The real lesson here is that the
War on Drugs -- just like every other war waged by our politicians --
doesn't solve the ostensible problem, and in fact strips away other
liberties."
Policing for Profit
Thursday, May 26, 2011
by Robert P.
Murphy
A shocking news
report recently documented how Tennessee police were stopping drivers
on the interstate and confiscating large amounts of cash, even if the
drivers were accused of no crime. The report was particularly shocking
because the special unit was operating far outside of its jurisdiction in
exchange for giving a cut of the seized cash to the local government in
question.
This episode is outrageous enough that any regular American can see the
problem. Yet most people who see the report will probably conclude that
the government "went too far" in this instance, and some
reforms are needed. The real lesson here is that the War on Drugs -- just
like every other war waged by our politicians -- doesn't solve the
ostensible problem, and in fact strips away other liberties.
More generally, the report is a perfect vindication of the Rothbardian
point that, in a very real sense, government is a gang of thieves writ
large. Such a radical viewpoint sounds crazy to most Americans in the
abstract, but when they watch
the video, it's
hard to deny.
The Bitter Fruits of the Drug War
From a standard libertarian perspective, the
government has no business interfering in capitalist acts between
consenting adults (to use Robert Nozick's felicitous phrase). This
includes situations where one person wants to grow a plant, for example,
and sell it to somebody else who intends to use it to induce a feeling of
euphoria.
To be sure, private organizations can lay down whatever
regulations they want "regulating" drug use. Airlines can still
subject pilots to randomized drug tests, and schools can expel students
caught smoking in the bathroom if they so choose. After all, private
schools can tell students what clothes they can wear on school
property, so they obviously have the right to prohibit the use of
particular drugs.
Yet even if we put aside such principled opposition, it should be crystal
clear by now that the War on Drugs has shredded traditional liberties.
The scandal on the Tennessee interstate shown in the video above is just
one example. Precisely because the War on Drugs has fostered an immense
black market, the authorities can now seize large amounts of cash from
anyone simply on the suspicion that the person "must be" a drug
dealer (or a terrorist financier).
This is a very troubling trend. Beyond the obvious inconvenience for
people who don't trust banks and want to keep a large amount of cash on
hand, it also takes away one of the last escape routes from the
tightening vise of financial regulations and controls. As the
government's interventions in the banking system and stock market become
ever more intrusive, more and more individuals will want to "opt
out" by conducting their operations in cash. But now that strategy
entails a huge risk, because their holdings can be seized without any
formal charges if they happen to get pulled over.
Another major landmark along the road to serfdom is the huge prison
infrastructure in the United States. Many Americans don't realize that
the United States has the
largest prison population in the world, both in absolute terms and
per capita (with the possible exception of China, because their
government's official figures could be bogus).
If a truly nightmarish scenario ever does develop in what was once
a relatively free country, the ruling elite at that time won't have to
come up with a pretext for building prisons able to house millions of
dissidents. No, that option is already available, courtesy of the Drug
War. Most Americans have no problem funding such construction, because
they are confident that they would never be locked up.
A Rothbardian Analysis of the State
Although his views are understandably perceived
as radical, in essence all Murray Rothbard stated was that politicians
and other government officials should be subject to the same legal and
moral rules as everybody else. If it's a crime for, say, Bill Gates to
take my money at gunpoint while giving me the latest version of Windows,
then why is it acceptable for Barack Obama to take my money at gunpoint
while giving me the latest Predator drone attack in Pakistan?
The other "radical" aspect of Rothbardian thought is that he
opposed monopolies in police and judicial services. Everybody knows that
in normal settings, a monopoly (enforced through the threat of violence)
restricts output, reduces quality, and raises prices for the customer.
Most people would see the danger and folly of giving a monopoly to, say,
a particular car company, or to a single manufacturer of men's suits. Yet
people think it's perfectly normal to give a monopoly to the group that
has all the guns and can decide to throw people in cages for
life.
A Beautiful Vision -- But Is It
Practical?
Some political theorists and economists defend
the legitimacy of the state head-on. However, most "regular"
people are not so abstract and ideological. They will usually admit that
"in a perfect world," nobody would be forced to pay taxes for
government services he didn't want. But alas, so the argument goes, all
the wonderful benefits of open competition that work so well in computers
and ice cream would not work when it comes to police and
courts.
I would encourage such readers to keep an open mind and at least read
some of the voluminous literature on the topic. Two baby steps are my
essay on private
legal systems and my
pamphlet on
military defense. For a deeper treatment, Hans Hoppe's
essay on national defense is excellent. Finally, for those who have
been intrigued and want to see a book-length description of the truly
free society, I recommend Rothbard's
For a New
Liberty.
Conclusion
Murray Rothbard was a great technical economist
who made many contributions to pure theory. However, many thinkers still
reject his political views as being too radical and utopian. But when we
come across stories such as the Tennessee police's confiscation of
motorists' cash, we realize that it is faith in our present system of
government that is naïve.
Robert Murphy is an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute, where he
teaches at the Mises Academy. He
runs the blog Free
Advice and is the author of
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism, the
Study Guide to "Man, Economy, and State with Power and
Market," the
"Human Action" Study Guide,
The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New
Deal, and his newest book,
Lessons for the Young Economist.
http://mises.org/daily/5321/Policing-for-Profit
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
