ASK DR. RUWART

[RS Davis]

If drugs were legal, wouldn't drug abuse in the workplace endanger us all?

Question:

"I am leaning toward libertarianism, but I am concerned about the
ramifications of free drug use. I am an executive in a transportation company
(school buses, motor coaches) and I shudder to think what would happen if my
school bus drivers came to work still high from marijuana or crack or cocaine.

"How do you deal with the problem of drug use impacting one's professional
demeanor and still allow people freedom to choose drugs or not? Would you
feel comfortable going for brain surgery knowing that your surgeon had just
toked a reefer or snorted some coke?"

My short answer:

"As an employer, you could, in a libertarian society, require your employees
to abstain from alcohol, drugs, etc.Airlines today have such requirements for
alcohol -- even though alcohol is completely legal -- to make sure that your
pilot is sober. Naturally, their insurance rates -- and accident rates --
would go up without this requirement, so it's in the airlines' best interest
to have it."

* * *

How would the poor be educated in a libertarian society?

Question:

"How would the poor be educated in a libertarian society, when all schools
are private?"

My short answer:

"In a libertarian society, the poor would not have to pay school taxes
through their rent. This money could be used to send their children to
private schools, which cost half as much as public ones, and would be even
more economical without today's government regulation.

"Today, the poor are forced into ghetto schools because their parents seldom
have enough money to pay both property taxes and tuition. Because attendance
is compulsory, troublemakers disrupt classes and learning is difficult.

"Traditionally, the poor have been the strongest champions of choice
programs, which force educators to teach well or go out of business. In
Harlem, school choice increased the number of children reading at their grade
level from 15% to 64%. (1) Such dramatic results show that the poor can learn
when given a choice.

"Private schools can specialize to help students at any level.One private
institution specializes in students who are about to drop out and boasts an
85% graduation rate. (2) Not bad, considering that none of these students
were likely to graduate otherwise!"

Sources:
(1) John M. Hood, "Miracle on 109th Street," Reason, May 1989, pp. 20-25.
(2) Carolyn Lochhead, "A Lesson from Private Practitioners," Insight,
December 24, 1990, pp. 34-36.

* * *

Dr. Ruwart's acclaimed book "Healing Our World" presents persuasive
arguments for liberty, backed with over 1,000 references showing how liberty
works.

[outgirl]

i'm interested in knowing the difference in the rates of alcoholism and addiction in countries where drugs are legal vs illegal. Since this is such a big cause for the Libs there must be some statistics on it. Know where I could find them?

[outgirl]

hey, doesn't anyone have and answer for me. Rick....Whatever.....?

[RS Davis]

outgirl said:

hey, doesn't anyone have and answer for me. Rick....Whatever.....?

I sent out some feelers to some people who have that kind of information at their fingertips. I'm still waiting for a response.

- Rick

[outgirl]

RS said:

I sent out some feelers to some people who have that kind of information at their fingertips. I'm still waiting for a response.

- Rick

Thanks, Im just really curious. It's an area I've not made my mind up about yet. I know that I don't want to see anyone go to jail for drugs but am just not sure if I want them readily available either. I guess Amsterdam is the pilot huh? Where else are drugs legal?

[RS Davis]

outgirl said:

Thanks, Im just really curious. It's an area I've not made my mind up about yet. I know that I don't want to see anyone go to jail for drugs but am just not sure if I want them readily available either. I guess Amsterdam is the pilot huh? Where else are drugs legal?

I'm not sure, but I know a good book for you to check out. It goes into the Amsterdam experiment quite a bit:


Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It: A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs by James P. Gray

- Rick

[outgirl]

Thanks

[n2nsites]

Here's an interesting study from the US.
Substance Abuse
If you poke around the site a bit, there are alot of statistics....

Here's an old, biased comparison - I don't know if it really identifies alcoholism at all.
Drug Policy and Crime Statistics

that's all I found just poking around for a few minutes.

[outgirl]

n2nsites said:

Here's an interesting study from the US.
Substance Abuse
If you poke around the site a bit, there are alot of statistics....

Here's an old, biased comparison - I don't know if it really identifies alcoholism at all.
Drug Policy and Crime Statistics

that's all I found just poking around for a few minutes.

Thanks, Im gonna check those out.

[RS Davis]

Question:

"How do we get from here to our libertarian ideal? Aren't we so far gone, that we can't change quickly the course of history? Even if libertarians held every office in the country tomorrow, how could they convert our current system of social democracy into a libertarian system? Could the government systems of schools, courts, defense, jails, welfare, transportation, money, etc be privatized immediately?"

My short answer:

"Transition to a libertarian society could take different paths. In the U.S., we are moving towards less welfare, more restitution, e-gold as a substitute currency, home and internet schooling, private security, private roads, etc. The market is already creating alternatives, even though they aren’t widespread -- yet. The alternatives will eventually replace their governmental counterparts simply because they are more efficient.

"Transition can happen in a short time as well. New Zealand underwent radical transformation after 1984, simply because it was too bankrupt to do otherwise (See:
www.hillsdale.edu/newimprimis/2004/april/default.htm )

"With Internet-speed communications today, perhaps other countries will learn to privatize *before* they’re in crisis!"

* * *

Question:

"Do libertarians and the Libertarian Party strive to uphold the Constitution of the United States?"

My short answer:

"Libertarians support the non-aggression principle or "Good Neighbor Policy."That is, we reject theft, fraud, and assault as legitimate actions for individuals, groups, or governments.

"The Constitution of the United States, for the most part, embodies this viewpoint. Thus, libertarians would vastly prefer a government that follows the Constitution over what we have now. However, libertarians do not endorse eminent domain, tariffs, the income tax, and other forms of aggression sanctioned by the Constitution. So, libertarians do strive to see the pro-liberty values of the Constitution put into action -- and libertarians ultimately want to go even further than the Constitution in protecting and promoting individual liberty."

(Editor's note: One of the most popular slogans of Libertarian Party presidential candidate Michael Badnarik is: "The Constitution: it's not just a good idea, it's the law." And Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas), the only libertarian in Congress, frequently refers to himself as a "Constitutionalist.")

[RS Davis]

How do we deal with foreign threats?

Question:

"I agree that the world would be a much better place if we could all just "get along." But what do you do when there are people dedicated to your annihilation?"

My short answer:

"You can destroy them, deter them, or win them over. In real life, the first is often attempted, but rarely accomplished. Indeed, the backlash from the attempt is often worse than the original threat. Our “War on Terror” may fall into this category.

"Deterrence buys time, sometimes enough time for an enemy to self-destruct (e.g., the “Cold War” and the Soviet Union).

"Winning over the enemy is the preferred solution, since it creates allies and is the least costly, both in dollars and lives. Free trade is a great peacemaking vehicle, since it intertwines economies and makes war unthinkable.

"The military-industrial complex has incentives to discourage such peacemaking and does so by telling us that our enemies can’t be reasoned with. Perhaps this is why President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us that “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence” by this group."

* * *

Is the free market responsible for sweatshops and brutal child labor?

Question:

"We had a free market during the Industrial Revolution.The government didn't get involved in the economy, yet people died by the dozens in coal factories and children were enslaved in sweat shops." That's what my teacher says. What do you say?"

My short answer:

"Before the Industrial Revolution, we created far less wealth per hour than we do today. Consequently, life was dangerous and hard, whether in the coal mines or on the farms. Children worked in both places -- or went hungry.

"The Industrial Revolution made wealth creation more efficient in free market nations. Eventually, children were able to go to school instead of work, since their parents could more easily support them.

"Nations without free markets became the "Third World." Children living in these countries today often have the same choice our great-great grandparents did: work or starve. Even when outlawed, child labor still continues there because it’s a necessity for survival.

"The free market and the Industrial Revolution made childhood, as we know it today, possible. It will do so for the rest of the world, too, if adopted."

* * *

Got questions? Dr. Ruwart has answers! If you'd like answers to YOUR "tough questions" on libertarian issues, just email to Dr. Ruwart at:
mailto:[e-mail]

[RS Davis]

[glow=red,2,300]"Would a libertarian society have speed limits?"[/glow]

My short answer:

"In a fully libertarian world, roads would be owned and operated privately, not by the government. Road owners would decide what speed limits (if any) would be set. Some might have no restrictions, like the European Autobahn.Others might have strict limits.Since safe travel is important to drivers, owners would most likely monitor and ban reckless drivers (slow or
fast) from their roadways. The marketplace would thereby impose "regulation" of its own, with emphasis on *safety* rather than *speed*."

* * *

[glow=red,2,300]"Since roads today are *not* privately owned, should we call for laws against drunk driving?"[/glow]

My short answer:

"My personal belief is that these laws do more harm than good.Instead, I’d prefer to see reckless or careless drivers pulled off the road, whether they are under the influence of alcohol, drugs, sleep loss, medication, or emotions that distract them from safe driving.The libertarian philosophy permits defensive measures when force is threatened (e.g., you can defend yourself against me if I point a gun at you but haven’t fired yet). Reckless driving could qualify as the threat of force."

* * *

Got questions? Dr. Ruwart has answers! If you'd like answers to YOUR "tough questions" on libertarian issues, just email to Dr. Ruwart at:
mailto:[e-mail]

Due to volume, Dr. Ruwart can't personally acknowledge all emails. But we'll run the best questions and answers in upcoming issues.

[RS Davis]

[glow=red,2,300]Was there widespread education in America before government funding? [/glow]

Question:

"My understanding of the history of education in America prior to government funding is that rich white men were educated because they were the only people thought to be worthy of education -- and the only ones who could afford it. I think libertarians who want to separate school and state are dishonest in addressing this issue."

My short answer:

"An 1817 survey revealed that over 90% of Boston's children attended some type of local school. (S.K. Schultz, The Culture Factory: Boston Public Schools, 1789-1860 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973), p.25.)

"Education in America was so readily available that school attendance didn't change in New York City when it began offering tax-subsidized, tuition-free public education. (C.F. Kaestle, The Evolution of an Urban School System: New York City, 1750-1850 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), p. 89).

"By 1840, literacy in the North and South, exclusive of the slave population, was over 90% and 80% respectively. (B.W. Poulson, "Education and the Family During the Industrial Revolution," in J.R. Peden and F.R. Glahe, eds., The American Family and the State, (San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1986), p. 138.)

"In the 1830s, a visiting French aristocrat, Alexis de Tocqueville, claimed in his now-classic study "Democracy in America" that the U.S. had the best educated people in history! (S.L. Blumenfeld, Is Public Education Necessary? (Boise, ID: Paradigm, 1985), pp. 68, 126; S.L. Blumenfeld "Why the Schools Went Public," Reason, March 1979, p. 19.)"

* * *

[RS Davis]

* * *

How does regulation drive up the cost of prescription drugs?

Question:

“In the last Liberator Online, Dr. Ruwart said, QUOTE: "What we spend for prescription drugs can be predicted by what manufacturers spend on R&D. If [pre-1962-regulation] trends had continued, drug prices would be about 15% of what they are today. We'd have more innovation and twice as many drugs to choose from. Pharmaceuticals replace more expensive medical interventions like surgery, so that every dollar we spend on drugs lowers health care costs by $2-$3 ”END QUOTE

“I disagree with your conclusion. R&D accounts for less than 15% of pharmaceutical expenses. They spend twice that in marketing alone, and that doesn't even count the money spent on lobbying. Individual liberty is wonderful, but the abuses of unfettered corporate greed is a hell of a lot worse than the overly-demonized regulatory state.”

My short answer:

“Pharmaceutical R&D accounts for about 20% of the sales dollar, yet it predicts, with a great deal of reliability, what drug expenditures will be.

“You are right in asking how something that is a fraction of total cost can be such a good indicator of a parameter five times as great.

“I answered this in my recent presentation at the American Association of Pharmaceutical Sciences, “Is Excess Regulation Responsible for Soaring Pharmaceutical Prices?” (www.ruwart.com/AAPS.pdf),

“The driving force behind increased R&D -- namely the landmark 1962 Kefauver-Harris regulatory amendments -- also increased advertising, manufacturing, and post-marketing costs.

“Pharmaceuticals are one of our most highly regulated industries. Regulation drives out competition, resulting in the merger mania you now see in the industry. Profits for the survivors soar -- at consumer expense.

“Deregulation will decrease drug prices by increasing competition. More importantly, deregulation will save lives. The 1962 regulations that drive up costs increase drug development time about a decade, resulting in an estimated 4.7 million premature deaths while people wait for life-saving medications. In contrast, the regulations saved fewer than 100,000 lives, based on the drug-related deaths that occurred prior to their passage.”

* * *

How can we have safe medicine without the FDA?

Question:

“Before the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), con artists sold "medicine" that was useless at best and frequently dangerous. Clearly, the FDA provides a very beneficial service by approving medicines as safe and effective, but in a pure libertarian society there would be no FDA. How can we justify this?”

My short answer:

“In a libertarian society, we would have something BETTER than the FDA third-party testing. Today, pharmaceutical firms test their own drugs and the FDA looks over the data.

“Before the modern-day FDA, the American Medical Association, Consumers’ Research, and a number of other organizations tested drugs and gave (or withheld) their Seal of Approval. The private certification company UL does this today for electrical appliances. Although it’s legal to sell equipment without the UL seal, most retailers protect their customers by carrying only approved electrical products. Certification is superior to regulation because consumers can still choose to take medicine that does not yet have a Seal.

“Without consumer choice, we literally regulate ourselves to death. The FDA regulations added in 1962, for example, increased drug development time an average of 10 years; many seriously ill people can’t wait that long. Thus, while these regulations may save several thousand American lives per decade, they also cause millions of premature deaths.

“For details, see my presentation at the 2004 American Association for Pharmaceutical Sciences, “Is Excess Regulation Responsible for Soaring Pharmaceutical Prices?” (www.ruwart.com/aaps.pdf).”

* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Got questions? Dr. Ruwart has answers! If you'd like answers to YOUR "tough questions" on libertarian issues, just email to Dr. Ruwart at:
mailto:[e-mail]