Milton Friedman on the War On Drugs

I recently read an article from the Chicago Tribune about the efforts to legalize marijuana in the state of Florida. The state has fallen into a large amount of debt that is expected to pile up to $2.4 billion dollars. So politicians are trying to figure out how to make up some of the debt before it gets too out of control. Legalizing marijuana and taxing it has been brought up as part of the solution to the debt. While conservatives are against the legalization of marijuana, the author of this article argues for legalizing it and points out that the war on drugs causes more problems than solutions. He argues that while there are people out there making enormous profits off the selling of drugs, the state is not collecting any taxes from these transactions and continue to fall deeper into debt.

From our class, Milton Friedman would argue for the legalization of marijuana. He believes that the government has no duty to interfere with matters that can be resolved by the market itself. He believes that economic freedom is part of the total freedom of individuals. The freedom to choose what to do with ones life and to choose what to spend ones earnings on, freedom from coercion. This article got me interested on Friedman's view on the legalization of drugs and so I found a video (located at the top of this post) about Friedman and what he thinks about the war on drugs. He agrees with the author of this article, the probation of drugs causes more harm than good. He says that people should be free the do whatever they want as long is they are not doing any harm to others, and they should be free from governmental coercion. He argues that the consequence of making drugs illegal is that it drives up the price. He even goes on to say that the government protects big drug cartels by making it almost impossible for a ordinary person to enter into the drug market. He explains that these drugs are available, legal or not, and that by making these drugs harder to get it increases the price of drugs. He also believes that drug-users are almost driven by the government to try more dangerous drugs. In this interview he argues that by making drugs like marijuana and cocaine more expensive, it drove to the creation of crack-cocaine and ultimately forces drug-users to use more dangerous drugs such as crack cocaine and heroin because they are cheaper.

However, Friedman believes in cooperation without coercion. This means that he would be against the taxation of drugs, which was suggested in the article I first mentioned. Friedman believes that any kind of taxation on the people or the market limits an individuals total freedom. Taxation limits a persons income, which restricts a person from freely doing what they want to do. In his eyes economics and politics should be kept separate and the government should be an instrument to the economy. Which means that the government has no duty to make certain products legal or illegal. The government is given the rules and its only duty is to enforce those rules, not to manipulate them. By choosing which consumer goods are legal and illegal is manipulating the economy and Friedman would be against this.

Marx In The News

I recently read an article written by the former governor of Colorado on the disguised high cost of "cheap" labor in the United States. The article talks in depth about the growing problem with “cheap” labor in American and the effect is has on ordinary, legal, Americans. He argues that by hiring these illegal immigrants to work for lower wages and no benefits they are not only taking jobs from ordinary Americans, but they are increasing the gap between the rich and the poor through the lack of taxes received from these low-wage workers.
“Cheap” labor is growing more and more popular for employees across the nation. And why not, for employers it makes a lot of sense. Why would they want to pay an ordinary legal American $15.00 an hour with benefits, when they could an illegal immigrant to do the same job for $10.00 with no benefits. Richard Lamm argues that this way of thinking will, "forever lock the bottom quartile of our American earners into poverty: for how are they ever to obtain a decent wage?”(Lamm). Obviously this way of thinking is extremely beneficial to lower costs for employers but what does this do to normal American citizens? These illegal immigrants can afford to live off minimum wages because typically they send their wages back to their families in their hometown where the standard of living is much lower than it is in the United States. But this leaves ordinary Americans with less jobs to choose from and less jobs that they can afford to live on to survive and to support a family. This form of “cheap” labor is keeping Americans down in poverty and the number of poor grows higher year after year. This form of “cheap” labor is also a form of subsidizing. As Lamm puts it, “It may be “cheap” to those who pay the wages, but for the rest of us it is clearly “subsidized” labor, as we taxpayers pick up the costs of education, health, and other municipal costs imposed by this workforce.”(Lamm). The illegal immigrants who earn a wage in American typically get paid in cash which means they do not pay taxes. This leaves the burden of paying the taxes that illegal immigrants are not paying on ordinary legal Americans. How is this fair? How is it that illegal immigrants can enter into the United States workforce and take away jobs from ordinary Americans by accepting a lower wage? This is a problem with the capitalist system that Marx predicts in his writings.
This problem with “cheap” labor is exactly what Marx believed would happen with this type of economic system. He argued that the division of labor leads to a larger division between the poor. He also believed that as production increases, employers find new ways of lower costs, so wages therefore are decreased. In this current capitalist system, employers are forced to compete with each other, which forces them to come up with new and creative ways to cut costs of production. This hiring of illegal immigrants is this creative way to cut costs but it doesn’t make it right. They are taking jobs away from ordinary Americans and forcing them into a sinking hole of poverty that they can never get out of. Something needs to be changed to fix the problem of illegal immigrants or the gap between the rich and the poor will continue to increase and more and more Americans will sink down into poverty.

Locke In The News

Today, there is a global movement for countries to become less dependent on oil and there has been a switch towards natural gas. Natural gas is a better energy source because it is a lot cheaper than oil and a lot more efficient. I read an article today in the Dallas News about an increase in benzene levels in the air around areas in Texas where they drill for natural gas. Benzene is a toxin known to cause cancer that is produced in the drilling process. So this brought an ethical question to my mind: Is it okay for these companies to drill for a better source of energy even if in the process a toxin is produced that could potentially bring harm to humans?
Locke would be happy with the fact that the companies are laboring to the land. He believes that each person has the right to labor to the land and he believes when a person instills their labor into something, they now own it. These companies are drilling for natural gas and so they own whatever they dig up. But Locke also says that a persons labor should benefit mankind as a whole. Locke would argue that these companies are not benefiting mankind as a whole. By drilling and collecting natural gas from the earth these gas companies are producing a toxin that causes cancer in humans. Even though they are doing something good by collecting natural gas, they are producing something that is harmful to humans. Should these companies be allowed to continue this?
This article really opened my eyes to a disadvantage of natural gas. Up until now I have heard nothing but good things about natural gas and for the first time I heard what harms it could bring to people. Locke would argue that these companies should either stop drilling or to find out a way to correct the problem. The article does talk about how the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality has been working to correct the problems and they say strongly that the problems can be fixed. This is a good thing for the future but I just feel bad for the people in that area who might have been affected already by these high levels of benzene.

How Much is Too Much?

It is amazing that even in these tough economic times companies are still raking in huge profits while the ordinary American is still struggling to make ends meet. I recently came across an article in the New York Times about the record breaking earnings by JPMorgan Chase, a bank that received bailout money back in 2008. The article brought questions of ethics to my mind and the question: How much is too much…?
JPMorgan Chase earned more than double of what it earned last year, even with the economy at its worst. In 2009, the bank reported earnings of $11.7 billion in profits alone, compared to $5.6 billion in 2008. What is JPMorgan doing with all of this extra money you ask? Well how about raising the bonuses for executives by 18% from last year. The bank is setting aside an enormous $26.9 billion to “compensate its workers” which will be paid out in bonuses. Is this greed? While there are so many people in need of help, large companies continue to record huge profits and are giving it back to themselves!
Aristotle believed that an individuals main concern is to govern his household and to acquire what is necessary to live, and to live well. But how well is too well? Aristotle never answers the question of greed in his writings, but how much is too much? I believe this company recording record profits while others are struggling, and giving the money back to themselves in multimillion dollar sums is the ultimate example of greed. They should be giving it back to the people in need or at the very least paying back the bailout money they received. I believe if more people took towards Aristotle’s views of only acquiring what is needed to live well and giving back what is not needed to those who need it most this world would be a whole lot better. There is a huge gap between the rich and the poor and it is a result of greed. Aristotle believed that when there is surplus, it should be given back to the community, this is not what is happening in today’s society and this needs to change.