Liberty is Lost on Michael Medved

By: Jared M. Grifoni, Esq.

In Michael Medved’s recent article, he chastises Ron Paul for voicing his support for liberty without proviso in the recent Republican debate. Make no mistake that Medved does in fact love liberty. He loves the protection of his ability to write and publish his works (however misguided they may be) without first having to go through a state censor, he loves being able to worship and further practice his religion without state interference, and he loves being able to enjoy an alcoholic beverage from time to time. Michael Medved loves liberty that benefits him and fits within his moral framework, he just doesn’t love the liberty that allows individuals to do things he disagrees with. Medved, slams Ron Paul (and refers to him as a “crackpot”) for stating that advancing and supporting liberty means supporting liberty for all, even the behaviors and practices that you personally may find distasteful, immoral, or stupid. Just because you believe that the State does not have the right to dictate what substances we may or may not put into our bodies does not mean that you support individuals ingesting as many narcotics as possible or that you yourself ingest narcotics. The fundamental question is whether or not the State has any right over what I do to myself that does not aggress against others. If I sell cocaine I am not harming anyone. I am not shoving cocaine down the throat of a person against their will. If that person chooses to use the cocaine then fine, so long as they don’t get behind a wheel and kill someone. This is the fundamental distinction that is lost on many number of people who encounter Ron Paul’s or any run of the mill libertarian’s position on these types of issues. There is a huge difference between “acceptable therefore everyone should do it” and “we don’t have a right to force people not to do it, therefore it is allowed but we may or may not encourage people to agree with us.” What type of moral system would one have to ascribe to whereby they have to force everyone to accept their values and people are only accepting those values because of the force itself? It really is nothing more than intellectual sloth. Your values should stand on their own merits and if people are persuaded by it than so be it. The marketplace of ideas is a powerful thing, it is inevitable that the best ideas/values will win out.

The sole role of government is to protect and secure inalienable rights (protection from aggression, theft, fraud, etc). It is your duty as a functioning individual to persuade people to agree with your perspective. You are free to persuade people that drugs and prostitution are inherently bad and those who engage in it are self-destructive but you have absolutely no right to use force towards that end. Medved’s view is the upside down prioritizing that has lead to police states for centuries. It is not the business of the government to enforce a concept of morality and to “make people good” (this in and of itself is a direct contradiction to morality, i.e. you are not moral unless you act voluntarily to be moral). We don’t have laws that make alcohol illegal (at least anymore, see 1920-1933 for reasons why prohibition doesn’t work), or laws against picking someone up from a bar and having sex with them, or laws requiring that you eat only healthy foods. Why then should there be laws against marijuana, heroin, or prostitution?

People like Medved believe that it is the duty of the State to protect us from ourselves. It doesn’t matter whether you are a left-liberal who wants to utilize the coercive power of the State to tax the wealthy in order to fund a host of government programs or if you are a right-conservative who wants to utilize the coercive power of the State to throw someone in jail for sitting in their living room and smoking a joint. The right and the left are engaged in a never-ending battle to determine who is in power so that they may wield the coercive power of the State to force those out of power to do the things they want. If you are part of the conservative/liberal mindset you must realize that you may win the battle this election cycle but you will lose the next and any gains you achieve during your time in power will be turned 180 degrees.

Clearly, there is a fundamental difference in people like Medved’s view of use of State power than mine. They feel that the ends justifies the means, the use of force (a bad thing) to prevent the distribution of drugs, prostitution, etc (more bad things) is therefore a good thing. They want to live in a society where the government (which history has shown cannot manage itself, its finances, or any endeavor it imposes itself on, and ultimately self-destructs) has ultimate authority to force their version of acceptable conduct onto others where there is no direct harm involved. They love using coercion to achieve their societal goals but hate when others use that same force to undo their goals to protect their own. All the while the root cause is continually ignored. The issue is not “government needs to outlaw drugs” or “the government should promote drugs”. The issue is government should not be in the business of either.

Medved and his political enemies are fighting over the same weapon… which one of them will first be able to beat the other over the head with government force until they submit.