My post was a response to Jon making the sarcastic comment that "racism doesn't exist any more," which is irrelevant to the Johnson discussion. Affirmative Action (government mandated racial discrimination in favor of a preferred group) was not supposed to remain until racism "didn't exist any more." Affirmative Action was intended to show job hirers and other decision-makers that African Americans can in fact compete when given a chance.
I didn't respond to you because I can't for the life of me understand how you could hear Johnson's comment and feel that the sarcastic comment that "racism doesn't exist any more," was irrelevant. Johnson was saying "my eyes have been opened" to the racism that exists still..... What did you hear?
Skepticism is always warranted, but cynicism isn't really helpful. I'm not really sure which one is occurring right now. I can understand where Johnson is coming from because my eyes have opened a lot over the past few years, and so maybe I'm more apt to believe him. I should probably be more skeptical myself. Regardless, he isn't promising the world like some other people. He's talking about criminal justice reform.
I liked Wells' response more than Johnson's
Some level of criminal justice reform seems like a good idea. Will reform change the ratios meaningfully? To the point where no one will cry, "Discrimination!"
Now, I will be the first to admit that some of these concepts are pollyannish at best and at worst ignore the worst lessons in history. For instance, spontaneous order and the natural harmony of interests sometimes don't work out as planned since there are always deceitful and fraudulent people. But the philosophy of libertarianism accounts for this knowing that government is needed to prevent and/or punish those bad actors. Johnson has been criticized by some for wanting too much government interference and being too open to some regulations. Personally, I lean more to his side and would go further on some issues. There are schisms even within libertarianism on a number of issues, but the general agreement still leans toward least restrictive means.
There will always be someone who cries whether something exists or not. I don't think that's a good measure. As to whether reforms will change the ratios I can only say "that depends on the reforms".
Deeming something like drug abuse a "public health issue" seems quite unlibertarian.
According to whom? Handling it at the federal level is not being advocated. Johnson wants the states to handle it. The 10th amendment is quite amenable to this approach.
1. The government has already turned abuse and addiction into the responsibility of the public. We are already using public funds for "treatment", but the "treatment" mostly consists of locking people up and paying for all their needs for years on end. We also often end up paying for their family's welfare. Hardly a cost-effective approach. Add to that all the police resources spent on a lost "war".
I have no issue if a local community chooses to provide treatment for drug abuse. I also have no issue if a local community leaves the abusers to their own devices...assuming they don't harm or otherwise impact others in the process.
August 26 will be the Fox Business Town Hall. Interesting development on the PDC's preparations. Rumors abound on one or more big name endorsements later this month, but so far nothing to hang your hat on there. The right endorsement(s) could change the entire landscape. As hopeful as I am, I'll believe it when I see it.
:iagree:
