How Libertarians Deal With “the Problems of the 1890s”, Part 2: Public Parks

<< Back to Part 1: The Challenge

A picturesque view of Northeastern Pennsylvania

Those with an over-inflated sense of entitlement will be the last to seriously consider the libertarian argument.  I would not consider any of the alleged “solved problems” on Austin Cline’s list to be fundamental human rights.  Many are outright luxuries.  This is seems to me to be true of state parks and parks in cities.  As much as we all love green leafy, open spaces in cities nobody is entitled them, and I think we can live without them.

I would love to know how rural Americans feel about this issue.  I’ve been a city dweller all my life.  Much of the ground I come into contact with is covered either with a building or with some sort of stone, concrete, or asphalt surface.  I understand why some city dwellers get hopped up about keeping certain spaces green and open.  But what about those who sit on their porches and see nothing but green, rolling hills extending all the way to the horizon.  Are they as concerned as we city dwellers are about public parks?

How Libertarians Deal with “the Problems of the 1890s”, Part 1: The Challenge

A little while ago, Austin Cline, Atheist blogger for About.com, took time out of his ordinary routine to extol big government and criticize advocates of limited government.  The short commentary is  entitled Limited Government? No thanks....  Please read it now to understand the challenge he’s issued to those who advocate limited government.

Legal Thought of the Day, No. 11

In the case of “our” hypothetical pharmacist, he may now presumably advertise not only the prices of prescription drugs, but may attempt to energetically promote their sale so long as he does so truthfully. Quite consistently with Virginia law requiring prescription drugs to be available only through a physician, “our” pharmacist might run any of the following representative advertisements in a local newspaper:

Pain getting you down? Insist that your physician prescribe Demerol. You pay a little more than for aspirin, but you get a lot more relief.

Can’t shake the flu? Get a prescription for Tetracycline from your doctor today.

Don’t spend another sleepless night. Ask your doctor to prescribe Seconal without delay.

Unless the State can show that these advertisements are either actually untruthful or misleading, it presumably is not free to restrict in any way commercial efforts on the part of those who profit from the sale of prescription drugs to put them in the widest possible circulation. But such a line simply makes no allowance whatever for what appears to have been a considered legislative judgment in most States that, while prescription drugs are a necessary and vital part of medical care and treatment, there are sufficient dangers attending their widespread use that they simply may not be promoted in the same manner as hair creams, deodorants, and toothpaste. The very real dangers that general advertising for such drug might create in terms of encouraging, even though not sanctioning, illicit use of them by individuals for whom they have not been prescribed, or by generating patient pressure upon physicians to prescribe them, are simply not dealt with in the Court’s opinion. If prescription drugs may be advertised, they may be advertised on television during family viewing time. Nothing we know about the acquisitive instincts of those who inhabit every business and profession to a greater or lesser extent gives any reason to think that such persons will not do everything they can to generate demand for these products in much the same manner and to much the same degree as demand for other commodities has been generated.

~U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, dissenting.
Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.
425 U.S. 748, 789 (1976)