The Government's Wars on Poverty and Drugs Had Good Intentions—but Bad Results
"All these government programs that regulate and control, they institutionalize mediocrity at best," argues Yaron Brook, head of the Ayn Rand Institute.

Government makes most things worse.
President Lyndon B. Johnson launched a war on poverty; President Richard Nixon a war on drugs.
Both had good intentions, but their "wars" do more harm than good.
I believed the war on poverty would lift people out of poverty.
At the time I was a naive Princeton student who believed my professors when they said, "It's wrong that in this rich country, people are poor, so government should fix that. Targeted programs will lift people out of poverty."
Have they?
We've spent more than $30 trillion so far. Some people were helped.
When welfare began, the poverty rate dropped. Dropped for seven years.
But then progress stopped. Since the 1970s, the number of Americans living in poverty rose and fell, but the initial success hasn't repeated.
That's because the handouts encourage people to become dependent. Welfare even discouraged marriage because a single parent gets a bigger check.
As a result, welfare created something never seen before in America: a permanent "underclass"—generations raised without fathers, generations who stay poor and passive.
It's happened because people "are basically told, 'you can't take care of yourself.'…It doesn't encourage them to be ambitious," says Yaron Brook, head of the Ayn Rand Institute, in my new video.
"Once you start paying people not to work…they don't expect to take responsibility for their own lives."
The war on drugs also had unintended consequences.
"When you launch a war on drugs…you create huge profits for cartels because there's so much at stake," says Brook.
That led to more illegal drugs, and "massive corruption among police."
I ask, just "let everybody take whatever poison they want?"
"Yes," says Brook, echoing Ayn Rand, who said it is "the responsibility of the individual not to take the kind of things…which destroy his mind."
Brook and I disagree about how to protect the environment. It's one area where I think we do need government. Our air and water are cleaner now because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set some rules.
Brook says we could have accomplished that without the EPA, if individuals filed lawsuits.
"You pollute in some way that is clearly making me sick, we have legal redress to deal with that.…But once you give it into the hands of bureaucrats…they want to regulate and control every activity that we're engaged in."
He cites California's wildfires and water shortages as an example of "government gone wild." (That's also the title of my new book.)
Government has grown wildly. Even with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) cuts, it will still grow. It always does.
The EPA once imposed useful rules, but regulators always want more. Today, EPA should stand for Enough Protection Already!
"Northern California has plenty of water," says Brook. "In the old days, they used to move massive amounts of water from the north to south.…These days, there's still a lot of water available in the north that cannot be moved south because of some tiny little fish."
That's the delta smelt, protected by the Endangered Species Act.
"In the name of some little fish, they're willing to shut down huge improvements to human life."
If it's not the smelt, it's an endangered plant. Power companies wanted to install fire-resistant metal poles.
"They can't widen fire lanes because there's some plant that they had to uproot,"
"They were shut down by environmentalists because of this crazy plant…[also] they can't widen fire lanes. The consequence, of course, is the burning down of thousands of homes.…When you place the value of a plant above the value of human life, that leads to destruction of human life."
Brook's point is not that people shouldn't try to help the poor, the addicted, and the planet; it's that individuals do it better than government ever will.
"All these government programs that regulate and control, they institutionalize mediocrity at best."
COPYRIGHT 2025 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Imagine if Colorado had a war on guns...
We would have many fewer murders. Fentanyl deaths are the drug we need to stop and thanks to fentanyl every junkie could get opioids properly dosed for free and we would save huge amounts of lives and money…but that makes too much sense.
Thing is, opiates are subsidized by government bans on harmless, non-habit-forming like mescaline, LSD, DMT and the like. Crude addictive dope like opium and carcinogens like tobacco grow in dirt, and the gin industry owns much of Congress thanks to the lessons of the 18th Amendment. Banning crude drugs drives up the selling price 300-400%. South Americans who know these facts cannot believe the ad baculum lies that cause coca bans to be exported southward at gunpoint. But billions in taxes and retirement pensions for DEA goons are spent for precisely that.
I love opium.
There were two big opponents to the repeal of the Rockefeller drug laws in NY State. One was Republican politicians who insist against all evidence to the contrary that locking up criminals forever reduces crime. The other was the labor union representing correctional officers. It is a much smaller union today as New York has been able to close over two dozen prisons as the result of NOT locking up people for most of their adult lives anymore -- and the violent crime rates have remained low compared to most of the rest of the US.
We should give junkies all the improperly dosed fentanyl they want.
Cue stabbing epidemic...
No. They did not have good intentions. Ever.
Maybe the war on poverty had good intentions. The war on drugs was always about control and building up the police state.
New York embraced the War on Drugs immediately, enacting Nelson Rockefeller's draconian drug laws. The result was a spectacular increase in violent crime.
When the Rockefeller drug laws were finally repealed over three decades later, violent crime rates dropped to rates not seen since the early 1950s.
If a law passed by Democrats has bad results, it was by design.
If a law passed by Republicans has bad results, it's because of Democrats.
Ignore what the laws say and instead look at the people involved. If they're Democrats then they're bad, and if they're Republicans they're good.
That's all you need to know.
Brilliant!
Leftard Self-Projection....
Yet somehow ... repealing drug-prohibition is just as popular (if not more-so) with Republican States as it is in Democrat States.
Repealing 'poverty' entitlement to 'armed-theft' is solidly a Democrat States issue.
As-if it was some big secret which party champions [WE] Commies Identify-as gang RULES 'democracy' and which party champions a US Constitution that ensures Individual Liberty and Justice for all.
I distinctly recall Ayn Rand rejecting Reagan as a girl-bullying mystic. I also recall her endorsement of Nixon--thanks to communist anarchist infiltrators posing as libertarians for the media. I also recall her saying she'd have voted for Gerald Ford, the unelected Warren Commission placeholder who posed with Rumania's girl-bullying communist dictator Ceausescu. https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/2018/08/30/romanian-comstock-laws/
Ayn Rand was a boy-bullying sexual predator in her personal life.
That sums up the universe of discourse within which the looter Kleptocracy operates its machinations. The Solomon Asch Experiment put their methodology on display AND showed how Sarcasmic matters--indeed makes a difference: "On the other hand, when the dissenter always chose the line that was more flagrantly different from the standard, the results were of quite a different kind. The extremist dissenter produced a remarkable freeing of the subjects; their errors dropped to only 9% [not 40%], and were all of the moderate variety. We were able to conclude that dissent per se increased independence and moderated the errors that occurred, and that the direction of the dissent exerted consistent effects." --Opinions and Social Pressure, 1955.
Without poverty and homelessness all those people who work for NGOs wouldn't have jobs.
Without transfer payments from producers to non-producers, where would those NGOs obtain the wherewithal to hire anyone? Indeed, their O--rganizers might even resort to some sort of productive--or at least voluntary--enterprise liable to actually yield advantage for the poor, the halt and the lame they claim to value.
Until people start acknowledging 'government' = just a monopoly of 'guns'.
They'll keep screwing up their 'good intentions'.
Wrong *tool* ('Guns') for the job.
Proper government holds a monopoly on the retaliatory use of force. The problem is coercive government. The solution is to prohibit government coercion.
Well Said +10000000.
Or in other wording Defensive government versus Aggressive/Progressive government.
I distinctly recall buying a tape of Ayn Rand saying that drug prohibition laws ought to be repealed, but she did not consider that a priority. Ayn Rand was evidently aware of the causal connections between laws banning production and trade--and crashes, panics, bankruptcies, recessions and war. Laws against liquor and drugs have caused those exact things since the 1830s. No loophole in the laws of economic reality makes an exception for drugs. Uncoerced, sane buyers choose drugs that are not poisonous or addictive.
The problem is coercive government. The solution is to prohibit government coercion.
Despite her misapprehensions of a few tecnical facts widely misunderstood or lied about by soi disant experts in various fields, Ayn Rand was the most effective advocate for individual rights and ethical values that has ever obtruded upon the notice of the human population--compared, at least, to any competing claimants of the honor. Some, like Prof Tara Smith, appreciate and improve on her labors. Others parrot and amplify her occasional errors and lapses.
Ayn Rand was an advocate for selfishness, particularly in her personal life. Oh and she had Medicare pay for her cancer treatments.
Pretty hard to beat the selfishness in pulling a 'Gun' (Gov-Gun) on anyone who has what you want.
Course leftards can use their self-projection ?reasoning? and just say the 'victim' getting 'gunned' down is the selfish one for having what the 'gunner' wanted.
If Nixon launched the "War on Drugs" what the hell was the Federal Bureau of Narcotics doing for the 50+ years before the war?
I'd love to see the results of a national civic history test because it seems that large portions of the public either believe that "drugs have always been illegal" or "Nixon like banned the drugs man, toke..."
That was implemented by [D] FDR so it was (D)ifferent... /s
The BIGGEST mistakes of Republicans seem to be made when they're carrying water for a Democrat Formed Agenda.
If you believe good intentions were involved at all I have a bridge to sell you south florida
Actually we did end poverty in America. But it wasn't Johnson's war that did it, it was Biden's child tax credit. Which was a Republican idea. Except that once Democrats started to support it, Republicans decided that it was a terrible idea and killed it.
The "American Rescue Plan" (where Biden increased the child tax credit to up to $3,600) was a Republican idea?
I call BS.
Introduced in the House as H.R. 1319 by John Yarmuth (D–KY)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Rescue_Plan_Act_of_2021
Or did you think just because Nixon was packing water for Johnson that somehow it was a Republican idea.
"When President Nixon took office in 1969, issues pertaining to poverty and welfare in the United States had been at the forefront of many political discussions, largely stemming from prior President Johnson's proclaimed "war on poverty" in 1964."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Assistance_Plan
Or maybe UR just F.O.S.