Dr. Daniel S. Harrop is a libertarian candidate for RI Representative in District 3, Providence. Dr. Harrop is also a Clinical Assistant Professor at the University and an Instructor in Psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School. In addition to his faculty positions, Dr. Harrop also maintains a private practice of psychiatry. In an interview with The Spectator, he discussed his candidacy, national and local issues, and libertarianism.
The Spectator: Over the past few years several prominent issues have dominated the politics of Brown—most recently the controversy over slavery reparations. What is your stance on the Horowitz anti-reparations advertisement that was published in the Brown Daily Herald two years ago?
Harrop: It was hateful. A private publication like the Brown Daily Herald has the right to publish whatever it wants. Should they have published it? Probably not without commentary. I was somewhat surprised that they didn’t cormment on it. In some ways, the more people’s opinions get out, the better it is. Someone told me once that you need to give people forums to say the craziest of things because it is a lot better than shoving them under ground. Typically they dig their own grave. Should he have a forum? I think you need to give hateful people like that a forum.
The Spectator: What is your position on arming Brown public safety officers?
Harrop: I would be opposed to that. Again Brown University is a private institution. It should have the right to make its own decisions. If it were my decision I would say no. I know that Brown Police are trained as police and have all the credentials, and I am perfectly well aware that a Brown University policeman was killed being pushed down a set of stairs. [Providence] Police and security should be focusing on violent crime. As a member of the community, I can’t imagine a case in which Brown Police would need to use their guns. Maybe we should have guns locked up somewhere in case of a horrendous situation.
The Spectator: Could you outline the essentials of libertarianism?
Harrop: Libertarians believe government should do only what government needs to do. In other words, there should be small government; there should be limited government. Now, within those areas, that the goverrunent needs to operate, they need to operate well—perfect example—public safety, public security. In that area, most libertarians believe that government needs to be involved in. Sure there are some private police forces in smaller towns, but, in most cases, the government needs to be involved, protecting life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. So, libertarians are very hard on violent crime. In fact, as a libertarian, I could see great benefit in increasing all sentences for violent crime, domestic violence, violence with guns…. The other thing with libertarians is that the government should stay out of your life. So, in the vast areas where the government now intrudes, there should not be crime. Things that are labeled as crimes, should not be crimes. The government, for years, said that abortion should be illegal. Society has come around to the fact that it is ridiculous for the government to interfere with someone’s personal decisions. There are some problems with people using marijuana, and heroin, cocaine are just deadly, but I think all of that should be legalized. What a person uses, what a person decides to do to themselves, is their decision. I think all that should be decriminalized. Why should Brown Police be in dorms? If they are specifically called because people are being bothered, that’s one thing.
The Spectator: Can you comment on the “war on drugs”?
Harrop: Libertarians believe that the government should be involved where our interests are involved. Why would we get involved in the internal politics of another country? Most of the unrest in Colombia and Venezuela is a result of the “war on drugs.” The solution is to end the war on drugs. If Philip Morris wants to sell cocaine, you’re not going to get judges and families gunned down because of the destabilization. And again, cocaine is evil; heroine is evil, but there is worse things from us trying to have this prohibition. We learned it with alcohol, and it’s pretty ridiculous with marijuana. As a psychiatrist I would say that we should put money into treatment. If someone is having problems with cocaine or heroine, we should not criminalize it; we should treat them, but, if the price of cocaine and heroine drops to pennies, which it would…we wouldn t even get the crime we get in this country, never mind the terrorism. I don’t think your going to go to a party and your children are in one room and someone is doing a line of cocaine in the other. There are societal pressures. We have effectively banned tobacco…tobacco use is not accepted because of societal pressures…because it’s an evil, destructive drug…. If Phillip Morris sold drugs, there would be an actual “Drug Store.” It would be on the corner like a pornography shop, and you don’t go into the pornography store, and you hide your kids faces when you walk by…. These drugs were all legal a century ago, they were insignificant. Sherlock Holmes used drugs. It was criticized; he hid it.
The Spectator: What is your opinion of the possible war against Iraq?
Harrop: Iraq is an extreme example. In libertarian philosophy, one of the essences of government is to protect the United States…. I am not sure the President has made his case yet…. Iraq is a special case because Saddam is a mad-man. In this particular case, the mad-man may need to go…. Saddam Hussein has such a track record, coupled with the fact that there are certain places where we can’t go, can’t inspect—what’s he hiding? Bush hasn’t attacked yet, so I can t fault him for that. He’s making a case.
The Spectator: What is your opinion on the Enron scandal?
Harrop: A lot of problems are caused by certain government regulations. Certainly, the government interference is causing much of this problem. The government should let you sue these companies. The government forbid many people from selling before the stock fell. The government artificially propped up some of these companies that would have fallen much sooner. So,I think the government should stop restricting them. It should stop protecting these companies.
The Spectator: Would you support a living wage law?
Harrop: Companies could not afford to hire at a living wage. Without a living wage, companies can respond efficiently to the economy. Every time the government has raised minimum wage, the economy has suffered.
The Spectator: How would you change public education?
Harrop: The child’s primary educator is the guardians. They should be determining how the child is educated. The government should help them where needed. This does not mean public education. I am attempting to represent a very fascinating district. We have no public elementary schools. Why is that? The parents choose to send their children to private schools. Public schools, much like public hospitals, where I have worked, are political institutions. The teacher reports to the principle who reports to the superintendent who reports to the mayor who reports to the voters. The parents are not involved except for the voting of the mayor, and that point it is so far removed that it does not respond to the parents. Private schools have to respond to the parents. The teacher reports to the headmaster who reports to the board who reports to the parents. It is a much better system. Now, how do we ensure that everyone can get an education…. In a Pure libertarian government, taxes would be so low that charities and other private institutions would provide education…. The only public high school we have in this area is Hope High. It is a failed high school that was essentially dissolved late last year. It is divided into four semi-autonomous high schools. It is too bad that it wasn’t just closed so that everyone would get a five thousand dollar voucher, to go to the French American School or to Wheeler. We are experimenting with our children’s education. Instead of saying ‘we now have failed to educate your children, we know we can’t educate your children’ and sending them somewhere that has educated children, we are going to try another experiment with your children.
The Spectator: Would these schools be open to everyone?
Harrop: There are plenty of private schools, like San Miguel’s, that takes all types of students.
The Spectator: How would you lower the income tax while there are still some government services still in place?
Harrop: Libertarians believe that taxes should be lowered to the bare minimum to support government services. I would first take away the taxes on the lowest income levels. There would still be a little tax on the upper income levels. We should stop putting money into the public education system. Do I write a check to my high school? Yes, I have no problem putting money into private education…. I would still tax the rich. I would lessen the tax, and still keep consumer tax. Lots of the government regulation needs to be removed, too. A man wanted to cut a tree down on his private property. He got all the required permission and did not want a dead or dying tree on his land. If he had gone to his neighbors and asked them if they had objections, they would have run to the government to stop him. If the neighbors wanted to buy the rights to the tree, they could do that. If your neighbor cuts things down, doesn’t keep his house up, you can bring a civil suit against them, and a jury will decide.
The Spectator: Should the government restrict gay marriages?
Harrop: The most extreme Libertarians would argue that the government should just be filing contracts. I think, one of government’s purpose is to enforce contracts. If two people want to become a couple, the government should let them. It is part of the philosophy that says that the government should stay out unless it absolutely has to.
The Spectator: I have read that the Libertarian Party is twice as large as all other third parties combined in terms of elected officials. Could you comment?
Harrop: The Libertarian Party is a real party. The Libertarian Party is not personality driven. Whereas the Green Party deals Democrats off from the left, the Libertarian Party pulls Republicans off from the left and right. In the last congressional election, the Libertarians caused the Republicans two U.S. Senators, virtually giving the Democrats the Senate.
