Feb 042011
 

Do we really want self-rule?

Self-government Avoidance

In the absence of the willingness to self-govern, or to have a conversation about how to be more effective at the little self-governing we actually do, is it fair to look at failing American states and cities as anomalous?  Is it reasonable to suppose that they are, at bottom, that much different than Haiti, or Zimbabwe, Argentina or Venezuela?  If Democracy is just used as an excuse to use an ignorant, disengaged populace as a path to power, isn’t the inevitable default to a kleptocracy?  Were America’s founders wrong, in the end, in misjudging the willingness of enough people to engage in governance to make the American experiment work?  If we abandon our responsibility to be informed and engaged enough to monitor and direct those we elect to public office, is a prosperous life under free-market capitalism sustainable?

Chicago Pharaoh

In other words, is the Chicago model of token democracy the default, the natural mode of a society too preoccupied individually to care that they are electing people whose sole incentive is to loot the government and divert the public purse to themselves and their necessary allies (e.g., unions)?  Are Ayn Rand’s looters (of the treasury and the productive sector) not necessarily a spiral towards collapse, but a form of stagnation that is sustainable as long as you have enough employers who won’t go John Galt and either drop out or limit their own productivity?

After all, Chicago can hollow out its public services with patronage, extravagant contracts, exuberant pensions and sell-offs of public assets.  In return, the citizens of that fair city get fifty years of one-party rule and a minimum of actual public service:  Poor schools, transport, education and safety – but not poor enough to create demand for change.

Just wondering, because it appears that while American constitutional principles are scalable to any population size, the 1787 system designed for their implementation is not.  It’s too easy, in a massive population, for the weak and corrupt to hide from citizen scrutiny.  It’s too easy for the corrupt to manipulate parts of a large system to defraud the taxpayer and transfer decision making power from the taxpayer to the government.  It’s then a small step in what is nominally a democracy for the elected to slip the bonds of “the consent of the governed” and with the most reasonable of explanations at each step, to require the governed to silently assent to any proposal or demand whatever.

If done gradually, and it usually is, the befuddled and the discontented adjust to the new paradigm.  If this is done well – by the “enlightened” leaders – the new paradigm will look enough like the old paradigm to allow each citizen to feel free and independent.  Instead of the old tyrannical, authoritarian paradigm wherein citizens are told lies that they either swallow or ignore (think cynical Russians in the former USSR), it will be more common to have the Edward Bernaysian propaganda model wherein the government creates a psychological environment that allows you to think your newfound loss of freedom is your own idea.  (Currently, we get both:  The big lie, repeated by leftist propagandists until it morphs into accepted truth, and the more modern propaganda model that forms your opinion by altering your environment.)

But I digress.  The question before us is whether kleptocracy – a systematic looting by elected officials and their minions – and arbitrary rule of the masses (us) by the elites is the natural default position for governance of our species, and the arrangement most comfortable and convenient to all.  Especially following the  informal collapse, overthrow or degradation of democracy.  If so, it – and not a quest for individual freedom and responsibility – will become (or remain) the model for planet Earth.  Maybe urging people to engage in active self-governance  in order to see their lives improve is a fools errand – every bit as quixotic as the socialist yearning for a workers’ utopia.  In the end, the ugly truth may very well be that we are too lazy, self-involved, shallow and opportunistic to desire more than the ability to satisfy basic needs.  We barely want to govern ourselves, let alone a society.

When Good Men do Nothing

Some might think it odd that we live in an age of unlimited communication; unlimited access to information (except state secrets and hidden agendas), yet can’t derive enough information from our reading to conclude that deferring all societal decision to a handful of folks at the head of a humongous government structure is suicidal, both to our founding principles and our personal well-being.  It is peculiarly shallow to think that “letting someone else take care of that stuff” is without consequence.

What has become increasingly clear is that casting an occasional vote is no longer an adequate discharge of our responsibility to self-govern.  Nothing less than full-bore engagement is required in order to cope with the size of our society and its increasing complexity.  Smaller units of (self-organized?) engagement, with routine participation by all, appears to be essential.

So, the answer to “Who Refuses to Govern  America?” is:  We do.

Print Friendly
Share
Sep 042010
 

If not us, who? If not now, when?

Now It's Up to Us

ELECTION MADNESS

Never mind the voting machines many states never fixed after the year 2,000 fiasco; or the Motor Voter fraud, or the absentee ballot fraud, or the gerrymandering, or all the ineligible voters left on state voter registration lists, or the shafting of military voters, or the Acorn violations, or the lack of voter fraud prosecutions, or the New Black Panthers lack of prosecution for voter intimidation, or the post-election recount scams.  Author John Fund, and others, have written extensively about these very serious erosions of our election system.  And there’s always the attempt to rid us of the Electoral College established by the Constitution.  No.  What I’m talking about right now is Federal.

In addition to the items above which can often be addressed at the state level, we need to free ourselves of the madness surrounding our presidential elections.  Way too much time; way too much money; primaries that make no sense, and a media influence that borders on the criminal.  In addition, we’ve allowed congressional districts to be created that are drawn by race and party, such that there is guaranteed incumbency, and no input from broader constituencies that live in the same area.

CONGRESS TRAPPED

No point in criticizing Congress at this point; they’re a bit like some medieval armies which, after any given war was over, wandered about the countryside, looting and pillaging towns at random, even those of their own countries.  Or at least that’s the perception, which explains the abysmal congressional public-approval ratings (currently at 12%).  I have bigger fish to fry.  Since 435 Congressmen and 100 Senators have been in some form of disapproval for years, regardless of party affiliation, and despite the heroic efforts of some of their members to behave honorably, it’s past time to wonder if we couldn’t devise a different set of incentives.

What’t the point?  Isn’t that just rearranging the furniture?  If they’re stupid, incompetent or corrupt, you might say, no system will change it.  Not at all.  This seems to be a dilemma that can be created, over time, in one form or another, in nearly any human  organization.   Ambition,competition, finessing the rules to create advantage, feathering nests, pandering to contributors, lying to the benighted, the ill-informed, the groupies.

TEA PARTY TRIGGER

For whatever the Tea Party has become, or is evolving into, only those tied to a set of outworn prejudices can deny that the movement started out of the spontaneous outrage of ordinary citizens who felt that the Federal government had violated the social compact.  Everyone, myself included, was inured to deceit and incompetence; buffoonery and bluster, unwarranted spending and manipulative posturing.  Those became routine, and we went about our lives as if it would somehow never get worse.  Then…it did.  A line was crossed.

Spending that was already insanely out of hand got ignored for fresh spending.  The reason provided was shocking – a complete reordering of society.  A new economy that would replace the old, fourteen-trillion dollar economy with one that would be devised by a government convinced that America was an unjust society.  Henceforth, honest employment would consist of making “green” cars, building fields of huge wind turbines, covering acres of land with solar panels and putting food in our gas tanks.  Massive entitlement programs were to be created, oil and coal eliminated, our financial system captured.

Those who pay nearly all of America’s taxes would have their burden increased so that the money could be distributed to non-taxpayers, in the form of “refunds,’ as promised by Senator Obama – and ignored by the electorate – during his presidential campaign.  The discussion regarding how these changes would impact the lives of individuals from all walks of life was confined to vague “hope and change,” references, as well as even vaguer references by the candidate to “difficult times ahead.”  Maybe because explicitly stating that our society had supposedly failed its people and it was time for the government to fix that by creating a new society — would not have been as winning a campaign speech.

It didn’t really matter whether you believed our new President and his entourage to be Socialists, Statists, Fascists, Radicals or Revolutionaries; it was outrageous with any label.  Way too much spending; way too much federal government.  Instant Tea.  The fossils who run the Republican Party clearly didn’t get it, and their opponents reflexively lashed out at a spontaneous movement that  appeared to them to be another dirty trick by conservatives.

TEA PARTY BURDEN — PATRIOTS’ DILEMMA

If I haven’t made the point already, I apologize.  If the people, independent of political party, or with heavy influence on a party, are the last bastions of preservation of our founders’ ideology,  acting on the local level will be imperative — and the most important act will be to clean up the elections systems in each state, followed by a push for federal legislation that removes the current money chase.  Whatever you might think of John McCain, he at least identified an existential problem for our nation when he campaigned for election reform.  And that without taking up the current practice of micro-cheating on post-election challenges.

This cannot stand.

Print Friendly
Share
Jul 272010
 

Collectivists, Gangsters & Jihadis are the Best Candidates

 

 

When this supposedly dysfunctional, imperialist nation founded by profiteering, white male slave-owners is finally – however gradually – converted to a truly ‘just society’ that allows all Americans (if that term is still to be used) to live in dignity and comfort — who will be its masters? Who will rule Post-American America?   Will it be Transnational Collectivists, Muslim Extremists, or Organized Criminals?

Why bother to speculate on something that is unthinkable for a country as strong and resilient as the U.S?  We’ll glance at that later; but first, let’s look at our most likely inheritors.  And no, it is very unlikely that, as in the good old days, a nation-state will try to overtly invade the US; stealth is back in style, and subversion – on a naïve population – works like any good lie in history.

COLLECTIVISTS.

Save the Planet! Destroy Capitalism!

'Revolution' Sponsor George Soros

We’ve all gotten used to the idea that at every international government or corporate meeting of any supposed consequence, there will be staged demonstrations by the world’s Leftist organizations.  Many months of planning will go into the ‘spontaneous’ demonstrations, and pledges of peaceful marching and non-violence will be made to the local government officials.

The police will come out with batons and shields and water guns, tear-gas and rubber bullets.  The ‘peaceful’ demonstrators will smash retailers’ windows, throw molotov cocktails, taunt the police into reacting violently before the cameras in order to prove to the world that the demonstrators are ‘oppressed,’ and, occasionally, someone will die.

They are ‘oppressed’ by Western Civilization, in general, and the United States (Leader of the Free World) in particular.  They think of themselves as ‘revolutionaries’ and think that if they get the ‘change’ they seek, it will look something like the Galactic Republic depicted in Star Wars: planets represented at council, rather than (the archaic, destructive idea of) nations.’

Your Fellow Americans

They generally refer to themselves as “the movement’ – even though they comprise many distinct movements joined to fight a common foe — Us.   They do not feel obliged to respect the voting ‘masses’ they say they are fighting to liberate, and they only like elections – not, mind you, the idea of elections – that result in an outcome they can rig, both before and after.

Foregoing any candor regarding their goal of achieving power by whatever means necessary, they have cheated and bullied their way into control of large portions of the planet.  And due to Democrats’ embrace of movement principles — and Republicans who believe Global Warming/Climate Change is actually about the climate —  they are winning nearly everywhere.  They have the numbers and the resources; there seems to be no reason why they won’t continue to prevail.

GANGSTERS.

Who's Behind the Curtain?

We’ve also all gotten used to the gangbangers and the drug cartels, and the casual violence that ensues from their various illegal activities.  The notion that free money in the form of drug profits destroys society’s institutions from within, and its citizens from without seems to bore folks who have the luxury of keeping the bribery and executions at a distance, even as they use the ‘recreational drugs’ that are aggressively sold by the perps.

Having gangs larger and better-armed than most police departments, and some armies, is not much different than acknowledging the existence of various sports teams.  The violence occurs elsewhere, while we attend church, smug in our ‘drug-free’ world.  Who could possibly blame us for all the crap that happens to drug dealers and addicts, somewhere else.

And what part of the Western brain lights up when we hear the phrase “Failed State?”  Do we think “Oh my God, the criminals are stronger than those governments, and our drug laws caused it, and it could happen to us if we don’t change our laws?”  Of course not.  That would mean changing our fondest beliefs. It would also damage everyone who is legally profiting from these wickedly destructive laws, whether through employment, or votes gained, or prestige, or personal virtue.  Even the liquor industry, to avoid competing drugs.

Random Citizens are Next

What often happens is that the organized criminals have boodles of cash to spend on government servants, and they are willing to murder said servant and family in the absence of cooperation.  This results in an unannounced partnership.  The public no longer knows who to trust, and taxpayers, like spider’s prey, are kept alive for the next fresh feeding.

Organized crime has been international for a long time, and our government’s cowardice and pandering in not dealing with this has allowed the free drug money to finance expansion into multiple rackets (slavery, extortion, kidnapping, counterfeiting, piracy, and legitimate business fronts) such that it may be too late to turn the situation around through legislation, or law enforcement, or military action.

Offering to kill you or those you care about, or bribe you (an offer you can’t refuse) is an effective strategy that is not going away.  And if your response is “I would just call the police,” you need to know that this brand of corruption will make that a mistake – perhaps your last.

MUSLIM EXTREMISTS. -aka Jihadis


This Freedom Can be Yours

PHOTO NOTE: There is no intention to imply that the ladies pictured above are anything other than normal, devout Muslims – certainly not Jihadis or Muslim Extremists.  I grabbed the photo with the intent of reminding Western ladies that they would lose their accustomed freedoms under Muslim rule.

The third thing we’ve also all gotten used to is the “terrorist threat.”  I call it that because, while my fellow Americans know we are at war in the Mideast, many prefer to think we went into Iraq under false pretenses (they assume it was to get oil),  while  Afghanistan is just a mistake incident to our hunt for (the criminal) Osama bin Laden and his cronies.

The Executive Branch of the United States government will not utter the word “Jihadi.” (The President finally said the phrase “Radical Islam,” presumably to at least acknowledge that some of the people killing American soldiers and civilians are doing so out of religious conviction.) The Leftists we talked about earlier admire the Jihadis as “Freedom Fighters” and are their natural allies because of their mutual antipathy toward the West, with Israel and the U.S. as prime targets.

 

 Palestinians are the poster children for U.S. ‘imperialism.’  Since it  is repulsive to most Americans to consider anyone an enemy because of their religious beliefs, and since we fear a backlash against Muslims in America because of the wars, the Administration has placed many Muslims in prominent positions in our government (Muslim Affirmative Action?).

Those who take the Jihadis’ word that they are, indeed, at war with us, whether we acknowledge it or not, see the Muslim religion as one of conquest and subjugation, whose primary ‘Religion of Peace’ goal is to force the Muslim religion on the entire human population, killing or subjugating all who refuse to cooperate, including other Muslims.  If you listen to the Koranic scholars and understand that there is no possibility of the separation of church and state, or of this religious mission being abandoned, you will conclude that they are the enemy they say they are.  The rest is willful blindness.

In the event, there are over a billion of them, and they have been attacking Western Civilization – the heir to what was once known as “Christendom,” off and on for about 1,200 years.  We forget that; they don’t.  Our society’s dominant philosophy is that we can only have enemies through actions or misunderstandings we ourselves created; diplomacy will work it out.  But diplomacy has no effect when there is nothing the other party wants from you except either your demise, or submission to their rule.  What is the likely outcome in a conflict  between one party who always has an enemy and another who never has an enemy?

SPIRALING DOWN.

But why – you ask – the quasi-paranoid gloom? Well, the non-violent revolutions always take time, and are necessarily cheered-on by a significant portion of the populace; Hugo Chavez’ slow replacement of a free-market democracy plagued by corruption with an explicitly Communist dictatorship is a prime example.

But then, all the Socialists worldwide have caught on to the use of Democratic procedures and gestures to smother dissenting views and interests and gain control over whatever parts of the society are the best leverage for control.  The rest, they’ve learned, can remain untouched, including Capitalist taxpayers and voting citizens.  The Capitalists that matter will either be ‘captives” of the government – earning their profits from the ‘special relationship’ –  or regulated into total cooperation with the government’s aims.

We’ve seen this movie before.  The last time, it was titled Fascism, this time probably some variation of The Green Economy. Tyranny, after all, is such a small price to pay for supposedly ‘saving the planet.’  And no one need be uncomfortable, because the tyrants will look just like the Congress you already have, and (rigged) elections with carefully selected candidates will still be held, and everyone will still have the liberty to attend free universities for indoctrination and training for government-approved businesses.

Every one who belongs to a union will have a job, whether the employer needs that person or not.  Better yet, those most loyal to the beloved government and its ‘Dear Leader” will be rewarded with the homes and accouterments of the former ruling class.  All property will be distributed by degree of cooperation.  Years of the drip, drip, drip of leaking liberty, until the roof finally collapses.  You see, it can happen here.

Noted syndicated columnist and TV Pundit Charles Krauthammer recently opined that the Obama Administration is interested in control of Health Care, Education and Energy.  He thought that the Auto companies and financial industry were just windfalls (I disagree, if he means that they don’t want control of the auto companies in order to preserve union jobs and churn out green cars the government –but not necessarily the people — wants, or that the government doesn’t relish the idea of controlling salary and credit levels through bullying financial regs and administrators.)

Does that necessarily mean that the administration is conducting a slow-motion revolution?  No, but remember that if you’re wrong, it’s the founding vision of this country – and all it’s subsequent success — that you’re betting against.  Regardless, a huge number of citizens are online, expressing their concern, and voicing their outrage over collectivist policies aimed at replacing a free-market constitutional Republic with a “Just Society.”

I think we already have a “Just Society” in the sense that, if you work within the system, it is still possible to address economic and social issues for which there’s a constituency.  It’s admittedly gotten harder as Washington has been gamed by nearly all participants, but that’s a topic for another day.

"You Have a Republic if You Can Keep It"

What I’m concerned about now is, what happens to the United States, it’s founding principles, and its citizens if the eighteenth-century old-white-guy system is dismantled before something coherent is available to replace it? The adage There’s many a slip twixt cup and lip can mean millions of American corpses if society collapses, a la Cambodia – where real people’s lives were made to submit to a radical theory about how a ‘fair’ society should be organized, and the result was millions of dead Cambodians.

Same in Russia.  Same in China.  The National Socialist Party was mimicking the above behavior in Germany before its own “Dear Leader” decided to commit the nation’s resources to conquest and genocide based on old national grudges.  The Italians, who invented Fascism, were much admired for inventing a “Third Way” between Capitalism and Socialism.”  Then they wrecked the country by jumping on the NAZI bandwagon. England, after fighting Socialist governments throughout WWII, turned Socialist after the war.  Beguiled by their intellectuals into an economic death spiral.  We have intellectuals, too.  They’re in charge of indoctrination and propaganda.

Well, even if your worst scenario occurs, Gress, who — of the above candidates — do you think would be our new masters?  And why?

Can’t know, of course, but running a thought experiment for at least one scenario can’t hurt; might jump-start you into trying out your own.  Do that, and you might start looking even harder at what various parts of our government are up to, why, and possible outcomes.  Here goes:

POSSIBLE END GAME FOR THE WEST.

As noted above, the Collectivists of all stripes are on a tear, all over the globe.  Short term, I think they will definitely erode, then ultimately banish Capitalism as we know it, keeping alive the industries that will play ball and support the government tax programs.  Because the Collectivists see Jihadis as US victims, and therefore natural allies, they will initially have many Muslim partners, as both private and National actors.  The Muslims will play along as long as their numbers are small and their resources weak.

Must be Allah's Will

The gangsters will take control over many aspects of (formerly) American life from the ground up — through the control of cities.  The control will not be overt, just as it is not overt in many world cities now.  But the politicians who play ball will prosper, and those that don’t will meet with violent reprisal.  The terrified average citizen will not know who is in charge, and will be too scared to express public concern.  Journalists who report anything that could possibly offend a capo will meet their maker.

The Federal government, meanwhile, will be in a slightly lesser, but nevertheless real partnership with crime elements until the Muslim numbers are large enough to demand whatever they want from the remaining Collectivists.   The Muslims will then kill or enslave the Leftists and go to war with the criminals, a war they will eventually win.  Game, Set, Match for Allah.  (See Jihadi-improved map of Europe, at right.)

CAVEAT:

This scenario is only the battle for Western Civilization. Once won, there will be a standoff between the Muslims and the Chinese.  War will eventuate, and Asians will probably emerge triumphant due to their greater numbers and education levels.  After the fall of the West, India will probably have no choice but to either join, or be conquered by, China.  Russia has the potential for evolving into a nuclear-armed crime syndicate.

CONCLUSION:

Teach your kids Chinese;  leave the Western Hemisphere.  We’ve already blown it (but don’t hurry — this stuff all takes time).

Apotheosis

Print Friendly
Share
Jun 182010
 

Slippery Slope to Statism

Big Bucks You Can Believe In!

By now, almost everyone who cares knows that the US President sat down with BP executives and received a commitment to hand over twenty billion dollars towards oil-spill compensation.  Also, that there’s no cap on liability and that the criminal investigation of the company will continue.  The fund will be run by a Presidential appointee, and the President made it perfectly clear that the $20,000,000,000.  fund was only a good-faith payment (in quarterly installments)  that does not preclude unlimited liability over indefinite periods of time.

Payment to businesses even remotely-related, and inland from the gulf, would not be beyond consideration.  Payment for direct income loss, as well as opportunity-costs for those not immediately affected.  Compensation to all victims of the President’s moratorium of new, deep-water drilling.  Without time or geographic limits.

Senior management gave their spill testimony to Congress this past week.  The standard ritual-evisceration of the demon-ized executives for the benefit of  the angry congressional constituents back home.  Some other, related items, received less attention.  We’ll attend to those, even as we segue into your favorite blog feature, and ours:

FREQUENTLY UNASKED QUESTIONS


Could the federal government have played a greater role in speeding-up the process?  That is, couldn’t a large number of federal employees and volunteers have been marshaled to accelerate a task that a foreign corporation would lack the US resources for?

Wouldn’t that have been a sign of the total government dedication the President promised; and wouldn’t it have further assured the American people that the federal government is, in fact, competent, and should be encouraged to take a prominent role in disaster relief?  (Note here a recent report that the Justice Department lawyers say they are totally unprepared to respond – as is their mandate – to a national attack.)

  • BP neither explicitly nor implicitly denied liability for the accident or their willingness to pay for all damages.  These statements were broadcast repeatedly in interviews with BP executives.

That being so, why were all utterances from the administration based on the unspoken assumption that BP could not be trusted to do what they were already doing (restitution and compensation) and had committed to continue doing?

Why was there an unspoken assumption that one of the world’s largest corporations wouldn’t be able to meet that financial obligation?

If the facts of the accident were still being determined, a process expected to last a great while longer, why would our Department of Justice announce the beginning of a criminal investigation against the very people they were relying on to stop the spill and contain the damage?

If it’s true that BP is a large campaign contributor to the President and other Democrats, and if it’s further true that BP was completely on board with the proposed Cap & Trade plan and the switch to renewables, isn’t it odd that they would be pilloried and forced to turn over their shareholders’ dividends, in effect, to a foreign government – us – for discretionary use?

And why would that be done with absolutely no concession other than a statement that the Administration didn’t believe BP should be put out of business?

  • Back to the President.  He belatedly said he was taking charge and, then, after floundering a while longer, discovered his only response could be lots of meetings and speeches, blaming Bush (required) and suing somebody (he’s a lawyer).  Since this accident was unprecedented, no federal employee could possibly have the experience to cope with it, so the Administration was reduced to watching helplessly as the people who make a living drilling oil tried their best to solve the problem.

Hence, his Oval Office speech.  Reassure, threaten, cajole; everyone was disappointed, and it was widely interpreted by the press as a place-holder of a speech with only symbolic significance.  Not so.  He set the stage for the extortion of the $20,000,000,000. from BP.

  • The Economist magazine, a British publication, is upset enough with this extortive behavior to label him Vladimir Obama. Makes me look shy and reticent.

The Bully Pulpit in Action

  • This brings us to the widely-reported congressional hearing in which  Republican Congressman Joe Barton of Texas apologized to the BP CEO for what he termed the “shakedown” of his corporation.  This was widely regarded as a gaffe, even by other Republicans, who hastened to apologize for his conduct.  He even apologized later, himself.  He shouldn’t have; and other Republicans are ass-covering cowards for not backing him.

He just expressed something poorly that he made clear was not a defense of BP, but of principle.  He said BP was at fault and restitution should continue to be made; but the “shakedown’” was not a reasonable way to do it. (It abuses our allies, undermines our laws, and soils our image as principled world leaders.)  In other words, though poorly expressed, it was a principled stand for American rule of law, not a defense of BP.

  • Political analyst Charles Krauthammer, appearing on the dreaded and thoroughly discredited Fox News show hosted by Bret Baier, said the statement was the worst political statement of the year, and declared the contest for that honor over.  He then went on to say that the congressman had mistated his own case, inadvertently failing to point out that extorting large sums of money from public corporations, ala Henry Paulson and the money-center banks was an extra-legal maneuver that should not be encouraged.

If this is approximately correct, are we allowing the anger of the American public to stampede us into supporting authoritarian behavior that puts us on a slippery slope to rule by angry mobs impatient with the principles of law that have provided Western Civilization in general, and the United States, in particular, with true “social justice?”

Is that the kind of leadership we really want?

Isn’t having the patience to let our system work – in order to preserve it – worth the doubt and aggravation?

Finally, do we still have enough informed, serious citizens who will place principle above passion, in order to preserve the Republic?

A Cincinnatus, a Man of Principle – Read His Story
Print Friendly
Share
Mar 172010
 

Funding Enemies; Subverting Civilization; Incentivizing Crime

We Just Never Learn

An Investor’s Business Daily editorial on Monday, March 15th regarding the previous Saturday’s massacre of American citizens in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, just across the border from El Paso, Texas:

President Obama expressed outrage Sunday over the broad-daylight massacre in Juarez of a pregnant American U.S. consular employee and her husband, which left their 1-year-old baby wailing in the back of their car. Within 10 minutes, a second attack by machine-gun-toting thugs killed the husband of another U.S. consular employee and injured his two children, ages 4 and 7, traveling in a separate car. All were returning from the same child’s birthday party.

Killings like this in the border city near El Paso are so numerous the State Department cautions against assuming it was a targeted hit — “although we are not discounting anything,” said spokesman Charles Luoma-Overstreet.

The death toll in the Mexican drug war has hit 19,000 now, with Juarez the worst-hit. Over the weekend, 50 people were killed elsewhere in Mexico.

The editorial goes on to rail against the violence directed at Americans, and calls for a tougher approach, on both sides of the border, to back up our inadequate $1.6 billion in equipment and training funds to fight the cartels.

While I am normally in agreement with the IBD editorial board, on this issue we part company.  It is outrageous, immoral and delusional that, given the obvious carnage caused by prohibition – American prohibition – anyone can write with sincerity that the solution to the problem is stronger prohibition.  It doesn’t work.  It hasn’t worked.  It will never work.  Passing laws against human nature in order to enforce a social preference couched as a moral crusade against addiction is – in light of the observable global consequences – immoral.  We have the addiction anyway, because the prospect of illicit earnings propagates armies of drug salesmen looking to create new addicts.  That’s the incentive system and unintended consequence of law that we knew was bad when we were forced to repeal the 18th amendment to the Constitution.

Further consequences, without even trying to be comprehensive, are:  1)  Funding our enemies in the War on Terror, 2)  Exacerbating a sense of racial isolation among American minorities, esp. Blacks and Latinos, by stuffing our prisons with drug offenders, 3)  Propagating criminal cartels and gangs all over the world, many of which are better armed than the police or army – and have no regard for the lives of other citizens, 4)  Undermines the rule of law and the viability of our institutions by the use of bribery and intimidation – as well as huge shadow-economy profits that distort the economic life and incentives in any communities affected.

There comes a point in any large system where – regardless of its desirability or outcomes – so many people have a stake in its maintenance that it cannot be voluntarily changed.  At that point, only catastrophic collapse is possible.  We’re getting close to that conclusion, but I would like for our editorial writers to at least acknowledge that – so that we at least have the possibility of saving ourselves from this monstrosity in some more rational way.

Even just since the Nixon years, when the latest chapter of this ongoing debacle was written, shelves of largely ignored books have been printed, warning of the wrongheadedness of the scheme and its horrible consequences to individuals and whole societies.  The bad consequences of addiction under legalization and regulation don’t even come close.  And I assume that the journalist who wrote the article sincerely believes that the effort formerly called “the drug war” is correct policy, probably because, as William Bennett – one of our former Drug Czars believed – we simply cannot have a society that tolerates widespread drug use.  Moral decay followed by chaos and economic collapse.  And, of course, there’s really no such thing as ‘recreational drugs.’  Really?

That would be a fitting end to this rant, were it not for your all-time favorite feature:

FREQUENTLY UNASKED QUESTIONS

  • As drug cartels become more common – in your community and mine, with violent intimidation and bribery the norm (plata o plomo) – who will you be able to trust?
  • Do we tolerate the midnight raids on the wrong addresses and the resultant harassment – and occasional deaths – of our fellow citizens because it’s always happening to someone else; maybe someone you would never personally be associated with?
  • If millions of people routinely used marijuana in the 70′s and are currently productive members of society, how is it a “Gateway Drug?”
  • Did you know that most of our burglaries are caused by junkies trying to get money to support their habit, and that England briefly had a successful program that allowed heroin addicts to get their drug by prescription – not to get high, but to maintain themselves in order to function in normal jobs (a program, I hear, that was stopped by pressure from the US government)?
  • How are our unemployment statistics skewed by the existence of such a massive Black Market?
  • How profoundly does this affect the family and societal dynamics within Black and Latino communities?
  • Other than the cartels and minor drug pushers, who is profiting from the status quo, and why should we tolerate it?
Print Friendly
Share