A good friend of mine, Ian, posted up a thread on his Facebook profile a few days ago comparing the United States prison system with Singapore’s prison system and calling for tougher laws to remedy the drug problem in the States. Naturally I had something to say about that and here’s what transpired.
(P.S. I've invoked both Minarchistic and Anarchistic arguments to bring my points across – the doctrine of Constitutionalism and the concept of Polycentric Law)
Ian:
A report on the BBC today highlighted the well-publicized fact that the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world, with 716 persons in jail for every 100,000 people. This translates to 2.25 million Americans in prison. Singapore, by contrast, stands at a modest 230 persons per 100,000 people. The report progressed by criticizing this high figure, claiming that this inflated figure is a result of politicians "getting tough" on crime, "War on Drugs", and mandatory minimum sentences.
Apparently, such tougher enforcement measures are presumed to be, by some logic that is beyond the grasp of my comprehension, ineffective and detrimental for the society. Criminals, it seems, should not be put in jail for flouting the law.
Many Western observers decry Singapore's harsh penalties, both for drugs-related offences, and for seemingly small offences. It is bewitching that for a country with such severe punishments, Singapore maintains an incarceration rate that is less than a third of the liberal United States.
2 potential conclusions can be drawn. 1) Singaporeans are simply less predisposed to criminal activity. This is plausible, and I can imagine that Asian subservience to authority does play a mitigating role. But it is difficult to reconcile how the second highest incarceration rate for industrialized countries is Russia, which stands at 484 pht. Evidently, a second conclusion seems even more applicable - Americans are simply more predisposed to crime. How is it that a country that has lenient drug laws (relative to singapore), continues to (erroneously) believe in the ability of its citizens to own and use arms responsibly, allows a judicial system to engage in "plea - bargaining" (whose evils the movie Law Abiding Citizen has exposed), and has a relatively forgiving "3-strikes" policy continues to have such a ridiculously high number of people in the gaol?
Apologists for the American system might (correctly) identify that Blacks and Hispanics push up the numbers. This is unfortunately true, given the endemic racism rife in the American polity. However, even when controlled for race-based incarceration, the rate for Whites still far out performs our "repressive" island nation.
Evidently, the "Land of the Free" isn't really as free as they'd like to think.
Me:
How about a third potential conclusion which is that the United States has a population of about 318 million people whilst Singapore's population is roughly 5 million?
With all due respect, comparative analyses like that between two completely different [in every way I might add] countries obfuscates the point. You pointed out that the judicial system in the US can be construed to be "racist" but you seem to support tougher enforcement of laws like the ones we have in Singapore, which I believe to be the root problem in the US. This is because a large percentage of the "criminals" in the US prison system are/ or initially were non-violent drug offenders (till they became "hardened" by the system they were unjustly thrown in). It is also statistically proven that most of these non-violent drug offenders happen to be able bodied (most continue to provide for their families despite their vices) and otherwise peace-loving Blacks or Hispanics. We therefore see here that the prison system is not any more racist than the laws that are promulgated. The most "un-racist thing" (for lack of better words) to do to alleviate this problem would be to abolish the "War on Drugs" and to educate the American people on the significance of the often overlooked concept of Jury Nullification so that bad laws that are not in tandem with the particular prevailing morality of the time need not necessarily be followed.
The "War on Drugs" is a travesty that has solved nothing. In fact, its very existence has empowered cartels in Mexico that thrive on these tough laws to enrich themselves through the black market, and more alarmingly it has also led the federal government to transgress the boundaries of the powers lawfully ascribed to them.
I think it's ultimately unfair to make such a comparison between the United States and Singapore. What works for one place may not necessarily work for the other given completely different social, political, cultural, and demographic factors.
Ian:
Many people have claimed that the War on Drugs has exacerbated the problem. I disagree completely.
I can accept that Singapore's situation is somewhat different - we do not have a next-door neighbour that subsists on a narco-economy. But having said that, we are not particularly far from the "Golden Triangle" either. Where there is a demand, there will be a supply. What is the alternative to proper enforcement? Legalization like Colorado? If-we-can't-beat-them, legalize-them? This can't be the way.
And you are certainly not mistaken in identifying that many in the system initially began as non-violent drug offenders. I would argue that most cases in Singapore begin that way as well. I dont believe that drug users in Singapore get busted for violence or rowdy behaviour, much less criminal behaviour. Violent or not, what is codified as law needs to be followed. If one fails to do so and is caught, one ought to face the music. If the War on Drugs and tougher enforcement has not frightened the populace into less criminal activity, I see no reason why my conclusion misses the mark.
You are again right in stating that laws must be formulated in tandem with prevailing norms and morality. "Customary law" is the term used if I am not mistaken. However, only when and until the U.S. can comprehensively do a study that finds that more than half the population engages in marijuana consumption, can we perhaps say that a "tipping point" has been reached. Sociologists call this the "norm cascade". Marijuana continues to be a divisive issue even in the liberal U.S., much less harder drugs. Are you saying that a man found with a small piece of crack-cocaine in his pocket after a "random" "frisk search" should not be arrested because he has no prior record, or appears peace-loving ? I think not. If Americans fail to follow the law, whether they are repressive (or heaven forbid, unjust), they ought to be punished. Perhaps someday someone will point to the un-constitutionality of laws on "soft" drugs, or on the death penalty, but until then, Americans should keep in line. The fact that they don't or refuse to simply point to their greater propensity for criminality.
Nice to have you back Daryl Tan!
Me:
Thanks for the reply Ian. Always a pleasure.
I stand by my opinion that the War on Drugs is an abject failure. Good intentions are not synonymous with good results, and philosophy should be distinguished from policy. For the past 40 years, $1 trillion out of ordinary peoples' tax money have been spent on this fruitless war on drugs, and it has only served to magnify problems on the borders. Moreover, drug use and trade is still rampant in the United States. It is much harder to control smuggling in a country as vast as the United States, which is part of the point I'm trying to make. The controlling of drugs coming in to Singapore is much more efficient not because of the draconian laws that you believe are so effective, but are due to obvious geographical reasons. You should recognize that it's a completely different ballpark in the States. One size fits all doesn't work. If you insist however that all laws must be dutifully obeyed at all costs (I will come to this again later), the only way drugs can be outlawed completely is to take steps that would contradict everything the Constitution stands for in the United States. The Due Process clause enshrined in the 5th Amendment would have to be violated, among other things. How then, do you weigh the legality of laws that are passed by a legislative body, in this case the United States Congress, against the Constitution; which form the basis for the legitimacy of all government actions in the first place?
Drugs should be treated as a social-medical problem, not a criminal one. Look at what happened when the US government outlawed the consumption of Alcohol during the Prohibition Era, boom – you had Al Capone and mobsters in fancy sedans with Tommy guns capitalizing on black market profits. Only when the ban on alcohol was lifted did crime drastically reduce on the streets of New York. It is pretty much the same thing with drugs. On a more personal note, whatever somebody wants to do to his or her body is none of my business as long as my natural rights (Life, Liberty, Property) are not infringed. Moreover, there are many people who erroneously think that if drugs were to be legalized, everyone is going to go out the same day and buy cocaine like buying toilet paper. This is a fallacy and it just serves to show us that the Government thinks it knows what is best for us. Central tenets of what Liberty means in the United States of America (which is why I highlighted cultural factor in my previous post) includes personal responsibility and accountability.
As for Colorado, my support is entirely with the State Legislature. Obama referred to the legalization of marijuana in Colorado recently as a 'social experiment', I call it a lawful exercise of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Consitution. Historically, the United States of America has always demonstrated a preference of State rights over an intrusive bureaucratic bunch of hacks sitting in the White House far off in Washington D.C deciding what's best for the other 49 states. Trust people to do what is right or wrong. We have no right to tell people what to do with their lives. A Nigerian student who travelled to Colorado for the sole purposes of consuming Marijuana died recently by jumping off his hotel balcony. Tragic and foolish, but nonetheless we can do nothing about it. Let that be a warning and testament to others. We have a moral obligation to tell our friends and neighbours not to consume something that can potentially be injurious to one's health but that obligation cannot be translated to a legal one for its purpose would then be obfuscated and the precedents unleashed would be tumultuous to liberty; a value that was fought for with the blood, sweat and tears of the American Revolutionaries.
Your beliefs on Jurisprudence strike a very Legal Positivistic chord. I believe in the classical legal maxim espoused by the likes of St Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas that an "Unjust law is no law at all" (Lex Iniusta Non Est Lex), and I hate having to invoke Godwin's Law during a discussion of any sorts, but Nazi Germany's laws are not legal in my book, for one must ask what the purpose of Law is. If the purpose of law is to serve the principles of justice, then the laws that were promulgated in Nazi Germany most certainly fail at reaching that standard. I may be wrong, but it appears to me that you believe the purpose of Law is to invoke fear in order to uphold order. I simply believe that the purpose of law transcends that theory.
Ian:
Firstly, thank you for that long and fascinating read.
I suspect that our disagreements stem fundamentally from our radically different perspectives, which will result in our different conclusions as to what is best for society.
From your defense of the "natural" right to life, liberty and property stems, along with the belief in individual autonomy, it appears obvious that you subcribe to the libertarian strand of political thought. Whilst this position has its merits, I find that it is untenable that a minimalist state should be posited as the panacea for all the troubles (bureaucratic or otherwise) in America. Leaving people alone does not make them free, especially if freedom means legalizing what has traditionally been one of the more enduring entities in law.
Certainly, The Netherlands, and now recently Uruguay, have taken what have been seen to be progressive steps in terms of drug tolerance. If you invoke the cultural-geographical argument (which I will admit can potentially be a salient argument), then the question must be asked...why Colorado and not Arizona, or New Mexico, or (gasp!) Texas, which are the border states facing the most issues with drug smuggling (and the side issue of immigration)? What is culturally or geographically unique about this state? The same argument goes for Uruguay.
Some may say that laws cannot remain static. Obviously, few would argue against the fact that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Nor should any man be slave to another. But laws prohibiting drugs and drug (ab)use has been a consistent feature across cultures (with the exception of isolated tribes) and geography. Can we truly use a utilitarian argument (i.e. legalizing is cheaper on our strained prisons, legalizing removes the black market and puts needed tax money into state coffers (which I believe you are against, given that the state and its attendant bureaucratic apparatus is presumed to mismanage), or that legalizing removes the Capones and the Godfathers and therefore protects children and teens through proper regulation)? I find that such an argument shows the decay of American society, because such a law concedes defeat to an enemy that has consistently been shown to damage families and societies (at least for hard drugs).
Obama was not wrong, I feel, to label it a social experiment. And unlike Stuart Mill and his famous "Harm Principle", the state should do more than simply advise those who choose to engage in such 'experiments of living' - I argue that they should be empowered to take action and interfere expeditiously, even if this violates the Lockean principles of life, liberty and property. We cannot allow humans to run wild and free, because that may be freedom to them, but it is not freedom for members of the society who may be affected by their actions, in this case by drug usage.
The law is just because it protects the lay-person, the member-of-society that contributes meaningfully to the community. Emile Durkheim speaks of the law as safeguarding the "collective conscience" - the conscience and morality of the average person. Drugs are not and should not be the domain of average people. By defining liberty negatively, i.e. the freedom from constraints, the problem is that we fail to actualize ourselves as part of a community, and one way this can be achieved is (fortunately or unfortunately), through the government.
I find wisdom in Isaiah Berlin, who warns that "freedom of the pike is death for the minnows, the liberty of some must depend on the restraint of others." Criminals and drug dealers represent the latter, whether we empathise with their plight or not.
As a student of jurisprudence, you may also be familiar with Bentham's (and in fact Mill's as well) rejection of the concept of "natural rights" as "nonsense on stilts". A quote from the father of utilitarianism "rights for me is a son of law...natural rights [however] is a son that has no father". Locke's belief in natural rights is grounded in a centuries old conception of The New World, free in land and abundant in resources. Much has changed since then.
Me:
When we start to discuss personal philosophies, I fear that we will naturally reach an impasse my friend.
The perennial question is "what the role of government should be". For me, anything more than a Government that protect rights represents coercion. When the government passes a ridiculous law enforcing what my soda cup size should be (as has already happened in NY) - that is not freedom, my friend. If I want to get fat and balloon up to 360 pounds, that's my prerogative. When the government tells me what I can eat, what I can do, what I can't do, that is not freedom. Your view is that government should guide human action. That, I believe to be a fallacy. Human Action is a natural course that need not be guided. Throughout history, success has always been the result of the spontaneous order; the voluntary effort of individual autonomous men coming together to create something wonderful. The roaring twenties is testament to the triumphs of Laissez-Faire policies.
Perhaps, it might be the opposite of what you've been taught, but I don't believe in this collective consciousness concept you seem to subscribe to. Austrian economist and legal philosopher F.A. Hayek surmised that "Collectivism has nothing to put in their place, and in so far as it already has destroyed then it has left a void filled by nothing but the demand for obedience and the compulsion of the individual to what is collectively decided to be good.” Democracy is frequently caricatured humorously (but accurately I must add) as two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch. What must be in place is also a fixed set of rights delegated to the individual man (as provided by the U.S. Constitution)
I'm halfway with you on Community, I believe that communities, neighbourhoods, associations, etc. represent the bedrock of a strong society and that's where the meat of any reform should lie. The responsibilities lie with different communities to determine how individuals in their districts should live. When the overreaching hand of the big federal leviathan government hovers over and usurps what should rightfully be decided by Communities, that is not freedom. Freedom is the decision I have to make as to whether I want to continue living in a community in which I know for a fact that I would be ostracized if I were to consume drugs in said town/community. Where we differ on communities is that I believe communities are built and created voluntarily without any need for coercion whatsoever. Society is not an entity itself, it is made up of different individuals voluntarily cooperating with each other. When you start to look at Society atomistically and in the process, believe in abstract conceptions such as 'Social justice' or a "collective consciousness" as Emile Durkheim believed in, you disregard the individual - the building block of society in the first place.
Since you seem to be such a stickler for rules (I jest), I find it odd that you seem to be against Constitutional principles, since they legitimize all government actions. I've allegorically painted a picture in the prior paragraph of what the 10th amendment is all about; state rights. When the tyrannical federal government steps in though, that is a blatant violation of the 10th amendment, and as such the law.
I'm under the impression that you know how the legislative processes work in the United States but for clarity's sake, I'd just like to state that the legalization of Marijuana was not authorized by Obama because that is procedurally impossible. It was authorized by the people of Colorado who voted that they wanted such legalization to take place. Why I disagree with Obama is the hubris and arrogance he demonstrates when he calls it a 'social experiment' like he was the one who authorized it so he could see the effects of drug use in a particular state. Colorado voters chose this path, it had nothing to do with Obama, likewise with Washington. I don't see where you're driving at with Texas and New Mexico and I’m honestly quite confused. I think you've misunderstood my geographical argument, I was not referring to individual states, I was referring to the vast size of the United States compared to Singapore. Culturally speaking, it's common knowledge that Texas represents a large amount of Conservative voters so it would be unsurprising that Marijuana would not be legalized there.
When you say that "laws prohibiting drugs and drug (ab)use has been a consistent feature across cultures (with the exception of isolated tribes) and geography.", I fear that I cannot accept that as a valid argument. A consistent feature across cultures does not make it a universally correct principle. I am also inclined to point out a contradiction in one of your points; you believe that whether a law is just depends on whether the layman benefits from the enforcement of such law, if I'm not mistaken. Noble, but tough laws that you seem to be in favour of are in fact detrimental to the layman. When you talk about families and societies destroyed by drugs, tough drug laws also contribute to such destruction, especially when fathers who have been providing for their families are locked up for smoking pot. Tough drug laws also contribute to the erosion of traditional family values by virtue of unjust taxation. Money that could be used to educate children and teenagers on the detrimental effects of drugs, money that could be privately used by communities to build community clubhouses to steer children away from such vices, money that could be used to privately fund drug rehabilitation programmes are instead pork-barelled into a fruitless attempt to outlaw drugs. The "enemy" you speak of that the "law has conceded defeat to" is illusory because there never was a "battle" or 'war" between the two. Vices are not crimes as rightly pointed out by Lysander Spooner. One might as well outlaw gambling and consumption of alcohol too since they are known to be equally destructive to family and society.
Since we are still talking about philosophies, I'd just like to also point out on the side that free societies have existed in the history of time - the Brehon societies of Ancient Ireland (where criminal behaviour was treated in a civil code) were a free form of civilization till the Normandy invasion wiped out their lifestyles. The Old West depicted as being extremely violent in Clint Eastwood films are now in disrepute. Recent research has shown (particularly from notable scholars such as Thomas DiLorenzo, Terry Anderson and PJ Hill) that contrary to popular belief, the Old West - where absence of government intervention was prevalent at least till the early 1900s - was in fact a much safer place than originally believed. Private protection agencies, Cattleman associations and Privately enforced contract laws ensured that violence was minimal (due to the high costs violence was usually associated with), and while there was indeed the occasional gunfight (as it would take place everywhere), it is widely accepted that most Old West towns were much safer than Modern metropolitan American cities today. I am most willing to lend you some material if you're interested.
For most of our teenage years, we've been indoctrinated and force fed that government is the panacea. I find wisdom in Thomas Jefferson's two famous quotes, the first being that "a government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have" and the latter being that "if you give up liberty for a false sense of security, you deserve neither". I believe strongly in precedent - when you give the government too much power in one area to do something, it ultimately assumes the power to do something in another. This is my main fear.
When you talk about humans running wild and free, I fear that have you misunderstood what Libertarianism is all about. You seem to have a very pessimistic view on the nature of men, and that view may be justified. I have a more romanticized view and this is the impasse I was talking about earlier. I have to wonder though, that if you are so afraid of what you perceive to be the inherent evil nature of men, why would you seem to feel more content concentrating power into the hands of a few.
Ian:
Even if debate creates nothing more than impasse, I think it is necessary, lest truth/opinions degrade into mere superstition. Alternative views ensure complacency does not take hold, even if we may both be adamant about our positions (and I think both our views are legitimate)
I disagree that politics and political decisions should go the way of laissez-faire capitalism. In fact I disagree with capitalism altogether, but that is another argument altogether. Michelle Obama’s campaign against obesity may be seen as unnecessary intervention into the private domain, but given you believe that families are torn asunder because not-so-innocent pot-smoking (through conscious, unrestrained volition) fathers are thrown into jail, then I would argue that sugary drinks, cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and alcohol are similarly dangerous because excessive consumption leads to a host of health problems. Yes, they are not banned. People are still at liberty to smoke as much as they please, though regulatory laws have been enacted to prohibit public drinking, public drunkenness, cigarette smoking, etc. The government is doing its part, without intervening excessively, into the affairs of its citizens precisely because it does not believe in their ability to behave optimally as human beings. A pot-smoking father, as much as he may be loving and caring and concerned, is evidently not a very responsible one. I have little doubt that murderers, robbers, and rapists could be very loving fathers too – but does this mean we don’t throw them jail? I don’t think so. The old adage “you do the crime, you do the time” is a necessary truism. If the War on Drugs puts people who flout the law in jail, that’s too bad. It is my sincere belief that if drugs are legalized (even if only of the “soft variants”), a significant number of people would be engaging in such activity all day – laissez-faire capitalism, predicated on a willing and productive workforce, isn’t going to be very productive.
Hayek, like Friedman and the rest of the Chicago School economists are bound to be supportive of the abstract and rational individual – this is highly unsurprising. Capitalism cannot work on a conception of the society before the individual, because this would mean that the free-market does not comprise of voluntary-exchange (which, I believe you are aware, contrary to sterile economic models and curves, is never really complete voluntary anyway). The belief in the abstract individual is highly debatable, and philosophers from Plato to Rousseau, from Marx to Mill, and from Hobbes to Hegel have been arguing about it, and I highly doubt that Daryl and Ian will be able to make more ground on that. What can conclusively be said, however, is that unlike the homo-economicus model that economists love to posit, humans are not rational. Psychology, sociology, and perhaps a whole chunk of political science will admit that humans can be rational, but they oftentimes are not. Irrational people make irrational choices, such as cigarette smoking, consuming a litre of Sprite in a single sitting, or taking drugs. These are known to be harmful, and the state accordingly regulates. I do not see how this should be seen as a bad thing.
I would be the first to agree with you that the American government is plagued by systemic problems. Pork-barrel spending (which you correctly identified), interest-group lobbying, and logrolling are all problems which are difficult to eradicate. In fact, I find that most political-science textbooks that I unfortunately have to peruse strike me as an apologia for the system. I find it disgusting. But the alternative – which is to leave humans to their own devices (bordering on the anarchist conception of things) is just as untenable. Having said this, a Leviathan is not necessary – and I believe your fear of tyrannical sovereign is highly misplaced – is not a republican state predicated on the separation of powers? Is the presence of these very checks and balance that stymie legislation and administration not a safeguard against tyranny?
I also find it surprising that you reject cross-cultural universals – murder and incest are easily the most prominent taboos that feature across time and space in different societies – incidentally these two are also lawfully prohibited – likewise, why should drugs not be? If over the centuries most groups of people have decided that certain acts and substances cripple what would be a well-functioning society, why should Colorado (and Uruguay) be different? Because somehow the people there are more enlightened than most of history? I find this to be unbelievable.
I am in full support, however, of your argument about the free societies of old. I am a fervent supporter of Rousseau and his lament of modernity. This may seem to contradict my support (or at least, lack of disdain for) big government. However, I think that much has changed since then. Economically, demographically, culturally, and perhaps even socially. I too would like to think that small, self-run communities are the ideal. But they are an ideal of the past. And hoping to return to such a presumably utopian state of affairs is, as stated, utopian.
I am aware that big government can be dangerous. I however also believe in the concept of “duties” over and above rights. When a community claims that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”, I can agree – but the fact that we continue to find senseless violence points to the fact that whilst some people are responsible gun-owners, others aren’t. The same goes for alcohol, gambling, smoking, and pretty much any other ill, moral, social, legal or otherwise. We need coercion to be free.
And yes, elitist as it may sound, I do believe that our enlightened leaders should be placed in a position to supervise the rest. Is this a patriarchal perspective? Perhaps. I just cannot see how the majority of humans can be trusted to govern themselves. We are neither intelligent, nor responsible, nor rational enough to do so.
Me:
Leaving people to their own devices is very much harmless, why? because states and localized or decentralized authorities have a duty to enforce laws and customs and norms. Where the beauty is found is that if such laws that are customary to one area are construed by one to be ludicrous, one always has the option of moving to another area where the laws there may suit him more. That is freedom and the rule of law being reconciled. However, when the federal government - a centralized form of authority presumes to know how every single community, county, state, and whathaveyou should be run, that's an entirely different story. Now, you talk about how these self-run communities are beautiful but ultimately abstract and utopian in theory, I disagree. Self-run communities I am referring to already exist; they comprise the 50 individual states of the USA. So it's not utopian, it's a reality.
You want to know what I think is utopian and abstract and unrealistically idealistic? The concept of a responsible government. History has shown us time and time again that temperance, moderation and wisdom are values that are lacking within the ruling class. You talk about how there are safeguards in the constitutional framework of governments around the world; most notably the concept of Separation of powers. Has the theory of Separation of Powers ever been followed? To a certain extent perhaps, but It's common knowledge that there are overlapping powers within the framework of the state. Members of the executive are obliged to sit in the legislature (at least in Commonwealth systems), and the judiciary - intended to be an unpoliticized entity and as a result are not an elected body - are appointed by the executive branch of government. What safeguards? There are no safeguards. The safeguards may exist in theory, but that's all it is; theory.
My fear is not misplaced. When the president of a country UNILATERALLY (and by extension, unlawfully) tweaks laws without legislative consent, that is not the rule of law. I believe in the rule of law, not the rule of men, or man, for that matter. When laws are not followed but are blatantly violated in favour of an oligarchically designed enlightened form of wisdom, that is not the rule of law, but the rule of men. When the president of the United States signs a law like the NDAA that authorizes the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial into effect, it is undoubtedly a blatant violation of the constitution and the universal principle of Habeas Corpus, which by the way - Abraham Lincoln (the godfather of centralized government) was severely rebuked for not adhering to during the Civil War. When the president of the United States authorizes the use of extrajudicial drone strikes in the middle east killing innocents as a result, that is a violation of BOTH the constitution of the United States as well as international law. When the National Survelliance Agency listens to conversations of potential criminals, or perhaps even average laymen like you and I, that is a violation of the fourth amendment to the United States constitution. I can go on forever, I can even list out Obama's treasonous charges, all 25 of them. You believe freedom to be administered by the government whilst I see the government trampling on those freedoms, distorting everything liberty stands for under the pretext of security. George Orwell's 1984 isn't fiction, it's a glimpse into the very near future.
As you've rightly pointed out, society has progressed way beyond the more peaceful self-sustaining communities of the Old West or Ancient Ireland, you point out that advancements in technology, modernity, etc. is the reason why we need a bigger government. I disagree, in fact - conversely, it is all the more reason why government should be severely limited. A government that is able to tap into our phone calls to listen to what we have to say each other, a government that can read all our emails, a government that deploys a technologically advanced heavily militarized police force as well as snipers in response to cattle grazing on land is a cause for concern. Yes, I'm talking about the BLM-Cliven Bundy saga. Let's try reconciling the War on Drugs with the concept of responsible government - we can't do that. Just read up on the 'ATF Gunwalking Scandal'.
Murder and drugs are not on the same wavelength. Murder is the act of taking one's life intentionally and unlawfully. I don't see how the consumption of drugs fall under this ambit. Even the standards of international law does not place drugs on the same level as murder. International law dictates that drug use should be discouraged, something I agree with. To discourage does not equate to fear-mongering methods. International law is concerned with the facilitation of drug trade, the violence - the murder - associated with gangs capitalizing on the black market trade (I will come to this later again). Of course, I must add a bit of a humourous point here that the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice happen to be situated in The Hague, Netherlands. Yes, Netherlands, every Pot smoker's paradise.
I agree with you that we possibly may not be intelligent enough to govern ourselves effectively, but how do you define the word “effectively” in the first place? To assume that a group of “enlightened” individuals out there are intelligent enough to govern us, is quite frankly – and I mean this without any ill will – naive. According to Hayek, the basic tools of civilisation – language, morals, law and money are a result of a phenomenon called the spontaneous order. A self-discovering effect, not grandiosely designed or engineered by an “enlightened” few. A self-discovering effect, not grandiosely designed or engineered by an "enlightened" few. It was a concerted effort by individuals seeing the need for voluntary association in order to further their aims. People learn through trial and error. I have faith in men. If I know that the effects of drugs would lead me to jump off a building, I wouldn't be stupid enough to do it. People learn from mistakes, or through other peoples' mistakes, and in this day & age - even through scientific experiments conducted - as to predict the outcome of their actions. That does not sound extreme. What sounds more extreme is when you believe a select few to be able to correctly predict the actions of human beings.
Also, you talk about how you feel the voters of Colorado think themselves to be enlightened above everyone else. What makes you think the government is enlightened above everyone else? Is it due to the State-sponsored education they receive that puts them in a far "better" position? or is it because they come from notable and distinguished Ivy league schools, or are members of fraternal associations? By what standards do you adjudge a group of people to be enlightened above all else? Voters of Colorado also voted LEGALLY. It is as such a lawful exercise, as I've pointed out many times in my previous post.
The War on Drugs have contributed to a sharp increase in gangland warfare. Gangs are formed when a profit could be made out of a black market operation. Violence is rife. In all honesty, I'd rather a significant amount of people stoned out of their minds in the privacy of their own homes than gangbangers shooting it out in the streets. Ron Paul had something to say about this, "When lucrative profits from the black market in drugs make drug dealers the most ostentatiously prosperous sector of society, it is much more difficult for parents to persuade their children to shun those profits and pursue a much less remunerative, if more honourable, line of work." Don't forget too, that in an earlier post, I mentioned that the only way to outlaw drugs completely would be to violate the Constitution. That would be unlawful, and since you believe in the "necessary truism" that "if you do the crime, you do the time", any president in power who violates the constitution to enforce the War on Drugs law would most certainly have to be sent to the hole for treason, don't you agree?
___
That's it for now. He hasn't responded to my last post yet. Feel free to share your thoughts/views if you have any!
No comments:
Post a Comment