Clinton is once again right, wrong

Artus Register

It is big of Secretary of State Clinton to admit that the U.S. shares the blame for the drug cartel violence near the U.S.-Mexico border.  But as is almost always the case with government types, the reasons she gave were much different than the reality.

Clinton blamed the violence on America’s desire for intoxicants and the lack of American gun control.

“Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade,” she said. “Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians.”

There was no mention of our insatiable demand for more government to deal with every issue, or our inability to demand that government officials read and obey the Constitution they have sworn allegiance to.  But more government is, of course the only answer she and her ilk are capable of offering.  Had the Secretary not been calling for the Almighty State to “do something,” she wouldn’t have been speaking.

What Mrs. Clinton doubtless realizes and pretends not to is that people the world over seek various levels and types of intoxication, and have since time immemorial. No amount of government intervention is going to change that.  People have always sought to alter their consciousness, whether seeking the relaxation from the alcohol gleaned from fermented sugar, the energetic stimulation of coffee beans, coca leaves, etc., or the “mind expanding” hallucinations of various plants and chemicals.

Drugs, once discovered, are not going to be forgotten.  And the idea that government can combat desire is about as foolish as ideas come.  Stiffer penalties, eradication programs, and more criminalization only succeeds in wasting money and reducing the supply of drugs, which drives up the price and increases drug-related crime.  With increased crime government pretends its way out of blame and calls for more money, programs and laws, and the cycle is repeated.  And the sheeple clamor for more.

As to our gun problem, we simply don’t have one.  What we have is a backward, hopelessly corrupt “justice system” that does little or nothing to prevent violent crime, puts zero focus on restitution, and ensures that those guilty of force and fraud are released while those dealing in the commerce of plant matter remain in cages.

With violent criminals come weapons.  The concept that the law abiding, non-violent public should be disarmed as a way to reduce the violent tendencies of the criminal class is absurd prima facia and enjoys attempted justification only by the criminal class of government who pretend to offer people safety from their non-government criminal cousins.  While guns are a tool of criminal gangs, they are also a tool of protection for the non-criminal. As with drugs, weapons will be obtained by those who want them regardless of the number of laws passed, or penalties promised.

Mrs. Clinton seems to be blaming the state as a pretext from which this Administration’s statist trap can be sprung on the American people. Government hasn’t done enough, is the implication. And we have one eager to do more. Much more.

Having gone through the illusions, let us sample the reality.

Last fall, the Mexican government had a foolproof plan in motion to stop the drug violence.  The proposed legislative changes would have immediately removed the profit with which the violent drug cartels were built and maintained.  As Mexico moved toward decriminalizing “illicit” drugs, a panicked U.S. government–clearly concerned that the simple truth of economics would expose the fraud that our own drug war is–put enormous pressure on the Mexican government to abandon the idea.  And like an obedient dog, Mexico listened without complaint.

The U.S. encouraged Mexico to follow our shining example of violent coercion and endless budgets that have resulted in the abysmal failure of that is the Drug War.  It’s broke, so don’t fix it.

Prohibition Economics 101

Drug gangs, on either side of the border, exist because of the huge profits that are realized in a black market.  When a thing becomes illegal, it doesn’t go away, it just becomes expensive.   Those dealing in illegal objects, information, or substances are taking a much greater risk than a man selling vegetables, for example.  As the risk increases, so must the reward; hence the high prices of illegal drugs.

For every thing the government outlaws, a new black market is created.  When operating outside of the law, there are no contracts, agreements, arbitration, or court rooms.  Areas of operation, or “turf,” asking prices, and type of drugs sold are often agreed upon intra-criminally. But as in any business, disputes arise.  Without a legal system or enforceable arbitration, gangs have only the choice between surrender, and violence.

Decriminalizing drugs would immediately end the profits of those involved in the drug trade, from smugglers, to violent drug gangs government claims to oppose, to street corner dealers.  Continuing the absurdity that is our wealth-wasting Drug War creates and maintains the drug economy. In short, prohibition creates, then maintains a new class of criminal.

The massive violence that grew out of alcohol prohibition died with the repeal of the 18th Amendment, while that of drug prohibition remains, and is expanding is size, scope, and sophistication. “Staying the course” in the Drug War means that government will continue to toss good money after bad, and legislate away more liberty, “for the children,” or “for the greater good.”  It also means that the dead people on both sides will be replaced, and that the hopeless, pointless war on drugs war on people will continue.

Yes, Mrs. Clinton, the U.S. is certainly to blame. But not for the sophomoric reasons you came up with.

Add comment March 30th, 2009

Obama: cause for optimism, maybe

Artus Register

Among the many concerns stemming from the inauguration of Barack Obama there is some good news, and some hope.

First, an incoming President means an outgoing one.  And while many of his tyrannical ideas may remain, George W. Bush is gone.  After eight years of Constitution-shredding, dictatorial proclamations, empire expanding, unimaginable spending, reputation destroying, government expanding, etc. Mr. Bush’s departure is a welcome reprieve from the advancing shadow of hyper-national, jingoistic, neo-fascism.

President Obama has promised to immediately close Guantanamo Bay, an infamous symbol of the U.S.. government’s abject lack of ethics, complete dishonesty, unapologetic cruelty, and gleeful disobedience of its own Constitution.

The incoming Administration has stated its intention to end the abysmal mistake that was and is the war in Iraq.  Caution is urged with on this note as Obama has stated that he wants more troops in Afghanistan. So this may be a case of simply doing the right thing here, and the wrong thing there.  In Afghanistan, there is at least the illusion that American troops are hunting down Al Qaeda rather than spraying opium crops, nation building, and training a foreign army.

Though our friends at NORML say the news so far isn’t good, there is a much better chance that an Obama administration will not stomp on medical marijuana rights as the Bush’s team did–despite W’s campaign promises in 2000 that he would not interfere with state marijuana laws.

Though they are unapologetic hypocrites, the Democrats would look awfully foolish after making so much noise about warrantless wiretaps and other privacy intrusions if they didn’t address the those issues, and undo some of the pro-government, anti-individual laws that gut privacy protection.

A lot changes are required to make any real difference in government, be it its approaching every problem with more money and power, its vast scope, or its self-replicating nature.  And the incoming administration has a long way to go before it proves itself a friend to liberty–economic of otherwise.  Most likely, if will be a shell game, and we the people will receive some relief on the one hand, and a heavier jackboot on the other.   There is little reason to believe that whatever “change” Mr. Obama brings to the political landscape, it will be significant enough to elevate liberty and shrink government.  But there may be some cause for a occasional smile, and with the cracks in the dam this administration may implement, fans of freedom might be able to–with a lot of work and serious commitment–scratch, chisel and claw actual holes.

For significant change to occur, the masses must begin to see government as the failure that it is; as a predatory gang of parasitic thieves eager to help you with your own money, and relieve from you the burden of responsibility.  Perhaps a President–seen as many as the opposite of the previous one–will serve as the ultimate illustration that government simply can’t.  This isn’t what his slogans of “Hope” and “Change” meant, but they might turn out to be more prophetic than Mr. Obama realizes.

Add comment January 21st, 2009

Drug War claims more victims

Artus Register

The AP is reporting that in the latest wave of violence eleven men were killed in the eastern Chihuahua  state of Mexico.  The response is typical of government: use force to “crackdown” on drug trafficking, which will result in arrests, seizures and ultimately higher prices for the increased risk and relative scarcity of product and therefore more profit for dealers.  The higher profit will result in more jealously guarded territory which means more violence.

Since the US forced Mexico to abandon its drug decriminalization plan in the spring of 2006, the country has instead engaged in a massive crackdown on drug dealing.  The result? 5,300 people were killed in drug-related attacks in 2008 alone, which was more than double the amount from the previous year.

Citizens and politicians alike in many Latin American countries are tiring of the incessant drug-violence and are considering the obvious: wiping away the profits with the stroke of a pen.

In the past few years governments in Mexico, Columbia, and Honduras have either seriously discussed or actually attempted drug decriminalization.  Additionally, governments of Bolivia, Venezuela, and Ecuador seem to be tiring of the all-out drug war approach and may be warming to the idea of ending violence by ending prohibition.

Thus far the American government, ever the on-paper proponent of free enterprise, has imagined into being a mystical exception to simple economics for the drug trade, pretending that neither risk and reward, nor supply and demand have any bearing on the economy of drugs.

Add comment January 15th, 2009