Comments on: The Drug War: A Bonanza for the Enemies of Freedom http://c4ss.org/content/417 building awareness of the market anarchist alternative Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:08:05 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: ricketson http://c4ss.org/content/417/comment-page-1#comment-417 ricketson Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:55:16 +0000 http://c4ss.org/?p=417#comment-417 "...—all for absolutely nothing." Prohibition hasn't been for naught. It has maintained the utopian dream of a "drug free America" so that the upright citizens of America can sleep soundly believing that their children will never face the scourge of drug addiction. Isn't that worth something? “…—all for absolutely nothing.”

Prohibition hasn’t been for naught. It has maintained the utopian dream of a “drug free America” so that the upright citizens of America can sleep soundly believing that their children will never face the scourge of drug addiction.

Isn’t that worth something?

]]> By: KittyAntonikWakfer http://c4ss.org/content/417/comment-page-1#comment-413 KittyAntonikWakfer Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:50:46 +0000 http://c4ss.org/?p=417#comment-413 << The Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments are so riddled with loopholes, after thirty-odd years of helpful â??interpretationâ? by a compliant judiciary, as to be absolutely meaningless. << T he Constitution's holes begin with the often quote very first line of the Preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, **promote the general Welfare**, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." [Emphasis added] This emphasized phrase is a major problem, but the failure to provide clear definitions for terms used here and throughout the document are another big flaw, as the decades of judicial interpretation make clear. (A more detailed critique of the Preamble and the Bill of Rights - http://selfsip.org/critiques/billofrights.html ) Self-responsibility is greatly lacking in the US (and other so-called developed countries) largely because of governments. A great number of parents do not possess it and/or do not encourage the development in their children. Why is that? I conclude that it is because governments promote just the opposite - dependence, on them, for their continued existence. I made a recent comment at CSM to the article, "Obama seeks to protect credit-card users" Strange thing is that it showed (after about 30 mins, sometime about noon AZ time, after stated moderation I presumed) but was no longer there when I got to this point early in my comment preparation for your article, about 2:15pm AZ time.(..?!?) So I will repeat it here: << More than three-quarters of American families have credit cards and **almost half carry a balance**, according to the Federal Reserve. << [emphasis added] I have not seen any media reference to President Obama also encouraging responsible *use* of credit cards. Some reference to doing so would have shown me that he has some understanding that self-responsibility is a characteristic of a fully adult human being. Government practices of "looking out for" citizens is very much like that of parents who discourage their chronologically adult children from making full social maturing changes (standing on their own 2 feet and taking the consequences). There is a big difference between upholding existing fraud laws (or amending them for clarification) and constantly attempting to create an environment where self-responsibility is thought of as old-fashioned. One would best wonder what the government (those running and promoting it) gets from a citizenry that is largely low (?very low?) on the self-responsibility scale.... ----------------end of submitted comment to CSM---------------------- http://features.csmonitor.com/economyrebuild/2009/04/23/obama-seeks-to-protect-credit-card-users/ All the violence that is occurring is no surprise to me (as it obviously isn't for you either, Kevin). The only surprise is that so many ordinary people still do not see the connections, some of which you have clearly pointed out. Hopefully, though, with more people making use of the Internet to exchange information on events, some will also become knowledgeable about the principles underlying a truly optimal society - at that point, I think stepping-stone improvements will become noticeable. << The Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments are so riddled with loopholes, after thirty-odd years of helpful â??interpretationâ? by a compliant judiciary, as to be absolutely meaningless. <<

T he Constitution’s holes begin with the often quote very first line of the Preamble:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, **promote the general Welfare**, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” [Emphasis added]
This emphasized phrase is a major problem, but the failure to provide clear definitions for terms used here and throughout the document are another big flaw, as the decades of judicial interpretation make clear. (A more detailed critique of the Preamble and the Bill of Rights – http://selfsip.org/critiques/billofrights.html )

Self-responsibility is greatly lacking in the US (and other so-called developed countries) largely because of governments. A great number of parents do not possess it and/or do not encourage the development in their children. Why is that? I conclude that it is because governments promote just the opposite – dependence, on them, for their continued existence. I made a recent comment at CSM to the article, “Obama seeks to protect credit-card users”

Strange thing is that it showed (after about 30 mins, sometime about noon AZ time, after stated moderation I presumed) but was no longer there when I got to this point early in my comment preparation for your article, about 2:15pm AZ time.(..?!?) So I will repeat it here:

<< More than three-quarters of American families have credit cards and **almost half carry a balance**, according to the Federal Reserve. << [emphasis added]

I have not seen any media reference to President Obama also encouraging responsible *use* of credit cards. Some reference to doing so would have shown me that he has some understanding that self-responsibility is a characteristic of a fully adult human being. Government practices of “looking out for” citizens is very much like that of parents who discourage their chronologically adult children from making full social maturing changes (standing on their own 2 feet and taking the consequences). There is a big difference between upholding existing fraud laws (or amending them for clarification) and constantly attempting to create an environment where self-responsibility is thought of as old-fashioned.

One would best wonder what the government (those running and promoting it) gets from a citizenry that is largely low (?very low?) on the self-responsibility scale….
—————-end of submitted comment to CSM———————-
http://features.csmonitor.com/economyrebuild/2009/04/23/obama-seeks-to-protect-credit-card-users/

All the violence that is occurring is no surprise to me (as it obviously isn’t for you either, Kevin). The only surprise is that so many ordinary people still do not see the connections, some of which you have clearly pointed out. Hopefully, though, with more people making use of the Internet to exchange information on events, some will also become knowledgeable about the principles underlying a truly optimal society – at that point, I think stepping-stone improvements will become noticeable.

]]> By: Michael Bindner http://c4ss.org/content/417/comment-page-1#comment-404 Michael Bindner Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:38:16 +0000 http://c4ss.org/?p=417#comment-404 I agree with everything you say, however to get to the root of the problem, you must also address the question of institutionalized racism. The role of drug laws in incarcerating, disenfranchising and re-enslaving African American men cannot be underestimated. It's not accident that we have mandatory minimum sentences because of Jesse Helmes. The fact that the Netherlands is fairly homogeneous racially and does not have a history of domestic racism (although they were colonialists) may be an explanatory variable here. I am all for scrapping the drug war, however total permissiveness will never be seen as a solution - even in the African American community. For many families, the only hope they have for getting a child or loved one clean is the judicial system. Unless it is replaced by a mandatory treatment system - preferrably run by non-state providers - it will be hard, if not impossible, to simply dismantle the drug laws. Some drugs, like weed, should likely be always legal. I can't say that about Meth. If someone is hooked on Meth, they need to be taken off. While they are on Meth, they are not in any way sane enough to get themselves off. They need help and society should make sure they get it (even if bureaucrats aren't the ones providing it). I agree with everything you say, however to get to the root of the problem, you must also address the question of institutionalized racism. The role of drug laws in incarcerating, disenfranchising and re-enslaving African American men cannot be underestimated. It’s not accident that we have mandatory minimum sentences because of Jesse Helmes. The fact that the Netherlands is fairly homogeneous racially and does not have a history of domestic racism (although they were colonialists) may be an explanatory variable here.

I am all for scrapping the drug war, however total permissiveness will never be seen as a solution – even in the African American community. For many families, the only hope they have for getting a child or loved one clean is the judicial system. Unless it is replaced by a mandatory treatment system – preferrably run by non-state providers – it will be hard, if not impossible, to simply dismantle the drug laws. Some drugs, like weed, should likely be always legal. I can’t say that about Meth. If someone is hooked on Meth, they need to be taken off. While they are on Meth, they are not in any way sane enough to get themselves off. They need help and society should make sure they get it (even if bureaucrats aren’t the ones providing it).

]]>