Saturday, September 28, 2013

Randolph Bourne Tells Us Why Declared War ≠ Moral War

Randolph Bourne, the great radical thinker and libertarian, reminds us why declaring war officially doesn't automatically make a war right. The Repository, the section in which The American Conservative republishes classics of what it sees as representative of conservative thought, republishes an excerpt from Bourne's "The State."

Says Bourne:

However representative of the people Parliaments and Congresses may be in all that concerns the internal administration of a country’s political affairs, in international relations it has never been possible to maintain that the popular body acted except as a wholly mechanical ratifier of the Executive’s will.
The formality by which Parliaments and Congresses declare war is the merest technicality. Before such a declaration can take place, the country will have been brought to the very brink of war by the foreign policy of the Executive. A long series of steps on the downward path, each one more fatally committing the unsuspecting country to a warlike course of action, will have been taken without either the people or its representatives being consulted or expressing its feeling. When the declaration of war is finally demanded by the Executive, the Parliament or Congress could not refuse it without reversing the course of history, without repudiating what has been representing itself in the eyes of the other states as the symbol and interpreter of the nation’s will and animus.
To repudiate an Executive at that time would be to publish to the entire world the evidence that the country had been grossly deceived by its own Government, that the country with an almost criminal carelessness had allowed its Government to commit it to gigantic national enterprises in which it had no heart. In such a crisis, even a Parliament which in the most democratic States represents the common man, and not the significant classes who most strongly cherish the State ideal, will cheerfully sustain the foreign policy which it understands even less than it would care for if it understood, and will vote almost unanimously for an incalculable war, in which the nation may be brought well nigh to ruin.

Friday, September 27, 2013

Are Libertarians Individualists?

That's the question Steve Horwitz posed in his recent article for Future of Freedom Foundation (FFF).

Says Horwitz:

A young libertarian recently told me that, as an individualist, he thinks it strange that people identify with a religious or ethnic group as “part of their roots or culture.” For this young man, individualism apparently means rejecting all sorts of possible (voluntary) connections to others that might suggest that group identity is equal to, or even more important than, individual identity.  This sort of individualism, which is found too frequently among libertarians, misunderstands the ways in which libertarianism is and is not “individualistic.”
There are three ways that the words “individualist” or “individualism” might be used to describe libertarians.  Two of them have some accuracy, but the third, which is the one raised above, does not.
One sense in which libertarians are individualists is this: When we analyze social phenomena, we assume that only individuals choose.  Therefore, understanding even highly social institutions like the market begins, although it does not end, with individual human action.  The theory of spontaneous order explains that many social institutions are the “products of human action but not human design.”  That is, they start with individual actions, but those actions produce outcomes that no individual or group of individuals intended.  Libertarians recognize that those actions create something greater than the sum of their parts.

A second sense in which libertarians are individualists is that we believe the individual is the meaningful political unit, because only individuals have rights and all individuals should be equal before the law.  Notice that this does not mean that all individuals have equal talents or abilities; it is rather a statement about the moral standing of individuals.  Individuals are the relevant moral unit, and they are equal in terms of their moral standing.
Read the rest here.

Letter of Liberty News Edition (9-27-2013)

Here is the Friday News Edition.

Art Carden on why the naughties weren't always bad

Steve Horwitz asks the question: Are libertarians individualists?

Sheldon Richman looks to guidance from the late Lysander Spooner on the national debt crisis.

Gary North on Jim Wallis and Pope Francis

Gary North on Abraham Lincoln and central banking

Jacob Hornberger gives us reasons on why we should dismantle international checkpoints.

Edmond S. Bradley on the unintended (yet expected) consequences of Obamacare

Scott Lazarowitz on SovietCare

Paul Craig Roberts on Washington's tyranny

Justin Raimondo: It's time to defund the Syrian rebels.

Tom Engelhardt on the Stalinist roots of American exceptionalism

Scott Lazarowitz tells the truth about Keynesianism.

Is Rand Paul America's #1 liberal? Jack Rall wants to know.

David Howden makes the case for free immigrants, free capital,  and free markets.

A Brazilian advises the NSA to "have a nice day."

It seems that the US intelligence chiefs are not happy about the anti-NSA sentiment.

Is al-Shabab really a threat to America?

Wes Messamore on the inherent liberalism of gun tech

Scott Lazarowitz on the First Amendment and the American government

Dom Armentano cautions against the maximum stupidity of minimum wage laws.

Ed Stetzer on some great trends in growing churches

Eric Peters on the madness of GM

Doug French on why Wall Street is not the heart of American capitalism

Peter Boettke on the mystery of the mundane

Jeff Tucker on the abolition of the playground

Jeff Tucker on the fun and fascinating Bitcoin

Congratulations to C. Jay Engel

This post is intended to congratulate C. Jay Engel for the new daughter that has been born into his family: Elizabeth Grace Engel.

Here is his excellent piece today: "God's Life and Creation: Reflections on a Daughter Born"

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Paul Rosenberg on the Real Reason Why We're Not Living Amongst the Stars

Paul Rosenberg comments today on the real reason why humanity isn't making progress as to space travel.

Says Rosenberg:

It is tragic beyond measure that human exploration has been neutered since 1972. Sure, we’ve sent out a few probes and placed a good telescope in orbit, but we have done nothing brave, nothing bold, nothing daring. Productive humans have been delegated to mute observance as their hard-earned surplus is syphoned off to capital cities, where it is sanctimoniously poured down a sewer of cultured dependencies and endless wars.
We remain locked onto this planet, not because we lack the ability to leave, but because so few of us are able to do anything about it.
What we have lost can be measured only in the billions of unactivated lives. Fifty years ago humanity was shocked to realize that they could go to the stars. After untold millennia of looking to the heavens, of wondering, dreaming and mourning the impossibility, we saw that we could go to the stars. And for ten years we took our first brave steps, successfully!
But after our first major step away from our crib, we were thrown back and surrounded with double-height rails. Since then, we have stagnated, and human culture has undergone a widespread rot. We watch science fictions about going to space, living in space and even fighting in space, but we have given up all hope of going ourselves… even though we did it just one generation ago.
Humanity – having recently discovered the ability to expand without limit – wanders aimlessly, with no challenging goal, no elevated purpose, and no path of escape. Space travel has leapfrogged us: it was done by our fathers; we imagine that it will be done by our sons; but we dare not think that it is possible to us.
Read the rest here.

The Empire In Denial

Anthony Gregory writes on Obama's recent denial that America is an empire.

Says Gregory:

President Obama tries to have it both ways when talking of American foreign policy. He sold himself to the public in 2008 as a more prudential steward of U.S. power. He would avoid “dumb wars,” as he had called the Iraq fiasco in a speech years before. He would save money by bringing the troops home from that place, and direct the resources toward the domestic fiscal mess. He would abolish torture and end the Bush-era programs of indefinite detention and Patriot Act–style surveillance.
We all know that he’s disappointed many of his supporters in the realm of national security. The letters, “N S A,” tell us all we need to know. The truth, however, is that Obama has always embraced a very active role for U.S. militarism abroad, which puts serious limits on his ability to serve as a peace president, even if he wanted to. Indeed, in his speech to the UN, he denies the existence of American empire and cautions against too much restraint:
The notion of American empire may be useful propaganda, but it isn’t borne out by America’s current policy or public opinion. Indeed, as the recent debate within the United States over Syria clearly showed, the danger for the world is not an America that is eager to immerse itself in the affairs of other countries, or take on every problem in the region as its own. The danger for the world is that the United States, after a decade of war; rightly concerned about issues back home; and aware of the hostility that our engagement in the region has engendered throughout the Muslim World, may disengage, creating a vacuum of leadership that no other nation is ready to fill.
It is true that the American public has managed to restrain the U.S. government from waging another war, this time against Assad’s Syria. This is a new development, however. I can’t recall or think of any modern U.S. war, pushed by the president, and thwarted by public opinion. This has been a beautiful thing to see.

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

The Handshake That Never Happened - A Column by Justin Raimondo

"The Handshake That Never Happened"

by

Justin Raimondo

© 2013 AntiWar.com

The world waited with bated breath as the day approached: would President Obama’s speech to the UN General Assembly reflect positively on Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s “charm offensive” (as the Israelis derisively dub it)? Would the two meet upat a luncheon arranged by Ban Ki-Moon and – gasp! – actually shake hands?
We now know the answers to these two questions: no, and certainly not.
It’s funny how subjective impressions can be. People often hear their hopes rather than what is actually being said: here’s Phil Weiss, over at the militantly anti-Zionist MondoWeiss web site, who sees in Obama’s speech evidence of a "bold opening to Iran," all but proclaiming the beginning of a new era in US-Iranian relations. On the other hand, here’s Max Fisher over at the Washington Post with a much more sober – and, I would say, more accurate – assessment.
Rouhani never showed up at the luncheon, and therefore the handshake that was supposed to have shaken the world never happened. Maybe he’d had a big breakfast and just wasn’t that hungry – or maybe he lost his appetite after listening to Obama’s speech. I’m betting on the latter.
I’ll pass over the obvious lies – obvious, at least, to those who follow these issues closely – such as the one about how "all our troops have left Iraq” (not so), and this realknee-slapper:
"We have limited the use of drones so they target only those who pose a continuing imminent threat to the United States where capture is not feasible and there’s a near certainty of no civilian casualties."
Oy. And here’s one that sticks out like a sore Snowden: according to Obama, we’re reviewing "the way that we gather intelligence so that we properly balance the legitimate security concerns of our citizens and allies with the privacy concerns that all people share."
But never mind the lies, let’s look at where he’s being truthful. We’ll have to leave out the part where he claims the only concern that prompted him to call for a military strike on Syria was the alleged use of chemical weapons by the regime of Bashar al-Assad – because we all know the US and its Saudi ally have been engaged in a regime change operation there for at least a year if not more. But there was a glint of truth amid the smoke and mirrors when Obama said:
"It’s an insult to human reason and to the legitimacy of this institution to suggest that anyone other than the regime carried out this attack."
Notice the careful wording: "this attack." The Ghouta incident is separate from three others – one in the village of Khan al-Asal, outside Aleppo, where the regime (and their Russian backers) contend the rebels used some kind of poison gas to take the town. (The location of the other two incidents were kept under wraps "for security reasons.") This was the reason the Assad government let the UN inspectors in to begin with: Damascus was hoping the UN team would verify their accusations, when it just so happened that the Ghouta incident occurred not four miles from where the inspectors were staying.
Oh, but never mind: that was then, and this is now. Citing the agreement with Putin to iron out the terms of dismantling Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal, Obama takes a hard line:
"Now there must be a strong Security Council resolution to verify that the Assad regime is keeping its commitments. And there must be consequences if they fail to do so. If we cannot agree even on this, then it will show that the United Nations is incapable of enforcing the most basic of international laws."

Some News On An Alleged Coming Power Grid Blackout

Dear friends and readers of Letter of Liberty:

I just found out recently that there is news of some upcoming power-grid blackout, so I decided to link to three articles on this issue.

Scott Lazarowitz gives his comments. 
Daisy Luther addresses this issue.
BenSwann.com comments.

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Letter of Liberty News Edition (9-24-2013)

Here is Tuesday's News Edition.

Fred Reed takes an inside look at the defense industry.

A Russian analysis on what stops the American government from bombing Syria

Pat Buchanan asks whether Iran is the Fourth Reich. He says it is not.

"China on Trial": An Article by Justin Raimondo

David Gordon on why America's current economy is not a free market

Jonathan Goodwin on the isolationist American foreign policy

Jacob Hornberger on the murder of Frank Teruggi

Sheldon Richman on the roots of Kenyan massacre in America's Somalia policy

Steve Mariotti on saving the Ludwig von Mises Papers

Walter Williams on honesty and trust in the free market

James Altucher on the lies we tell ourselves

John Whitehead on the real purpose of Common Core

Ron Paul on how the Internet sales tax could crush small businesses

Jon Rappoport on how psychiatry targets college students for destruction

Michael Snyder gives us the truth about QE.

Marc Clair on America's most insidious export

John C. Goodman on the good, bad and ugly of the GOP's healthcare plan

Brian McWilliams shows us that the mouth of Brazilians has something to teach America about freedom.

Michael Lotfi on the top ten moments in conservative history

When the state floods the zone, reform is dead.

Ludwig von Mises has some words for Pope Francis.

Where are all the female libertarian economists?

Jeff Tucker on how corporate America is going off the grid

Libertarian philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe says that Bitcoin isn't money.

Jonathan Goodwin warns the Pope not to decry the wrong evil.

Robert Wenzel on the commie pinko about to be NYC mayor


Saturday, September 21, 2013

Matt Welch and Jeremy Scahill on Executive-Branch "Dictatorship"

Matt Welch, editor-in-chief of Reason, interviews Jeremy Scahill, author of Dirty Wars, on the burgeoning executive "dictatorship."

Here is an excerpt from the interview:

reason Editor in Chief Matt Welch sat down with Scahill in June to talk about the way America now conducts its covert wars, how Obama intervened to keep a respected Yemeni journalist in jail, and what “human rights” can possibly mean when the entire world is a battlefield. To watch video of this interview, scan the QR code at bottom left or go toreason.com.
reason: Most people know about the Authorization for the Use of Military Force on September 14, 2001, which was signed into law on September 18. You say there was another, more secretive finding signed into law on September 17, 2001, that is even more momentous. Tell us about that. 
Jeremy Scahill: Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld came into office with an agenda. I mean, they of course had no way of knowing 9/11 was going to happen, [but] they really wanted to conduct what Rumsfeld called a “revolution in military affairs,” and to transform the way that the U.S. military operated around the world. Those guys—and also President Obama, [he] views this the same way—they saw the executive branch as operating a dictatorship when it came to national security policy. Cheney thought of Iran-Contra not as a scandal but as the model for how U.S. foreign policy should be waged. 
So when 9/11 happened, they already had their hands on the levers, and they started to issue a series of secret presidential directives that would authorize the CIA and U.S. special operations forces to conduct what are called kinetic operations—either kill or capture operations in a variety of countries across the world—and to have minimal to no congressional oversight. They started a program called Greystone—the abbreviation for it was GST internally—and that was the umbrella under which many of what are now viewed as the more unsavory things that were done during the Bush era were conducted. The black sites of the CIA were set up, the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques, and the snatching of people from both declared battlefields such as Afghanistan and other countries around the world. Basically, they created an archipelago of black sites, interrogation centers, and started to develop alternative legal reasoning for prosecuting what they started to call a Global War on Terror. 
reason: Part of this was to remove the usual functions of oversight. But there had been snatch operations before. There had even been assassination authority, though seldom used. Walk us through what changed from a legal point of view.
Scahill: Gerald Ford was the first president to put on the books a ban, or a supposed ban, on assassinations. It’s not that Ford was some great opponent of assassination; it’s that there was this scandalous period where the CIA had been involved with a number of coups, with various targeted killing operations, with overthrowing democratically elected governments, supporting juntas, and there were very aggressive congressional investigations—the Church Committee, [named after] former Sen. Frank Church of Idaho, and others. And so Ford, coming out of the Nixon era, decided that he was going to issue an order saying that it’s the policy of the United States that we do not conduct assassinations. What’s interesting is that every president since has updated or renewed some version of that executive order. Congress has never passed a law saying that the United States doesn’t assassinate. My thinking is that Congress doesn’t want to take up that question. 
Every president from Ford to the present has engaged in something that I think reasonable people could argue is assassination. President Clinton was directly targeting Saddam Hussein’s palaces. President Reagan attempted to kill Qaddafi. President George W. Bush was involved in all sorts of targeted killing operations that they refused to call assassinations. You had this era preceding 9/11 where every president sort of found a way around it, and Congress didn’t want to take up the question. 
Under President Clinton—and a lot of liberals don’t like to talk about this—that’s when the “rendition” program was started: Clinton was the first president to really create a policy framework for snatching people in countries and not sending them to CIA black sites [but] sending them to Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt, or Assad’s Syria, or in some cases Qaddafi’s Libya, where people could be interrogated, sometimes with U.S. personnel in the room. It was a way of saying, “We’re not doing this, but we’re facilitating or aiding other governments in their fight against terrorism or extremism.” 
When 9/11 happened, the CIA created its own network of black sites, and instead of sending [prisoners] exclusively to third countries, the CIA started taking custody of them and interrogating them on their own. So there’s been a continuous arc of U.S. policy toward escalating the use of assassination, although rebranding it as something else, and using secret prisons, either other countries’ or in the case of the first six or so years of the Bush administration, actual black sites run by the CIA.
reason: You talk of this pivotal moment when we go from the tradition of illegal or rare kinds of snatch programs to this world that we’ve had since September 11. That moment was the case of [Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi] in 2002. Tell us about that.
Scahill: There’s this book by a former senior FBI interrogator, Ali Soufan, called The Black Banners. Ali Soufan tells this story about how really early after 9/11, the Clinton Doctrine was still on the books for how terrorism was viewed, which was basically a law enforcement approach. The Clinton folks had created what Richard Clarke, the former senior counterterrorism adviser, called an almost Talmudic set of qualifications in order to conduct an actual targeted killing operation. 

Drones Away

Shane Harris of Reason.com comments on the perils and promises of the coming drone revolution.

Says Harris:

Most drones don’t kill. Instead, they like to watch. We usually think of the small, unmanned aerial vehicles in terms of grainy overhead shots of desert explosions, but less than 5 percent of the U.S. overseas drone arsenal consists of those lethal Predators and Reapers. The remainder are mostly Peeping Toms engaged in overhead reconnaissance and surveillance.
The military is planning for a future that relies more on drones than it does on manned planes. The next generation of jet fighters may be the last one with human beings in the cockpit. The next model of surveillance aircraft is already being designed as “pilot optional.”Drones particularly like to shoot video. Thousands upon thousands of hours of it, most of which will never be viewed by human eyes. The National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, which analyzes much of the military’s drone footage, has more than 416,000 hours’ worth of it in digital storage, with more added all the time.
But the military’s insatiable appetite for robot planes is no match for the market in domestic drones that’s poised for takeoff. A drone revolution is coming, and in only a few short years you’ll be able to look up and see it with your own eyes. In fact, you won’t be able to miss it. And it won’t be able to miss you.
Drones will take flight in a host of commercial industries, from agriculture to logistics. They’ll be deployed by SWAT teams, border patrol agents, and traffic cops. If you can imagine a task being performed right now with a set of human eyes, there’s probably a drone sitting on the runway waiting to do the job. Drones work without pay, don’t eat or sleep, and in the not-too-distant future they may be able to use solar power to stay aloft for hours. And they’ll do most of this work—taking off, gathering intelligence, transmitting signals, landing—entirely on their own.
This technological progress will come at a price. If you thought the debate over drones in combat was intense, wait until their flying eyes are on you around the clock. Profound moral dilemmas about privacy, profit, and autonomous machines await us. You won’t be able to escape the drones’ gaze. But maybe you won’t want to.

Friday, September 20, 2013

Today on the Reformed Libertarian

Today on The Reformed Libertarian, my article "Addressing Common Arguments Against Drug Legalization" was published.

For more articles on my blog at The Reformed Libertarian, see here.

Confessions of A Right-Wing Liberal

In this classic 1968 piece from Murray N. Rothbard originally published in Rampart Journal of Individualist Thought, Murray Rothbard here shows his revolt against the American right-wing during the time it shifted from the libertarianism of its early days as typified by Albert Jay Nock, H. L. Mencken, Rose Wilder Lane and Frank Chodorov to the hardline, hawkish, and downright statist neoconservatism as typified by William F. Buckley, Jr., James Burnham, and the new group of neoconservatives. It was reprinted from LewRockwell.com. The description on that website states, "Here Rothbard presents a rationale for why he and others had, by 1968, largely given up on the Right as a viable reform movement toward liberty, realized that the Right was squarely on the side of power, and thereby developed an alternative intellectual historiography. The relevance of this essay in our own time hardly needs to be explained, given the record on liberty of the Republican president, congress, and judiciary, to say nothing of conservative and right-wing media."

Twenty years ago I was an extreme right-wing Republican, a young and lone "Neanderthal" (as the liberals used to call us) who believed, as one friend pungently put it, that "SenatorTaft had sold out to the socialists." Today, I am most likely to be called an extreme leftist, since I favor immediate withdrawal from Vietnam, denounce U.S. imperialism, advocate Black Power and have just joined the new Peace and Freedom Party. And yet my basic political views have not changed by a single iota in these two decades!
It is obvious that something is very wrong with the old labels, with the categories of "left" and "right," and with the ways in which we customarily apply these categories to American political life. My personal odyssey is unimportant; the important point is that if I can move from "extreme right" to "extreme left" merely by standing in one place, drastic though unrecognized changes must have taken place throughout the American political spectrum over the last generation.
I joined the right-wing movement — to give a formal name to a very loose and informal set of associations — as a young graduate student shortly after the end of World War II. There was no question as to where the intellectual right of that day stood on militarism and conscription: it opposed them as instruments of mass slavery and mass murder. Conscription, indeed, was thought far worse than other forms of statist controls and incursions, for while these only appropriated part of the individual’s property, the draft, like slavery, took his most precious possession: his own person. Day after day the veteran publicist John T. Flynn — once praised as a liberal and then condemned as a reactionary, with little or no change in his views — inveighed implacably in print and over the radio against militarism and the draft. Even the Wall Street newspaper, the Commercial and Financial Chronicle, published a lengthy attack on the idea of conscription.
All of our political positions, from the free market in economics to opposing war and militarism, stemmed from our root belief in individual liberty and our opposition to the state. Simplistically, we adopted the standard view of the political spectrum: "left" meant socialism, or total power of the state; the further "right" one went the less government one favored. Hence, we called ourselves "extreme rightists."
Originally, our historical heroes were such men as Jefferson, Paine, Cobden, Bright and Spencer; but as our views became purer and more consistent, we eagerly embraced such near-anarchists as the voluntarist, Auberon Herbert, and the American individualist-anarchists, Lysander Spooner and Benjamin R. Tucker. One of our great intellectual heroes was Henry David Thoreau, and his essay, "Civil Disobedience," was one of our guiding stars. Right-wing theorist Frank Chodorov devoted an entire issue of his monthly, Analysis, to an appreciation of Thoreau.
In our relation to the remainder of the American political scene, we of course recognized that the extreme right of the Republican Party was not made up of individualist anti-statists, but they were close enough to our position to make us feel part of a quasi-libertarian united front. Enough of our views were present among the extreme members of the Taft wing of the Republican Party (much more so than in Taft himself, who was among the most liberal of that wing), and in such organs as the Chicago Tribune, to make us feel quite comfortable with this kind of alliance.
What is more, the right-wing Republicans were major opponents of the Cold War. Valiantly, the extreme rightist Republicans, who were particularly strong in the House, battled conscription, NATO and the Truman Doctrine. Consider, for example, Omaha’s Representative Howard Buffett, Senator Taft’s midwestern campaign manager in 1952. He was one of the most extreme of the extremists, once described by The Nation as "an able young man whose ideas have tragically fossilized."
I came to know Buffett as a genuine and thoughtful libertarian. Attacking the Truman Doctrine on the floor of Congress, he declared: "Even if it were desirable, America is not strong enough to police the world by military force. If that attempt is made, the blessings of liberty will be replaced by coercion and tyranny at home. Our Christian ideals cannot be exported to other lands by dollars and guns."
When the Korean War came, almost the entire old left, with the exception of the Communist Party, surrendered to the global mystique of the United Nations and "collective security against aggression," and backed Truman’s imperialist aggression in that war. Even Corliss Lamont backed the American stand in Korea. Only the extreme rightist Republicans continued to battle U.S. imperialism. It was the last great political outburst of the old right of my youth.
Howard Buffett was convinced that the United States was largely responsible for the eruption of conflict in Korea; for the rest of his life he tried unsuccessfully to get the Senate Armed Services Committee to declassify the testimony of CIA head Admiral Hillenkoeter, which Buffett told me established American responsibility for the Korean outbreak. The last famous isolationist move came late in December 1950, after the Chinese forces had beaten the Americans out of North Korea. Joseph P. Kennedy and Herbert Hoover delivered two ringing speeches back-to-back calling for American evacuation of Korea. As Hoover put it, "To commit the sparse ground forces of the non-communist nations into a land war against this communist land mass [in Asia] would be a war without victory, a war without a successful political terminal . . . that would be the graveyard of millions of American boys" and the exhaustion of the United States. Joe Kennedy declared that "if portions of Europe or Asia wish to go communistic or even have communism thrust upon them, we cannot stop it."
To this The Nation replied with typical liberal Red-baiting: "The line they are laying down for their country should set the bells ringing in the Kremlin as nothing has since the triumph of Stalingrad"; and the New Republic actually saw Stalin sweeping onwards "until the Stalinist caucus in the Tribune Tower would bring out in triumph the first communist edition of the Chicago Tribune."
The main catalyst for transforming the mass base of the right wing from an isolationist and quasi-libertarian movement to an anti-communist one was probably "McCarthyism." Before Senator Joe McCarthy launched his anti-communist crusade in February 1950, he had not been particularly associated with the right wing of the Republican Party; on the contrary, his record was liberal and centrist, statist rather than libertarian.
Furthermore, Red-baiting and anti-communist witch-hunting were originally launched by liberals, and even after McCarthy the liberals were the most effective at this game. It was, after all, the liberal Roosevelt Administration which passed the Smith Act, first used againstTrotskyites and isolationists during World War II and then against communists after the war; it was the liberal Truman Administration that instituted loyalty checks; it was the eminently liberal Hubert Humphrey who was a sponsor of the clause in the McCarran Act of 1950 threatening concentration camps for "subversives."
McCarthy not only shifted the focus of the right to communist hunting, however. His crusade also brought into the right wing a new mass base. Before McCarthy, the rank-and-file of the right wing was the small-town, isolationist middle west. McCarthyism brought into the movement a mass of urban Catholics from the eastern seaboard, people whose outlook on individual liberty was, if anything, negative.
If McCarthy was the main catalyst for mobilizing the mass base of the new right, the major ideological instrument of the transformation was the blight of anti-communism, and the major carriers were Bill Buckley and National Review.
In the early days, young Bill Buckley often liked to refer to himself as an "individualist," sometimes even as an "anarchist." But all these libertarian ideals, he maintained, had to remain in total abeyance, fit only for parlor discussion, until the great crusade against the "international communist conspiracy" had been driven to a successful conclusion. Thus, as early as January 1952, I noted with disquiet an article that Buckley wrote for Commonweal, "A Young Republican’s View."
He began the article in a splendid libertarian manner: our enemy, he affirmed, was the state, which, he quoted Spencer, was "begotten of aggression and by aggression." But then came the worm in the apple: the anti-communist crusade had to be waged. Buckley went on to endorse "the extensive and productive tax laws that are needed to support a vigorous anti-communist foreign policy"; he declared that the "thus far invincible aggressiveness of the Soviet Union" imminently threatened American security, and that therefore "we have to accept Big Government for the duration — for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged . . . except through the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores." Therefore, he concluded — in the midst of the Korean War — we must all support "large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards and the attendant centralization of power in Washington."
The right wing, never articulate, has not had many organs of opinion. Therefore, when Buckley founded National Review in late 1955, its erudite, witty and glib editorials and articles swiftly made it the only politically relevant journal for the American right. Immediately, the ideological line of the right began to change sharply.
One element that gave special fervor and expertise to the Red-baiting crusade was the prevalence of ex-communists, ex-fellow travelers and ex-Trotskyites among the writers whom National Review brought into prominence on the right-wing scene. These ex-leftists wereconsumed with an undying hatred for their former love, along with a passion for bestowing enormous importance upon their apparently wasted years. Almost the entire older generation of writers and editors for National Review had been prominent in the old left. Some names that come to mind are: Jim Burnham, John Chamberlain, Whittaker Chambers, Ralph DeToledano, Will Herberg, Eugene Lyons, J. B. Matthews, Frank S. Meyer, William S. Schlamm and Karl Wittfogel.
An insight into the state of mind of many of these people came in a recent letter to me from one of the most libertarian of this group; he admitted that my stand in opposition to the draft was the only one consistent with libertarian principles, but, he said, he can’t forget how nasty the communist cell in Time magazine was in the 1930′s. The world is falling apart and yet these people are still mired in the petty grievances of faction fights of long ago!
Anti-communism was the central root of the decay of the old libertarian right, but it was not the only one. In 1953, a big splash was made by the publication of Russell Kirk’s TheConservative Mind. Before that, no one on the right regarded himself as a "conservative"; "conservative" was considered a left smear word. Now, suddenly, the right began to glory in the term "conservative," and Kirk began to make speaking appearances, often in a kind of friendly "vital center" tandem with Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
This was to be the beginning of the burgeoning phenomenon of the friendly-though-critical dialogue between the liberal and conservative wings of the Great Patriotic American Consensus. A new, younger generation of rightists, of "conservatives," began to emerge, who thought that the real problem of the modern world was nothing so ideological as the state vs. individual liberty or government intervention vs. the free market; the real problem, they declared, was the preservation of tradition, order, Christianity and good manners against the modern sins of reason, license, atheism and boorishness.
One of the first dominant thinkers of this new right was Buckley’s brother-in-law, L. Brent Bozell, who wrote fiery articles in National Review attacking liberty even as an abstract principle (and not just as something to be temporarily sacrificed for the benefit of the anti-communist emergency). The function of the state was to impose and enforce moral and religious principles.
Another repellent political theorist who made his mark in National Review was the late Willmoore Kendall, NR editor for many years. His great thrust was the right and the duty of the majority of the community — as embodied, say, in Congress — to suppress any individual who disturbs that community with radical doctrines. Socrates, opined Kendall, not only should have been killed by the Greek community, whom he offended by his subversive criticisms, but it was their moral duty to kill him.
The historical heroes of the new right were changing rapidly. Mencken, Nock, Thoreau, Jefferson, Paine — all these either dropped from sight or were soundly condemned as rationalists, atheists or anarchists. From Europe, the "in" people were now such despotic reactionaries as Burke, Metternich, DeMaistre; in the United States, Hamilton and Madison were "in," with their stress on the imposition of order and a strong, elitist central government— which included the southern "slavocracy."
For the first few years of its existence, I moved in National Review circles, attended its editorial luncheons, wrote articles and book reviews for the magazine; indeed, there was talk at one time of my joining the staff as an economics columnist.
I became increasingly alarmed, however, as NR and its friends grew in strength because I knew, from innumerable conversations with rightist intellectuals, what their foreign policy goal was. They never quite dared to state it publicly, although they would slyly imply it and would try to whip the public up to the fever pitch of demanding it. What they wanted — and still want — was nuclear annihilation of the Soviet Union. They want to drop that Bomb on Moscow. (Of course, on Peking and Hanoi too, but for your veteran anti-communist — especially back then — it is Russia which supplies the main focus of his venom.) A prominent editor of National Review once told me: "I have a vision, a great vision of the future: a totally devastated Soviet Union." I knew that it was this vision that really animated the new conservatism.
In response to all this, and seeing peace as the crucial political issue, a few friends and I became Stevensonian Democrats in 1960. I watched with increasing horror as the right wing, led by National Review, continually grew in strength and moved ever closer to real political power.
Having broken emotionally with the right wing, our tiny group of libertarians began to rethink many of our old, unexamined premises. First, we restudied the origins of the Cold War. We read our D.F. Fleming and we concluded, to our considerable surprise, that the United States was solely at fault in the Cold War, and that Russia was the aggrieved party. And this meant that the great danger to the peace and freedom of the world came not from Moscow or "international communism," but from the U.S. and its Empire stretching across and dominating the world.
And then we studied the foul European conservatism that had taken over the right wing; here we had statism in a virulent form, and yet no one could possibly think these conservatives to be "leftist." But this meant that our simple "left/total government — right/nogovernment" continuum was altogether wrong and that our whole identification of ourselves as "extreme rightists" must contain a basic flaw. Plunging back into history, we again concentrated on the reality that in the 19th century, laissez-faire liberals and radicals were on the extreme left and our ancient foes, the conservatives, on the right. My old friend and libertarian colleague Leonard Liggio then came up with the following analysis of the historical process.
First there was the old order, the ancien rĂ©gime, the regime of caste and frozen status, of exploitation by a despotic ruling class, using the church to dupe the masses into accepting its rule. This was pure statism; this was the right wing. Then, in 17th and 18th century western Europe, a liberal and radical opposition movement arose, our heroes, who championed a popular revolutionary movement on behalf of rationalism, individual liberty, minimal government, free markets, international peace and separation of church and state, in opposition to throne and altar, to monarchy, the ruling class, theocracy and war. These — "our people" — were the left, and the purer their vision the more "extreme" they were.
So far so good; but what of socialism, which we had always considered the extreme left? Where did that fit in? Liggio analyzed socialism as a confused middle-of-the-road movement, influenced historically by both the libertarian left and the conservative right. From the individualist left the socialists took the goals of freedom: the withering away of the state, the replacement of the governing of men by the administration of things, opposition to the ruling class and a search for its overthrow, the desire to establish international peace, an advanced industrial economy and a high standard of living for the mass of the people. From the right the socialists adopted the means to achieve these goals — collectivism, state planning, community control of the individual. This put socialism in the middle of the ideological spectrum. It also meant that socialism was an unstable, self-contradictory doctrine bound to fly apart in the inner contradiction between its means and ends.
Our analysis was greatly bolstered by our becoming familiar with the new and exciting group of historians who studied under University of Wisconsin historian William Appleman Williams. From them we discovered that all of us free marketeers had erred in believing that somehow, down deep, Big Businessmen were really in favor of laissez-faire, and that their deviations from it, obviously clear and notorious in recent years, were either "sellouts" of principle to expediency or the result of astute maneuverings by liberal intellectuals.
This is the general view on the right; in the remarkable phrase of Ayn Rand, Big Business is "America’s most persecuted minority." Persecuted minority, indeed! Sure, there were thrusts against Big Business in the old McCormick Chicago Tribune and in the writings of Albert Jay Nock; but it took the Williams-Kolko analysis to portray the true anatomy and physiology of the American scene.
As Kolko pointed out, all the various measures of federal regulation and welfare statism that left and right alike have always believed to be mass movements against Big Business are not only now backed to the hilt by Big Business, but were originated by it for the very purpose of shifting from a free market to a cartelized economy that would benefit it. Imperialistic foreign policy and the permanent garrison state originated in the Big Business drive for foreign investments and for war contracts at home.
The role of the liberal intellectuals is to serve as "corporate liberals," weavers of sophisticated apologias to inform the masses that the heads of the American corporate state are ruling on behalf of the "common good" and the "general welfare" — like the priest in the Oriental despotism who convinced the masses that their emperor was all-wise and divine.
Since the early ’60s, as the National Review right has moved nearer to political power, it has jettisoned its old libertarian remnants and has drawn ever closer to the liberals of the GreatAmerican Consensus. Evidence of this abounds. There is Bill Buckley’s ever-widening popularity in the mass media and among liberal intellectuals, as well as widespread admiration on the intellectual right for people and groups it once despised: for the New Leader, for Irving Kristol, for the late Felix Frankfurter (who always opposed judicial restraint on government invasions of individual liberty), for Hannah Arendt and Sidney Hook. Despite occasional bows to the free market, conservatives have come to agree that economic issues are unimportant; they therefore accept — or at least do not worry about — the major outlines of the Keynesian welfare-warfare state of liberal corporatism.
On the domestic front, virtually the only conservative interests are to suppress Negroes ("shoot looters," "crush those riots"), to call for more power for the police so as not to "shield the criminal" (i.e., not to protect his libertarian rights), to enforce prayer in the public schools, to put Reds and other subversives and "seditionists" in jail and to carry on the crusade for war abroad. There is little in the thrust of this program with which liberals can now disagree; any disagreements are tactical or matters of degree only. Even the Cold War — including the war in Vietnam — was begun and maintained and escalated by the liberals themselves.
No wonder that liberal Daniel Moynihan — a national board member of ADA incensed at the radicalism of the current anti-war and Black Power movements — should recently call for a formal alliance between liberals and conservatives, since after all they basically agree on these, the two crucial issues of our time! Even Barry Goldwater has gotten the message; in January 1968 in National Review, Goldwater concluded an article by affirming that he is not against liberals, that liberals are needed as a counterweight to conservatism, and that he had in mind a fine liberal like Max Lerner — Max Lerner, the epitome of the old left, the hated symbol of my youth!
In response to our isolation from the right, and noting the promising signs of libertarian attitudes in the emerging new left, a tiny band of us ex-rightist libertarians founded the "little journal," Left and Right, in the spring of 1965. We had two major purposes: to make contact with libertarians already on the new left and to persuade the bulk of libertarians or quasi-libertarians who remained on the right to follow our example. We have been gratified in both directions: by the remarkable shift toward libertarian and anti-statist positions of the new left, and by the significant number of young people who have left the right-wing movement.
This left/right tendency has begun to be noticeable on the new left, praised and damned by those aware of the situation.
(Our old colleague Ronald Hamoway, an historian at Stanford, set forth the left/right position in the New Republic collection, Thoughts of the Young Radicals [1966.) We have received gratifying encouragement from Carl Oglesby who, in his Containment and Change(1967), advocated a coalition of new left and old right, and from the young scholars grouped around the unfortunately now defunct Studies on the Left. We’ve also been criticized, ifindirectly, by Staughton Lynd, who worries because our ultimate goals — free market as against socialism — differ.
Finally, liberal historian Martin Duberman, in a recent issue of Partisan Review, sharply criticizes SNCC and CORE for being "anarchists," for rejecting the authority of the state, for insisting that community be voluntary, and for stressing, along with SDS, participatory instead of representative democracy. Perceptively, if on the wrong side of the fence, Duberman then links SNCC and the new left with us old rightists: "SNCC and CORE, like the Anarchists, talk increasingly of the supreme importance of the individual. They do so, paradoxically, in a rhetoric strongly reminiscent of that long associated with the right. It could be Herbert Hoover….but it is in fact Rap Brown who now reiterates the Negro’s need to stand on his own two feet, to make his own decisions, to develop self-reliance and a sense of self-worth. SNCC may be scornful of present-day liberals and ‘statism,’ but it seems hardly torealize that the laissez-faire rhetoric it prefers derives almost verbatim from the classic liberalism of John Stuart Mill." Tough. It could, I submit, do a lot worse.
I hope to have demonstrated why a few compatriots and I have shifted, or rather been shifted, from "extreme right" to "extreme left" in the past 20 years merely by staying in the same basic ideological place. The right wing, once in determined opposition to Big Government, has now become the conservative wing of the American corporate state and its foreign policy of expansionist imperialism. If we would salvage liberty from this deadening left/right fusion on the center, this needs be done through a counter-fusion of old right and new left.
James Burnham, an editor of National Review and its main strategic thinker in waging the "Third World War" (as he entitles his column), the prophet of the managerial state (in The Managerial Revolution), whose only hint of positive interest in liberty in a lifetime of political writing was a call for legalized firecrackers, recently attacked the dangerous trend among some young conservatives to make common cause with the left in opposing the draft. Burnham warned that he learned in his Trotskyite days that this would be an "unprincipled" coalition, and he warned that if one begins by being anti-draft one might wind up opposed to the war in Vietnam: "And I rather think that some of them are at heart, or are getting to be, against the war. Murray Rothbard has shown how right-wing libertarianism can lead to almost as anti-U.S. a position as left-wing libertarianism does. And a strain of isolationism has always been endemic in the American right."
This passage symbolizes how deeply the whole thrust of the right wing has changed in the last two decades. Vestigial interest in liberty or in opposition to war and imperialism are now considered deviations to be stamped out without delay. There are millions of Americans, I am convinced, who are still devoted to individual liberty and opposition to the leviathan state at home and abroad, Americans who call themselves "conservatives" but feel that something has gone very wrong with the old anti-New Deal and anti-Fair Deal cause.
Something has gone wrong: the right wing has been captured and transformed by elitists and devotees of the European conservative ideals of order and militarism, by witch hunters and global crusaders, by statists who wish to coerce "morality" and suppress "sedition."
America was born in a revolution against Western imperialism, born asa haven of freedom against the tyrannies and despotism, the wars and intrigues of the old world. Yet we have allowed ourselves to sacrifice the American ideals of peace and freedom and anti-colonialism on the altar of a crusade to kill communists throughout the world; we have surrendered our libertarian birthright into the hands of those who yearn to restore the Golden Age of the Holy Inquisition. It is about time that we wake up and rise up to restore our heritage.

Letter of Liberty News Edition (9-20-2013)

Here is the Friday edition of Letter of Liberty's News Edition

A Laissez-Faire Today letter on why America is freer than France for over 200 years (sarcasm)

Daniel Kuehn on why the conventional view on immigration is wrong

Paul Cantor on the zombie apocalypse in a DC comic

Lew Rockwell on why libertarians are the true champions of the common people

Peter Schiff on the taper that wasn't

Pat Buchanan on the continuing mission of the War Party, even as the sun peeks through the clouds of war

Justin Raimondo asks: "Is Peace Breaking Out?"

Ron Paul on his new book

Judge Andrew Napolitano on the worst Supreme Court decisions in all of American history

Rand Paul on the damages caused by a crucial drug-war weapon

Judge Napolitano on spying and lying

Chuck Baldwin on why gun control laws, not gun control, kill people

James Altucher on how he fooled his kids into not going to college

Jacob Hornberger on yet another debt-ceiling "crisis"

It seems there is going to be a graphic novel adaptation of the JFK assassination story.

Jeffrey Tucker on slut-shaming and coercion

Rachel Burger on why millennial-bashing is so Y2K

Charles Hugh Smith on why the higher education system is doomed

Kevin C of Team Gun Blogger on how to teach your kids about guns

Why did the SWAT team "stand down" at the Navy Yard shooting scene?

Ron Paul defines the core philosophy of libertarianism in his recent interview on the Charlie Rose Show

It seems that there is a biometric classroom with absolutely no privacy.

Karen Swallow Prior on the prodigal in all of us


Addressing Common Arguments Against Drug Legalization


Addressing Common Arguments Against Drug Legalization

Thanks to C. Jay Engel for his helpful suggestions.

The drug war is controversial among many sincere, Bible-believing Christians of all backgrounds. Some Christians support it wholly, holding that it is moral and biblical; others hold a middle-of-the-road approach to the drug war, accepting some aspects as biblical and condemning others as unbiblical; and still others wholly oppose the drug war as immoral and anti-liberty, and they oppose the drug war from a Christian standpoint, be they conservative, liberal or libertarian. I find myself in the third camp, and I will show you why.

First, I hold that the drug war is a war on liberty and freedom of choice. Second, I hold that the drug war is a war on the limited government system that the framers intended. And finally, I hold it to be a war on both federalism and civil liberties.

There are several pro-drug war arguments that are made against the Christian libertarian who opposes the drug war and I would like to take a look at them below.

1. The drug war is an agent of God to stand up for righteousness in this wicked era. This view is particularly popular among many fundamentalist or traditionalist Christians who are distressed at the wickedness of many modern-day youth, particularly since the 60s. The saying, “What one generation tolerates, the next generation embraces,” is particularly taken by them to be an example as to why we ought to have a war on drugs. S. Michael Houdmann, host of GotQuestions.org, says this in defense of the drug war: Marijuana has been called a gateway drug. If the high from marijuana is no longer sufficient, users will begin to seek after stronger illicit drugs, i.e., cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, etc. Further, once marijuana is legalized, it will become exceedingly easy for young people to gain access to it. We have already seen this firsthand in Colorado, as the use of marijuana among teenagers has skyrocketed since medical marijuana was legalized. The supposed requirement of a prescription has not been a deterrent. The legal requirement to be 21 years of age will not prevent young people from gaining access to marijuana just as it has not prevented them from gaining access to alcohol.” Later on he says, “Legalization legitimizes.” Now let's see if that's really true. Let's refer to Laurence M. Vance, a libertarian Christian author who specializes on the issues of war and the drug war. In his piece “Should Christians Support the Drug War?,” Vance says this, “We know that murder, robbery, and rape are both crimes and sins, but everything the state or the authorities brand a crime is not necessarily a sin. This has been true in all ages.” He later goes on to show that “Sin is 'whatsoever is not of faith' (Romans 14:23). Sin is transgressing the divine law (1 John 3:14). Sin is knowing to do good and doing it not (James 4:17). Sin is 'all unrighteousness' (1 John 5:17). But if not all crimes are sins, then why are some Christians often so quick to nod in agreement when it comes to the state's war on drugs? The only explanation is that some Christians think that disobeying the state is itself a crime. They have made the state into a god. They have violated the First Commandment.” As I said in my previous post on the compatibility of libertarianism and Christianity, “We should not make such vices criminal, as they are not; there are mere sins against one’s own body (or another body if any consensual sinner was involved).” Even conservative Christians don't want to criminalize every sin, just the ones they feel are too immoral to tolerate (like homosexual activity, non-biblical “marriages,” polygamy, same-sex “marriage,” drug usage, pornography). Later on, Vance shows us that “not all sins are crimes. If they were, then everyone would be in trouble, Christians included, for the Bible says that 'there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not' (Ecclesiastes 7:20).” He shows that the Christian should endorse the doctrine laid out by the nineteenth-century libertarian theorist and constitutional lawyer Lysander Spooner on vices and crimes: “Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property. Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another. Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property.” Vance says, “There are two types of victimless crimes: the immoral and the moral. This is because God's law never changes. What the state declares to be a crime one day can be declared not to be a crime the next day. Immoral victimless crimes are crimes that are sins in the eyes of God even if the state one day declares them not to be crimes; moral victimless crimes are crimes that have been labeled as such by the state that are not, in and of themselves, sins in the eyes of God. But either way, every crime needs a victim.” Thus, for example, take the example of wine. Let's say that the State returns to the days of Prohibition and bans all alcohol, including wine. Many Christians go back to supporting it due to the fact that since alcohol is dangerous, it should be banned, right? Well, whatever one holds to regarding the Bible and alcohol, we must recognize that it is not a sin per se and thus should not be banned. Even those who abstain from alcohol would oppose Prohibition. Anyways, the Apostle Paul didn't go around supporting legislation to criminalize immoral acts, and neither did Jesus Christ. The apostles didn't go around supporting legislation; in fact, the major support for such legislation came during the reign of the emperor Constantine, where the Catholic Church and the state were mixed. From thence on, in my view, many churches, both Protestant and Catholic, became more statist (and many remain so). This is not to say that true Christianity is statist in any sense but rather that churches has harbored many of anti-liberty proponents throughout history. This is to say, however, that the church has harbored some of the most anti-liberty proponents in church history. Of course, it is our position that it was unbiblical and even anti-Christian to do so. Unfortunately, many more “Protestants” during the 20th century celebrated Prohibition and, with the exception of few ministers such as the libertarian-leaning evangelical theologian J. Gresham Machen, supported it on the grounds that we must stamp out evil. It was in part based on an unbiblical nativism of sorts and an unhealthy view of Catholics, other Protestant groups and immigrants. And thus we proceed to the second argument for the drug war.

2. The drug war is necessary to help families. This is one of those highly emotional cases for the drug war, out of a sense of wanting to save families from the scourge of drugs. However, there is one book entitled Children of the Drug War, which is available for free download at the home page. It contains many essays on the damaging effects of the war on drugs, particularly this chapter “Dancing with Despair: A Mother's Perspective,” which is written by Gretchen Bergman. She says,
Our children are at the forefront of the war on drugs, and our families are the collateral damage. Instead of working in partnership with health care providers and criminal justice to intervene and usher a sick individual into proper services, families are stranded in our collective frustration and grief. There are an estimated 2.3 million people behind bars in the United States today (one in a hundred adults). Approximately one-quarter of those people held in U.S. prisons or jails have been convicted of a drug offense. Half a million people are incarcerated for drug crimes, more than the European Union incarcerates for all crimes, and they have 100 million more people. The United States represents 5 percent of the world’s population, but 25 percent of the world’s prison population. Now California has a $10 billion prison budget, largely because of drug offenses and drug related parole violations. California spends approximately $49,000 per year to house an inmate. Two-thirds of people admitted to prison in California are parole violators, which I find to be the absolute definition of 'revolving door' insanity (“Dancing with Despair: A Mother's Perspective” by Gretchen Burns Bergman in Children of the Drug War, edited by Damon Barrett, p. 124).

If this doesn't cause people to rethink some of their views on the drug war, then what will? Later on, Bergman goes on to state: “In many neighborhoods of color and/or poverty, it has become the norm to have a parent locked away in prison for drug use or drug-related behavior. The consequences of a drug conviction may include permanent loss of educational and employment opportunities...and in many states, the right to vote (ibid., pp. 124-25).” Anthony Gregory, in his article “The Right and the Drug War,” points out that “

If this doesn't cause people to rethink some of their views on the drug war, then what will? Later on, Bergman goes on to state: “In many neighborhoods of color and/or poverty, it has become the norm to have a parent locked away in prison for drug use or drug-related behavior. The consequences of a drug conviction may include permanent loss of educational and employment opportunities...and in many states, the right to vote (ibid., pp. 124-25).” Anthony Gregory, in his article “The Right and the Drug War,” points out that “
drug prohibition has achieved even more as a usurpation of traditional morality and the social order. Constitutionalism, states’ rights, subsidiarity, community norms, traditional medicine, family authority, and the role of the church have all been violently pushed aside to wage an impossibly ambitious national project to control people in the most intimate of ways. For years, the federal DARE program encouraged children to rat out their parents for minor drug offenses, an intrusion into family life all too reminiscent of Soviet Russia.” In response to those who claim that drugs harm families and thus should be illegal, the libertarian economist Art Carden points out: “These costs are all too real as the legacy of families torn apart by drug abuse suggests. If we are going to adopt this utilitarian line of reasoning, though, then we have to weigh the costs to families against the social costs created by the unintended consequences of the war on drugs. The drug war is an integral part of the rapidly growing American prison population. Outlawing marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and other drugs created a whole new class of crimes and moved traffic in psychoactive drugs out of the legitimate marketplace and into the black market.” Ifetayo Harvey, media intern for the Drug Policy Alliance, points out: “To ignore the impact of incarceration on the family is to ignore how the drug war continues to dismantle black and Latino communities. The United States' prison population -- fueled by the war on drugs -- is increasing, with blacks and Latinos being the majority of those incarcerated. 2.7 million children are growing up in U.S. households in which one or more parents are incarcerated. Two-thirds of these parents are incarcerated for nonviolent offenses, primarily drug offenses. One in nine black children has an incarcerated parent, compared to one in 28 Latino children and one in 57 white children.” A report from the ACLU (which has been endlessly mocked by Christians and conservatives both for good and bad reasons) shows that “the number of women with convictions, especially low-level drug-related convictions, has skyrocketed. Over the past two decades, the number of women in prison increased at a rate nearly double that of men. Women of color are disproportionately affected: African-American women are more than three times as likely as white women to be incarcerated, and Hispanic women are 69 percent more likely. Two thirds of women state prisoners are the mothers of minor children.” All of this is not intended to justify the usage of drugs within families, and this is not intent on whitewashing the evils of drugs that inflict many families. Still, is incarceration and criminalization of drugs really the answer?

3. The drug war is necessary to punish the evil drug lords. This is particularly popular among the classical law-and-order American conservatives who want to punish the drug lords, many of whom are connected with gangs, ensnare youth to join their gangs and commit violence against family members and innocent civilians, all while the black market in drugs grow. Thus, these conservatives hold that the drug war is necessary to keep the drug lords in jail. However, as many people have pointed out, it is precisely because of the drug war that drug lords create a black market where the drugs flourish and where they get their profits. This truth was immortalized in Steven Soderbergh's 2000 movie Traffic (which I haven't seen). They show that legalizing drugs will prevent the drug lords from enriching themselves. Ilana Mercer in 2001 points out that “Drug dealers are not responsible for the incarceration on any given day of some 500,000 adults--100,000 of whom are nonviolent--in U.S. jails for drug taking. It is not drug lords that carry out unconstitutional assaults on adults because they happen to choose to consume marijuana, heroin, or cocaine, instead of alcohol, nicotine, or prescription drugs. Governments do.” Only a government can oppress minorities, blacks and families. Only a government can put you in jail for consuming unapproved drugs instead of approved drugs, many of which may be more dangerous than the unapproved drugs. Anyways, as bad as drug lords may be, and as much as they need to be put in jail, they should be jailed not for selling the drugs but for sometimes using aggression as a means to do so. For example, if a drug dealer doesn't use violence in his selling of drugs, he shouldn't be arrested and locked up, but if a drug dealer uses criminal violence, he should be locked up.

4. But what about the children? This is the classic, timeless excuse for almost any state program pertaining to welfare, morality or whatnot. Bringing children in the picture can often help the state grow and increase its power. Take, for example, gun control. Many left-wing gun control supporters often bring up the alleged risk that guns bring to children, bringing up horror stories of children misusing guns and either inflicting harm on either themselves or others. However, many have pointed out that there are exaggerations in these stories. Another example would be the case of Prohibition. During the late nineteenth century and the rise of progressive ideas, many Christians and prohibitionists, especially women, latched onto worries that children will fall prey to “demon rum” and thus supported an amendment to ban Prohibition. Guess where that led? That led to people looking to harder alcohol and instead of looking to beer and wine, they consumed dangerous alcohol. And then we had Al Capone and those speakeasies. Anyways, Lew Rockwell points out in one of his articles,
The real issue concerns the locus of control. Does it belong to the family or the state? When there is a dispute, to whom does the presumption of innocence belong? It is not enough to say: here is a bad family environment, so of course the state should control the outcome. When it comes to the power of the state over the family, there is no such thing as a judicious use. The state has every reason to invent reasons to destroy families — and all other independent centers of authority — and the families themselves have no choice but to crawl and beg. State campaigns for the welfare of children have always been a major justification for the expansion of leviathan. This is the primary basis for the war on drugs, which has robbed us of so many civil liberties. It is the basis for the nationalization of education that is taking place, administration by administration, in the name of preventing any child from being left behind. If the internet is ever regulated in the US the way it is in China and parts of Europe, it will be in the name of protecting the children. Indeed, it is possible to erect a totalitarian state in the name of helping the children.
My conclusion then is that the drug war is not only immoral and unethical, but also that the arguments against it are unfounded and dangerous to liberty. Drugs should not be the target of government intervention. That is to say, all drugs should be legalized.