Violating individual rights inexcusable
(My Clovis News Journal column for April 25, 2014.)
I've seen some amusing illustrations going around the internet showing 1920s era prohibition enforcers, or their freelance supporters, smashing barrels of stolen "contraband" alcohol. The photos compare and contrast the earlier alcohol Prohibition with the current drug prohibition. The caption reads "Imagine how silly you'll look in ten years".
Silly, yes, but that's not the worst of it. It's much more serious than that.
In fact, just like the slave traders and those who enforced fugitive slave laws of the 19th century, the current prohibitionists will also eventually look downright evil to practically everyone. It may not be ten years, but it will happen.
Brave drug warriors in the same category as vile human traffickers? How is that possible? Because the "laws" they enforce are no more legitimate than the "laws" that made escaping slavery illegal. You can't excuse a violation of individual rights no matter how many "laws" you pass or how long you get away with enforcing those "laws".
In the name of health and safety, the earlier prohibitionists added poison to alcohol and killed thousands of people; around 50,000 died as a direct result of the government's unpublicized poisoning program. Many more were blinded or paralyzed. Actually, prohibitionists are still poisoning alcohol for the same perverted reason- that's what "denatured" means. Their crusade also created a culture of organized crime, and brought about police corruption that is still pervasive, and getting worse, in America today.
In the name of health and safety the current prohibitionists kill uncountable numbers, enslave many times more than that, and trample the rights and liberty of each and every one of us. Their crusade has fostered gang violence and a culture of police brutality. There is almost no part of the Constitution which hasn't been violated in the name of fighting the War on (Politically Incorrect) Drugs. This war is actually a war on Americans and their Rightful Liberty.
It's disturbing how many believe it's worth it.
When slavery was legal the excuse against abolition was often phrased as "But without slaves how will the cotton be picked?" Today it is "Without drug laws, who will protect society from drug users?" Well, if it is really necessary (which the experience of Portugal shows as a lie), then you'll just have to find a way which doesn't use made up rules which violate the human right of self determination. Prohibition, just like slavery, is an idea whose time has passed.
Why is opposing prohibition so important to me? Because it is the main justification for the police state which endangers liberty today. On a daily basis prohibition may even be worse than the war on terror.
.
Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self-ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are better.
KentForLiberty pages
▼
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Statism is all about inconsistency
All forms of statism are based on granting exceptions to some people at some times. They are not consistent.
Murder is wrong...unless you are a cop and can claim you just wanted to make it home at the end of your shift. So, statists grant the murderous cop an exemption while he's "on duty". His victim "deserved" it, you know.
Theft is wrong...unless you call it "taxation" and let some people take what isn't theirs while in the performance of their "job". How else can government afford to keep running (and ruining) our lives?
Kicking in someone's door while they sleep is wrong... unless you are an enforcer looking for scary little plants or chemicals. Or guns. Then, as long as you are doing the home invasion "on the job", you get an exemption for doing wrong- oh, you can't call it "wrong" either. And if the residents of the house manage to blow your worthless brains right back out the door, they get kidnapped and called murderers. So, even the defenders in this case get an exemption, but it's a bad one. They are told they are exempted from Natural Law and that they have no right to defend themselves from aggressors.
Statism is based on illegitimate exemptions, granted- or forced upon- some people in some circumstances. Consistency is statism's silver bullet- something it just can't abide.
.
Murder is wrong...unless you are a cop and can claim you just wanted to make it home at the end of your shift. So, statists grant the murderous cop an exemption while he's "on duty". His victim "deserved" it, you know.
Theft is wrong...unless you call it "taxation" and let some people take what isn't theirs while in the performance of their "job". How else can government afford to keep running (and ruining) our lives?
Kicking in someone's door while they sleep is wrong... unless you are an enforcer looking for scary little plants or chemicals. Or guns. Then, as long as you are doing the home invasion "on the job", you get an exemption for doing wrong- oh, you can't call it "wrong" either. And if the residents of the house manage to blow your worthless brains right back out the door, they get kidnapped and called murderers. So, even the defenders in this case get an exemption, but it's a bad one. They are told they are exempted from Natural Law and that they have no right to defend themselves from aggressors.
Statism is based on illegitimate exemptions, granted- or forced upon- some people in some circumstances. Consistency is statism's silver bullet- something it just can't abide.
.