Back in 2004 I put a clothespin on my nose and endorsed the Republicans over the Democrats. This was primarily because with a hot phase of a war against our sworn enemies in progress, the thought of Kerry in the White House just scared the hell out of me.
Several years on, as the Republicans continue to erode civil liberties and dig their snouts into the porker trough as deeply as any of the Democrats ever did, I am beginning to pray for enough of a Democratic success this fall to at the very least deadlock the government. The following, which I have just received from Downsize DC was the last straw:
The politicians want YOU to be a snitch
HR 1528 has already passed through one committee and appears likely to pass through another. This bill, if passed, will force you to inform on your neighbors if you have any knowledge of drug related activity. We’re not making this up. First it was illegal to deal drugs, then use them, and then to be caught with them. Now, Congressman James Sensenbrenner wants to send you to prison if you don’t inform on your neighbors! “Informing on neighbors” has always been a key feature of past totalitarian regimes. Is this really what we want for America? Click here to send your message to Congress opposing this law.
It is time to throw the bums out. The problem is, we already know their replacements are bums who are just as bad. The best we can say is a new bum is less experienced than an old bum and less capable of causing trouble for a few years.
I really wish we could get a few more libertarians into the asylum to jam a spanner into the works of government.
Unfortunately you can’t vote for a plague on both their houses. There’s one issue that really matters at the moment, which is the war against Islamic terrorism. It is being fought all over the world, not just in Iraq and Israel and must be defeated. The choice in the forthcoming US elections is clear. You can vote for a party which recognises the nature of the enemy and is determined to win the war, and a nature which believes America is the enemy and will surrender at the drop of a hat. I think this is a clear choice.
Samizdata is by its nature concerned by the intrusive nature of government, but when the choice comes down to being blown up by a bunch of Islamist terrorists or living in a country where the phone calls and bank transfers of terrorists are checked then I think the clothes peg should stay on your nose a little longer.
Ah so dropping bombs or firing tanks into a village in the hope of killing the baddies is ok. I at this time I think we are making the baddies look like hero’s.
Be that as it may, I do hope all of our Stateside readers go to the Downsize DC link and give congress a peice of their minds over this intolerable bit of extremist right wing police-statism.
As to the next elections, I will probably just endorse the Libertarian and vote for them as I have done all my life except for 2004… unless the Republicans nominate John McCain, in which case I might actually try to work for the Democrat just to make sure he is defeated. There is simply no way in hell I’d abide with seeing the Manchurian Candidate, author of McCain-Feingold, in power. It’s far more horrifying than Kerry. Kerry was only an idiot. McCain is not just evil, he is competently evil.
I just wish the police-state would stop forcing me to either pay for or support the drug addict’s drugs (like freebie methadone), drug rehabilitation, drug-addiction welfare, abortions for drug-addicted sluts, Islamist drug trade, etc, etc, etc.
Just goes to show Timothy ‘fry our brains for enlightenment’ Leary was a useful idiot whose insanity has always been embraced by the brain-dead masses.
The problem with Libertarians is that not everyone will be responsible for their own actions. Ultimately, the good guys end up paying the price for other’s idiocy.
Sometimes I have to wonder if the artist promotes the illusion of the cool and hip drug life so as to have something to drive the drama.
I am sick and tired of the emotional blackmail, if anyone wants to fry their brains feel free to do so however stop bludgeoning me with police-state tactic of forcing me to care for the fried brain when it crashes the day after.
That said, maybe Afghanistan would not be growing opium or Islamists in Canada cooking meth if not for Western Liberalism’s consumption of all things euphoric. Fcuk Timothy Leary.
The problem I see with Libertarian ideology is that not everyone will be responsible for their own actions and the further we move down the road to serfdom the less likely the unwashes mass will be capable of being responsible for themselves.
It isn’t the right that’s creating the police-state, it is the serfdom of Socialism creating this drugged totalitarian dream.
Actually, I met Dr. Leary in the early 1980’s when he was a strong advocate for space settlement. He was closer to a libertarian outlook than most other well known names from that period.
I have absolutely no problem with people putting anything in their bodies they so chose. They own their own bodies. It is the same for the rest of us in other ways. My body is *not* State Property. What I chose to do or not to do with it is my own free choice.
I agree that you should not have to pay for the life style choices of another. That is why we should repeal all laws regulating people’s use of their own bodies and also repeal all subsidies of any such use, regardless of whether a majority or minority believe it to be good or bad.
I am a free man, and if that means disobeying the law, then so be it. Should Sensenbrunner’s law pass, I will certainly (assuming I ever chose to return to the US) violate it at every opportunity.
We have just nicked your neighbour for growing pot.
So if you will slip into these handcuffs.
What for?
Well it’s a criminal offence not to inform the police of criminal activity.
But I didn’t know! He told me he was an insomniac fretwork enthusiast, who was addicted to sunbeds, hence the unearthly glow coming from his attic!!
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Book him Dano!!.
Cant see it catching on over here. Bad for business, neigh indeed health!
A friend in the police force told me that when The Police helecopter passed over Bristol recently with its thermal imaging on, they counted over 900 suspect light sources in Easton and St. Pauls alone.
The drug scam reminds me of the AIDS scam in that after all the emotional blackmail about finding a cure for AIDS we will spend billions of taxpaid money on voodoo science just because some dick ignored the responsibility of wearing a .50 cent condom.
Another problem I have with Libertarian ideology is that it encourages irresponsible behavior all for the sake of individual pleasure. Sort of like don’t blame the African man who believes that screwing virgins will cure him of AIDS or funding Planned Parenthood abortion becasue the condom interferes with the sensitivity factor.
Don’t fret about Sensenbrunner’s law passing it resembles too much like what the drug warlords encourage their army of drug dealers to do when it comes to snitching to the police about gang activity like murder, extortion, fraud, drug-dealing etc.
What Timothy Leary forgot in his drug-induced haze is that our own actions in pleasuring our own bodies do make an impact upon others and if the likes of Timothy Leary are not responsible for such individual actions then everyone else is force to pay the consequences.
It is obvious I detest big government serfdom since it is what creates an environment of dependancy in which the irresponsible individual can use as a means to garner sympathy (emotional blackmail) at the expense of those who do live their lives responsibily.
You may think you are a free man but Timothy Leary has created a culture in which you are enslaved to his pleasure.
Not to mention that there are also the arguments that (wrt hard drugs)
1) An affordable and medicinally pure drug addiction is often sustainable in the course of everyday life. The WOD is what causes addicts to resort to criminal activities.
2) The prohibition on drugs may actually be part of the cause of the current relatively high levels of usage.
I happen to agree with these arguments but won’t argue them here. There was a pretty good C4 documentary on the subject a few years ago that I wish I could get hold of again.
And in answer to the obvious accusations: Caffeine and an occasional glass of alcohol only.
Rich
You make assertions, I’d like to see some proof. The date on the site you link is 2005.
The Thomas(Link) record shows:
There hasn’t been any action on this in over a year. The bill had no co-sponsors. It looks dead in the water.
In other words, we are all forced travel down the road to serfdom because Timothy wants to be high without having to pay the price for his own individual pleasure.
I dont know how is the law in States or Britain but here in Portugal i suppose in most of Europe is that if you see any illegal activity or crime you should report to police.
Syn, you seem to have conflated libertarian with libertine. A major plank of libertarianism is that one is responsible for ones own actions.
Rich
No, his discussion bears with in it the assumption of a Welfare state and I wonder if he is upset that all those people getting ‘helped’ by the state are taking away from his National Health benefits.
This is why State welfare systems are incompatible with liberty. Once you begin ‘helping’ people, you then start worrying about keeping the costs down by ‘controlling’ actions which might cause some people to require more benefits. The Nanny State is a predictable outcome of the Welfare State.
I once did a radio talk show on the topic and discussed how when drugs were legal and available at the local town pharmacy, you had some addicts but no crime, disease, prostitution, robbery, bought police and officials, undermined third world governments, huge welfare bills and all the rest.
I really could care less if my neighbor is shooting smack so long as they can afford it and their own health insurance pays for the results. Of course if they are buying from a pharmacy, the likelihood of AIDS, Hepatitus, overdose and all the rest go pretty much to zero.
My mother taught me to mind my own business. Eric Frank Russell’s novel which I read as a young teen reduced it to a slogan for me: MYOB/IW.
Free people really don’t fuss themselves over what others might or might not do. It’s none of their damn business and they know it.
If this stupid law ever makes it out of committee, then gets approved by both houses, then signed by the president, I still won’t worry much. It will survive constitutional challenge for only as long as it takes the judge to stop giggling.
Rich wrote:
“A major plank of libertarianism is that one is responsible for ones own actions.”
Yes, but true Libertarianism is more than that — it includes the obligation not to take actions that might interfere with the liberties of others. A guy who gets drunk in a public place, for example, is definitely interfering with the liberties of others.
This points to one of the problems with Libertarianism as a philosophy: it requires everybody to behave with a strong regard for other people; and it leaves the Libertarian with a very difficult challenge — what does the Libertarian do about those people who deliberately infringe upon the liberties of others, such as by getting drunk in public?
In an ideal world, self-policing Libertarianism would create a very attractive society. But then, so would Communism.
Of course the person who gets drunk in public may well also pick a fight and get themselves shot. An armed society is a polite society.
I do not expect a libertarian world to be flawless and problem free. I only expect it to be one where I am left alone, and if not I can enforce that ‘left alone’ with the assistance of Mr. Smith and Mr Wesson.
I think that this bill is being used by some to generate a little attention and revenue.
If you look at the actual bill you can see that the “spying” is really just the creation of a Federal legal obligation to report any knowledge of the selling of illegal drugs to minors. (Sec 425 Failure to Protect Children From Drug Trafficking Activities). Most states have similar laws of long-standing. In most US jurisdictions, failure to report a crime committed against a minor is a prosecutable offense in general. Nothing in the bill suggest any positive obligation to find out if others are selling drugs to children and as noted above, the bill seems dead in the water anyway.
The better question to ask from a limited government perspective is why is this a Federal matter? Most, if not all states already have similar laws on the books and there is no clear interstate issue involved here.
I think we have a case of dueling hysterics here. Sensenbrenner seems to have tried to get through some points anti-drug legislation (won’t somebody think of the children!) whereas Downsize DC wants to raise an alarm about a bill that is (1) nothing knew and (2) dead in the water anyway.
Shannon: Even if you are totally right, it is still worth pounding them for even thinking about it.
Even if so limited, does it mean if I am an 18 year old college freshman and buy pot from an upperclass room mate that any other room mates are liable to prosection for not being snitches? Why is this the business of the State, be it Federal or State? Are you visualizing shady characters pushing heroin on a cute little 8 year old girl? That’s probably what they want you to think but probably has very little to do with the actuallity.
As I once read, you do not see many people hanging out in front of gradeschools selling cans of beer out their car and trying to entice their clients to buy whiskey. Legalize drugs and this becomes a non-problem even for the hypothetical little princess.
The problem, Dale, is that in highlighting its stupidity and ascribing it to the Republican Party, you augment the chances of the even-less-libertarian Democrat party’s gaining power in 2006.
If the Democrats would seriously come out strongly against the drug war you could make a good case for ignoring their views on taxes and regulation. But if the GOP voters stay home to teach the bums a lesson – no matter how well deserved — we’ll get a lesson from the other bums we won’t like. It will include the same drug war teamed with higher taxes and more regulation.
Shannon said it better than I can.
It happens to be the Republicans who are doing much of the obnoxious things right now as they control congress. So obviously they are the target.
The likelihood special circumstances would ever exist again that are strong enough to make me vote for other than a Libertarian are really rather slim, so it is not of much interest whether Tweedle Dum is stealing my liberty or Tweedle Dee is getting his shot at it. Both are loathsome. As I noted early, about the only ones I can think of is a McCain candidacy, which would drive me to vote and campaign Democratic. Other than that, it is back
to the straight LP ticket for me.
The best outcome, in my mind, would be a dead heat split down the middle with partisonship so extreme that the Feds were effectively non-functional. The next best thing to no government at all is one that can’t even pass a vote for a loo break.
First, for the doubting thomas above:
`SEC. 425. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person who witnesses or learns of a violation of sections 416(b)(2), 417, 418, 419, 420, 424, or 426 to fail to report the offense to law enforcement officials within 24 hours of witnessing or learning of the violation and thereafter provide full assistance in the investigation, apprehension, and prosecution of the person violating paragraph (a).
`(b) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be sentenced to not less than two years or more than 10 years. If the person who witnesses or learns of the violation is the parent or guardian, or otherwise responsible for the care or supervision of the person under the age of 18 or the incompetent person, such person shall be sentenced to not less than three years or more than 20 years.’.”
It’s not dead.
I live in Wisconsin. I vote GOP. Sensenbrenner will shortly be receiving a pretty scathing letter in the mail. Actually a couple.
The Democrats “big idea” this November is to propose an increase in various State minimum wage laws – this they hope will increase voter turnout (and that the voters will be comming out to vote “yes” and then vote Democrat for various offices).
Given the level of economic knowledge and basic morality amongst the general population the Democrats may well have come with a good plan.
Most people really seem to believe that higher living standards (and other things) can be achieved by passing laws or creating or expanding government programs.
And most people do not care about violating the nonaggression principle (or traditions of limited government) by telling employers what they must do.
This is not a recent thing, it has been obvious since at least 1936.
The Republicans try (sometimes) to hold up the growth of the Welfare State – but they care about being elected. Democrats really believe in this stuff – and they (and the media and academia) attack the Republicans every day for not spending still more on the Welfare State and not imposing yet more regulations.
As vile as the Republicans are, according to the Democrats (and the media and academia) they are vile enough. The days when some Democrats (such as Bob Kerry of Nebraska) questioned the Welfare State are long gone.
“But this is all economic stuff, I am interested in free speech and civil liberties”.
Well (as Rothbard pointed out) civil liberties are all about property rights, but O.K. I will deal with the specific point.
The Democrats are not in favour of civil liberties Dale. And I am not just talking about gun control.
What about “hate speech”, or the campaign against “racists”?
According to the Southern Poverty whatever Centre (often cited by the New York Times) the Ludwig Von Mises insititue is a “racist” organization.
Indeed anyone who opposes the civil rights laws (telling people who they must trade with whether they like it or not) is a “racist”.
Nothing must be allowed to get in the way of the campaign against racists, or sexists, or the “homophobic” or – oh well just about anyone.
Searches of private property, forceing people from their jobs because of their opinions – the mainstream Democrats are in favour of it all.
If the Democrats take Congress, Civil Liberties will be in even worse shape than they are now.
Have a look at New Labour here in Britain.
Quite a few Republicans have doubts over the size and scope of government (although only a few are like Ron Paul – most are too scared of not being elected again), but the Democrats are not just going along with the modern age (out of fear or greed – as the Republicans do) – they really think the modern mega government is a good thing (indeed the source of all goodness).
The Democrats may have different targets for their campaign against civil liberties than the Republicans do (although it would be closer to the truth to say that they just have more targets), but they are not really against any of these powers (for all their talk or votes when they are in the minority in Congress).
Even the “death to Bush” stuff can not be relied upon. If the Democrats control Congress they may seek greater “independence” for various agencies, i.e. organizations like the F.B.I. used against the targets they (the Democrats) want them used on.
A President can end up isolated from the rest of the Executive – it has happened before.
Alice: “True” libertarianism is a dubious concept. I suggest, however, that it’s going to be difficult to derive a “right to not be in the public presence of someone who’s drunk” from first principles or natural law. And thus why it’s taken as an infringement of rights to be drunk in public is un-obvious.
Because it makes someone uncomfortable? Ah, but that leads to impossible standards and is an even greater constraint on liberty, no? There is no right to not see things you dislike, at least in any libertarian philosophy I’ve been exposed to (Hayek, Nozick, etc.)
Joe: Bills that have sat in committee for a year with no action are, in practical terms, dead.
Syn: I assure you that the worldwide popularity of opiates has nothing to do with Timothy Leary or even “the West”. (Especially Leary, whose crazy drug-addled schtick was based on psychedelics rather than depressants or opiates.) Drugs in general (alcohol, say) have been more or less variously popular as long as they’ve existed. Perhaps the only new things are the invention of powerful stimulants (amphetamines), and a more general popularity (and invention in some cases) of hallucinogens and disassociatives.
I should have said above that “vile as the Republicans are, according to the Democrats (and the media and academia) they are not vile enough”.
Should the Democrats win control of the Congress in November this will quickly become clear.
And (of course) the Democracts will (by “hearings” and other such) prepare the ground for the 2008 struggle for the office of President.
The Democratic party has not stood still over time, the modern party is very much in tune with academia and the media.
Should the Democrats control first the Congress (or even one house of Congress) and then get control of the Whitehouse a great tide of statism will come that will make President Bush look like a libertarian.
I wonder if this law is intended to stack with asset siezures, so that non-informers can lose any possessions they can’t prove weren’t purchased with parments to keep silent.