Be Careful Out There

The Economist has an article up which is basically a long apologia for Dominique Strauss-Kahn based on the superior European attitudes towards sex. As those of you who read here often may know I'm somewhat of a libertine by American standards. None the less I thought a warning for our European friends was in order. Not about culture but about dangers in the real world. And for those of you ready to scream at me at the drop of a hat let me say here and now that my remarks were somewhat tongue in cheek. I was tweaking the Economist author.

Are you Economist folks aware that the maid in question may have had AIDS? But I will pander to your European superior attitudes on sex:

AIDS is why it is unwise to rape strangers.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Class Warfare

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. — Abraham Lincoln

That Abe guy sounds like a Republican.

I am informed (through a link left in the comments) by commenter Shempbot of the following:

The quotes were published in 1942 by William J. H. Boetcker, a Presbyterian minister. He released a pamphlet titled Lincoln On Limitations, which did include a Lincoln quote, but also added 10 statements written by Boetcker himself.

They were:

1. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
2. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong
3. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
4. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
5. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
6. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
7. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
8. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
9. You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
10 You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.

People who got the pamphlet thought the 10 statements were written by Lincoln and they have been distributed widely under Lincoln's name.

Real Class Warfare

Real class warfare has always been the upper classes against the masses. Charles Whitebread, Professor of Law, USC Law School in a speech to the California Judges Association 1995 annual conference lays it out:

And so, yeah, we will continue the War on Drugs for a while until everybody sees its patent bankruptcy. But, let me say that I am not confident that good sense will prevail. Why? Because we love this idea of prohibition. We really do. We love it in this country. And so I will tell you what I predict. You will always know which ones are going out and which ones are coming in. And, can't you see the one coming right over the hill? Well, folks, we are going to have a new prohibition because we love this idea that we can solve difficult medical, economic, and social problems by the simple enactment of a criminal law. We adore this, and of course, you judges work it out, we have solved our problem. Do you have it? Our problem is over with the enactment of the law. You and the cops work it out, but we have solved our problem.

Here comes the new one? What's it going to be? No, it won't be guns, this one starts easy. This one is the Surgeon General has what? --Determined -- not "we want a little more checking it out", not "we need a few more studies", not "reasonable people disagree" -- "The Surgeon General has determined that the smoking of cigarettes will kill you."

Now, all you need, and here is my formula, for a new prohibition every time is what? We need an intractable, difficult, social, economic, or medical problem. But that is not enough. There has to be another thing. It has to divide by class --- by social or economic class, between US and THEM.

And so, here it comes. '

You know the Federal Government has been spending a lot of money since 1968 trying to persuade us not to smoke. And, indeed, the absolute numbers on smoking have declined very little. But, you know who has quit smoking, don't you? In gigantic numbers? The college-educated, that's who. The college-educated, that's who doesn't smoke. Who are they? Tomorrow's what? Movers and kickers, that's who. Tomorrow's movers and kickers don't smoke. Who does smoke? Oh, you know who smokes out of all proportion to their numbers in the society -- it is the people standing in your criminal courtrooms, that's who. Who are they? Tomorrow's moved and kicked, that's who.

And, there it is friends, once it divides between the movers and kickers and the moved and kicked it is all over and it will be all over very shortly.

It doesn't get much more classy than that.

What else do we know about the drug war? Again according to the linked speech it is a form of covert racism.

The first group of states to have marijuana laws in that part of the century were Rocky Mountain and southwestern states. By that, I mean Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Montana. You didn't have to go anywhere but to the legislative records to find out what had motivated those marijuana laws. The only thing you need to know to understand the early marijuana laws in the southwest and Rocky Mountain areas of this country is to know, that in the period just after 1914, into all of those areas was a substantial migration of Mexicans. They had come across the border in search of better economic conditions, they worked heavily as rural laborers, beet field workers, cotton pickers, things of that sort. And with them, they had brought marijuana.

Basically, none of the white people in these states knew anything about marijuana, and I make a distinction between white people and Mexicans to reflect a distinction that any legislator in one of these states at the time would have made. And all you had to do to find out what motivated the marijuana laws in the Rocky mountain and southwestern states was to go to the legislative records themselves. Probably the best single statement was the statement of a proponent of Texas first marijuana law. He said on the floor of the Texas Senate, and I quote, "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff (referring to marijuana) is what makes them crazy." Or, as the proponent of Montana's first marijuana law said, (and imagine this on the floor of the state legislature) and I quote, "Give one of these Mexican beet field workers a couple of puffs on a marijuana cigarette and he thinks he is in the bullring at Barcelona."

Well, there it was, you didn't have to look another foot as you went from state to state right on the floor of the state legislature. And so what was the genesis for the early state marijuana laws in the Rocky Mountain and southwestern areas of this country? It wasn't hostility to the drug, it was hostility to the newly arrived Mexican community that used it.

We know something else about drug prohibition. It is a price support mechanism for criminals. Or as Nobel winning economist Milton Friedman put it: The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise

We actually know quite a bit about the nature of addiction too. According to the NIDA Addiction Is A Genetic Disease.

==

So let me see if I can encapsulate what we know from history, economics, and science:

The Drug War is a socialist enterprise, founded on covert racism and class warfare, that punishes a genetic minority and those who serve them.

How many proud supporters do we have here? Raise you hands.

Class War

In my post Treatment vs Recreation I looked at how the pharmaceutical industry has come to the rescue of the middle class by making a whole host of drugs that substitute for the illegal variety. I'd like to take another look at the subject Tim Wu brought up in his Slate article. The Class War aspect. Let me quote from Tim:

...the current program of drug legalization in the United States is closely and explicitly tied to the strange economics of the U.S. health-care industry. The consequence is that how people get their dopamine or other brain chemicals is ever more explicitly, like the rest of medicine, tied to questions of class.

Antidepressants and anxiety treatments aren't cheap: A fancy drug like Wellbutrin can cost anywhere from $1,000 to $2,400 a year. These drugs also require access to a sympathetic doctor who will issue a prescription. That's why, generally speaking, the new legalization program is for better-off Americans. As the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University reports, rich people tend to abuse prescription drugs, while poorer Americans tend to self-medicate with old-fashioned illegal drugs or just get drunk.

So there you have it. The well off get "treatment" the poor get jail.

I don't see how in good conscience we can keep doing what we are doing. In fact I pointed it out in a number of articles such as Dr. John Beresford Has Passed where I look at the Nazi connection to the Drug War and How To Put an End to Drug Users where I make that connection even more explicit with a review of Drug Warriors and Their Preyby R.L. Miller. I show exactly how conscience has been buried. We prefer to look the other way and make all kinds of excuses rather than looking at exactly what we are doing. If we faced it, we would have to see ourselves as kinder and gentler Nazis. We don't do mass murder. We do mass incarceration. Not exactly a step up we should be proud of. What exactly is the difference between a war on Jews and a war on the poor? Beats the hell out of me.

HT Instapundit

Cross Posted at Classical Values

The Future of the Democrats

As some of you know I posted a bit on the Death of Socialism predicting the loss by the Democrats in this election. It was first published in May '03.

So Matthew Yglesias is having a discussion of the issues. I posted a few thoughts.

I will present them here in a somewhat edited form. Go to Matt's place if you want the full flavor.

--==--

The future of the Democrat Party (provided they want one) is Lieberman.

Lieberman is a capitalist - unashamed, he knows the engines of prosperity. He liked the tax cuts.

Lieberman supports the war - we have real anti-liberal enemies out there, diplomacy is not going to cut it with the fanatics any more than it did with Hitler

Liberman is in opposition where it matters - social issues.

Bush got my vote this year - you run a Lieberman type candidate and he would be my prefrence over any one the Rs are likely to run.

Hell I was pinning for Joe this year.

Start with these propositions:

1. socialism is dead
2. there is a war on

Once you have those down try finding positiions that give you the votes to win.

BTW it would be a good idea to purge the Jew haters from the party. Cynthia M. should be disavowed by the Democrats.

The same way the David Duke/Pat B. wing was purged by the Rs. Publicly. Same goes for the Jew hater and arson inciter Sharpton. Ugly people make an ugly party.

You guys need to clean up your act if you ever expect to get out of the wilderness. Take Zell Miller's critique to heart. He is trying to tell you something important.

--==--

So some one pipes up that the Dems are the "peace party" or an equivalent statement. My reply:

Whatever happened to the party whose liberal watchword was death to tyrants?

Any one remember Jefferson?

What is wrong with invading random countries and replacing tyranies with democracies? Why not have a plan or a list instead of getting in the way?

--==--

Then some one pointed out that the Democrats were not stupid enough to nominate Lieberman (despite Gore selecting him for VP). My answer:

Glad to hear you are not that stupid.

In fact I predicted in May of '03 you would not be that stupid. I also predicted then (before any one knew who the candidate would be) that you would lose this election. Based on my knowledge of how smart you are.

If you are the future of your party let me make another prediction - '08 is going against you as well. By a larger margin.

When you have had enough of being so smart you will change.

--==--

Some one objected to me calling the Democrats the Democrat party. Here is my return response:

What would you prefer?

The Communist Party? The Socialist Party? The Progressive Party?

I have been a long time Libertarian so right now (given the war and all) I'm an independent. I like the Democrats on tolerance and the Republicans on the war and economics.

Call me a Republicanz all you want. I'm not one. I'm from the center. Where elections are won and lost.

I'm a Zell Miller Republican if you want to put a name to it.

I'm none to happy with chimpy on social issues. But hey, Osama reminded me, as if I needed reminding that there is a fookin war on. And we are no more going to diplomacy or new foreign aid program ourselves out of it than Chamberlain did in '38. Delay just added to the butchers bill.

I'd rather pay up front now than pay later with interest.

--==--

Random aside from me:

I might mention that Obama got my vote as well as Bush.

--==--

I got called a Republicanz troll. The response:

I guess my vote for Obama makes me a Republicanz troll.

LOL

And you wonder why you lost the election.

If all you have to say is "we wuz right and the voters and Republicanz were too stupid to see it" then the Ds are going to continue losing.

1. You lost the Presidency.
2. You lost House seats
3. You lost Senate seats

And I'm a troll for pointing out what I like about the Ds and what I don't.

Perhaps Democrat is the wrong name. I guess you would prefer loser.

Let me give it to you another way. Elections are won and lost in the center. The closer you are to the center the easier it is to win. Going hard left is not the answer.

The opposite is also true - look at Keyes. Going hard right was definitely not the answer. The problem is the Republicanz do not have enough candidates like Keyes to insure Democrat victories.

LOL

As to economics - you could do worse than study the last 20 years of Nobels.

If you want the short version read DeSoto's "Capitalism" - he talks about how to empower the poor. Then there is Hayek's "Serfdom" - which explains why socialism can't work. Written in 1944. Stil a good primer on why economic liberty is better than economic planning.

--==--

Then some one said we need a paper trail for all balloting. I agreed:

She is right about the ballot thing.

It must have a paper trail.

I guess that makes me a Republicanz too.

ROTFLMAO

--==--

Then some one piped up that what the Dems really need is more class warfare. I show here why that is not workable in America:

Class warfare will not work in America.

There is economic mobility and every one at least dreams of getting rich.

So people see taxing the rich as placing a tax on who they will become. i.e. it is a tax on people's future.

People already know this by watching big lottery payoffs. You win a gazillion dollars in the lottery and wind up with only 60% (or less) of the winnings. Reported every time there is a big win. First it is a $100 million payoff that is only $30 million taken as a lump sum. And only $18 million after taxes. People notice.

You are not going to get ahead in politics by taxing people's dreams.

Democrats used to be the party of hope. In fact for many years (before I believed Kerry that the killings by the communists if they won would be minimal - the boat people and 2 million dead Cambodians fixed that) I was a staunch Democrat.

Kennedy was the most exciting President I have ever lived under. His policy was low taxes and (ultimately) muscular foreign policy.

I remember the Cuban missile crisis when we all thought a nuclear war was hours away. I still liked his anti-communism.

=================

The economic reality is that any economy that can make the income of the poor double will increase the income of the rich by a factor of 20 or 100. I say let 'er rip. In such an economy I may some day become rich too.

Lieberman got that one right.

Unfortunately you can have fairness or wealth generation.

My belief is that wealth generation is better for every one.

--==--

Wretchard neatly encapsulates the gist of the counter arguments against my above points. Wretchard says:

These Progressives are somehow resistant to blandishments of the "big capitalists". Something -- superior intelligence or a finer moral fiber perhaps -- has made them insusceptible to ignorance and manipulation. And they alone stand in the way of the Darkness.