by Kevin Carson
http://c4ss.org/content/17612
Fifteen Benefits of the War on Drugs
With American drug use levels essentially the same as — and levels of drug-related violence either the same as or lower than — those in countries like the Netherlands with liberal drug laws, public support for the War on Drugs appears to be faltering. This was most recently evidenced in the victory of major drug decriminalization initiatives in Colorado and Washington. Some misguided commentators go so far as to say the Drug War is “a failure.” Here, to set the record straight, are fifteen ways in which it is a resounding success:
1. It has surrounded the Fourth Amendment’s “search and seizure” restrictions, and similar provisions in state constitutions, with so many “good faith,” “reasonable suspicion” and “reasonable expectation of privacy” loopholes as to turn them into toilet paper for all intents and purposes.
2. In so doing, it has set precedents that can be applied to a wide range of other missions, like the War on Terror.
3. It has turned drug stores and banks into arms of the state that constantly inform on their customers.
4. Via programs like DARE, it has turned kids into drug informants who monitor their parents for the authorities.
5. As a result of the way DARE interacts with other things like Zero Tolerance policies and warrantless inspections by drug-sniffing dogs, the Drug War has conditioned children to believe “the policeman is their friend,” and to view snitching as admirable behavior, and to instinctively look for an authority figure to report to the second they see anything the least bit eccentric or anomalous.
6. Via civil forfeiture, it has enabled the state to create a lucrative racket in property stolen from citizens never charged, let alone convicted, of a crime. Best of all, even possessing large amounts of cash, while technically not a crime, can be treated as evidence of intent to commit a crime — saving the state the trouble of having to convert all that stolen tangible property into liquid form.
7. It has enabled local police forces to undergo military training, create paramilitary SWAT teams that operate just like the U.S. military in an occupied enemy country, get billions of dollars worth of surplus military weaponry, and wear really cool black uniforms just like the SS.
8. Between the wars on the urban drug trade and rural meth labs, it has brought under constant harassment and surveillance two of the demographic groups in our country — inner city blacks and rural poor whites — least socialized to accept orders from authority either in the workplace or political system, and vital components of any potential movement for freedom and social justice.
9.In addition, it brings those who actually fall into the clutches of the criminal justice system into a years-long cycle of direct control through imprisonment and parole.
10. By disenfranchising convicted felons, it restricts participation in the state’s “democratic” processes to only citizens who are predisposed to respect the state’s authority.
11. In conjunction with shows like Law and Order and COPS, it conditions the middle class citizenry to accept police authoritarianism and lawlessness as necessary to protect them against the terrifying threat of people voluntarily ingesting substances into their own bodies.
12. Through “if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear” rhetoric, it conditions the public to assume the surveillance state means well and that only evildoers object to ubiquitous surveillance.
13. In conjunction with endless military adventures overseas and “soldiers defend our freedoms” rhetoric, it conditions the public to worship authority figures in uniform, and predisposes them to cheerfully accept future augmentations of military and police authority without a peep of protest.
14. It creates enormously lucrative opportunities for the large banks — one of the most important real constituencies of the American government — to launder money from drug trafficking.
15. Thanks to major drug production centers like the Golden Triangle of Southeast Asia, the opium industry in Afghanistan, and the cocaine industry in South America, it enables the CIA — the world’s largest narcotrafficking gang — to obtain enormous revenues for funding black ops and death squads around the world. This network of clandestine intelligence agencies, narcotraffickers and death squads, by the way, is the other major real constituency of the American government.
The Drug War would indeed be a failure if its real function was to reduce drug consumption or drug-related violence. But the success or failure of state policies is rightly judged by the extent to which they promote the interests served by the state. The Drug War is a failure only if the state exists to serve you.
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/t24_ag_en_uskg_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/base/spot-copper-5y.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/platinum/t24_pt_en_usoz_2.gif)
As is sometimes the case with a Kevin Carson article this piece of writing is odd.
For example, why would someone who was sincerely opposed to Federal prohibition of drugs write “the CIA – the world’s largest narcotrafficing gang”? That is obiviously false and it (and other such) undermines the anti war-on-drugs position. A person who, for example, has seen “the wall” (the list of dead CIA officers – who died for everyone in the West, including Kevin) would, on reading this article, tend to think “what a son-of-a-bitch – if he is a against the war on drugs, I am for it!” that would be a FALSE position to take, but a natural one. Ditto all the other insults the article contains.
“But the CIA was involved in drugs in ………” – that was not the claim, the claim was that the CIA (not the various Communist “social justice” outfits in Latin America) was the largest cocaine dealing gang in the world.
In reality the CIA most likely contains more ANTI war on drugs people (as a percentage) than any other armed agency of the Federall government – partly because CIA officers know that drug money tends to fund the enemies (both Latin America – and in Asia).. Both Communist (“social justice”) and Islamist (also “social justice”) terrorist groups are partly funded by the profits that keeping drugs illegal generate.
This article reminds me of the supposedly anti “gun control” article Kevin wrote, The article was a savage attack on firearm owning Americans – American culture, American culture (and so on). Any uncommitted person reading the article would have come away being IN FAVOUR of government “gun control” effortrs (obviously these vile, reactionary Americans should not be allowed to own firearms……) – as I believe was Kevin’s intention.
Why would someone who actually wanted an end to the Federal “war on drugs” write an article like the one above?
They would be more likely to write something like the following…..
The Federal Prohibtion of drugs was an outgrowth of the Progressive movement a century ago – as was (contrary to the oft repeated claims of Hollywood that it was created by religious people in rural areas – see J. Goldberg “Liberal Fascism” for who really had the whip hand in the Prohibition movement) the Federal prohibition of booze .
However, unlike the Federal prohibition of booze there was no Constitutional Amendment given the Federal government the power to do this – therefore the Federal “war on drugs” fails under the Tenth Amendment (as does the whole “Social Justice” Progressive movemnt project of ever bigger government). Of course Progressives (whether T. Roosevelt worshipping Republicans like Richard Nixon, or Woodrow Wilson worshipping Democrats) are not going to accept this – so then the debate gets underway…..
But what State and local bans on drugs?
One does not say that such bans are there to put money in the hands of the CIA so they can murder people (and all the rest of the stuff), One carefully explains that these bans are both against the principles of right law (the libertarian argument) AND are countrer productivei in practical terms – not achieveing the results intended for them.
One does not go to some State legislature member (say whose daughter has died because of drugs) and say “you support drug prohibition because you are in the pocket of the prison-industrial corporate complex” (or some such B.S.).
One expresses total sympathy with the AIMS of the person – whilst doing ones best to show that the MEANS he or she has chosen do not achieve those ends. Indeed undermine these ends. Both by undermining the traditional principles of the rule of law (the libertarian argument – which, at its heart, is an intensely conservative arguement, fundementally hostile to the undermining of the rule of law tradition) and in practical terms.
That drug prohibtion leads to more (not fewer) dead daughters.
One does not sneer at “Our Town” (really Bedford New Hampshire? or somewhere like it), or “Bedford Falls” (in “Its A Wonderful Life”) one shows that one shares the vision (that one believes in the institutions of civil society – family, church, secular clubs, business enterprises and so on) but believes that drug prohibition is DESTRUCTIVE, not supportive, of that tradition.
One does the same thing in Britain.
One shows that (for example) far from supporting an ancient tradition – someone like Peter Hitchins is actually supporting a British import of the American Progressive moverment.
This does NOT mean being “pro drugs” (quite the opposite) – it means telling the truth about what the principles of the rule of law are, and telling the truth about what civil society (such as late Victorian England) was actually like – how drugs were indeed legal, but how social pressure (culture – voluntary effort) meant that they were far LESS of a problem than they are today.
Hmm, well this is one case where I support the general message of Carson’s article, although Paul’s observation regarding the “narcotrafficking gang CIA” claim is valid, and verging on conspiracy theory.
But I do think that Kevin isn’t really getting to the bottom of why there is a WOD in the first place. It is certainly valid to say that it enables State expansion of power, and that that certainly appeals to the power elite. But in my view the fundamental reason was, and remains, evangelical progressivism. If we look at why they banned alcohol, introduced the Mann Act, and are currently gearing towards banning tobacco, we are forced I believe to accept that these people impose these things because they are trying to “improve” society by removing everything they consider “bad” from it. They are secular evangelists. Murray Rothbard, for instance, wrote thorough histories about how the Progressives evolved from the evangelical fervour of the nineteenth century.
In order to do this, they need a huge, powerful State and unrestrained police powers for their “mutaween”. But we ought to remember as Libertarians that the State is not an end in itself, it is a tool, and it has no independent existence. It is a congruence of special interests, and the institutions of the State are used by those special interests to attain (or attempt to attain) political goals.
The roots of the war on drugs lie, to be a little cliched, in the Womens Christian Temperance Movement and its ilk, and their cry that “armed with the ballot, the mothers of America will legislate morality”.
One thing that is worth remembering- the FBI’s (the “domestic” counterpart of the CIA) first job was cataloguing brothels in preparation for the Mann Act, and the odious Hoover was inspired by Anthony Comstock, the similarly odious moral campaigner who bragged of how many books he’d burned and people he’d driven to suicide (including the tragic, harmless author of modest “marriage manuals” Ida Craddock). Yes, the State is empowered. Yes, the police are empowered. Yes, liberty is crushed. But the ultimate cause is zealots determined to effect moral reform. In this context, they are the enemy we must focus on.
It should be remembered that even under anarcho-capitalism (if such a state of affairs is possible) people would still exist who want “social justice” i.e. who hold that all income and wealth rightfully belong to the collective (“the people” or whatver) and should be violently “distributed”. So organisations would still be needed to fight these people – private organisations.
Of course the CIA has traditionaly been dominated by people of what (in Europe) would be considered broadly social democrat political opinions – not socialist, but hardly libertarian (or conservative). Indeed (contrary the stories of Hollywood, and of the universities) American policy towards Latin America,since Woodrow Wilson, has been to back nonCommunist Progressives (into “land reform” and other folly). They hoped that such “reform” would undermine Communism – in reality the economic (and social) harm that such “reform” does, prepares the ground for the far left (the reformist government in Chile from 1964 led to the far left take over of 1970 – the Duarte regime in El Salvador in 1979 led to collapse of the economy and a massive increase in Communist strength.
On Ian B’s comment……
Some of the Progressive movement did indeed come from people who (over several generations) rejected their belief in God – and put THE STATE in the place of God.
This had happened in German philosophy some time before.
The “religious impluse” taken to the service of the state.
And not just people from a Christian background – Jews who rejected the Judaism tended to follow the same bad path.
From the profoundly evil (such as those people of Jewish background who rejected the Jewish religion), to the farcical – such as the “health” worshipping Mayor of New York today.
War in Drugs?
He has a war on soda pop.
Nothing to do with evil corporations or the military-indusrtrial-prison complex..
But, yes, a lot to do with a radically misplaced religious impluse.
.Alcohol is responsible for more deaths and disease than tobacco . Far more domestic violance and murder . Far more unprovoked violance on our streets and all deaths and accidents due to drinking and driving . Do you then feel all those drinking alcohol should do so outside the pub ? proven
Suicide verdict on bullied factory worker, Hazards news, 11 February 2006
A father of four killed himself after being bullied by his managers for two years, an inquest has heard. Anthony McDermott, 50, left a letter explaining his factory floor ordeal before hanging himself. He worked for the same firm for 14 years but the hearing was told that at the end he found a bullying campaign “soul destroying and demeaning”.
The final straw came when a colleague took a photo of him having a cigarette outside the factory, which operates a no-smoking policy. The father of four was said to have been ridiculed after the picture was circulated on the firm’s computer network. He complained to his manager but was issued with the firm’s first warning for breaching the no-smoking policy.
Coroner John Pollard read a short extract from the handwritten note found in Mr McDermott’s shirt pocket following his death. It said: “The reason for this is for the last two years I’ve been bullied at work by management and this includes a photo of myself being taken.” Mr Pollard recorded a verdict that Mr McDermott took his own life, but said he did not wish to comment on what had been worrying him.
No-one from the company – metal detector maker Mettler-Toledo Safeline Ltd of Salford – gave evidence at the Stockport inquest. Mr McDermott’s daughter Victoria, 25, said: “I would like to see the people who bullied my father brought to justice.”
to all partys and politicians when is all this persecution bullying and abuse that’s in everyones constituency that labours party and there enforcers imposed on society going to stop and liberty and movments reinstated in memory of Anthony mcdermott from salford who hanged himself over the ban on liberty choice and tolerance before we have to self – protect
I come increasingly round to IanB’s thesis. However, I do blame the interference by pre-capitalist-barbarian elements, originating mainly on the Island of Eurasia, and latterly infecting the British Continents, for rather adding ooomph to the “reformist” movement(s) described by Ian. Perhaps without the ruthlessness-streak of Eurasian absolutism to help drive them, they’d have got – if not nowhere, then – not very far?
Of course, the practices of bullying you describe are a current feature of this government, you may have read the recent disclosures on the fate of “Whistle Blowers” within government and the NHS who have been subjected to almost military planning of bullying tatics, complete with violence and intimidation, we are seeing a massive increase in suicide in our communities, Police Coroners in my opinion should not have independent right to rule on such cases, where there is background conflict or bullying by the authorities, they should be subect to a deep probe, particulary where it is identifed they have operated “Whistle Blowers” against the government. fact, coroners have the ability to cover up a great deal of fact or background evidence, we have situations where people are off work ill on account of bullying and intimidation, these practices essentially must be stamped out, to many people now are being subject to these forms of behaviour. One thing that must change is this corrupted out dated single Coroner system, we can no longer allow a situation where one power drunk dictator resides over the rights to families access to justice, particulary were they are able to cover up thier own failings and leagl rulings against them, there is a real need for the introduction of a modern system of investigation and a proper professional coroners service with impartiality, something the general public are deprived off, the whole system is under the control of the Golden Circle of Cronies, some of the stories you hear from people who have used these coroner’s describe them as dictators, who control the outcome of any inquest despite all the facts concluding otherwise, but again, this is a further failing of the totaliterian state we live in! Fact, they are able to cover up considerable amounts of evidence, which no one appears to be able to challenge! I now from my own experience, they are highly in conflict with the establishment of the truth, particulary where thier own police forces are concerned.
David – those who wished for a bigger government had an example that statism “worked”,.
The “army that became a state” – once a Crusading order of Kinghts (although knights corrupted by the lust for power – who ended up making war on fellow Christians, on the grounds that they were “inferior” slavs) the Teutonic Order that broke its vows and became Prussia (a name they took from a Slavic tribe) they needed a new God – and they found one.
The State.
And eventually Frederick the Great became ruler of Prussia – not a Lutherian or a Calvinst (any more than he was a Catholic) – he still took a form of determinism from Calvinism (so not,in his own judgement, responsible for any of his crimes as they were predetermined by cause and effect going back to the start of the universe – yet somehow he believed himself to be worthy of praise for what he considered his good deeds).
German philosophy had been waiting for such a ruler (trying to present some Habsburg or other such as the great philosopher-king ruler was a bit of tall order – but Frederick….) and others, far from Prussia, celebrated him also.
A century before Bismark the religious impluse was already employed for a living human God.
Louis XIV was no great “intellectual” – and he ended a LOSER anyway.
The same was true of Philip II and the other tyrants.
But Frederck the Great was an intellectual (he could hold his own with them) and he was a WINNER.
I have even heard that the “clipped” way of speaking was an imitation of how Prussian officers spoke English.
“Teddy” Roosevelt (and so many others) honoured his name.
And those of have never heard of him still follow his doctrines.
The state can be efficent, and “enlightened” – it can educate the children (all of them) and break with the absurd doctrines of the past , into a bright new day…….
If only the correct people are in charge…….
Of course what you say is true, particulary on the subject of “Medievil knights” as you say Crusading, when such an army secures victory, after victory, there comes a dawning realisation, it is they who have the power, and the total power over everything, hence, they become the state it’ self, Prussia in terms of history was a short lived and again taken under the control of another state, so history goes on and on, Hitler took care of Prussia, he sacked all the Prussian Police and brought in 25,000 SA and a further 15,000 SS men to run the police, the fate of Prussia was signed and sealed.
Both Hitler and Goering delt with Prussia very quickly, Hitler writes 28-Feb-1933.
Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion on the rights of assembly and association…are permissible beyond legal limits otherwise prescribed. Prussia effectively ends as a state of self control on the basis of this directive.
However paul, Prussia produced some first class officers, Manfred Von Richthofen, a first class cavarlyman, and one of the finest fighter pilots of
the 1st World war, he is documented as comming from Prussia, this area now part of Poland.
Quite so Karl – the “army that became a state” remained an army and a good one.
And there is a good side to the miltary tradition – a code of honour. Although too many forget that code when they found that treating it seriously would mean their own deaths.
But that is true of all of us.
It is much less difficult to say that one will risk one’s life than to actually do so.
Although I do like Patton’s answer.
“I do not want men who are going to die for their country – I want men who are going to make the other …… die for his country”.
Of course by a code of honour that if acted upon would have meant their own deaths – I mean by opposing the policies of Adolf Hitler.
Although (come to think of it) how many Prussian officers protested against the looting of wide areas of Poland by Frederick the Great?
Poland had not made war on Prussia – what were Prussian soldiers doing attacking Krakow (as I am told it has to be spelt) and stealing the Polish Crown Jewels?
This “I am only obeying orders” stuff is habit forming. You start with the things that are bad and then you go on to things that are worse.
There has to be a higher law (a higher loyality) than just always obeying the orders of the Supreme Warlord.
Yes paul, they all say that, just following instructions, just following my orders
from Mr David Carrier, that old Cop out, it’s called pass the buck!
Good point paul, who would dear oppose Hitler, I don’t think even I would
be that supid, fate worse than death and then death!
Historically, europe has alway’s undergone changes by act’s of war, may it
be in the hands of the Romans, Atila, or any other military faction. History
tells all.
Karl – some did oppose Hitler (and paid the price), but too few.
Well have to say, don’t quite think I would have had the guts, seen some of
the photogaphs of those who did, thank’s, but no thank’s ! I’ll keep my head
down on this one.
I just want to reiterate something I’ve said before, which is that I do not see my analysis of the evangelicals->progressives->new left as being in competition with analysis of other elements like cultural marxism, Prussianism, etc, but rather as another piece of the puzzle of understanding “who we are and how we became who we are”. It isn’t “Frankfurt School or the Anti-Saloon League”. It’s both.
So the point is, when the State decides they want to stop you having salt on your chips-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9923651/Chippies-told-to-hold-the-salt-in-drive-to-beat-heart-disease.html
-it’s not always part of a plot by marxists or Kevin’s corporate fascists. It’s because they really have convinced themselves that tasty food is evil, driven by that “secular salvationism”. Modern statism is a syncresis of these variously motivated groups, and we need a broad approach to history that understands them all.
I’m also increasingly convinced that Peter Hitchens is some kind of black ops project intended to discredit conservatism by posing as a cartoonish lampoon of it
I think the facts and evidence speaks for it’s self, conservatism shows no difficulty in discrediting it’s own ideology, they are are effectively a “Black Ops” project, who appear to have the natural ability to destroy
themselves, remember the fool who stabbed himself in the foot
with a sword!
I actually like Peter Hitchens – although when he supports government owned railways, and pretends (perhaps even to himself) that drug prohibition is the traditional position of conservative minded people (which would have come as news to Edmund Burke – or even to Prime Minister Lord Salisbury at the start of the 20th century) he leaves me scratching my head.
By the way Ian – I suspect you would have liked the Restoration period – 1660 onwards.
Virturally no taxes and no real controls on social life.
Am I right?
Are you are fan of the period of the Charles II?
It is important, that during time of recession tight drug controls are in place,
if drugs become out of control, it creates further problems of economic
deficite and social decay, The railways have alway’s been a mess. this demise
started after the death of Queen Victoria, and continues to this day!
Paul, I think I’ve said in comments that yes, indeed, I think that’s the period I’d choose as a favourite in our history.
With the usual caveat that no period is perfect, every time has much wrong with it.
In my view, I would go so far as to say that the period after the Republic and before the Victorians most represented the national character and was the most “libertarian” if they had had such a word then. It was of course the period in which libertarian ideas first came to the fore. Great advances in the intellectual pursuits- philosophy, science- government that mostly stayed out of the way (Europeans envied England’s freedom of association) and a bawdy social scene. What’s not to like?
Of course, I’m being romantic, somewhat. I imagine myself a gentleman scholar, studying science by day, and debating philosophy with other gentlemen in a tavern by evening, with a wench on my lap. Which is much preferable to imagining toiling in the fields, as nearly everyone did.
On a slightly more serious (or at least less romanticised) note, it’s worth observing that Charles II attempted to prevent England sliding back into the puritan tyranny by excluding them from the Parliament, Church and Universities. The irony is that Charles’s “persecution” was the making of them; excluded from privilege, they turned to commerce and many became highly successful (seemingly a similar way to the Jews; exclusion from privilege can be an advantage if you’re an industrious community). Still, at least he tried.
In the terms of that epoch, I’m very much the monarchist I think. I think Naesby was a disaster that nearly destroyed England. Thank God Richard Cromwell had neither the skill nor the stomach to continue the Cromwell dynasty.
Firstly, I think you gravely underestimate Europe historically, I have seen
much evidence from photograpic archives, that europe and particulary
France and Germany were indeed very scientifically advanced in many
areas, as well as being academic and enjoying a good brawdy social life,
just look at photographs of german cities and wrtings of the period to see
they were both academics, and intellectuals. They appear in some way’s
to be a little more do than the english, firstly they put their developments
to good use, and used intellect to change thier societies, were in england
it appears to be an endless cycle with no end product to the benefit of
the people, we have so many so called intellectuals in goverment, fire side
yaps, decade after decade, but in reality nothing changes, it gets a whole
lot worse. With the advent of civil aviation, the first thing the rich did was
to fly to europe to and soak up the life of the social scene with many claimed
was much more advanced and liberal than ours during the period, firstly
anyone who has read the diary extracts and wrtings of “Albrecht Durer”
would now and fully understand it had much more to offer than england,
England was under opressive social and economic control, hence the
materialisation of Cromwell in the first instant, this was effective the real
birth of palimentary democracy, the baby of the Lord Protector. One should
read books by people such as “Fridrich Nuchter” the german doctor to really
understand what europe was like during this period, as it gives the real insight and truth of European History, totally unblemished of the facts.
Karl – the rebuilding of Nuremburg (and the nonrebuilding of so much in Britain) shows that grip of “Progressive” ideas had become stronger here than it was in Germany.
I suppose this may be because when someone says “you can not build in that style, it is against the spirit of the modern age” a British person just nods at the “intellectual” statement, whereas a German is more likely to say “that was indeed the opinon of Hegal (although I doubt he would have liked concrete blocks) – but why should I agree with him?”
The Nazis discredited statism in Germany in a way it is has not been discredited here. And Germans (and Austrians) still love MAKING THINGS (creating real products – and taking PRIDE in what they build), that is less so here.
We are all going to hit very hard times – but I suspect they are going to be even harder for us.
Ian.
Yes I guessed you would say that.
And I largely agree with you.
Yes, Paul, I would not argue on your last point, an almost daily dawning
reality for many, statism that just got to big for it’s boots!
Yes, I think you’re right, I had the bad experience of seeing the accounts for the DVLA last week, most comples affair had ever seen, mind you on a quick decipher it appeared they were spending 60 million to enforce and recover 30 million, on top of the new legislation that will secure further defacto, statism in it’s worst possible form. And with such heavy subsidisation on the back of the tax payer.
Karl I agree about Western civilisation not being restricted to Britain (I hope I have never implied otherwise). Although such things as trial by jury are important – as is the lack of a large standing army.
Ironically England could have had one – but James the first was a greedy fool.
Parliament offered him 400 thousand Pounds a year in return for the formal end of all right for the Crown to approve marriages of orphened daughters (on estates held by miltiary tenure) and a formal declaration that the Crown gave up rights to approve guardians.
But James wanted more money – and so got none (the power decayed over time anyway – and was formally done away with in the time of Charles II).
If he had settled for the 400 thousand Pounds a year – James would have had the large standing army to create the absolute monarchy he craved.
Nick.
Yes much good and much bad – plague, Great Fire, naval wars with the Dutch.
But more good than bad (especially in the 1670s).
No real Central Bank or large national debt.
Very little (if any) national taxation,
No censorship of naughtyness in plays.
And on and on
And no return to the bad side of he old ways.
No “Star Chamber”
And a formal Act of Habius Corpus..
Specifically on the railways.
There was some regulation in the Victorian age – but Karl is correct, the real intense regulation (which undermined the railways) started in the 1900s.
Yes, paul, I can see you know your breif on the Railways Paul, of course two things that did effectivelt cause long term damage to the railways were the two world wars. in the 1900′s much of the available capacity went into the war effort, after the end of the first world war, there was furhter investment and expansion, however the second world war took a heavy toll on the railway network, even in Norfolk in the 70′s one could still find bomb damage caused by the “Luftwaffe”, as a child my granfather used to tell me they used to watch the “Stukas” dive on the railway station from the engineering workshop, they destroyed Norwich Station and many others all over the country, he was also a warden in Norwich during the war, the Stuka was a difficult air craft to shoot down once it had established it’s dive, although there is a mathmatical calculation, it is difficult for ordinary mortals to understand, a very experienced gunner is required, despite the what the RAF said about the Stukas, these were extreme precision bombers, they could take out a tank from the sky, railway lines were easy cake, there was alway’s confusion about stukas by some observers of the RAF who wrongly described them as fighters, they were not a fighter aircraft, but probably the worlds first precision bomber, equiped with limited fighter defences, the german bombers in general inflicted very heavy damage to the railway networks, that took decades to repair! They still had not repaired some of the building damage in Norfolk in the early 70′s.
Yes indeed both World Wars had terrible effects – not just bomb damage, but the undermining of investment in the railways. They were taken over by the state and run into the ground.
Rather like the French Revolutionaries took over the factories in France (the idea that it was a “capitalist” revolution is Marxists being ignorant) – they managed to increase production in the short run, but only at the expense of wreaking the factores.
The Soviet regime had a similar attitude “war on the limiters” – i.e. war on people who said you had to be careful with equipment and so on.
Of course you’re are right again, I thought with the introduction of the Blue Pullmans, there was some real hope, I got a the hornby set for my birthday, I really thought we had cracked it, alas they did not last long, my Marklin 50′s tin plate still work fine, it must tell us something to say the least, again the sate became just two powerfull and big for it’s boots, idiots in unifrom going round giving ill conceived orders, and those at the top drunk on bottles of “Power” hence the mess we are into today, if you want to one of the worlds most advanced railways, goggle Iran Railway development You Tube, they have cut journey times down from over 3 hours to 40 minutes, man can cut through mountain as you will see!
P.S. Paul pulling a sickie, and playing with trains was a lot better than school
as I remeber it!
But, paul, what before totaliterian statisim, Nurnberg, 1500, strong walls, many more than a hundred towers, garded by 300 cannon, in the narrow streets, market places, copper and gold smiths, armourers and gunsmiths, machanics and founders, Nurberg toy’s were to be met everywhere, while the Nurnburg eggs proclaimed the skills of the mechanic to the whole world, Along the pegnizt corn, and paper mills rumbled merrily, while the merchants drove south to the powerful city of Venice, whence they brought back endless processions of waggons what had come there by ship from the far east or products of Italy, spices, cloth, silk stuffs, fruits! The Good old day’s before the birth of the totaliterian status, A real example of the free market and real growth, those were the day’s!
Karl – I agree with you. Indeed I would like to see the return of those old “free cities”.
I regard both German 19th century “unification” and Italian unification as terrible events.
Reblogged this on Ricardo Ben-Safed and commented:
I think Libertiarians ought to think about how to reduce the Prison population peopled with folk captured in the so-called- War on Drugs. I mean there are drugs and medicines and not all drive the minds of the users into oblivion. Marijuana for example is extremely mild compared to the harsh behaviors of someone high on Cocaine, or hallucinating on Morphine derivitives. And none of these folk ought to be in prison where even Emergency treatments for Over dosing is often not available. Thus there is a benefit to ending this so-called War. Let’s do it!
Of course Ricardo, we have an horrific number of pensioners held in U.K. prisons, mainly on the hyped up paranoia of thier war cry, “Danger, Danger, Danger To Others, these cries normally eminate from the mounth of some retarded social worker, or X goon clown responsible for mental health in prisons, I watched a the documentary last week, I somehow question how turn keys were given powers to make diagnosis on mental health or compile reports in such areas, after all these goons have no qualifications, part of what you describe, is motivated by statisim, and quaranteed for life jobs for those employed in this area, hence their industrialised disgusting prison policy, whilst those in the prison service who committ crime evade any form of prosecution, Of course leaked reports over last 24 hours in respect of the treatment of Huhne, shows what undisciplined piss takers these people are who run the prisons, Order, Order, Will the Rt Hon member for wandsworth Come to The Office. Of course both Huhne and his wife have leaked the fact they are horrified at the treatment of people in prison, well what did they expect, an 8 month stay at the Ritz, I am glad they are enjoying their stay, and would hope a few more politians join him, Lucky he wasn’t deemed a republican, he would have got some rather serious abuse from those psycho’s and x military psycho’s dominatrix’s who run the prsions system, of the course the one big problem about these bastard M.P. hypocrites is this, they can shout from the podium send every one to prison, however when they get incarcerated by the state, they suddenly scream the state is some draconian instrument of Human Rights, where people are treated with a lesser existance than rats.
Of course, there are some very worrying concerns about he wealfare of those of detained, God Chloe Smith, whats happening on your watch, there’s real concern at all these suicides in the county, and unlawfull killings, at the Norvic Clinic, there are many questions to be asked about the deaths of prisoners or those detained in mantal health facilities, firstly, how does a woman under constant care, hang herself in a room a few feet from where staff are outside yapping having a fag, how does a male patient under constant care, plug himself into an eletric socket and kill himself when deemed a suicide risk, is it all to do with the battery operated DVD players the night shift sneak into work at night, watching films rather than doing thier jobs, thank God Chloe you’ve fitted those nanny locks on all those computors.
I appreciate the many thoughtful comments about the W.O.D.’s but the most salient fact is that the so called ‘war on drugs’ is being handled by the Justice Dept, Users are being captured and then charged with a crime for which the only discipline for it is prison. This is largely why the Prison populations have swollen to accomodate the many users. Drug use is like prostitution and is properly termed a ‘victimless’ crime. Ergo…no Victim , no crime. Suicide use to be a crime also! It’s silly to waste financial resources to imprison ‘drug users’. As it’s the law that has created the crime. The laws need to be reformed and recinded. This I think is ‘a’ Libertarian point of view, not a statist solution.
I would agree, I did start doing some research once, on how much drug users were costing the tax payer, I took one case study, just one, got to half a million and just gave up, that didn’t include the cost of treatment or court cases which were probabaly the same again not inclusive of the police overtime, he was only a user and not dealer. The problem in england with drugs policy is the govenment likes it, especially the civil service culture as they now it is a guaranteed source of employment, they never catch the big dealers, simply because of the power of the people behind it, we do actually have police exposed as running and being behind drug dealing in the UK, as a recent case last week, police behind some of the worst cases of gun running and illegal firearms!
Of course we are hoping the new legislation on police and government staff concerning assest testing may shed some light, they are now going to have to justify where they got their millions from, police will no longer have the right of confidentiality, this should also be extended to lawyers, we have witnessed some horrific cases police running prostitution networks from public office, ect,ect,ect,!
I just had a look at my archives, one case example, drug addict caught with 700 pounds worth of herion 4 years ago, cost to tax payer to date over £300,000, those wigs and barristers at the Norwich Court just love drug users, they love them to bits!
Ricardo – I am not a fan of your namesake (David Ricardo), but what you say makes a lot of sense.
There are two things here – first there should be no such thing as a Federal “police power”, crime is a local and State responsibility (so the whole Federal “war on drugs” falls at that point).
However, there is also the blatent fact that State and local prohibition clearly does not work.
Even if the philosophy of it made sense (which it does not) it would be refuted by people selling drugs on every street corner of some areas.
Of course there were problems (terrible problems) with opium and cocaine (and so on) being on sale in shops in the 19th century – but prohibition has not made these problems better, it has made them VASTLY WORSE.
As for prostitution.
The laws force women into the hands of VIOLENT PIMPS (the merchants in human flesh).
This can not be a good thing.
I am reminded of Gladstone’s warning.
“Of one thing I am certain – it is not from the state that we will get moral improvement”,
And treating “sins as crimes” has not led to moral improvement – it has led to a terrible mess.
It’s not from the state we get moral improvement, I like that very much, they
just effectively cash in on sin and make the problem worse, they turn sins and minor crime into
a whole hypocritial industry in order to fatten thier already fat bank accounts. The call that british justice, the barrister and the police living off
the back of the sinner! They are the real sin in society.
This is the problem we are seeing a ligislation boby pumping out laws to create quite deliberattely “Sin” and “Crime” where a minority gets rich on the process , one day you’re not a sinner, you wake up the next after someone has out some rediculous law though statute and find your self some demon created by some nutter in Europe. Anyway, who is “Herman Von Rompuy, just who the F is he anyway, where did he pop up from!