Having studied logic during my days in college, it breaks my heart when someone attempts to reach a correct conclusion from a false premise. Under the 'Infinite Monkey Theorem', such things are bound to happen, but they often defy the odds. Oddly enough, Lewis Diuguid actually manages to get to some truth in his piece, "America's Longest War is 10 Years Old And Raging", but his premise that the wars in the Middle East are our longest conflict is in fact a false one.
The longest War that America has been fighting should more accurately be considered to be Korea. Begun on 6/25/1950, it was the first of the US 'undeclared wars' (though some point far earlier to Panama). Though an armistice was signed on 7/27/1953 US troops are never the less still defending South Korean borders, a military budget is expended on their behalf. and shots have been fired (artillery shells, in fact) as recently as last year.
Next on the list of Wars we are still fighting, is that announced on 1/8/1964, LBJ's 'War on Poverty'. This undeclared war was the beginning of the 'Great Society' and is one we have been pouring billions of dollars into for some 47 years with no victory on the horizon and no end in sight. If anything, the goal may be further from achievement now than when begun.
Such things being bi-partisan, the next of the wars we are still fighting was the 'War on Drugs' declared on 6/17/1971 by President Richard Nixon. Nixon even managed to enlist Elvis Presley into government service a second time and awarded him a badge from the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs; which seems rather ironic, since the subsequent deterioration of Presley's health was largely contributed to by years of drug abuse. The influx of drugs and the number of casualties in this war are far too well documented for me to need to go into (so I won't). Still, this makes the War on Drugs over 40 years old, and in spite of the billions spent, likewise no closer to victory.
Skipping ahead 30 years to 9/11/2001, ostensibly the point of Mr Diuguid's piece, the history of wars might be allowed to begin again (at least for him). Of course, the facts of history become rather confused here. Most would in fact tell you that the war in Iraq was the response of the US to the terrorist-flown airplanes in NYC, Washington, and Pennsylvania; but they would be wrong. In fact the US, in its next undeclared war, began fighting in Afghanistan on 10/7/11 in response to Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. We didn't begin fighting in an undeclared war in Iraq against Saddam Hussein until 3/20/2003.
Most recently, we could jump forward to 2/15/2011 and our support of the mission in Libya. Another undeclared conflict and another expenditure of treasure by a nation that now has little or none to spare. And while actual fighting appears to be drawing down, we have as yet no idea what the final cost of this effort will be.
At least now though, we can talk about the impact of the impending anniversary of 9/11 and a display that is being set up by the Kansas City Interfaith Council. To quote Ira Harritt, its program coordinator: "There is the realization that we cannot afford the wars anymore. People are realizing that $800 billion a year for the military and these wars is not worth the price tag."
While this is a sentiment with which I would tend to agree; strangely enough, I find it strange that these groups do not find such selective history contradictory or that they can ignore events before 9/11 or outside of Iraq and Afghanistan. No one protests the nature or the budget of the Libyan campaign, or seeks to keep us out of the growing number of 'Arab Spring' uprisings in Syria, Yemen, and Bahrain among others. Discounting the rest of the Middle East, they likewise ignore the failure in the strategies of social programs that have been going on far longer and wasting even more time and treasure.
"We recognize the sacrifice the armed forces made in pursuing the war on terror. We want to remind the public there are alternatives to the challenges we face," Harritt said. "The more we invest in military solutions, the more we are perpetuating the problems we face. I think 10 years has shown us that doesn't work." And Diuguid ends it with, "It's past time for peace to dominate."
Cheers to Mr Diuguid for managing not to plagiarize John Lennon (and for having a last name that's a palindrome). I fear that his thinking and Mr Harritt's may in fact be too narrow however. While on the right track, they may wish to broaden their perspective to understand that government solutions to problems, military or otherwise, seldom come to a successful conclusion in the wars they fight. If 10 years is too much, what would over 40 be? If the failure of a military campaign to produce the desired result is reason enough for ending it, how then the failure of social programs?
Perhaps its time check the facts of history and to declare peace in wars that have been going on far longer.
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
The Price of Peace
As the debate over tax rates continues in the House and Senate, one of the chief argument against extension of lower rates is over their cost to the federal government. It seems that their is a great deal of concern on the part of those desiring the end to those tax rates because an increase of the federal deficit will result.
Chief among the concerns of these recent deficit hawks is that the country cannot afford a loss tax revenues at a time when this country is involved in two wars. I cannot help but reject this thinking. Since Congress has not passed a Declaration of War since December 7, 1941, the conflicts that we are currently engaged in cannot qualify as such. This does not speak to the necessity of these actions nor in any way lessen the sacrifices of brave men and women fighting on these fronts; but only speaks to the fact that words do have meanings and in this country war means something very specific. (Either that, or Congress and past Presidents have abused their legal authority under the Constitution.)
Besides, the cost of these military engagements is far from the only investment that this country is making. Most estimates in fact, place all defense-related spending at between $1 and $1.5 trillion for fiscal 2010. Since the total 2010 budget is over $3.5 trillion, which would put total defense spending at less than half. Setting aside the rest of the money spent by Congress (admittedly, a pretty large set-aside, but one that many Representatives seem capable of doing), my curiosity turns not to what the price of these two combat zones costs, but what the cost of peace is to the US in the rest of the world.
What does it cost this country for troops deployed in the Far East and NATO countries? What does it cost to maintain and replace equipment in far-flung bases around the world from Saudi Arabia to Guantanamo Bay? What level of treasure do we pay for troops and bases not actually engaged in open conflicts around the world? What's the cost to maintain bases of the various services in this country alone, where by law such troops cannot be deployed. While we are deploring the costs involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, does anyone ever bother to ask about the cost of troops in Japan and South Korea? How much do we spend to maintain armored divisions in NATO countries that have never fired a shot in anger?
Moreover, what have we paid over the years to hire, transport, and provide logistical support special envoys sent into countries around the world attempting to maintain peace that often has nothing to do with this country? What have the costs been in attempts to resolve thousand year-old conflicts between with a never-ending stream of Cabinet Secretaries and special envoys seeking to create or maintain peace in Eastern Europe between various sectarian groups or the Middle East between Palestinians and the Israelis?
What we do know, at least according to its "Budget In Brief", is that the Department of State operated on about $16.4 billion in appropriations last year; but these sums do not include Foreign Service Nationals or Border Security Programs. Also not included is the money called out in this document is that doled out as Foreign Aid either dropped into the cesspool more commonly known as the UN or used as little more than payoffs to governments and petty tyrants in nations around the world in a vague and failing effort to get them to remain our friends.
What does it say about the quality (or value) of such friendships that they have to be bought and paid for? How long would we expect them to last if the money were withdrawn? I am not trying to justify the nation building that this country is attempting around the world, in fact far from it. Neither am I commenting on the too seldom heralded efforts of a military often placed in untenable positions by the very politicians who complain about their costs after deploying them in the first place. I am however showing my confusion and disgust at the ability of these self-same politicians to complain about the cost of fighting what they deem lengthy and perhaps unworthy battles around the world, without ever mentioning the price of maintaining the peace for far greater periods in far more places.
Chief among the concerns of these recent deficit hawks is that the country cannot afford a loss tax revenues at a time when this country is involved in two wars. I cannot help but reject this thinking. Since Congress has not passed a Declaration of War since December 7, 1941, the conflicts that we are currently engaged in cannot qualify as such. This does not speak to the necessity of these actions nor in any way lessen the sacrifices of brave men and women fighting on these fronts; but only speaks to the fact that words do have meanings and in this country war means something very specific. (Either that, or Congress and past Presidents have abused their legal authority under the Constitution.)
Besides, the cost of these military engagements is far from the only investment that this country is making. Most estimates in fact, place all defense-related spending at between $1 and $1.5 trillion for fiscal 2010. Since the total 2010 budget is over $3.5 trillion, which would put total defense spending at less than half. Setting aside the rest of the money spent by Congress (admittedly, a pretty large set-aside, but one that many Representatives seem capable of doing), my curiosity turns not to what the price of these two combat zones costs, but what the cost of peace is to the US in the rest of the world.
What does it cost this country for troops deployed in the Far East and NATO countries? What does it cost to maintain and replace equipment in far-flung bases around the world from Saudi Arabia to Guantanamo Bay? What level of treasure do we pay for troops and bases not actually engaged in open conflicts around the world? What's the cost to maintain bases of the various services in this country alone, where by law such troops cannot be deployed. While we are deploring the costs involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, does anyone ever bother to ask about the cost of troops in Japan and South Korea? How much do we spend to maintain armored divisions in NATO countries that have never fired a shot in anger?
Moreover, what have we paid over the years to hire, transport, and provide logistical support special envoys sent into countries around the world attempting to maintain peace that often has nothing to do with this country? What have the costs been in attempts to resolve thousand year-old conflicts between with a never-ending stream of Cabinet Secretaries and special envoys seeking to create or maintain peace in Eastern Europe between various sectarian groups or the Middle East between Palestinians and the Israelis?
What we do know, at least according to its "Budget In Brief", is that the Department of State operated on about $16.4 billion in appropriations last year; but these sums do not include Foreign Service Nationals or Border Security Programs. Also not included is the money called out in this document is that doled out as Foreign Aid either dropped into the cesspool more commonly known as the UN or used as little more than payoffs to governments and petty tyrants in nations around the world in a vague and failing effort to get them to remain our friends.
What does it say about the quality (or value) of such friendships that they have to be bought and paid for? How long would we expect them to last if the money were withdrawn? I am not trying to justify the nation building that this country is attempting around the world, in fact far from it. Neither am I commenting on the too seldom heralded efforts of a military often placed in untenable positions by the very politicians who complain about their costs after deploying them in the first place. I am however showing my confusion and disgust at the ability of these self-same politicians to complain about the cost of fighting what they deem lengthy and perhaps unworthy battles around the world, without ever mentioning the price of maintaining the peace for far greater periods in far more places.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Land of the Free
On September 3, 1814, Francis Scott Key was temporarily held prisoner by the British during the Battle of Fort McHenry, one of those fought as part of the ill-fated War of 1812. While being held, he penned a poem called "Defense of Fort McHenry", which later became lyrics that were set to the melody of a British drinking song, "To Anacreon in Heaven". The result thereby achieved became "The Star Spangled Banner". Though the ending of the third stanza was not actually the end of the poem or the song, it has become the end as we now sing it:
"O'er the Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave". Almost 196 years has passed since the original poem was penned, and 79 have passed since it became our national anthem by Congressional resolution.
Forgive me for thinking so, but it also certainly seems as though the first part of this phrase has come to mean something entirely different in recent years. It sometimes appears these days in fact, that the "Land of the Free" means little more to most than a requirement for government to hand out free money to some of its citizens. People no longer seem to hope for such assistance after all other efforts of their own have failed, but expect it before such effort has been expended, and in fact demand it as their due. While many trace the origin of this mentality back to FDR's "New Deal", I would say instead that it can be linked more to the "War on Poverty" introduced by then President Lyndon B Johnson in his 1964 State of the Union speech.
Forty-six years later, few if any wars in this country's history can be said to have gone on so long, gone through so much money, and won so few battles. Instead of victory, the bitter stalemate we seem to have settled for is an entitlement mentality and an expectation that it is the duty of government to provide equal outcomes to its citizens rather than equal opportunities.
A most recent example can be found in the fights and stampedes we saw occurring in Atlanta when more than 30,000 people showed up looking for federal housing assistance and were disappointed in what they received. Many were not looking for available programs or applications, but instead were expecting to receive checks for little more than the effort of standing in line.
This is not the only free money demanded of our government these days however, but only the latest item added to a list that includes: welfare, aid to dependent children, disability payments from government run Social Security, and of course retirement payments from that same program. And while money is taken in the form of taxes from its citizens to meet these obligations (some more than others), all seem to feel entitled to payments far beyond any money individually contributed. After all, its just government money.
Health care reform seems destined to add to the list of these benefits and its financial burden. While promises have already been made for increased access to service and similar increases to preventive care, our government cannot adequately explain how any of this will be paid for and continues to tread a path spiraling into increasing expectation exceeded only by the debt that such presumption engenders.
This does not mean that helping our fellow man is bad, but that getting government involved in the process turns such aid into a bureaucratic monstrosity, into panhandling, and into rampant fraud. It is charity for individuals to give to the needs of others out of their own generosity. It is armed robbery for the government to take from some under threat of imprisonment, only to give to others in little more than wealth redistribution.
This is not the freedom that our Founding Fathers envisioned when breaking from the British crown in 1776 in the Declaration of Independence and codifying later in the Constitution. Nor is it that which Mr Key watched men fight and die for while being held on two separate British ships (the HMS Surprise and the HMS Minden) during the battle. Certainly it is far from a true representation of the American Dream. If there is one truth that can be agreed on in fact, it is that "there is no such thing as a free lunch".
Ultimately there is a price to be paid for everything, and the only choice available is who will pick up the tab. Once that hard and terrible truth is understood, it should be likewise simple to understand that the only way to return to freedom is to somehow find a way to make the citizens of this country understand that being the Land of the Free does not involve what the lyric from a much more recent song states. Despite what Dire Straits lead singer Mark Knopfler sings to us, we cannot get "money for nothing".
Forgive me for thinking so, but it also certainly seems as though the first part of this phrase has come to mean something entirely different in recent years. It sometimes appears these days in fact, that the "Land of the Free" means little more to most than a requirement for government to hand out free money to some of its citizens. People no longer seem to hope for such assistance after all other efforts of their own have failed, but expect it before such effort has been expended, and in fact demand it as their due. While many trace the origin of this mentality back to FDR's "New Deal", I would say instead that it can be linked more to the "War on Poverty" introduced by then President Lyndon B Johnson in his 1964 State of the Union speech.
Forty-six years later, few if any wars in this country's history can be said to have gone on so long, gone through so much money, and won so few battles. Instead of victory, the bitter stalemate we seem to have settled for is an entitlement mentality and an expectation that it is the duty of government to provide equal outcomes to its citizens rather than equal opportunities.
A most recent example can be found in the fights and stampedes we saw occurring in Atlanta when more than 30,000 people showed up looking for federal housing assistance and were disappointed in what they received. Many were not looking for available programs or applications, but instead were expecting to receive checks for little more than the effort of standing in line.
This is not the only free money demanded of our government these days however, but only the latest item added to a list that includes: welfare, aid to dependent children, disability payments from government run Social Security, and of course retirement payments from that same program. And while money is taken in the form of taxes from its citizens to meet these obligations (some more than others), all seem to feel entitled to payments far beyond any money individually contributed. After all, its just government money.
Health care reform seems destined to add to the list of these benefits and its financial burden. While promises have already been made for increased access to service and similar increases to preventive care, our government cannot adequately explain how any of this will be paid for and continues to tread a path spiraling into increasing expectation exceeded only by the debt that such presumption engenders.
This does not mean that helping our fellow man is bad, but that getting government involved in the process turns such aid into a bureaucratic monstrosity, into panhandling, and into rampant fraud. It is charity for individuals to give to the needs of others out of their own generosity. It is armed robbery for the government to take from some under threat of imprisonment, only to give to others in little more than wealth redistribution.
This is not the freedom that our Founding Fathers envisioned when breaking from the British crown in 1776 in the Declaration of Independence and codifying later in the Constitution. Nor is it that which Mr Key watched men fight and die for while being held on two separate British ships (the HMS Surprise and the HMS Minden) during the battle. Certainly it is far from a true representation of the American Dream. If there is one truth that can be agreed on in fact, it is that "there is no such thing as a free lunch".
Ultimately there is a price to be paid for everything, and the only choice available is who will pick up the tab. Once that hard and terrible truth is understood, it should be likewise simple to understand that the only way to return to freedom is to somehow find a way to make the citizens of this country understand that being the Land of the Free does not involve what the lyric from a much more recent song states. Despite what Dire Straits lead singer Mark Knopfler sings to us, we cannot get "money for nothing".
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
An End To Nation Building
We often talk about our overseas troop deployments as "Nation Building", an attempt to bring the freedom that we enjoy to countries around the world. In Korea, Viet Nam, Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan we have diligently applied outside influence to create what we hope will be another democracy in the world like the United States with little apparent success.
The United States (Colonies) of America came about when those colonies themselves decided to seek independence and freedom. Defining the goals that they sought in the Declaration of Independence, they went on to seek that freedom through separation from Great Britain. Fighting a war of rebellion against the British crown, they finally achieved that freedom in 1783.
This is not to say that these United Colonies did not receive help in their efforts. There is little doubt that independence could have been achieved without the help of the French, who were traditional enemies of the British and therefore served their own interests simultaneously. The French however, did not embark upon a nation building effort in coming to our aid. In fact it was many years after declaring our freedom before and entering into war against what was at the time the greatest army and navy in the world that any significant aid was forthcoming from these allies, and that was achieved only as a result of the extensive efforts of such colonial luminaries as Ben Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson.
We have to ask ourselves therefore, what right do we think we have to interfere in the governance of other nations? What hubris is it to believe that we can force what for us was an internal revolution on other parts of the world by the application of external force?
Looking at the success rate that we have achieved in the past, what makes us continue a practice that has proved a dismal failure time and time again? In saying this, I cast no aspersions on the men and women of our armed forces. I have family currently overseas, many who served in past conflicts, and have nothing but the greatest respect for their service to this country. These people serve bravely and honorably around the world, performing whatever and wherever they are asked, and sacrificing on a level that few of us can understand.
Their goal however is winning however, something that cannot be said of the political leaders who expect them to succeed while tying both their hands and feet with so-called political necessities and rules of engagement. This insanity goes far beyond political parties, as Democrat and Republican Administrations share in the blame for these overseas excursions, and usually for equally nonsensical causes.
We go to war to prevent Communism in Korea and Viet Nam, only to have it appear in our backyard in Cuba. We battle to prevent evil regimes in Kuwait and Panama from reeking harm only to watch it flourish in Venezuela. We attempt to build democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, while watching it begin to crumble once again in Bosnia after over 13 years of effort.
Perhaps it's time that we learn that we can neither create nor impose a democracy on any country from the outside. While we should deny no country the help that we once ourselves required to achieve our independence, we should make it clear that we will do so only once those people have worked towards it themselves. We should learn that as it happened here in America, the movement towards freedom and democracy is one that must be made from within, and put an end to nation building.
What utter nonsense!
The United States (Colonies) of America came about when those colonies themselves decided to seek independence and freedom. Defining the goals that they sought in the Declaration of Independence, they went on to seek that freedom through separation from Great Britain. Fighting a war of rebellion against the British crown, they finally achieved that freedom in 1783.
This is not to say that these United Colonies did not receive help in their efforts. There is little doubt that independence could have been achieved without the help of the French, who were traditional enemies of the British and therefore served their own interests simultaneously. The French however, did not embark upon a nation building effort in coming to our aid. In fact it was many years after declaring our freedom before and entering into war against what was at the time the greatest army and navy in the world that any significant aid was forthcoming from these allies, and that was achieved only as a result of the extensive efforts of such colonial luminaries as Ben Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson.
We have to ask ourselves therefore, what right do we think we have to interfere in the governance of other nations? What hubris is it to believe that we can force what for us was an internal revolution on other parts of the world by the application of external force?
Looking at the success rate that we have achieved in the past, what makes us continue a practice that has proved a dismal failure time and time again? In saying this, I cast no aspersions on the men and women of our armed forces. I have family currently overseas, many who served in past conflicts, and have nothing but the greatest respect for their service to this country. These people serve bravely and honorably around the world, performing whatever and wherever they are asked, and sacrificing on a level that few of us can understand.
Their goal however is winning however, something that cannot be said of the political leaders who expect them to succeed while tying both their hands and feet with so-called political necessities and rules of engagement. This insanity goes far beyond political parties, as Democrat and Republican Administrations share in the blame for these overseas excursions, and usually for equally nonsensical causes.
We go to war to prevent Communism in Korea and Viet Nam, only to have it appear in our backyard in Cuba. We battle to prevent evil regimes in Kuwait and Panama from reeking harm only to watch it flourish in Venezuela. We attempt to build democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, while watching it begin to crumble once again in Bosnia after over 13 years of effort.
Perhaps it's time that we learn that we can neither create nor impose a democracy on any country from the outside. While we should deny no country the help that we once ourselves required to achieve our independence, we should make it clear that we will do so only once those people have worked towards it themselves. We should learn that as it happened here in America, the movement towards freedom and democracy is one that must be made from within, and put an end to nation building.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Stop The Wars!
I am going to post a little early this week, as Saturday is another travel day for me, and I don't expect to feel much like writing after what I anticipate will be 17 hours getting home. Hopefully my life will return to its abnormal level by Monday.
Yes, I want to stop the wars, but probably not the one that you are thinking of. I will deal with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in another time and another place. Likewise, the sentiment that I am espousing here is not a pacifist one, at least not as you probably understand the term. What I am talking about here is that I want to stop both The War on Drugs and The War on Poverty.
Now I propose to do this in much the way that the current Democratic Congress would like to stop the current wars in the Middle East. I would like to declare defeat, bring the troops home, and stop spending the money. Wait a minute you say, that’s not the way that it works. Why not? After five years of fighting in Iraq without a final victory, we are ready to call it quits and get the hell out.
Well we’ve been fighting the War on Poverty since the 60’s and the War on Drugs almost as long and not only have we not won either of these wars, we are probably doing worse today in these fights than when we started. Billions of dollars spent, countless lives wasted, thousands of pages of speeches given and laws passed in fighting the good fight, yet the implacable enemies of drugs and poverty plague our nation.
Well I say let’s end those wars now and declare a moratorium on such pointless wars of compassion for our fellow man. Nothing fails so utterly or completely like the federal government trying to mandate correct behavior or lend a helping hand. The bureaucratic morass created by such interference is only exceeded by the complete and utter failure of the effort. I say that the only way to win these wars is not to fight them!
If you really want to end poverty, then stop handing out free money and start handing out a double dose of opportunity and responsibility. Take the money that the government taxes us to pay for these failed efforts and give it back to the people who paid it. Let good old capitalism make use of such capital and opportunities will abound for all to increase their standard of living. Get rid of the mind-numbing amount of regulation preventing people from achieving the American dream and they will. The only ones that will be left in need are the ones too used to sucking at the government teat to help themselves. Take government out of the picture and let entrepreneurs create the jobs they always have. Eliminate government bureaucracy and dependency and substitute self reliance.
If you really want to stop drug abuse, then make these drugs legal and tax the crap out of them. It may not solve the problem, but it would at least show some consistency from the government and it seems to be working for smoking after all. Even if it didn't convince everyone to get off of drugs, it could finance treatment for those too physically or psychologically addicted to mend their ways. And it would do so without asking everyone to pay for the bad habits of a few.
Now I'm not sure that government is capable of carrying out this simple a program, but it has the merit of never having been tried (and having failed) before. Prohibiting a substance has never eliminated it from the marketplace, only reduced the control over its distribution and created a criminal network to fill the void in supply (see alcohol,Prohibition, and The Mob).
I don’t want to seem cruel here people, and I don’t really think that I do. The truth of the matter is that I think that I believe in people more than my government does. I believe that there are times when people need a helping hand, but not that they need to be carried like a child. I believe that given choices and opportunities to act responsibly, that people will do so. If they don't or can't, they need to be prepared to pay for the privilege of acting irresponsibly.
I believe that our government is doing what it can to keep us ignorant and dependent, conditions which make us easier to control. I believe that the nanny state is keeping us from achieving our potential and human beings and Americans. Let me leave you with the words of President Ronald Reagan, " The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'."
Yes, I want to stop the wars, but probably not the one that you are thinking of. I will deal with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in another time and another place. Likewise, the sentiment that I am espousing here is not a pacifist one, at least not as you probably understand the term. What I am talking about here is that I want to stop both The War on Drugs and The War on Poverty.
Now I propose to do this in much the way that the current Democratic Congress would like to stop the current wars in the Middle East. I would like to declare defeat, bring the troops home, and stop spending the money. Wait a minute you say, that’s not the way that it works. Why not? After five years of fighting in Iraq without a final victory, we are ready to call it quits and get the hell out.
Well we’ve been fighting the War on Poverty since the 60’s and the War on Drugs almost as long and not only have we not won either of these wars, we are probably doing worse today in these fights than when we started. Billions of dollars spent, countless lives wasted, thousands of pages of speeches given and laws passed in fighting the good fight, yet the implacable enemies of drugs and poverty plague our nation.
Well I say let’s end those wars now and declare a moratorium on such pointless wars of compassion for our fellow man. Nothing fails so utterly or completely like the federal government trying to mandate correct behavior or lend a helping hand. The bureaucratic morass created by such interference is only exceeded by the complete and utter failure of the effort. I say that the only way to win these wars is not to fight them!
If you really want to end poverty, then stop handing out free money and start handing out a double dose of opportunity and responsibility. Take the money that the government taxes us to pay for these failed efforts and give it back to the people who paid it. Let good old capitalism make use of such capital and opportunities will abound for all to increase their standard of living. Get rid of the mind-numbing amount of regulation preventing people from achieving the American dream and they will. The only ones that will be left in need are the ones too used to sucking at the government teat to help themselves. Take government out of the picture and let entrepreneurs create the jobs they always have. Eliminate government bureaucracy and dependency and substitute self reliance.
If you really want to stop drug abuse, then make these drugs legal and tax the crap out of them. It may not solve the problem, but it would at least show some consistency from the government and it seems to be working for smoking after all. Even if it didn't convince everyone to get off of drugs, it could finance treatment for those too physically or psychologically addicted to mend their ways. And it would do so without asking everyone to pay for the bad habits of a few.
Now I'm not sure that government is capable of carrying out this simple a program, but it has the merit of never having been tried (and having failed) before. Prohibiting a substance has never eliminated it from the marketplace, only reduced the control over its distribution and created a criminal network to fill the void in supply (see alcohol,Prohibition, and The Mob).
I don’t want to seem cruel here people, and I don’t really think that I do. The truth of the matter is that I think that I believe in people more than my government does. I believe that there are times when people need a helping hand, but not that they need to be carried like a child. I believe that given choices and opportunities to act responsibly, that people will do so. If they don't or can't, they need to be prepared to pay for the privilege of acting irresponsibly.
I believe that our government is doing what it can to keep us ignorant and dependent, conditions which make us easier to control. I believe that the nanny state is keeping us from achieving our potential and human beings and Americans. Let me leave you with the words of President Ronald Reagan, " The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)