Return to main page
Return to Archives
Posted 8/1/06 (By Travis)
In principle, Conservatives and Libertarians see eye to eye in regards to economic freedom. They believe that individual Americans will collectively spend their own money much more efficiently and benefit society more than government spending. They believe burdensome regulations limit prosperity and harms business. They understand the harmfulness of socialized health care and retirement schemes.
However, there seem to be differences in scope between the two ideologies. Conservatives don't seem to have the same degree of, for lack of a better word, 'anti-governmentism'. They don't seem to realize the degree which government spending and social programs routinely, if not always, accomplish the opposite of their intentions.
Thus, it is somewhat natural Social Conservativism should exist. Social Conservatives generally believe government is just focused on the wrong things; they believe government intervention itself is not the problem, but rather a liberal, pun intended, use of government is desirable and necessary to maintain order and increase morality in society. Incidentally, and as we might expect, Social Conservatives also tend to be the weakest along the spectrum of economic Conservatism and may also oppose free trade and immigration etc...
It goes without saying, the intentions of Social Conservatives are just as pure and good as the intentions of liberals with their collectivism and social programs. However, IMHO, the fact is that, just like liberals, Social Conservatives actually work against their own ideals; their bills and legislations accomplish the opposite of their intentions. Instead of government acting as a moral beacon, as they had hoped, it instead injects a dose of immorality into society, which varies directly with the degree of activism by the Social Conservatives. Thus, ironically, the more powerful Social Conservatives become, the further they will drive society from their goals. Of course, this is somewhat difficult to quantify as their actions may be statistically obscured by positive economic Conservatism and the resulting economic freedom. Indeed, economic freedom, for example freedom from welfarism, plays a vastly greater role in the making of a prosperous moral society, which is why Libertarians generally side with Conservatives on most issues. Still, the priorities and actions of Social Conservatives are harmful, if occasionally practically tolerable, and need to be examined and elucidated, which is the point of this piece. :)
Justice Janice Rogers Brown said:
Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible.
Notice Justice Brown did not make the distinction of 'how' government moves in; she does not distinguish between economic and social interventions:
Teens More Likely To Try Marijuana After Viewing Feds' Anti-Pot Ads, Study Says
5/11/06 NORML First, let's look at intentions:
The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, initiated by Congress in 1998, has spent more than $2 billion in taxpayers' money and matching funds producing and airing anti-marijuana advertisements, including several alleging that the use of cannabis funds international terrorist activities.
The funny thing, if you find it humorous, is that cannabis funds, and drug money in general, is tied to terrorism, as well as increases in violence and general societal destruction; but, this is not because of 'drugs' or marijuana, it is because government has made drugs and marijuana illegal! It is the very illegality of these substances that breeds the terrorism and violence. Again, government action is the cause, not the solution. Now, let's look at the results of these ads and spending:
Investigators found that viewers expressed significantly fewer negative attitudes toward marijuana after viewing the ads. No such "boomerang effect" was noted among those who viewed anti-tobacco advertising.
""It appears that ... anti-marijuana public statement announcements used in national anti-drug campaigns in the US produce immediate effects [that are the] opposite [of those] intended by the creators of this campaign," authors concluded."
The criminals and drug dealers who peddle drugs should thank the US government for advertising for them (after they thank them for the cheap labor and 'tax breaks'). The point is that this attempt by government, and Social Conservatives, whose support for this sort of action dates back to the failures of prohibition, again accomplished the opposite of their intention.
In actuality, those who have seen firsthand the scourge of drugs, who abhor drug use, who passionately care about the youth of today and the current drug problem, should be the most ardent proponents of legalization.
This sort of counterintuitiveness reminds me of the Children's Defense Fund, a liberal organization that vehemently opposed Welfare Reform in the name of 'the children', in effect working to hurt the very children they were trying to get funding and government intervention for. Their opponents were labeled as 'uncaring', 'greedy', and 'racist'.
Similarly, those opposing the Social Conservative agenda are sometimes labeled 'potheads', 'porn lovers', promoters of the 'homosexual agenda', and even 'polygamists'. As with Welfare Reform, it becomes impossible to rationally debate a policy when your opponents are unwilling to recognize that you both share a hope for the same results and possess the same intentions.
The most unfortunate consequence of the Social Conservative movement, IMO, is that the apparent lack of understanding of how harmful the federal government is economically, has led Social Conservatives to place mistaken priority on their social agenda. This dilutes the pressure economic conservatives and libertarians can exert on politicians. It also leads to some of the silliest, most ridiculous, acts of government one can imagine:
The Whizzinator: A House Panel's No. 1 Priority
6/28/05 Washington Post
Every so often, in the hushed galleries of Congress, history unfolds in a manner that casts the momentous business of Capitol Hill in stark, even humbling relief. Then there are moments spent discussing the Whizzinator.
Onlookers stifle cackles and snickers, or try to. "People want to make this a skit on 'Saturday Night Live,' " says Rep. Joe Barton. But it's not funny, the Texas Republican says, not funny at all.
Congressmen Propose Steroid-Testing Bill
5/25/05 Associated Press
Athletes in the four major U.S. professional leagues would be subject to two-year bans for a first positive drug test under legislation proposed Tuesday that would put the sports' steroid policies under the White House drug czar.
Bar Sweep Sparks Controversy
The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission sent a message to bar patrons last week.
TABC agents and Irving police swept through 36 Irving bars and arrested about 30 people on charges of public intoxication. Agency representatives say the move came as a proactive measure to curtail drunken driving.
North Texans interviewed by NBC 5, however, worried that the sweep went too far.
At one location, for example, agents and police arrested patrons of a hotel bar. Some of the suspects said they were registered at the hotel and had no intention of driving. Arresting authorities said the patrons were a danger to themselves and others.
"Going to a bar is not an opportunity to go get drunk," TABC Capt. David Alexander said. "It's to have a good time but not to get drunk."
D.C. Seeks Sales Ban On Violent Games
2/3/05 Washington Post
D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams and most D.C. Council members say they want to ban the sale of violent and sexually explicit video games to minors, linking the popular games to juvenile violence.
Justices question Southern Nevada anti-prostitution ordinance
State Supreme Court justices questioned Wednesday whether high school cheerleaders trying to flag down motorists for a car wash might run afoul of a broadly written ordinance targeting pushy Las Vegas-area prostitutes.
5/7/06 New York Times
But recently, as the conservative tide has continued to swell, this campaign has taken on a broader scope. Its true beginning point may not be Roe but Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 case that had the effect of legalizing contraception. "We see a direct connection between the practice of contraception and the practice of abortion," says Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, an organization that has battled abortion for 27 years but that, like others, now has a larger mission. "The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an antichild mind-set," she told me. "So when a baby is conceived accidentally, the couple already have this negative attitude toward the child. Therefore seeking an abortion is a natural outcome. We oppose all forms of contraception."
Senate Passes Legislation on Schiavo Case
3/20/06 Associated Press
The Senate passed a bill that could prolong Terri Schiavo's life while a federal court considers her
case while House Republicans, stymied by Democrats, scrambled to bring enough lawmakers back to
the Capitol for an emergency vote early Monday.
GOP leaders planned a House vote just past midnight, hours after the Senate approved the bill by voice vote. President Bush rushed back from Texas for a chance to sign the measure. [which he did at 1:11am in the morning]
Can you believe it? The senior Whitehouse staff, the president of the United States, and the Congress rush back to Washington and are up all hours of the night over what was essentially a he said she said family dispute (Terri Schiavo case). This is what the Federal Government and our elected representatives consider an 'emergency'? This micromanaging and blatant intrusion of the Federal government into family matters should abhor, rather than excite Social Conservatives. What a disgrace, that this was a priority for elected officials, rather than battling the pervasive socialism that exists in the United States.
Town won't let unmarried parents live together
The City Council has rejected a measure allowing unmarried couples with multiple children to live together, and the mayor said those who fall into that category could soon face eviction.
Olivia Shelltrack and Fondrey Loving were denied an occupancy permit after moving into a home in this St. Louis suburb because they have three children and are not married.
Gay-Adoption Ban In Florida to Stand / Justices Decline to Hear Challenge
1/11/2005 Washington Post (Florida 'Republican' controlled Legislature passes a law banning gay couples from adopting)
The Florida plaintiffs argued there is no reason to deny all gays the right to adopt at a time when the state lacks homes for 8,000 children.
But the state replied in its brief, "Petitioners never showed that the gay adoption provision has ever limited the number of adoptions in any statistically significant way."
This is perhaps the worst result of Social Conservative lawmaking. They seem to believe that kids are better off in a state home than with gay parents. Again, they don't understand the true enemy is the STATE! The worst place for kids to be raised is the state - by definition! This has been shown over and over again from the atrocities in Romanian and Chinese orphanages, where thousands of children grew up brain damaged, to the horrific state run orphanages here in the US. Yet, these lawmakers are somehow considered strong on 'family values' by Social Conservatives.
Speaking of 'family values', in 'Secondary Problems of Socialism', I address the issue of socialized marriage and some of the hurtful government interventions contained therin. It is the government intervention which has corrupted and harmed this sacred institution, more government intervention is not needed to fix it! The current defining and licensing of marriage by government, the pervasive tax incentives and disincentives for both marriage and single mothers, divorce laws encouraging 'gold digging', and other incentives to break apart marriage, all combine, along with welfare and other redistributionist type policies (again, economics play the greatest role), to lessen family values, to cheapen marriage, and to place it into the hands of government, rather than God.
Indeed, this is the strangest part of Social Conservatism, the religious and spiritual overtones, from which many of their beliefs and resulting legislative efforts are apparently derived. In describing the spiritual founding of the United States, I previously wrote:
Finally, they [the founders] wrote laws that removed the King and eliminated the artificial Middle-Man between the common man and God. Each man was the King of his own private property, including his physical body, and thereby only answerable to God, not government. What took place was a massive decentralization of power to the individual.
The idea that one answers to God and not government is quite a powerful one. By assuming that man can and should enforce God's will upon the people, Social Conservatives are operating on a number of faulty premises.
First, they are assuming they, and not the 'common man', are closest to God and understand His will best. This indirect condescension is analogous to the liberal intellectual who believes he can spend your money better than you. Moral currency, if you will, is best left for the common man to accumulate and spend.
Second, common sense dictates, and the scriptures of all religions pontificate, that morality is something that must be chosen, hence the apparent phenomena of free will. Forcing God, or their version of Him, on the populace, will not change hearts or minds. In fact, it may alienate investigation of many of the positive principles Social Conservatives profess. God/morality is found or chosen from within. Similarly, by forcibly confiscating money from the populace to invest in 'charity', liberals make the same mistake. In the words of Calvin Coolidge, Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.
Or, as Albert Jay Nock said:
Once we might have been inclined to give a quarter to a beggar. Now, however...we might tell him that the State has confiscated our quarter for his benefit, and that he might as well go to the State about it.
With government providing 'morality' for the society, what need is there for activist citizens to educate others and band together to voluntarily spread moral messages? What need is there to independently investigate right and wrong, if the government provides such 'information'? And, most importantly, who wants morality to be under political control? Heh heh... I wonder how Social Conservatives would feel if Republicans lost congress and the presidency after they decreed the Federal Government in charge of morality...
Thirdly, Social Conservatives believe that without government people are not 'good' enough or moral enough to live their lives and individually raise the level of morality in society. Liberals believe people would not donate or help those who 'need' such help if it weren't for government. Both lines of thinking are incorrect.
Fourthly, some Social Conservatives may concede most of society would be fine or even better without government coercion, yet, a small minority would 'fall through the cracks'. Thus, laws must exist to ensure the 'proper behavior' of the deviant few. Does this not sound similar to liberal rhetoric? In order to make us 'equal', in order to 'save the poorest of the poor', liberalism instead makes everyone equally miserable. Attempting to 'save' the weak by tearing down the strong ends up destroying everyone. Social Conservatives must be disciplined enough to respect the freedom and choices of the deviant few, with an understanding that pursuing cracks will bring the house down. It is how the world is and any action on the part of government will only increase this deviance.
Fifthly, this propensity to be 'outraged' and obsess about the behavior of others is symptomatic of a lack of appreciation for the wonderfulness of our society and culture, ie searching for cracks, insecurity from within, and excessive emotional attachment to cultural events (Schaivo). When liberals hear about a 'wrong' somewhere, the first thing they want to do is pass a law, confiscate some money, and get government involved.
Finally, and most controversially, as if this blend of politics and religion hasn't been controversial enough :), I need to touch on the similarities and differences between churches and governments. Let me start by stating that, although I don't belong or subscribe to any particular one (per se), I am a big fan of churches and religious organizations. From the beginning of history they have provided a needed balance and protection against the despotic power of government. From the Pope in the middle ages, to the Catholic Church in Poland and Cuba, to the, largely, protestant founders of the United States, as long as church and state remain separate (an unaddressed problem in many Muslim Countries), a church and/or religion(s) provides a powerful check and balance on runway political control.
With that said, there are similarities between governments and large organizations such as churches. A church, similar to a government, will take tithes for them, not you, to spend as they see fit. Churches have issued pronouncements of morality, which the members generally follow, relieving them of the trouble of arriving at their own conclusions, encouraging conformity, and limiting innovation. This is analogous to the government issued propaganda we are subject to in the media and public schools. Like government politicians, the leadership of churches and religious organizations may focus on numerical membership and their own positions of authority, and the importance of the message (spiritual teachings) becomes twisted to emphasize the messenger (the uniqueness of that church or preacher). There is often a certain communalism present, which manifest as both a strength and a weakness.
It cannot be stressed enough that, although comparable, these actions are vastly inferior in scale to those of governments, the main reason being that people are generally free to come and go within religions and churches. However, sometimes families, peers, and culture, act as conforming pressures to retain membership in religious organizations one may not entirely agree with. It is somewhat ironic to hear our friends on the left point out the atrocities, stagnations, doublethinks, etc... committed by churches and religious organizations, as these pale juxtaposed to the historical crimes and grievances committed by expansive government. In fact, many of these so-called crimes were the actions of church and state combined.
In any event, the aggregate effect of some of the negative connotations in churches/religious organizations may be responsible for aspects of the Social Conservative movement. This is not to say all or even most Churches or religious organizations possess the described characteristics to any significant degree. I also concede church membership can be as diverse and varied in their viewpoints and beliefs as anywhere else. Even in Churches and religious organizations penetrated by pervasive corrupting influences, it may be the case that their benefit to society and to individuals still overshadow the negatives.
In conclusion, the degrees of separation between the similarities found in Churches and religious organizations and governments are reflected in the exponential differences in erroneousness of liberalism vs Social Conservativism, whose followers generally have some vestige of the more important concept of economic freedom.
The above is the opinion of the author and subject to change. :)
Posted on freerepublic.com on 8/5/06, can't say it received an especially warm welcoming. :)
Bangert wrote some comments on 'Social Conservatism', which are reprinted here in full and added to 'Social Conservatism':
I recently read a post by Travis about how social conservatives differ from his brand of
libertarians. I agree with much of what he wrote. Travis proclaims to not be a
member of any organized religion, which is fine with me, but as a practicing Catholic, I want to add
a few of my thoughts on the subject.
Sadly, most social conservatives do not realize that by using the powers of government to enact God’s will they themselves commit a sin on their own terms. As most social conservatives are Christian, a quote from the bible is certainly appropriate:
Then he took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a single instant. The devil said to him, "I shall give to you all this power and their glory; for it has been handed over to me, and I may give it to whomever I wish. All this will be yours, if you worship me." Jesus said to him in reply, "It is written: 'You shall worship the Lord, your God, and him alone shall you serve.'" Luke 4:5-8
Where many looked for a Messiah to conquer and achieve temporal power, Jesus specifically rejected that option and equated it with worshiping false gods. A government, even a Christian government, cannot achieve good. Only individuals can achieve good when they freely choose to do so. The best we can hope for from government is to provide order and security so that individuals are free to choose good or choose evil.
At that point, it is up to the faithful to try to convince others to choose good, with the understanding that as humans many will in fact choose evil. The emphasis must be on individual choice. Without the opportunity to choose evil there can be no opportunity to truly respond to God’s grace.
For this reason, I think that Travis correctly differentiated between the nature of religious organizations and governments. Religious organizations call people to choose to worship God in response to his grace.
Governments offer no such choice. Governments will enforce their laws, forcibly if
necessary. This contrast between choice and power is why the separation of church and
state is necessary not only to provide individuals a choice of religions, but even more importantly
to avoid the corruption of the religion that happens to be ascendant.
Andrew Sullivan has been popularizing the term Christianist to describe social conservatives who hope to use government power to achieve Christian ends. This mingling of faith and government can only end up hurting both.
Posted 8/29/06 (By Dobber)
Office of National Drug Policy intoxicated
8/29/06 USA Today
Simple question: In a free society, should it be the responsibility of parents, or the federal government to deter children from illicit drug use? Well, apparently, the United States Feds believe it to be their responsibility, not parents. I've been away from high school bathrooms for almost ten years, and I wonder how the War on Drugs is going.
A $1.4 billion anti-drug advertising campaign conducted by the U.S. government since 1998 does not appear to have helped reduce drug use and instead might have convinced some youths that taking illegal drugs is normal, the Government Accountability Office says.
1.4 billion dollars. billion. Like most other programs that fail, the solution is simple, for bureaucrats.
President Bush's budget for 2007 asks Congress for $120 million for the campaign, a $20 million increase from this year.
I assume that federal employees are subject to random drug tests, I've been tested five times in the past year (seriously). Please, Mr. President - test Tom Riley tomorrow, there is absolutely, positively, no sober explanation for this statement, he must be a crack-head.
The GAO report is "irrelevant to us," says Tom Riley, spokesman for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). "It's based on ads from 2˝ years ago, and they were effective, too. Drug use has been going down dramatically. Cutting the program now would imperil (its) progress."
Porn Up, Rape Down
6/23/06 Anthony D'Amato Northwestern U School of Law
"[A] State which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything, will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish." --John Stuart Mill, last paragraph in "On Liberty"
Oaxaca bishop: No sanctuary for leftists
Bishop Jose Luis Chavez Botello told reporters on Saturday that the church has neither the resources
nor the facilities to provide sanctuary, an ancient tradition in which temples shielded people
from detention by authorities.
Posted 12/20/06 (By Travis)
Communism's Clumsy Condoms
Soviet liberation of women may have been grand and radical, but it was imposed from above by brutal force and was therefore deeply inhuman. Of course, compared to forced industrialization and collectivization, liberation of women was benign. It did not cost millions of human lives. But the results of gender equality inflicted by the state are inevitably quite different from women's rights secured by generations of public activism.
(Added to 'Communist Musings' and 'Social Conservatism')
Posted 5/13/07 (By Travis)
Cannabis cash 'funds Islamist terrorism'
5/13/07 Guardian Unlimited
Cannabis smokers are unwittingly funding Islamist extremists linked to terror attacks in Spain, Morocco and Algeria, according to a joint investigation by the Spanish and French secret services. The finding will be seized on both by campaigners for a harsher clampdown on cannabis and by those who argue that legalisation is the only way to end a petty dealing trend that is dragging growing numbers of teenagers into crime. The investigation by the Centro Nacional de Inteligencia and the Renseignements Generaux was launched after Spanish police found that the Islamists behind the March 2004 bombings in Madrid bought their explosives from former miners in return for blocks of hashish.
The same has occurred in Afghanistan:
"...billions of dollars from the sale of opium and its derivative heroin are bankrolling criminal and terrorist organizations." Government, whose core reason for existence include protecting the property (lives) and liberty of its citizens fails on both counts with the 'war on drugs'.
Posted 8/8/07 (By Travis)
Terrorists Teaming up with Drug Cartels
8/8/07 Washington Times
Islamic extremists embedded in the United States — posing as Hispanic nationals — are partnering with violent Mexican drug gangs to finance terror networks in the Middle East, according to a Drug Enforcement Administration report.
WOD (War on Drugs) again effecting our national security alert.
An excerpt from Personal Responsibility, Mental Responsibility' (Part I):
Now, imagine if a government existed, which, in its innate humility, developed policies fostering a positive environment for all the citizens and nurtured and cherished them in such a loving and parenting way, creating so much positive energy that they all were liberated from their minds and lived happily ever after. While liberals and some social conservatives may dream of such a utopia, it can never be. Inevitably, their grand plans are doomed to failure. Morality and self improvement must be chosen and recognized independently. A life without challenge, bumps, and bruises is not a life at all as no self knowledge can be gained. We are better for our struggles, and government must leave us free to struggle, provided we don't struggle over the lives and property of others.
A true utopia is where every imaginable vice is available, legal, and plentiful, but yet, the people, and by 'the people' I mean each individual person, chooses, volitionally, without the coercion of government, not to partake in these deviations because they are enlightened as to the nature of themselves and are deeply reflective of their thoughts and actions. Sort of like the Communists, the laudable goals of these do-gooders are achievable, if only they would look over their shoulders, turn about face, and march back whence they came.
Posted 8/21/07 (By Travis)
The Politics of Prohibition
The standard, schoolbook history of alcohol prohibition in the United States goes like this:
Americans in 1920 embarked on a noble experiment to force everyone to give up drinking. Alas, despite its nobility, this experiment was too naive to work. It soon became clear that people weren't giving up drinking. Worse, it also became clear that Prohibition fueled mobsters who grew rich supplying illegal booze. So, recognizing the futility of Prohibition, Americans repealed it in 1934.
This popular belief is completely mistaken.
Despite pleas throughout the 1920s by journalist H.L. Mencken and a tiny handful of other sensible people to end Prohibition, Congress gave no hint that it would repeal this folly. Prohibition appeared to be here to stay — until income-tax revenues nose-dived in the early 1930s.
From 1930 to 1931, income-tax revenues fell by 15 percent.
In 1932 they fell another 37 percent; 1932 income-tax revenues were 46 percent lower than just two years earlier. And by 1933 they were fully 60 percent lower than in 1930.
With no end of the Depression in sight, Washington got anxious for a substitute source of revenue. That source was liquor sales.
An interesting opinion stating that government greed, not sympathy to liberty by politicians or changing opinion of the citizenry finally felled prohibition. Will the WOD (War on Drugs) meet a similar fate?
Posted 11/30/07 (By Travis)
Taking Marriage Private
11/26/07 New York Times
WHY do people — gay or straight — need the state’s permission to marry? For most of Western history, they didn’t, because marriage was a private contract between two families.
A great history of marriage follows, with the ominous conclusion:
But governments began relying on marriage licenses for a new purpose: as a way of distributing resources to dependents.
The authors suggestion?
Perhaps it’s time to revert to a much older marital tradition. Let churches decide which marriages they deem “licit.” But let couples — gay or straight — decide if they want the legal protections and obligations of a committed relationship.
Posted 2/17/08 (By Travis)
Should Worry About Its Own Business Not Baseball's
Townhall.com ^ | February 15, 2008 | Mike Gallagher
No, politicians love to pander. They enjoy showboating in front of the TV cameras; they like to pretend to be concerned about an issue like steroids in baseball that isn’t really any of their business.
If Major League Baseball feels it has a problem with players taking steroids, let Major League Baseball handle it.
At least there wouldn’t be any taxpayer money involved.
Apparently at least some folks agree with this author:
Now, the chairman of the committee, Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), regrets holding the hearing, The New York Times reported.
"I'm sorry we had the hearing. I regret that we had the hearing. And the only reason we had the hearing was because Roger Clemens and his lawyers insisted on it," Waxman said.
Clemens' lawyer, Rusty Hardin, disputes Waxman's claims, calling the congressman's statements, "unbelievable, disingenuous and outrageous."
"He is the one who created this circus in the first place," Hardin said.
Who do you trust? Roger Clemens or Henry Waxman?
Posted 8/9/08 ( by Travis)
Perhaps if we are lucky, some informed juries might start applying this (above) concept of Jury Nullification from prohibition to the war on drugs:
George's raid prompts call for probe - Berwyn Heights mayor denounces police tactics
The Baltimore Sun ^ | August 7, 2008 | Doug Donovan
Pot Users Criminals? The Tragic Case of Rachel Hoffman
ABC News ^ | July 24, 2008 | BRIAN ROSS and VIC WALTER
2/25/10 (By Travis)
The Chemist's War: The little-told story of how the U.S. government poisoned alcohol during Prohibition with deadly consequences
Frustrated that people continued to consume so much alcohol even after it was banned, federal officials had decided to try a different kind of enforcement. They ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as drinkable spirits. The idea was to scare people into giving up illicit drinking. Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people.
The first article has been added to 'Social Conservatism' because prohibition comes from the same ideology at an earlier time.
3/23/10 (By Travis)
Tea Party Avoids Divisive Social Issues
An excellent choice, Rome did not fall because of social issues, which are best left to the local levels. Economic issues will break a nation and a people.
See also, 'Secondary Problems of Socialism'
Return to Archives
Return to main page