Bob, Of course numbers aren't relevant. Gee, why can't I see that? LOL.
I previously asked "are you seriously claiming that dealing with international criminals can not be accomplished by anything other than a 500 billion dollar war??" It looks as though your whole post is only an elaborate way to answer "yes". And you only further expose your prejudice and misunderstanding when you claim to understand the drug war, but then immediately proceed to demonstrate that you don't comprehend its most basic elements. If you truly "note the parallels (of drug prohibition) with alcohol prohibition", you would not be trying to separate prohibition from prohibition-related violent crime; they are inseparable cause-and-effect. But of course you have to do this in order to artificially raise the relative threat-level of terrorism. Shameless statism! -------------------------------------- My point is that numbers are not very relevant here. You seem to have missed my point entirely. We can manage relatively peacefully and orderly what goes on in the US, e.g., law enforcement for arson. We cannot do the same with foreign-based militant groups. If those militants were in civilized nations like Canada, the UK, France, or Japan, we could use treaty provisions and international law to pursue and prosecute such offenders. However, the Middle East Muslim nations are not so civilized. The rule of law means little or nothing there. To the extent that thugs like the Saudi royal family and others will occasionally cooperate, then good. But otherwise, it's a lot harder to pursue murderous members or al Qaeda than it is to get the folks who burned down a building in Boise, Idaho. Harder means more expensive. Military operations cost a lot more than police actions. You are the one who made a connection between the drug war and terrorist war, as you did with arson. If you were only trying to present an order of magnitude comparison in priorities, then fine. I cannot compare the two, since I agree with military defense against Islamist terrorist groups, while I staunchly oppose the war on drugs. But still, the war on drugs is a domestic matter to be dealt with under our own system of laws and government -- just like arson. Again, there is no such mechanism for dealing with foreign terrorists living in uncivilized lands. As for "blaming prohibition-related crime on those who commit it," I'm simply claiming these are typically violent individuals who get involved at that level. If I were a recreational drug user, I would be willing to violate the law to buy my drugs, but I wouldn't murder someone for them or steal. I'm concerned about innocent people who get caught in the crossfire and taxpayers who have to fund the war on drugs. The street thugs killing each other are none of my concern. But you are absolutely right in noting the parallels with alcohol prohibition. I do not understand why all Americans don't see that. Or maybe no one has explained it to them. From: ma ni Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 3:09 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Libertarian] George Carlin: "We Like War" Bob, Like a previous poster, you strategically omit any references to any numbers in order to make your "points". Why don't you directly address my main figures?? Of course there are already laws against the crime of arson. Likewise, we already had laws against the crime of terrorism before the hysterical 500 billion dollar over-reaction. Are you seriously claiming you don't think arson laws could be enforced better with a 500 billion dollar budget? HA! And are you seriously claiming that dealing with international criminals can not be accomplished by anything other than a 500 billion dollar war?? I am not disagreeing that "Libertarian opposition to the drug war is independent of the Middle East situation". Why would you make such a ridiculously irrelevant statement in this thread? Obviously I only mention the drug war to compare threat levels in American life and explain the government's backwards priorities. Your statements blaming prohibition-related crime on those who commit it are obviously implying that their guilt is worse than the government prohibitionists who cause it. The point it: the prohibitionists are far LESS libertarian. Your statements relay a complete miscomprehension of the most basic fundamentals which underlie black-market crime - lessons which should have been learned 80 years ago during alcohol prohibition. If you are now going to try to defend the drug-war as not as serious of a threat as terrorism, you risk reversing your previously-stated position against the drug war. --------------------------------- We already have laws against arson, and those laws are enforced domestically. I don't see much else anyone can do there. It is impossible to defend against Islamist terrorism domestically, since it originates elsewhere. It is of necessity something that must be dealt with quite differently, and that costs quite a bit more. Libertarian opposition to the drug war is independent of the Middle East situation. However, I will note that many or most of the murders associated with drug prohibition are due to violent thugs killing each other for profit. Not a very libertarian thing for them to do.
