afasano
Member
No, the war or drugs isn't worth it, pregnat girls will have to learn that "just say no" wasn't a joke invented to spoil thier good time. Someone else has to deal with the results.
Is the war on drugs really worth it?
- Thread starter kbr80
- Start date
- Status
publius
Member
Old Dog,
Precedents can't be applied if they are never set in the first place, and the drug war seems to be an excuse which makes otherwise reasonable people such as Scalia think that a giant federal nanny state is Constitutional.
You say you've addressed cannabis, but I found only this:
That's IT? In all these posts?
As I've just shown, the war on cannabis is nearly half of the drug war. 45% of arrests in 2003. Well, yeah, distinguishing between the relatively benign and widely used cannabis and the extremely addictive heroin "might be a start." To say the least!
As for your statistics, since you brought up the Netherlands, you may be interested in how things have gone over there. They have about half the percentage of people who have tried pot that we have. Just something else to ponder.
Precedents can't be applied if they are never set in the first place, and the drug war seems to be an excuse which makes otherwise reasonable people such as Scalia think that a giant federal nanny state is Constitutional.
You say you've addressed cannabis, but I found only this:
That's IT? In all these posts?
As I've just shown, the war on cannabis is nearly half of the drug war. 45% of arrests in 2003. Well, yeah, distinguishing between the relatively benign and widely used cannabis and the extremely addictive heroin "might be a start." To say the least!
As for your statistics, since you brought up the Netherlands, you may be interested in how things have gone over there. They have about half the percentage of people who have tried pot that we have. Just something else to ponder.
Last edited:
The government does not grow because it mistakenly perceives some public need. It invents needs in order to grow.
In 19th century US government believed that the right to consume and traffic drugs was so important that it joined other european powers in war on china - to force chinese government to repeal the prohibition on the import of opium (US was a party to the treaties of Tianjin in 1858).
miko
In 19th century US government believed that the right to consume and traffic drugs was so important that it joined other european powers in war on china - to force chinese government to repeal the prohibition on the import of opium (US was a party to the treaties of Tianjin in 1858).
miko
Too Many Choices!?
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2005
- Messages
- 763
All Prohibitions Should Be On A
HOME BY HOME BASIS, duh! My family is not like yours. Some have two moms. Some have one parent. Some want kids. Some don't. People are different,so why should(and why do) we use the,"One size fits all", method that is Federal Law, on objecs, things, and substances, when we are all not the same"'Size"... Because government knows only one tool, and it's a sledge hammer, meaning the answer to delicate problems is to smash them
Because by using Federal regs. you can get around a whole lot of that hard stuff that we here call,"Real Police Work", or investigating. With the Fed. law, all you have to prove is possession, which is 9/10 of the Law. Which now gives us all the great things that we have today ...
If the WOSD had not been so successful at stirring up the soccer mom's and neo-puritans(Damn Hypocrites), then I doubt the government would have kept using these so-called ,"Wars", on Concepts/Objects, as excuses to prune and soon CHOP DOWN, our LIBERTY TREE...
PS: Poeple I know we are smarter than this(well some of us anyway). If all drugs were legal tomorrow, most here would not go out and ,'start using and become addicted". As hard as that is to belive, it is true. If a person drinks and drives over and over again, what happens? Oh yeah, they lose the Freedom to Drive on the Roads. If drugs were legal ,and a person using drugs is commiting crimes for the drugs ,or while on the drugs(let's say 3 strikes or 1 death); they lose the freedom to use THAT particular substance(if they kill someone ,or it's their 3rd strike they become a Felon and get 25years. Which oughtta sober up anyone).
HOME BY HOME BASIS, duh! My family is not like yours. Some have two moms. Some have one parent. Some want kids. Some don't. People are different,so why should(and why do) we use the,"One size fits all", method that is Federal Law, on objecs, things, and substances, when we are all not the same"'Size"... Because government knows only one tool, and it's a sledge hammer, meaning the answer to delicate problems is to smash them
Because by using Federal regs. you can get around a whole lot of that hard stuff that we here call,"Real Police Work", or investigating. With the Fed. law, all you have to prove is possession, which is 9/10 of the Law. Which now gives us all the great things that we have today
...If the WOSD had not been so successful at stirring up the soccer mom's and neo-puritans(Damn Hypocrites), then I doubt the government would have kept using these so-called ,"Wars", on Concepts/Objects, as excuses to prune and soon CHOP DOWN, our LIBERTY TREE...
PS: Poeple I know we are smarter than this(well some of us anyway). If all drugs were legal tomorrow, most here would not go out and ,'start using and become addicted". As hard as that is to belive, it is true. If a person drinks and drives over and over again, what happens? Oh yeah, they lose the Freedom to Drive on the Roads. If drugs were legal ,and a person using drugs is commiting crimes for the drugs ,or while on the drugs(let's say 3 strikes or 1 death); they lose the freedom to use THAT particular substance(if they kill someone ,or it's their 3rd strike they become a Felon and get 25years. Which oughtta sober up anyone).
Gordon Fink
Member
Too Many Choices!? said:
Not once they are out of prison.
~G. Fink
Old Dog
Member
Publius, in your point-by-point dissection of my posts, I think you've somehow missed the main thrust of my thesis, which is simply that, with legalization of drugs, we would be trading in one set of massive bureaucracies and huge costs for another. Additionally, as I noted, the drug crime of concern was not those arrested or incarcerated for use of marijuana, but those crimes committed by drug users, not to include the "crime" of using. Interestingly, you did miss my post where I noted that cannabis was relatively benign on the harm scale, but please also note that the Netherlands statistics regarding pot use are open for misinterpretation by both sides of the legalization issue. You will no doubt notice, if you check the recent studies, that there are those who've found that rate of marijuana use among Dutch youth is close to what it is in the U.S. Finally, using drug use statistics of any country where drug use is open and legal, thus easily monitored and quantified by researchers, and comparing the statistics to drug use in a country where use is primarily underground, is simply not a valid statistical comparison.
I'm also surprised that it took so many posts for someone to mention alcohol. Yes,
I'm also surprised that it took so many posts for someone to mention alcohol. Yes,
Sure can't argue that, but this thread is on the War on Drugs, not the War on Alcohol ...
Kjervin
Member
I would trade the WOD for equal expenditures on welfare. Why? becuase without the WOD, .gov loses the rationale for infringing on so many of our rights. End the WOD not to save money, but to save liberty. Even if crimes created by addicts do not decrease, the removal of crimes from suppliers removes a lot of the need for the tactics created to combat drug suppliers, which sometimes have negative externalities for law abiding citizens. I would rather see drugs addressed as a public health issue (like alcohol abuse) then as a law enforcement issue. After all we already have rehab clinics, we might at worse need more of them. I also suspect that it would decrease the amount of animosity towards LE, as they would not have to be put in the position of having to do a job that many citizens (drug using or not) resent, and even many of those who agree with the policies do not appreciate.
Kj
Kj
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
"with legalization of drugs, we would be trading in one set of massive bureaucracies and huge costs for another."
How?
We have a guestimated $90 billion in direct costs of buying drugs, now. That would dramatically decline. Then there is the cost of all the DEA folks as well as the anti-drug task forces at the local and state levels. We have the court costs plus the prison costs of some $30K per year per prisoner. These latter two costs should be much, much less. The official anti-drug effort is some $46 billion, last time I paid attention, and that was a few years back. And insurance premiums would drop for automobile comprehensive, burglary and health insurance.
Why would there be another huge bureaucracy? Consider how many fewer people would be needed for the DEA. How many fewer hours would be used by Border Patrol and local police in dealing with drug crimes of various sorts. And a helluva lot less clerical paper-shuffling--which ain't freebies, either.
If we spent the needed monies on anti-drug education, on such things as drug-rehab and halfway houses, we'd have better success in getting folks off the habit; that's well-established by many studies--but we don't spend our money there.
Folks laughed, but Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" was effective, as were the fried-egg TV ads. Much more is available for us, at no notable cost when looking at the way money is now spent.
How?
We have a guestimated $90 billion in direct costs of buying drugs, now. That would dramatically decline. Then there is the cost of all the DEA folks as well as the anti-drug task forces at the local and state levels. We have the court costs plus the prison costs of some $30K per year per prisoner. These latter two costs should be much, much less. The official anti-drug effort is some $46 billion, last time I paid attention, and that was a few years back. And insurance premiums would drop for automobile comprehensive, burglary and health insurance.
Why would there be another huge bureaucracy? Consider how many fewer people would be needed for the DEA. How many fewer hours would be used by Border Patrol and local police in dealing with drug crimes of various sorts. And a helluva lot less clerical paper-shuffling--which ain't freebies, either.
If we spent the needed monies on anti-drug education, on such things as drug-rehab and halfway houses, we'd have better success in getting folks off the habit; that's well-established by many studies--but we don't spend our money there.
Folks laughed, but Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" was effective, as were the fried-egg TV ads. Much more is available for us, at no notable cost when looking at the way money is now spent.
Graystar
Member
Comparing drugs to alcohol is comparing apples to oranges.
When booze was prohibited the only crimes to come of it were running it and drinking it. Not so with drugs. As Arizona, Idaho, and other states are experiencing, drug use causes an explosion of property crime, as well as increases in robbery.
That is the primary difference between drugs and alcohol. You don’t see alcoholics committing violent crimes to get money to buy booze. Sure, they lie and cheat and steal from family to get money to buy a drink, but it’s a rare, otherwise law abiding citizen-turn-alcoholic that is pushed to commit felonies to support the habit. Highly addictive drugs are far more controlling than alcohol, and make people go far, far past the line they would otherwise have never crossed...much further than alcohol would. And *that* is why such drugs must remain banned
publius
Member
Attempting to prohibit cannabis costs a great deal without accomplishing the desired result. I believe it could be regulated like alcohol at much lower cost, and we could virtually eliminate the black market, which is a major source of crime and corruption.
Marijuana causes people to sit on the couch eating Doritos. It does not cause them to go out and rob people. I've known many users, all of whom kept steady jobs, none of whom were criminals in any other way that I detected. Keeping it illegal, and keeping the black market around, in an effort to reduce crime is counterproductive. The main source of cannabis related crime is the black market for cannabis.
Yes, I did. So why is it a Schedule 1 drug, and why does it occupy almost half of our drug war resources?
As are statistics regarding pot use in Alaska. At least mine came with a link.
I did check recent studies. I even linked to one, with data from as recently as 2001. They showed me that we have twice the drug users that the Netherlands has. Got any other studies, this time with links to supporting research?
That's true. We probably underestimate the number of users, so if we knew the actual numbers, they would look even worse for the drug warriors.
nextjoe
Member
Essay I found informative
This essay, written by the musician, author, poet, and former junkie Richard Hell might be of interest...
I'll quote one relevant passage, emphasis mine:
Here's a guy who knows all too well the toll drugs can take, arguing against prohibition for the same reason as many on this thread.
Check out his bibliography, too. He went all the way back to De Quincey's Confessions, published in 1821. He's done his homework.
This essay, written by the musician, author, poet, and former junkie Richard Hell might be of interest...
I'll quote one relevant passage, emphasis mine:
Here's a guy who knows all too well the toll drugs can take, arguing against prohibition for the same reason as many on this thread.
Check out his bibliography, too. He went all the way back to De Quincey's Confessions, published in 1821. He's done his homework.
Graystar
Member
In this country alcohol and nicotine are legal. So why do people use illegal drugs?
I think that author’s view is a bit simplistic.
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
Can you add and subtract? Consider: 1) An ounce of illegal and adulterated cocaine costs around $2,000. 2) An ounce of pharmaceutically pure cocaine is less than $200.
Now bring in the criminal user who is injecting an ounce of the adulterated crap each and every week and wacking little old ladies up side the head for the money. Say he averages a hundred bucks a wack. That's twenty little old ladies wacked up side the head for the illegal cocaine. Every week.
Ok, say the legal price is $150.00 (it's been years since I've seen a pharmaceutical catalog). The same lowlife only has to wack one little old lady up side the head each week. He doesn't need to wack the 0.5 little old lady for the cocaine is pure not adulterated. He's getting more bang for the buck
So even with the same drug crazed criminals runnig the street, you've just prevented his need to wack 19 little old ladies up side the head each week.
Oh, just for the sake of cogitation. The prices of pharmaceutical cocaine are inflated by government regulations designed to prevent diversion into the black market. Get rid of those and the druggie would only need to wack a little old lady up side the head every two weeks.
Personally, I think we ought to subsidize the idiots. Give them as much pure heroin and cocaine as they want...sayonara, sucker. Improve the gene pool.
The problem with the scenarios that you mentioned is that even with decriminalization the governments involved still try to minimize drug use. I'm for maximization to get rid of the leeches.
The Real Hawkeye
member
Yes!
Too Many Choices!?
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2005
- Messages
- 763
Some people ideas on this subject baffle me...
I want the maximim liberty for EVERYBODY. Make your own choices, be it drug use, or gun possession; and nobody should be able to deny you these rights or choices
:banghead: ... AGAIN, you can NOT Regulate or Codify your own version of Morality into law without upsettiing a large portion of the populace. Drugs are illegal, a large portion of us ar upset our Liberties get trampled. Drugs are legal, the neo-puritans get upset because they actually have to talk to their kids and wathch them, instead of letting the government just ban all the evil things
.
I want the maximim liberty for EVERYBODY. Make your own choices, be it drug use, or gun possession; and nobody should be able to deny you these rights or choices
:banghead: ... AGAIN, you can NOT Regulate or Codify your own version of Morality into law without upsettiing a large portion of the populace. Drugs are illegal, a large portion of us ar upset our Liberties get trampled. Drugs are legal, the neo-puritans get upset because they actually have to talk to their kids and wathch them, instead of letting the government just ban all the evil things.All your suspicions are correct. I never mentioned hard drugs, because to me, here, the WOSD means the war on weed. I don't even drink caffiene or alcohol, but it seems everyone smokes weed. It doesn't bother me. I don't know anyone that is addicted to weed to the extent that people are commonly addicted to tobacco. I'm not afraid of people that toke up. I'd rather they did that than drink. They are harmless high, dangerous drunk in general. And the WOSD isn't working anyway. You know how far I have to go right now to buy weed? About 50 steps. You know how hard it is for me (being 20) to buy alcohol? Not impossible, but at least challenging. And you're right, I haven't experienced any of those things you mentioned, but I have experienced users getting their (productive, as if it should matter) lives ruined by getting caught with the herb, and I'm familiar with farmers having to worry about getting their property siezed because someone decided to start a pot farm in their woods, and having to worry about a dog twitching funny while sniffing my car, and lamenting over the rights I've lost, and the taxes I want back for that helicopter fuel as the drug chopper flies over looking for that evil hemp, as if there wasn't real crime to be working on. All this over a drug that to me seems more harmless than many legal drugs, makes the drug war a completely tragic and inexcusable misapplication of force and rescources, even if it was morally or constitutionally acceptable.
lose-lose
CAS700850
Member
And now I finally see it at its most basic. This debate isn't about the War on Drugs. This debate is about the two issues which clash in this argument. On one hand, we have the people who dislike the War on Drugs due to the loss of freedoms/Constitutional intrusions that seem to have paralleled the WOD. On the other hand, we have the people who dislike the many issues associated with drug use, such as drug-related crime, children in foster care, etc. ANd that is why the fight will never be solved.
Why? Those against the WOD see the loss of freedom, heck, any loss of freedom, as being a greater price to pay than any increase in drug use and some of the concurrent issues. Freedom is the concern for this side.
On the other side, we have people's who are genuinely concerned about the tragic consequences of drug use, who would view any increase in drug use and the concurrent issues are being a greater price than the costs of the WOD, be it monitary or liberty.
Yet, if you get these two sides talking seperately, and not in a debate, both sides will tell you this: loss of freedoms is a bad thing. No one on this board would argue to the contrary (esp. on 2A issues). The tragedies associated with drug use are bad things. No one would argue that increasing the number of children in foster care due to parental neglect associated with drug use is good.
So, the question becomes which bad thing do you see as worse? And that's why this issue will never be resolved. This debate is not about drugs. It's about loss of freedoms versus the damage of drug use/addiction. Neither side is right or wrong. Both of these consequences are bad. Which you feel is worse is a personal decision, and should not be faulted.
Why? Those against the WOD see the loss of freedom, heck, any loss of freedom, as being a greater price to pay than any increase in drug use and some of the concurrent issues. Freedom is the concern for this side.
On the other side, we have people's who are genuinely concerned about the tragic consequences of drug use, who would view any increase in drug use and the concurrent issues are being a greater price than the costs of the WOD, be it monitary or liberty.
Yet, if you get these two sides talking seperately, and not in a debate, both sides will tell you this: loss of freedoms is a bad thing. No one on this board would argue to the contrary (esp. on 2A issues). The tragedies associated with drug use are bad things. No one would argue that increasing the number of children in foster care due to parental neglect associated with drug use is good.
So, the question becomes which bad thing do you see as worse? And that's why this issue will never be resolved. This debate is not about drugs. It's about loss of freedoms versus the damage of drug use/addiction. Neither side is right or wrong. Both of these consequences are bad. Which you feel is worse is a personal decision, and should not be faulted.
Are you kidding? Of course it was worth it.
My city has a shiny new crown vic for every cop to take home equipped with big buck computers, kick ass new weapons, SWAT vehicles, and even some APCs.
My neighbor was attached to the DEA from a local pd and he has all sorts of cool vehicles and toys to play with.
SWEET!!
My city has a shiny new crown vic for every cop to take home equipped with big buck computers, kick ass new weapons, SWAT vehicles, and even some APCs.
My neighbor was attached to the DEA from a local pd and he has all sorts of cool vehicles and toys to play with.
SWEET!!
White Horseradish
Member
Oh really? You mean to tell me there were not turf wars? No murder? Geez, Al Capone probably did only screw up on his taxes...
CAS700850 said:
You are wrong. The second is the direct consequence of the first.
It is an economic law that the government intrusion and violation of rights always makes worse the problems it purports to fix.
Regulation of rents cause less affordable housing and under-utilisation of that which is available. Attempts to raise the wages of workers cause lower wages or no wages.
Attempts to help family cause destruction of families.
Attempts to help children cause children not to be born.
Attempts to restrict drugs cause drugs of ever-increasing potency to become more widespread.
Attempts to create more perfect society leads to ongoing physical extinction of the population afflicted.
So you can talk about the symptoms or you can look for the cause.
miko
Old Dog
Member
CAS70085 pretty much summed it up. Except -- it seems to me that there are also those who (and I may be reading something into some of the posts) for one reason or another, don't want to acknowledge even the possibility that, with legalization, costs to society will be steep. I believe this is an important consideration. Another thing that concerns me is the number of folks who simply don't care what the costs of legalization may entail, they are concerned only with possible further erosion of of rights. Better to live in urban chaos, surrounded by addicts, fourth generation welfare families, high crime, pay even higher taxes but not have to be concerned about the possibility of some SWAT unit accidentally coming through your front door, right? (Frankly, I believe we can protect -- and restore - our Constitutional rights without legalizing drugs.)
I like this question, coming from a moderator (really sticking to the high road):
The extent of such crime will be likely roughly proportional to drug spending, and is measured by the term - 3(pLQL + pIQI ) in the social welfare function, where pI and pL are prices in the illegal and legal markets respectively.
The social welfare function is thus:
W = CSI + CSL + QL - 1(QI + QL) - 2QI - 3(cLQL + pIQI).
One unit of drugs purchased legally thus costs society 1+3cL dollars in externalities, whereas the same unit of drugs purchased illegally costs society 1 dollars (because any unit of drug use, whether legal or illegal, causes this amount of harm) plus 2 dollars (because of the additional harms associated with illegal drugs) plus 3pI (the income-generating crime resulting from purchases in the legal market).
Seriously, though, Byron's example doesn't even begin to account for any other costs of chronic use or addiction. If one wants to deny that drug abuse drives some of America’s most costly social problems (domestic violence, child abuse, chronic mental illness, the spread of HIV, AIDS, Hepatitus C, homelessness), fine. But the fact remains that drug treatment costs, hospitalization for long-term drug-related disease, family issues such as children displaced as a result of addiction, incarceration, dangerous home situations such as living in meth labs, domestic violence, etc. all burden our social services system, the incredibly overwhelmed health care system, and will continue to overwhelm law enforcement even after legalization. How about the homelessness issue? Drug abuse among the homeless has been conservatively estimated at better than 50 percent. Chronic mental illness is inextricably linked with drug abuse (a growing problem among young people with the meth and ecstasy scene exploding).
I like this question, coming from a moderator (really sticking to the high road):
Why, yes I can. Which is why I find your model a little simplistic. Let's try this if we’re going to talk about the link between spending on drugs and income generating crime:
The extent of such crime will be likely roughly proportional to drug spending, and is measured by the term - 3(pLQL + pIQI ) in the social welfare function, where pI and pL are prices in the illegal and legal markets respectively.
The social welfare function is thus:
W = CSI + CSL + QL - 1(QI + QL) - 2QI - 3(cLQL + pIQI).
One unit of drugs purchased legally thus costs society 1+3cL dollars in externalities, whereas the same unit of drugs purchased illegally costs society 1 dollars (because any unit of drug use, whether legal or illegal, causes this amount of harm) plus 2 dollars (because of the additional harms associated with illegal drugs) plus 3pI (the income-generating crime resulting from purchases in the legal market).
Seriously, though, Byron's example doesn't even begin to account for any other costs of chronic use or addiction. If one wants to deny that drug abuse drives some of America’s most costly social problems (domestic violence, child abuse, chronic mental illness, the spread of HIV, AIDS, Hepatitus C, homelessness), fine. But the fact remains that drug treatment costs, hospitalization for long-term drug-related disease, family issues such as children displaced as a result of addiction, incarceration, dangerous home situations such as living in meth labs, domestic violence, etc. all burden our social services system, the incredibly overwhelmed health care system, and will continue to overwhelm law enforcement even after legalization. How about the homelessness issue? Drug abuse among the homeless has been conservatively estimated at better than 50 percent. Chronic mental illness is inextricably linked with drug abuse (a growing problem among young people with the meth and ecstasy scene exploding).
Graystar
Member
Yes that is exactly what I'm saying. Normal, everyday, law-abiding folk did NOT break out into turf wars and start killing people because they couldn't get a drink.
What you're referring to is organized crime, which already existed. I'm sure there were turf wars and murders committed over alcohol, but this was in *addition* to criminal activity already being committed by these groups.
CAS700850
Member
Miko,
I'm sorry, but are you saying that the war on drugs is the cause of drug related crime or child neglect? I can understand the argument with respect to drug related crime (though I cannot agree with some of it), but I cannot fathom how the war on drugs is the cause of child neglect and the need for the foster care system.
Quote: Attempts to help family cause destruction of families.
Attempts to help children cause children not to be born
A long time ago, as a young attorney, I adjudicated abuse/neglect/dependency cases. In short, I took parents to court to (1) prove that the children should not be in the home and (2) get the parents ordered to work a plan towards reunification. If they didn't follow the plan, or correct the problems, then I took the cases to court to terminate their parental rights and place the child either with appropriate family members or an adoptive home. While I did permanently sever the rights of more parents than I care to admit, I also saw many families reunited, including drug involved parents. Those that did not reunite either never desevred the chance (incestuous parents, sever physical abuse, etc.), or did not cooperate with the plan and eliminate the problem. So, sir, you are wrong. While the government does destroy families on occassion, it also helps many other families.
But, of course, you might expect me to say that. After all, I am a government employee.
I'm sorry, but are you saying that the war on drugs is the cause of drug related crime or child neglect? I can understand the argument with respect to drug related crime (though I cannot agree with some of it), but I cannot fathom how the war on drugs is the cause of child neglect and the need for the foster care system.
Quote: Attempts to help family cause destruction of families.
Attempts to help children cause children not to be born
A long time ago, as a young attorney, I adjudicated abuse/neglect/dependency cases. In short, I took parents to court to (1) prove that the children should not be in the home and (2) get the parents ordered to work a plan towards reunification. If they didn't follow the plan, or correct the problems, then I took the cases to court to terminate their parental rights and place the child either with appropriate family members or an adoptive home. While I did permanently sever the rights of more parents than I care to admit, I also saw many families reunited, including drug involved parents. Those that did not reunite either never desevred the chance (incestuous parents, sever physical abuse, etc.), or did not cooperate with the plan and eliminate the problem. So, sir, you are wrong. While the government does destroy families on occassion, it also helps many other families.
But, of course, you might expect me to say that. After all, I am a government employee.
Old Dog
Member
So you're saying that
is a direct consequence of
? Hmm.
An "economic law?" Did you learn this at Wharton or Tuck?
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Old Dog -- [Chevy Chase voice] I was told that there would be no math in this debate. [/Chevy Chase voice] 
The problem is that elected officials see it as the provence of government to at least try to solve all ills. This gets them elected and re-elected, so they have a [false] positive reinforcement of this myth. If our society had not already accepted that the government is supposed to solve all ills, we would not have seen freedom so erroded. But we have.
As miko said, since government caused [at least some] of the problem, we are faily content to let or require them (read: us) to pay for the consequences. If we are to restore certain rights, we must simultaniously restore individual responsibility. If you fire the nanny, you have to change your own diapers. In reality, faith-based (and other) charities would step in to help. We are not heartless. But the current culture is suspect of charities, especially faith-based ones, and the eyes of the masses turn to the government.
What a shame.
Though the price of freedom is as high as ever, its [perceived] value seems to be at an all time low.
The problem is that elected officials see it as the provence of government to at least try to solve all ills. This gets them elected and re-elected, so they have a [false] positive reinforcement of this myth. If our society had not already accepted that the government is supposed to solve all ills, we would not have seen freedom so erroded. But we have.
As miko said, since government caused [at least some] of the problem, we are faily content to let or require them (read: us) to pay for the consequences. If we are to restore certain rights, we must simultaniously restore individual responsibility. If you fire the nanny, you have to change your own diapers. In reality, faith-based (and other) charities would step in to help. We are not heartless. But the current culture is suspect of charities, especially faith-based ones, and the eyes of the masses turn to the government.
What a shame.
- Status