On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:52:18 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
Between his desire for more trade protectionism and his "war" on drugs, I'm
surprised that a libertarian would find him tolerable.
snip
Jefferson said the government that governs least, governs best.

A libertarian stands for limited government; an anarchist wants
no government at all. From the news reports it is clear that
anarchy is not a viable option as "someone" soon takes charge.

Governments, assuming they wish to remain in power, *MUST* supply
or insure the supply of basic goods and services such as adequate
food, shelter and clothing, secure borders, and internal
security. Those that fail to do so, even with highly developed
organs of control/repression such as the USSR are living on
borrowed time, although their collapse may be prevented for a
while by shedding rivers of their own peoples blood.

Ideology can and frequently does kill large numbers of people,
for example the drive for industrialization and the famine in the
Ukraine. [I am deliberately using historical references to avoid
another p****ng contest, there are more modern examples to be
sure.]

Ron Paul [I think] recognizes that not everything is a question
of economics [or more exactly short term profit], and the U.S.
Constitution and/or general party platform is not a "suicide
pact."

History clearly shows that any nation state that wishes to remain
sovereign and independent *MUST* maintain the ability to feed and
cloth its people and armed forces at an adequate level, obtain
adequate arms for internal/external security, etc.

History also shows that the only way to do this is have as
adequate amounts of this capacity under the national control.
Consider that England nearly lost WW2 because of food shortages.
Another 50 or 100 U-boats at the start of the war, concentrating
on the food convoys would have spelled disaster. Fuel would have
run a very close second, and indeed may have had a larger impact
as this would have impacted not only motorized defense [aircraft]
but also motorized agriculture.

Therefore economic/trade protectionism of critical economic
sectors/levels is fully justified as a vital national defense
issue. The question is what are the critical sectors and levels.

I fully agree the "war on drugs" has been, and is being badly
mishandled, but again the historical record of what happened to
China with the consumption of opium grown in India and sold by
international "traders" in violation of Chinese law shows this to
be too great a danger, apparently far greater than alcohol.

Several writers have suggested that export of opium to China was
deliberate to offset the huge balance of trade deficits [in
silver] the western countries were experiencing at that time
because of the demand for silks, porcelains, etc.

In one sense the same thing is occurring now where the major
producing/exporting countries such as Columbia and Afghanistan,
are offsetting the one way trade with the US. As such this is
simply asymetrical economic warfare.

Indeed, this is equivalent to suggesting that Ron Paul is not a
true libertarian because he opposes the reintroduction of
slavery.

Addiction to one of the harder drugs such as meth/crank or crack
is functionally equivalent to indentured servitude, and
unfortunately anecdotal evidence indicates that a *SINGLE*
exposure is enough to create addiction.

Western civilization is on the ragged edge anyhow, and we cannot
tolerate the additional stresses of huge numbers of morons, and
large numbers of berserkers created by other classes of drugs
such as the PCPs [angle dust].

IMNSHO *THE* problem is the failure to rationally and
objectiverly evaluate ["reefer madness" anyone?] the threats
illegal recreational substances present and allocate the
available resources accordingly. Attempting to stamp out medical
marijuana sales in California while crack and crank continue to
be sold openly in the inner cities is neither efficient nor
effective.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.