“TAX FARMERS”
(Or how the government sponsored hate and hysteria directed at any substance or cause that is not approved and promoted by the government itself is the root of all evil and should be exterminated along with anyone foolish enough to use them.)
Author’s disclaimer: I am not now, nor have been, the user of drugs, legal or illegal, with the exception of Acetaminophen, over-the-counter allergy relief and the occasional ingestion of caffeine or an adult beverage.
Author’s note: I am also fully cognizant that I live in Bizarro World. Please take that into consideration as I cite as a recent example the claim by a proxy leader of a local group that claims fealty and allegiance to all things constitutional, that a candidate for Sheriff, recently vetted by that group, is “weak” on constitutional issues. This from the same man who recently publicly endorsed a candidate for that same office who has inundated this county with multiple lawsuits alleging repeated violations of the constitutional rights of local citizens and who knowingly hired and promoted a man who had been terminated in another state for violating the constitutional rights of citizens in that state, only to have him perpetrate these same unconstitutional acts on citizens here; So much for being “weak” on the Constitution.
Imagine for me, if you will, a local hay farmer who finds his grass and alfalfa fields beginning to be invaded by a noxious weed. When he attempts to eradicate that weed he discovers the product offered for that purpose is only sold by the government. Upon applying this product to his fields, he finds that instead of eradicating the noxious weed, the treatment actually encourages and increases its growth. He then discovers he is required by law to continue purchasing that product, and after years of use, is told that no matter how much of that product he purchases and applies to his fields, stopping the growth and spread of the noxious weed is impossible. Even so, he is required by law to purchase larger and larger quantities of this product at constantly increasing prices and continue its application.
That story is ludicrous, Rebel, you claim—that would never happen. Well, actually, taking the same principles and applying them to the so-called “war on drugs” and other such government sponsored programs, you will find the template to be almost identical. Each and every year, the price of these “wars” increase exponentially while we are told by “experts” in the euphemistically named justice department that regardless of how many taxpayer dollars are spent, the illegal use of drugs cannot be stopped, or in many cases even slowed down. Of course the mantra of the tax farmer is: “think how bad it could be if we were not spending an endless stream of dollars on something that will never work.” Ah, Bizarro World and its willful dupes.
We too often forget the side effects of taking the government’s prescription for the hopeless remedy in the “war on drugs.” During most of our adult lives we have witnessed an incremental dismantling of our Bill of Rights while pursuing the admitted failure of these wars that never end. The ramifications in our personal lives are in many ways equally as devastating as many of these drugs, especially as it relates to private property. Allow me please to cite a few examples that have emanated from the drug war induced, Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984:
“Retired army Colonel Melvin Hanberg lost his California rental property because one of his tenants was alleged to be a drug dealer. (Colonel Hanberg was never accused of any narcotics violations nor listed as a suspect by local police)
An eighty-year-old black woman lost her motel because a prostitute used a room with a customer. (This lady was never accused of having knowledge of or promoting prostitution on her property.)
Helen Hoyle, a seventy-year-old black woman in Washington, D.C., lost her home because of police suspicion that one of her grandchildren once had drugs in the house.
Donald A. Regan of Montvale, New Jersey, lost his car when he gave a lift to someone who, unbeknownst to Regan, had drugs in his possession.
The theory is that the physical site “facilitates” the illegal transaction and is thereby a party to the crime, allowing its seizure. Under the existing application of the law, your home and everyone else’s can be confiscated simply by an undercover agent arranging for a drug transaction to take place on your front lawn or in your driveway.
Police seized Gary and Kathy Bergman’s South Dakota home because it was visited by a friend who brought along a marijuana plant.
Joseph and Frances Lopes lost their home when a mentally disturbed son planted marijuana in their backyard.”
When asked about the injustice done to Mr. and Mrs. Lopes, Marshall Silberberg, the U.S. prosecutor who seized their house, snorted that the family should “be happy we let them live there as long as we did.” Stefan D. Cassella, an official in the asset forfeiture division of the U.S. Justice Department, justifies the seizure of property from innocent parties on the grounds that otherwise nothing is accomplished for the government.”
***The above examples and citations were taken from the book “The Tyranny of Good Intentions” by Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence Stratton
Actual figures vary by source, but it is estimated that in our country we spend just a little less than 50 billion taxpayer dollars on the “war on drugs” every year. Of course this does not take into account the “militarization” of our local, state and national police and the advent and use of vehicles and equipment more commonly seen in a war zone than in American communities and the many associated deaths of innocents in botched dynamic entry raids by the ubiquitous SWAT team.
As one looks at the various ‘wars” our government is involved in, whether it be drugs, terrorism, poverty, noxious weeds or the quest for better water quality, there is much wisdom to be found in the words of Thomas Sowell in his book “Visions of the Anointed.” For the uninitiated the “anointed” are progressive liberals while the vision mentioned is how these progressives view how the world should be run—with them in charge of everything of course
It is really hard to demonize or criticize Thomas Sowell with the favorite derisive term of Progressives; “racist,” for he just so happens to be Black.
Here are a few quotes from Professor Sowell:
“This (liberal) vision so permeates the media and academia, and has made such major inroads into the religious community, that many grow into adulthood unaware that there is any other way of looking at things, or that evidence might be relevant to checking out the sweeping assumptions of so-called “thinking people”. Many of these “thinking people” could more accurately be characterized as articulate people, as people whose verbal nimbleness can elude both evidence and logic. This can be a fatal talent, when it supplies the crucial insulation from reality behind many historic catastrophes.” — P. 6
“As sex education programs spread widely through the American educational system during the 1970s, the pregnancy rate among 15- to 19-year-old females rose from approximately 68 per thousand in 1970 to approximately 96 per thousand by 1980. Among unmarried girls in the 15- to 17-year-old bracket, birth rates rose 29 percent between 1970 and 1984, despite a massive increase in abortions, which more than doubled in the same period. Among girls under 15, the number of abortions surpassed the number of live births by 1974.” — P. 18
“Everyone is for a beneficial outcome; they simply define it in radically different terms. Everyone is a “progressive” by his own lights. That the anointed believe that this label differentiates themselves from other people is one of a number of symptoms of their naive narcissism.” — P. 95
“One of the most important questions about any proposed course of actions is whether we know how to do it. Policy A may be better than policy B, but that does not matter if we simply do not know how to do Policy A. Perhaps it would be better to rehabilitate criminals, rather than punish them, if we knew how to do it. Rewarding merit might be better than rewarding results if we knew how to do it. But one of the crucial differences between those with the tragic vision and those with the vision of the anointed is in what they respectively assume that we know how to do. Those with the vision of the anointed are seldom deterred by any question as to whether anyone has the knowledge required to do what they are attempting.” — P. 109
The vision and belief that government does anything well except for theft and coercion is a view that history proves is fatal to those who cherish liberty. The more money that is confiscated and spent on “visions of the anointed” leads to more and more of what is being fought a “war” to destroy.
Consider please; do we have more drug users than when you were young? Do we have more “terrorists” than 50 years ago? As cited above, did the government program to deal with teen pregnancy through the enlightened vision of “sex education” prevent or increase teen pregnancy? Do we have more crime than when we started to spend all that money to prevent it? Do more cops really equate to less crime? If so, where is the proof? Are there more “poor people” than what you remember as a child? Is illegal immigration more or less of a problem than when you were young? Is our country more in debt than when you grew up? Do you think there might be a connection there somewhere?
Does the story of the hay farmer make more sense to you now?
In Liberty
mike
—
“Most human beings only think they want freedom. In truth they yearn for the bondage of social order, rigid laws, materialism. The only freedom man really wants, is the freedom to become comfortable.”
“Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day . . . . I believe it [human condition] susceptible of much improvement, and most of all, in matters of government and religion; and that the diffusion of knowledge among the people is to be the instrument by which it is effected.” Thomas Jefferson, April 24, 1816 . (to Dupont de Nemours)