The Drug War has not decreased drug use, violence, nor has it maximized peace. It is an unconstitutional assault on other countries who have done absolutely nothing to the U.S.

The “War on Drugs,” like the “War on Terror,” ends up being an undertaking with no definable victory in sight. No matter how vigorously the federal government prosecutes its “war” on drugs, people will still use drugs. No matter how vigorously the federal government pursues the “war” on terror there will still be those who want to commit terrorist acts to get their points across.

Thus, we have two “wars” with infinite reach that use the threats engendered by their very own existence to justify their actions.

In the meantime, numerous lives are lost like so much “collateral” damage–a phrase that should be abhorred by anyone who wants to think and speak seriously about such things. I would wager that damage doesn’t seem so collateral when it’s your brother, or mother, or cousin, etc.

We have now, on display, the cost of the ongoing war on drugs.

In Mexico, the violence is disastrous and spilling over the border, but the cost of drug war-related violence has already been a reality for a lot of Americans who are unfortunate enough to live in neighborhoods where such violence is the norm. The only difference now is that Mexican violence is encroaching on popular spring break destinations as well as the U.S. southern border; hence many American lawmakers are apt to take notice.

Under pressure from the U.S. government, Mexico’s government decided to “crack down” on drug gangs in its country. This only resulted in Mexican law enforcement cracking down on the gangs that don’t pay them, in favor of the ones that do.

Well, you say, “of course, because drugs lead to corruption” — no, it’s the drug laws that lead to corruption. We saw this with prohibition, and we have been seeing it with the illegal drug trade, yet many refuse to admit the obvious.

The criminalization of drug use and sale does not halt such activity. It simply creates a black market aptly taken over by criminal elements that operate on a level they know best–violence and corruption.

Mexico has become the epicenter of the drug war, just like Columbia before it. Columbia lost its infamous title, not due to any particular competence by Mexico’s drug gangs but because of the U.S. government’s intervention-which helped to weaken the Columbians, and U.S. authorities congratulated themselves. But ultimately, this only moved the problem even closer to our own borders.

The price we pay is a situation that is proving deadly for both Mexican and American citizens alike.

Now that the Obama administration is deploying National Guard troops to the Mexican border, some are torn between welcoming the needed border enforcement and realizing that the intervention will likely just move across the border in due time. This will simply lead to more problems than it might solve, and probably won’t do anything to actually secure the border.

Another current illustration of this is happening in Jamaica, where a bloody riot has gone on for days, pitting law enforcement against an alleged local drug gang leader and his supporters. This battle was incited by Jamaican authorities’ attempt to extradite the gang leader to the United States.

The Jamaican government initially refused the U.S. government’s request, but after further pressure by the U.S. State Department (I do not doubt it involved a threat of some kind), Jamaican leaders relented. The drug ‘don’ and his supporters reacted with force to the force by authorities he’s likely been working with for years – it is well known that no one wins political office in Jamaica without support of local dons. Once again, corruption comes into play and the people pay the price.

The U.S. government uses its strength and position in the world to force other countries to do what it wants. Regardless of the situation, the U.S. government feels entitled to behave in such a way.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=894

No past, present, or future document can grant rights to humanity, nor can any government or collective. The rights and freedoms of an individual person are a priori, have been, are, and will be so long as a single person draws breath. Whenever in the course of history a governing body infringes upon the rights, life and property of the individual, that individual may bring it upon himself/herself to rise up against his/her oppressor in order to take back what was rightfully his/hers from the beginning of time. While in the past the will of the majority has served to oppress those in the minority, no greater example of this can be found than in the formation of nation-state governments. Government should have one purpose and one purpose only: to protect the people and their property from plunder. Instead, our government like so many that went before has passed laws allowing for legal plunder, and has systematically stolen our lives by taking the fruits of our labor, which no government can ever earn or deserve.

The crimes of our government are indeed too numerous to list them all, but some of the more egregious offenses include restriction of liberty through excessive taxation for the purpose of redistributing wealth, maintaining a monopolistic control over the means of money and credit, propagating inflation and the subsequent devaluation of the only legal tender allowed by law, subsidization of the immoral behavior of banks and bankers, the jailing of criminals who have committed victimless crimes, the sending of our men and women to fight unnecessary wars as well as unlawfully occupying other countries for the benefit of those in power while simultaneously spying on its own citizens without first obtaining the proper warrants.

It is because of the above mentioned policies that if any man, woman, or child should choose to fight back peacefully either by not paying taxes or impeaching the whole of the government he/she would be entirely justified in their actions.

The Constitution of Freedom

An individual owns his/her life, labor, and the product of his/her labor. People are free and no government, law or collective action of any kind shall infringe upon their freedoms, namely those of life, choice, belief, action, and property. A person’s freedom is infinite so long as it does not infringe upon the freedoms of another, cause bodily harm to another, or damage another’s property.

No person can be the property of another person, government or collective.

No ruling body is necessary for a functioning society. No government can make law restricting rights or freedoms.

People have the right to individual defense of their own life, liberty, and property. No army is permitted during times of peace; this does not include security forces for the purposes of personal protection of life, liberty, and property. No military war shall be waged for the purpose of conquest. If an army is formed it shall be for defense only. No army nor the government or collective it represents has a right to the land or property of any other individual or collective.

The will of the people can never take precedent over the rights and freedoms of the individual.

Law is justice. A law shall be invalid if it stands in violation of the rights or freedoms of an individual except in cases of reparations for payment of damages to another person or their property. Any law that promotes injustice in any form is invalid. Any law which would plunder a person’s life or property for the benefit of another person or group is invalid.

No tax shall be levied upon any individual or group of individuals. No tariffs shall be levied upon foreigners as this is a hidden tax upon the people. No inflation of any money supply is allowed without the consent of all the holders of that money.

No government can determine what is or is not money. No person must accept any form of payment that he/she determines to be unfit as proper payment for his/her goods or services.

Morality can not be imposed upon a person. No law shall be made in an attempt to impose morality on anyone. No crime can occur without a victim. If the rights or property of a person are infringed upon he/she make seek just compensation by bringing a complaint against the offender to be tried before a jury of peers presided over by an arbitror agreed upon by both parties.

The only public property is of that necessary to travel; this is to protect the freedom of movement. No one may prevent someone from traversing his/her land if their means are peaceful and nondestructive; this does not apply to a person’s or people’s private residence, only to pathways essential to commerce. If destruction does occur from such travel, just compensation for damages may be sought.

No restrictions of any kind shall be placed upon what may be owned by an individual. No restrictions or regulations may be put upon any business as no person may be forced to purchase the goods or services of another against his/her will.

No person shall commit fraud or in any way deceive another person in a voluntary exchange of goods or services. All contracts whether verbal or written are binding. In cases of fraud a person may seek just compensation by bringing a complaint against the offender to be tried before a jury of peers presided over by an arbitrator agreed upon by both parties.

The signer(s) of this document believe(s) that the government which governs least governs best, and that people should not be accountable to the government but the government accountable to the people. I ask nothing which I can not rightfully earn of my own accord, and demand only to be allowed to keep that which I earn. I ask no assistance from any government as anything the government has is not theirs to give. I hold all governments to the same standards expected of all people, namely not to plunder one person or group to profit another, to respect life, liberty, choice and property and deem any government which does not act in accordance with these laws as unlawful, unjust, invalid, and an atrocity in the history free acting people.

Antitrust laws have gone increasingly unquestioned since they were created in 1890 by the Sherman Antitrust Act. It is said that “monopoly power” leads to restrictive trade, higher prices, and decreased competition. While this statement certainly has truth, very few people understand it and the issue most definitely is not solved through the antitrust laws or created by the free market.

Oppressive monopolies will never be created by consumers and free individuals. If a “monopoly” were to appear in a free society because people liked the product, low price, and high quality, why should that be considered illegal? If a business grows in size because people voluntarily buy its product, there is nothing in the least oppressive about it. Today, though, the government is on the hunt for companies who are too big and represent a danger to consumers.

In 1914, through the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was established. Its mission in a nutshell is to engage in “consumer protection” by patrolling for and breaking up anti-competitive monopolies. Sounds nice, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, the logic still doesn’t make sense.

In a free market economy people are given the freedom to use their money in the ways they see best. In nearly every case, this involves finding the best product for the lowest price. When companies like Wrigley’s, YouTube, Google, and countless others have a strong and growing market share, it is because people find their services and products the best value.

What the FTC assumes is that there are cases when a business will gain huge control over a market and use that to crush competition. The question you have to ask is, How did that business become that large in the first place? In a free market it would occur voluntarily from consumers, and its success would remain dependent on the people who got them there to begin with. If its customers were to back out and the company failed to change its practices, the business would not last. In a true, voluntary free market system it is the regulatory power of the individual, not a government agency, that controls the fate of a business.

“Consumer protection” is not something the government can empower through an agency. The one role the government has in protecting the consumer is protecting the consumer’s right to make his own decisions without the hand of government influencing the decision through force. When the government starts making the regulatory decisions, the power of individual decisions (which a free market is built upon) becomes greatly diminished, skewed, and loses much of its influence.

A recent example of the FTC’s intrusion is its dealings with Whole Foods’ $565 million buyout of Wild Oats over the course of 2007 and 2008. The FTC charged that because of the buyout, Whole Foods would suddenly be able to dramatically increase prices, destroy competition, and essentially control the organic food retail market. There are several faults with the FTC’s theories.

For one thing, Whole Foods and Wild Oats, while some of the larger national organic food chains, do not have near that much influence over the organic food industry. The theory assumes that Whole Foods and Wild Oats purchase all the organic produce in the country, therefore controlling the supply. This in itself is ludicrous. Whole Foods’ revenue over the past year has totaled approximately $8 billion, while the sales of the organic food industry reached approximately $25 billion last year.

Secondly, Whole Foods brought on a good deal of debt to achieve the buyout. Raising prices beyond what consumers are willing to pay would lead to the company’s bankruptcy rather quickly. There is nothing forcing people to shop at Whole Foods, yet the FTC again makes this assumption.

Third, and most obviously, there are many stores where organic food is widely available as the industry quickly increases in size. The FTC made its attacks based on the strange idea that Whole Foods and Wild Oats controlled the organic food industry. There is no reasoning or statistic basis for these arguments, yet because it was the bidding of the FTC, the legal battles waged on for about one year.

What’s especially ironic here is that while this battle was being waged in the name of “consumer protection”, billions of dollars were being handed out to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government-created corporations who you could say do have near monopolistic power over areas of mortgages. Don’t forget Bear Stearns, AIG, the auto businesses, and all the banks who were given billions of taxpayer dollars. Where was the FTC fighting for “consumer protection”?

When the government says that a company is “too big to fail,” doesn’t that mean it has a monopoly status? Since when does the government decide which companies can and can’t fail, all while funding the FTC to investigate, accuse, and battle individual businesses?

Anti-competitive businesses, which is the FTC’s stated purpose to prevent, are not created and do not succeed with a free market system. But they most certainly are created with a  government-influenced economy where the government grants special favors to businesses, punishes others, and decides what companies succeed and fail. A free market, in which people can make their own decisions, will not and does not create harmful monopolies. Harmful monopolies can only be created with help from the government in one form or another.

With the escalation of unnecessary and abusive antitrust laws, government-supported and government-created corporations, and government bailouts, one thing is becoming much more clear. A business is no longer created for the benefit and liking of the customer, it is built for the approval and bidding of the government.

It is no longer the customers who control the fate of a business, but the government. It is no longer the individuals who have the supreme regulatory power, but the government. It is no longer the shareholders’ responsibility to control a business, but the government’s. It is no longer the people who rule the government, but the government who rules the people.

Truth, though, is never-ending and in the long run is the one thing that is sure to be victorious. Governments, tyrants, and central planners use everything in their power to destroy the laws of truth, freedom, and responsibility. But history has shown that it is those very laws of truth, freedom, and responsibility that lead to the inevitable destruction of deceitful principles, manipulation, and fraud, no matter if it is brought about by individual people or entire governments.

Therefore, it is these laws of truth, freedom, and responsibility, that will bring us back to our senses:

It is the customers who control the marketplace, not the government. It is the shareholders who make business decisions, not the government. A business is created to serve the people, not the government. Businesses answer to customers, not the government.

It is the people who know the best for themselves. Not the government.