Political Science 101
Butler Shaffer at LewRockwell.com - don't call it "science", says Mr. Shaffer, and title the introductory course "Follow the Money", since that's the only motivating factor for most of those in officialdom. And he plugs Karen Kwiatkowski's film. [jomama]
It has been suggested, by some, that political systems grew out of piracy, with brigands -- tired of having to chase the lootees -- establishing permanent ports through which tradesmen would have to pass and pay fees. It should be evident to any rational mind that, contrary to the view that governments were instituted to protect property, wealth preceded political agencies; otherwise there would have been nothing to steal or control.
The state exists for one purpose only: to forcibly extract from people money that could not have been obtained in the marketplace. Coercive power is desired for no greater end than to exercise decision-making authority over others concerning money, and the resources that can be exploited for monetary benefit. References to "freedom," "democracy," "constitutional principles," the "proletariat," the "general welfare," "love of country," the "fatherland," "terrorism," or any of an endless supply of bromides, are made for precisely the same reasons that underlie television commercials: to get you to part with your money. Beer ads promise you the "good life;" automobile commercials suggest that members of the opposite sex will fall in love with you if you are driving the new Belchfire 99X; even Viagra is peddled on behalf of the happiness of women!
If marijuana did not grow in the wild, but could be effectively monopolized by the pharmaceutical companies, do you think it would be legally opposed as a "controlled substance?" In much the same way that Donald Rumsfeld changed from being Saddam Hussein's close buddy to his nemesis, can't you imagine today's self-righteous anti-drug warriors -- at the behest of the pharmaceutical industry -- shifting gears to plead for the rights of the desperately ill who need marijuana to extend their lives?
Steve Kubby -- who suffers from adrenal cancer -- now sits in a jail awaiting trial, deprived of the marijuana which, alone, can extend his life. What conservative voices -- for whom "right-to-life" is their middle name -- have demanded that the state stop depriving him of a substance that nature, itself, has provided? What liberals -- who champion "choice" whenever it serves their programs -- have arisen on behalf of this man whose only wrong was to have contracted cancer? But if the drug companies were able to control marijuana's supply -- and thus able to profit enormously from the sick and dying -- don't you think his case would be pleaded in both Congress and the media on behalf of "drug policy reform?"
...
If you would like further understanding of how Americans have the best government that money can buy, I urge you to see the Why We Fight film. On the other hand, if you prefer a mindset in which "never is heard a discouraging word," turn your television to either CNN or Fox News: they might provide you with an update on the missing teenager in Aruba!
