A Proposal to Win the Drug War with a victory for Freedom
By Richard G. Eramian

There is an honorable way to win the drug war and all other prohibition wars against freedom. Every person who wants to criminalize honest trade, every person who does not respect the right of adult individuals to control their own lives, including the right to choose their own food, drink, and medicine, should be required to meet on the field of honor (pistols at point blank range) with a defender of freedom.

Every person who advocates violence, including the law, against peaceful people should be required to meet with someone who defends the universal principle of individual freedom and personal responsibility. This simple requirement will cause all the drug fighters, gun grabbers, and other illegalizers, to disappear. It would be like turning on a light in a dark room and watching the cockroaches run for cover. Why? Because drug fighters and illegalizers are not honorable people. Their idea of a fair fight is to hire a dozen goons to point a dozen guns at one head.

A sure way to prevent 99% of all wars is to require the war mongers to fight.

For example, I would happily debate with Sasha on matters such as IP say. We could go at it for months and that would be no problem at all. We may eventually agree (one persuades the other) or we may not agree at all (and the debate would continue on and off over time). That’s fine. There is no problems with either party promoting and speaking about their view in such circumstances. I definately would not hurt Sasha, nor steal his property, nor attack his friends and family. I would not smash into his home, up-end everything, shout at him to fall to the ground while he was tied, restrained and bashed- all because his opinions differed from mine. To do that would be unacceptibly evil. So between us there may be disagreement on certain topics but neither would initiate force against the other. In such a case the exercise of “free speech” and its recognition is appropriate.

However, should a third party come along and state that all the Radeta’s shall be rounded up and taken away, all the Radata’s property taken away, all their liberties curtailed etc., then I would grant that party nothing- not one right would I recognise for such an entity. To even speak such hatred and horror would necessarily result in total opposition.

A person, or a group of them, who recognise no concept of individual rights can hardly expect me or anyone else to apply concepts of individual rights to them. They’re fair game… Apply utu.

Sione

It looks like we are in 100% agreement that drug fighters and illegalizers are violent thugs who have abused millions of good human beings and continue to do so.

I would not violate someone’s freedom of speech under any circumstances. Those who advocate the censorship of a speech under the excuse of preventing rights violations – are running into a contradiction: the also advocate violation of self-ownership and other people’s basic rights.

Under no circumstances I would not violate their freedom of speech. Sione disagrees. No word twisting there.

If I call someone to a duel, it’s a voluntary agreement on fair fight – in which either life can be lost. No rights taken there – since the other side voluntarily accepted the possibility and legitimacy of getting killed.

It is the drug fighters and illegalizers who are not refraining from aggression. They are currently sending armies of heavily armed gangs to assault, rob, arrest, and even murder their victims. They have commited violent acts against millions of human beings and continue to do so as we speak. So, I ask you again how should defenders of freedom respond to these violent acts?

Regarding freedom of speech, it seems to me that you are twisting words because anti-prohibitionists do not advocate the prohibition of speech. The example that you site was not about banning free speech, it was about retaliating against a specific group of violent thugs. It was not about putting those thugs in jail for violating some speech code.

Here is an example of word twisting.

You stated, “But I would never advocate the violation of his freedom of speech, because that would constitute his enslavement”

You also agreed that it was okay to challange an aggressor to a duel. So, if you killed him in a duel, you would be taking away his freedom of speech along with all his other rights, correct?

Read more carefully Sione’s statements. Some people here advocated prohibition of such speech that is advocating violation of basic human rights (ironically, their statements are also directed against human rights of speech and self-ownership, so they are contradicting themselves).

Defenders of freedom should insult the insulters back, ignore them, intellectually humiliate them…. whatever. But we must refrain from aggression against their private property right, including self-ownership and speech.

I was agreeing with you that the response to insults should not be the banning of free speech. No one in this discussion has advocated the prohibition of speech. You are knocking down your own straw man.

So, in your opinion, how should defenders of freedom respond to the many insults thrown at them by drug illegalizers?

I never said that you should be silent if someone insults you or your family. Insult him back. Call him on a duel. But don’t advocate the prohibition of his particular type of speech.

Actually John is not a prohibitionist proper, he is a subjective prohibitionist who strongly favors the status quo where he expresses little concern re alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical policies; and sees no obvious comparisons economically to currently illegal ‘drugs’.

At a debate a few years ago, when asked by a law school student why cannabis could not be controlled in the same manner as tobacco products, John indicated that he could think of none and thought the question was baseless.

I asked any student present to present a pack of store-purchased cigarettes and indicate what was present on the bottom of the cellophane package, a young women yelled, “a tax stamp.”

The power of governments to tax is the power to either create or destroy problematic markets…Thornton’s essay addresses these concerns, John’s vapid reply does not.

I have to chuckle that John thinks Dr. Thornton parrots NORML’s talking points, when in fact, NORML’s talking points circa 1991 are derived from the collective economic works and writings of Friedman, Becker, Machan, Buckley and a one Dr. Mark Thornton.

Cannabem libermeus!

If a serious person uses his speech and/or writing to advocate the murder of you and your family, The question is how should you respond to such outrageous, uncivilized behavior. In general, How should a person respond if someone spits in his face, insults his family, threatens him with death, etc.? It is obvious to me that he should not respond by trying to ban free speech. The most civililized response would be to tell the aggressor to bacdafucup (cease and desist) or step forward onto the field of honor (I suggest pistols at point blank range because that contest requires no skill). You should at least punch him in the head even if he then proceeds to pound you down. The point is that there are circumstances where honor requires a person to fight. A free man should not allow anyone to crap on him. Everyone must draw a line in the sand somewhere.

# And others??!!! Does anyone else see a problem with this? #

Yes. I see a big problem. The writer trys to use the principle of inalienable rights to justify the negation of the principle of inalienable rights. Thank you for posting that example stateist illiogic and deception.

You aid that I misinterpreted your statement – but you didn’t support this with any evidence. Actually, you affirmed everything I said. Allow me to explain:

If a person says that he supports killing of all Radetas and all Slavs for that matter – I would say that I would support our defense if someone tried to kill us – and that I hope that all aggressors against us will die in another Stalingrad, or at least share Hitler’s destiny

But I would never advocate the violation of his freedom of speech, because that would constitute his enslavement.

Each must decide on his own account. Despite what you may like to claim, a committee or collective can’t do your thinking or decision-making for you. You do that alone. You do it according to the content of what is presented. If a man says he supports killing all Radeta’s, can you grant that man the “free speech”? Do you let him communicate his idea to other like minded fools? Do you let him get them organised and ready for the pogrom? Do you wait for the night of the broken-Radetas? Or do you let the democratic central committee decide when it shall be?

But once again you’re guilty of employing a tactic of selective quotation and attempting to alter the context. Twist, turn, wriggle- misrepresenting what the other person writes so you can have your argument. Naughty boy.

Take note of the qualifiers in my statements. Don’t be ignoring them just because it suits your cause. And in future how about considering the entire passage, not just the bits you think you can dispute in isolation.

Start by reading Richard G. Eramian’s post above. That should assist you with the idea.

Sione