First of all, what the hell is the U.S.A. doing in Syria? What the hell are they doing in Afghanistan and in Mesopotamia? Last time I checked, those were independent countries. There's a civil war going on in Syria; protestors took up arms against the ancien régime, since it obviously was not treating them right. The civil war in Syria should remain a civil war; what interests does the U.S.A. have in supporting one side or the other? America is not the world police.
The problem of Afghanistan would have been resolved in a different way in the 1950s: America would consult the United Nations about the blatant human rights abuses, and it would be up to the United Nations to decide whether action should be taken. More likely than not, the U.N. would temporarily lend full control of the territory to a particular superpower under a so-called 'mandate' until the problem were resolved.
In fact, this is precisely what happened after the end of World War I. The former Ottoman Empire, allied with Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, was embroiled in civil war; the British, naturally, found this convenient, and delivered military aid to the Arab rebels. The Arab rebels won, and the Ottoman Empire was fractioned up. The Ottoman Empire, though, was not like the British Empire, in which borders existed and everybody knew what they were. In the Ottoman Empire, boundaries were so blurred as to have disappeared entirely. When it was split up, the British knew that, unless boundaries were drawn, the Arabic part of the former empire would engage in infighting; Colonel Lawrence, a young military intelligence officer, was sent in to draw up a map for the partitioning of the land. To keep things fair, Palestine, Jordan, and Mesopotamia was given to the English, while France got Lebanon and Syria; on average, each lasted about fifteen years before gaining its independence.
Second, drug law needs reform. I liked the old Pure Food and Drug Act; what's wrong with ensuring that all foods and drugs were adequately labelled with their contents? However, the Controlled Substance Act is a work of pure stupidity, or evil, or both. For instance, antidepressants, though they cause withdrawal symptoms far worse than any opiate, are non-controlled, simply because they have no "abuse liability". In other words, they don't make you feel good. Even on a non-medical basis, however, controlling the use of substances has no basis. Before 1914, no country in the world had a law controlling the distribution and possession of drugs, and the world did just fine.
I disagree with recreational drug use, especially of hallucinogens and of marijuana. However, the problem of addiction is a medical one. It should be up to the medical establishment to cure the disease, not the government to put miscreants in prison where they mingle with true criminals, like murderers and rapists. There is such a thing as responsible drug use; if there was no way to use a drug of abuse responsibly, why are so many drugs of abuse used medically in hospital? Pure morphine is one of the least dangerous medicines available; if it is injected with a clean needle, it will cause zero damage. The danger is not in recreational use, but in abuse: in some individuals, the use of a particular drug may balloon out of control—the definition of addiction. Therefore, it is essential to treat these people, without subjecting everybody to harsh criminal punishment.
Third, pull a dollar out of your pocket. What is this dollar? Quite simply, it's a promise that the government responsible for its printing has gold or silver on hand to pay the value of the dollar upon request. If money is printed without procuring the appropriate amount of gold, it's essentially worthless. Before Pres Nixon cancelled it in the 1970s, there was a simple system in place: one troy ounce of gold cost thirty-five dollars. Gold, not paper, was the unit of account, and almost all gold in America was held by the Federal government. Since then, the price of the dollar became a fiftieth of what it had been.
Fourth, what the hell is this affirmative action malarkey? God, what an exercise in Orwellian double-talk! If a company refuses to employ, say, those of Polish heritage, it's discrimination. When the government forces this company to employ so many Polish, it's affirmative action. Seriously. It is illegal to discriminate based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other one of those arbitrary divisions we've created to carve up the human race... but when the government does so, it isn't discrimination? If you're hiring for a job, the only discrimination allowed should be based on skill.
Not only does the government discriminate in jobs, but it discriminates in industry funding. For instance, there is a government incentive to create ethanol from maize; no such incentive exists for ethanol from sugar-cane. The free market is a powerful thing. It derives its power from collective intelligence: the fact that a group of experts will make better decisions together than each of those experts acting alone. There are several surprising examples of this. For instance, if a number of people take guesses at the number of jelly beans in a jar, the average of these guesses will almost certainly be very close to the true number, even if some of those guesses were way off. Alternatively, consider the fact that the stock market managed to find the cause of the Challenger disaster months before the official verdict: an O-ring manufactured by Morton Thiokol. Last of all, there is the simple fact that in 1920, there were over one hundred automobile manufacturing companies based in the United States of America. Today, there are four. Therefore, wouldn't it make more sense to leave it to the free market to determine which solutions are best as alternative fuels?
The people don't rule the U.S.A.; paperwork and offices do. America is not a democracy; it is a bureaucracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment