XPost: talk.politics.drugs, alt.philosophy   
   From: nothanks@nowhere.com   
      
   Pete nospam Zakel wrote in:   
      
   > Manny Davis  writes:   
   >   
   >>If the drug war was a net loss for the state it would be   
   >>ended tommorrow.   
   >   
   > It *IS* a net loss to the state.  It costs the state money, it   
   > deprives the state of revenue,   
      
   But the state has no money of its own. All costs are borne by the   
   taxpayer, and the taxpayer is NOT the state. There are only three   
   ways the state can obtain money:   
      
   1. It can demand tribute (aka taxation) from the people. Those who   
   do not pay tribute are arrested and imprisoned.   
      
   2. It can take out a loan, spend and waste the money, then force the   
   taxpayer to repay the loan.   
      
   3. It can print paper dollars. Each additional paper dollar printed   
   devalues the existing dollars and is therefore just another tax.   
      
   Please don't respond with "we the citizens (taxpayers) are the   
   government". We are not.   
      
   The government spends the money it has stolen and extorted from the   
   people in whichever way it sees fit. If the politicians who control the   
   state apparatus believe they will benefit by spending the money fighting   
   the drug war, then that is what will (and does) happen.   
      
   > and it increases disrespect for the state   
      
   I don't think the drug war increases disrespect for the state, because no   
   sane individual respects the state in the first place. The drug war is a   
   failure, but everything the state does is a failure, from government-run   
   (public) housing to government-run (public) schools the state's record of   
   gross incompetence is unmatched. The few things governments are good at   
   is starting wars, causing famines, and operating prisons and work camps,   
   none of which deserve any respect.   
      
   > and social disorder.   
      
   Governments relish social disorder. Social disorder causes "crises" and   
   "emergencies" which, as we all know, permit the state to grab even more   
   power. Tell me, was the 9/11 terrorist attack good or bad for the   
   government? Is the government more or less powerful now since 9/11?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)