A Politician’s Response on the War on Drugs

Drug Policy, Police Statism, Victimless Crimes
By / / 2 minutes of reading
Share

Recently, through DownsizeDC.org, I sent an email to Congressman John Linder, urging him to support an end to the war on drugs and the legalization of marijuana in California. I believe that move will do much to make both Californians and Mexicans safer. Predictably, our masters in Washington are more concerned with maintaining power than actually allowing people to freely make choices for themselves. The response, which should come as no surprise to any libertarian:

Dear Mr. Wicks:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding the recent drug-related violence in Mexico.  I appreciate hearing from you, and I share your concerns.

In 2007, former President George W. Bush announced the Merida Initiative proposal, a coordinated effort between the United States, Mexico, and the countries of Central America to combat the threats of drug trafficking.  President Obama recently stated that in 2009, under the Merida Initiative, $700 million would be invested to support Mexico’s law enforcement and judicial personnel in the war on drugs.  This money will be spent in part on training personnel, equipment for counternarcotics forces, and information sharing.  Additionally, to increase border security the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is tripling intelligence analysts and increasing the number of canine units operating along the Southwest border, as well as increasing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) staff in Mexico.

Our drug policy must be a comprehensive one, and we must continue to put pressure on producers throughout the Americas to ensure that they cannot sell their product in the United States or ship across our borders with impunity.  We also have an obligation to assist foreign governments with their efforts to stop the crime and violence associated with the drug trade, a trade primarily focused on meeting American demand for illicit drugs.  I believe that we must dedicate ourselves to winning the war on drugs and I will support legislation that attacks this serious threat to America’s health and national security on every front.

Again, thank you for contacting me.  If I can be of further assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to call on me.
Sincerely,

John Linder
Member of Congress

Even people of fairly limited intelligence (i.e., congressmen) can see the clear line connecting the war on drugs to drug violence. It is well past time to stop assuming the drug warriors actually care at all about our lives. They care about their own power, and the power of the state on which they depend. If thousands must die and millions must be imprisoned, that’s just a cost of doing state business.

A Politician’s Response on the War on Drugs Read Post »

The Vatican Speaks out on Intellectual Property

IP Law
By / / 2 minutes of reading
Share

By Michael Geist:

Monday October 25, 2010

The Vatican has spoken out against unduly aggressive intellectual property protection. In a statement at the World Intellectual Property Organization, it noted “on the part of rich countries there is excessive zeal for protecting knowledge through an unduly rigid assertion of the right to intellectual property, especially in the field of health care.”

The Vatican is more honest and intelligent about this than IP advocates are, acknowledging that the

Economists recognize mechanisms through which Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) may stimulate economic development. These are interdependent so that a broad view of incentives associated with IPRs is appropriate. They devote much attention to this issue, but evidence to date is fragmented and somewhat contradictory, in part because many of the concepts involved have not yet been measured. A stronger system of protection could either enhance or limit economic growth. While strengthening IPRs has potential for enhancing growth and development in the proper circumstances, it might also raise difficult economic and social costs.

So the Vatican recognizes that (a) the economists have not proven their case with solid numbers;1 and (b) that there are real and significant costs to an IP system that should not be ignored.2

Jeff Tucker has also written about the incompatibility of IP and the Church’s mission: see his “Why Catholics Don’t Understand Economics ” and “Why ICEL Needs To Put Its Texts Into the Commons.”

[Cross-posted at C4SIF]

  1. See my post Yet Another Study Finds Patents Do Not Encourage Innovation ↩

  2. See my article There’s No Such Thing as a Free Patent, Mises Daily (Mar. 7, 2005). ↩

The Vatican Speaks out on Intellectual Property Read Post »

“The Social Network,” Entrepreneurship, and Intellectual Property

(Austrian) Economics, Business, IP Law
By / / 2 minutes of reading
Share

The Social NetworkThere are some good commentaries up on the superb Facebook movie, The Social Network: The Daily Caller’s ‘The Social Network’ and the case against intellectual property rights and Jeff Tucker’s A Movie That Gets It Right, as  well as Robert Wenzel’s The Social Network: The Movie that Could Save Us All.

In my view, the movie fails in its apparent attempt to show the Zuckerberg character as an asshole (I don’t know how true to life the character is), other than the way he treated his girlfriend in the beginning. It’s also hard to tell if the movie intended to show how ridiculous some intellectual property claims are, but as argued very well in the Daily Caller post, the movie does show this. One part of the plot concerns twins Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, whose plans for an exclusive Harvard student network were upstaged by Zuckerberg, leading them to complain that he “stole” their idea. As the Daily Caller post notes:

“If you had invented Facebook, you would have invented Facebook,” Zuckerberg sneers, dismissing the Winklevoss twins’ contribution to the existence of Facebook. Yet it’s indisputable that the networking site the twins envisioned at least partly inspired Zuckerberg, who gave them the run around for weeks while quietly launching a rival site.

Dubious as Zuckerberg’s tactics may have been, “The Social Network” does not consider him a criminal. Audiences shouldn’t, either.

… In an age where websites like Facebook have made it easier than ever for people around the world to interact and share their ideas, laws shouldn’t stand in the way of the free flow of information and innovation.

During a legal hearing, Zuckerberg makes the ultimate statement against intellectual property rights, asking, “Does a guy who makes a really good chair owe money to anyone who ever made a chair?” If people value Facebook and the system that made its development possible, the answer should be a resounding no.

[Cross-posted at C4SIF]

“The Social Network,” Entrepreneurship, and Intellectual Property Read Post »

Scroll to Top