| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| What if Mexicans were Crack? |
| 2006-05-17 |
| EFL Drug-war doves claim that you can’t win the drug war because you can’t defeat the laws of supply and demand. As long as there is demand for drugs, there will be a supply, and no acceptable amount of militarization of the drug war will change that. This argument gets flipped on its head when it comes to immigration. Suddenly, militarization is essential to the top priority of cutting off supply. But the fact is, in all likelihood your average illegal immigrant, desperate to start a new life for himself and provide for his family, will be no less determined to sell his labor than a drug dealer would be to sell his goods. Some drug legalization advocates hang their position on a lot of moral preening about the absolute right of the individual to do what he wants. But many of the same people will then argue that it is—and should be—an outrageous crime to hire an illegal immigrant. Well, conservative economic dogma considers the right to form contracts with whomever you wish to be sacrosanct. It is “the socialist society” according to the philosopher Robert Nozick, “which would have to forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults.” My point here is not to say one position is more right than the other. Drugs and immigration are, ultimately, very different things, and it’s the differences that explain why the analogy isn’t perfect. Citizenship, sovereignty, rule of law: These things are rendered meaningless if the distinction between legal and illegal immigration is meaningless. But the key similarity is important. Most opponents of the drug war came to their position because they consider the effort worthy in principle, but ultimately futile in the face of a more determined “enemy,” and a bit silly since the gains of winning aren’t that important to them. The burgeoning war against illegal immigration has already been preemptively surrendered by many for roughly the same reasons. What that says about America probably depends on what you think about illegal immigrants or drugs. |
| Posted by:Nimble Spemble |
| #2 For comic relief I replaced the word immigrant with wanker and immigration with wankfests: Drug-war doves claim that you can't win the drug war because you can't defeat the laws of supply and demand. As long as there is demand for drugs, there will be a supply, and no acceptable amount of militarization of the drug war will change that. This argument gets flipped on its head when it comes to wankfests. Suddenly, militarization is essential to the top priority of cutting off supply. But the fact is, in all likelihood your average illegal wanker, desperate to start a new life for himself and provide for his family, will be no less determined to sell his labor than a drug dealer would be to sell his goods. Some drug legalization advocates hang their position on a lot of moral preening about the absolute right of the individual to do what he wants. But many of the same people will then argue that it is-and should be-an outrageous crime to hire an illegal wanker. Well, conservative economic dogma considers the right to form contracts with whomever you wish to be sacrosanct. It is "the socialist society" according to the philosopher Robert Nozick, "which would have to forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults." My point here is not to say one position is more right than the other. Drugs and wankfests are, ultimately, very different things, and it's the differences that explain why the analogy isn't perfect. Citizenship, sovereignty, rule of law: These things are rendered meaningless if the distinction between legal and illegal wankfests is meaningless. But the key similarity is important. Most opponents of the drug war came to their position because they consider the effort worthy in principle, but ultimately futile in the face of a more determined "enemy," and a bit silly since the gains of winning aren't that important to them. The burgeoning war against illegal wankfests has already been preemptively surrendered by many for roughly the same reasons. What that says about America probably depends on what you think about illegal wankers or drugs. |
| Posted by: badanov 2006-05-17 23:21 |
| #1 Mexicans ARE crack for business that are avoiding the free market and are hooked on cheap labor. It gets them by, but ulitmately it is NOT good for them. And Capitalism requires a republic of laws to function well - otherwise it deteriorates into cronyism (see any S. American country, excepting Chile), cartels (See the Trust Busting in late 19th, early 20th century USA), usurpative [not natural] monopolies (Microsoft). The write is conflating lazzae faire Libertarian capitalism aith e Free Market republic capitalism. Different beasts in spite of the similarity in names. |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2006-05-17 16:40 |