Wendy McElroy on how Wars Create Drug Addicts

Wendy McElroy at the Daily Bell explains of the vital link between substance abuse and wars.

[Note: this article proceeds from two assumptions. First, drugs can be abused but the abuse could not possibly be more destructive than the War on Drugs has been. Second, drug use is in no way the same as drug addiction.]

"The American narcotics problem is an artificial tragedy with real victims." – Dr. Marie Nyswander, New Yorker, June 26, 1965

America has a drug problem. It is reflected in local newspapers such as the Herald Times Reporter (Oct. 9) that stated, "In just two years the number of heroin deaths has increased 50 percent in Wisconsin." It is reflected nationwide; Slate (Oct. 3) stated, "Deaths from heroin overdoses have accelerated, doubling in just two years, according to ... the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

An under-discussed aspect is the pivotal role government has played in creating a drug problem, especially through war and returning soldiers.

The American Government Creates Drug Addicts

The first American war in which drug addiction was documented, both during and afterward, is probably the Civil War (1861-1865). The drug was opium, especially in the form of morphine. Touted as a wonder drug, morphine was often administered through the then-recently developed hypodermic syringe. Both sides used it as an anesthetic in field hospitals, a general painkiller and a 'cure' for diarrhea. One Union officer reportedly made all under his command drink opium daily as a preventative for dysentery. As many as 400,000 soldiers are said to have returned home with an addiction. Many continued to use morphine thereafter to dull the agony of war wounds, both physical and psychological. The addiction was called the "Soldier's disease."

World War I (1914-1918, U.S. 1917-1918) has been called the "Tobacco War." By then, opiates were controlled but the government wanted something for soldiers to ease the periods of long boredom and calm stress. The solution: cigarettes. According to the Tobacco Outlook Report put out by the USDA, at the turn of the 20th century, the per capita consumption of cigarettes was 54 a year with less than .5 percent of people consuming 100 a year. And, then, cigarettes were distributed to millions of American soldiers as part of their military rations. By the end of the war, an estimated 14 million cigarettes were being distributed on a daily basis. In a 1918 cable from France to Washington, D.C., General John J. Pershing wrote: "Tobacco is as indispensable as the daily ration. We must have tons of it without delay. It is essential for the defense of democracy." Tobacco use soared after 1918.

In World War II (1939-1945, U.S. 1941-1945), nations on both sides gave its military men liberal amounts of amphetamine, a drug recently synthesized for pharmaceutical use. For example, in the 1930s, Smith, Kline & French (now GlaxoSmithKline) sold it as Benzedrine. A powerful central nervous system stimulant, amphetamines were called "pep pills" and boosted both stamina and morale. A now-elderly relative of mine was involved in General George Patton's march toward Berlin; he described staying awake and walking for days because of the 'go pills.' The U.S. Air Force was particularly notorious for 'drugging' pilots to keep them alert on long-haul missions. America continued to hand out amphetamines up to the invasion of Iraq in 1991.

Information on drug use during the Korean War (1950-1953) is thinner, perhaps because the government became less transparent and actively denied accounts of 'illegal' drug use. The government did continue to distribute amphetamines, however. And a factor that would characterize wars thereafter rose to prominence. The arena of conflict and areas adjacent to it were sources of plentiful, cheap drugs. The use of local product was often officially discouraged but this does not mitigate the responsibility of authorities for depositing young men in high stress arenas where addictive drugs flowed. In his book The Korean War, Paul M. Edwards stated: "The Department of Defense reported that in the Far East Command, the number of men arrested for narcotics abuse tripled since 1949. ... The amount of heroin seized was about three times the amount. In some cases, usually around the port cities, it was not unheard of that 50 percent of their men were involved in drugs. ..."

The Vietnam Game Changer

The Vietnam War (major U.S. involvement 1965-1975) became the first in which soldiers' drug use received mass media attention. Marijuana and heroin were readily and cheaply available on the Indochina market, with amphetamines still being officially supplied. By 1969, the military was reportedly arresting more than a thousand soldiers a week for possessing marijuana. Some accounts blame the pot crackdown for driving soldiers to heroin. A 1969 investigation by Congress found that 15-20 percent of soldiers in Vietnam used heroin regularly. This prompted Rep. Robert Steele, head of the investigation, to claim that a "soldier going to Vietnam runs a far greater risk of becoming a heroin addict than a combat casualty." It was a risk that hyperbolic politicians were willing to inflict on young American males. It is estimated that at least 40,000 veterans came home as heroin addicts.

Vietnam may have pioneered another means by which government and war promote domestic drug use. Frank Lucas was a black heroin dealer in Harlem who cut out the middleman by using contacts in the Golden Triangle to establish a direct relationship with a heroin source. Then he built "an army inside the Army" that facilitated an international drug network in exchange for bribes or other rewards. Heroin was shipped home in the false bottoms of military coffins. In short, Vietnam provided Lucas with the contacts, the personnel and the method of shipment he needed to create an incredibly successful drug empire.

read the rest here

Ms Elroy’s trenchant conclusion:

What is the truth of it? Sometimes intentionally and sometimes not, often directly and often through circumstance, the American government is the greatest cause of drug addiction at home.

Guest Post: Wendy McElroy on the Power of the Powerless

One of my favorite anarchist, Wendy McElroy writes a stirring and inspirational piece on how to live the truth and reclaim individual freedom.

Thanks to Janice Matthews and the Daily Bell for the permission to republish. (bold mine, italics original)

In the sixth century BC, the Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu identified the world's biggest problem. Individuals viewed themselves as powerless. The burden of impotence made them resent others and fear life, which, in turn, led them to seek power through controlling others. The quest was not an expression of authority, but one of aggression. Lao Tzu rooted most of social problems in the individual's sense of paralysis.

The extraordinary power of the individual can be declared in many ways.

The Power of Living in Truth

In 1978, a 42-year-old Czech playwright named Vaclav Havel (1936-2011) made an observation similar to that of Lao Tzu. He wrote what became one of the most influential essays in the Cold War era: The Power of the Powerless. It was published in samizdat form; that is, it was reproduced by hand and distributed from individual to individual to avoid censorship.

The Power of the Powerless was written in the wake of the "Prague Spring" (1968) during which Czechoslovakia liberalized freedom of speech and freedom of travel. The Soviet Union responded with brutal force that crushed the flicker of liberty. Havel was targeted for his prominent role in the reach for Czech independence. Arrested and imprisoned, he achieved an epiphany: the most powerful weapon against guns was the truth. The Power of the Powerless was a blistering attack on the communist regime. It was also a call for individuals to understand their own power not merely when they dissent but also when they comply with a system that is a lie. 

Havel illustrated the impact of compliance – denying the truth – by pointing to "the manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop" who places a "Workers of the world, unite!" poster among his onions and carrots. He does so because not placing it would make him appear disloyal to the regime. "He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life." Thus, the grocer and others who obey without question "must live within a lie. They need not accept the lie. It is enough for them to have accepted their life with it and in it. For by this very fact, individuals confirm the system, fulfill the system, make the system, are the system." The strength of communism or any oppressive regime rests upon the obedience of individuals.

Havel argued that individuals have "within themselves the power to remedy their own powerlessness" simply by living the truth. If the grocer realized that the slogan was actually saying, "I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient," he would be ashamed to display it. By realizing the meaning of their actions, people are led toward "living in truth," which is the source of freedom. The truth need not be screamed from a rooftop; it can be manifested in small daily acts through which the individual reclaims his own power, such as the 'act' of not posting a sign. The individual must defy unreality and refuse to be complicit in a delusion. Havel observed, "The principle here is that the center of power is identical with the center of truth."

Havel concluded by asking, "the real question is whether the brighter future is really always so distant. What if, on the contrary, it has been here for a long time already, and only our own blindness and weakness has prevented us from seeing it around us and within us, and kept us from developing it?"

The Difference One Individual Can Make

Chiune Sugihara expressed another way in which an individual can express his own power. Sugihara exercised what is called "positional power." That's the impact a person possesses due to his position in an organization.

During World War II, Sugihara (1900-1986) served as Vice-Consul at the Japanese Consulate in Lithuania. Japan and Germany were allies. The Japanese government issued visas only to those who had gone through an immigration process and had sufficient funds. Few Jews qualified, especially since the Japanese Foreign Ministry required everyone who received a visa to be cleared for a third destination that ensured they would leave Japan.

Against orders from his superiors and against German interests, Sugihara acted on his own initiative. In July 1940, he began to grant ten-day visas that sidestepped the requirement of a third destination by listing one of two obscure venues that did not require their own visas for entry. He negotiated with officials in the Soviet Union to allow Jews to travel through their territory at five times the normal price of a ticket on the Trans-Siberian Railway. He reportedly spent 18 to 20 hours a day arranging visas; his wife assisted him with the paperwork. For 29 days, Sugihara issued the documents that meant life. In September 1940, when the Japanese Consulate was closed and Sugihara was forced to leave, he reportedly threw blank sheets of paper with the consulate seal and his signature out of a train window to a gathered crowd of people still appealing for visas. He gave the consul stamp itself to a refugee who used it to save more Jews.

Estimates on the number of visas issued by Sugihara vary but 6,000 is the most common number. Since families often traveled on a visa granted to a "head of household," the number of lives saved is even more difficult to assess. The Simon Wiesenthal Center believes that about 40,000 descendants of the refugees he saved owe their existence to him.

In 1985, the state of Israel rewarded Sugihara with the title of Righteous Among Nations. The title honors those who risked their lives to save Jews from the Holocaust.

What is Necessary to Assume Your Power

Sugihara claimed his power by acting on his conscience rather than on orders. When asked why he risked so much to help strangers, Sugihara responded: "They were human beings and they needed help. I'm glad I found the strength to make the decision to give it to them. I may have to disobey my government, but if I don't I would be disobeying God." That was the truth within Sugihara.

It was the truth Havel believed every human being should live. Anyone who did so is profoundly free because he has "shattered the world of appearances.... He has demonstrated that living a lie is living a lie. He has broken through the exalted facade of the system and exposed the real, base foundations of power. He has said that the emperor is naked. And because the emperor is in fact naked, something extremely dangerous has happened: by his action, the greengrocer has addressed the world. He has enabled everyone to peer behind the curtain. He has shown everyone that it is possible to live within the truth."

Anyone who dissents by living the the truth is a fundamental threat to the state because a lie cannot coexist with what is true. Anyone who dissents and claims his own power denies the state "in principle and threatens it in its entirety." That is why speaking out against the state is "suppressed more severely than anything else."

What is required to live the truth? First, an individual must realize that truth does not come from outside as an ideology or from other people; it exists within as a realization that comes from experience, reason, and a sense of humanity. Second, freedom rests on a recognition of the inextinguishable dignity of every individual. Third, it requires courage. Each person must stand up and claim their own power even if it is expressed in seemingly small ways. Because there is no such thing as a small step toward freedom. The first step, however small, is the one that matters most .

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step--Lao Tzu

Video: George Carlin on Politically Correct Terminlogies

The inimitable comedian the late George Carlin on politically correct terminologies.  (hat tip Lew Rockwell Blog)

Loved that punchline at 3: 42 

This poor people have been bullshited by the system into believing that if you change the name of the condition somehow you change the condition...

  

Mr. Carline's much missed stint reminds me of a gem of a quote from author individualist feminist anarchist and senior associate of Laissez Faire Books, Ms. Wendy McElroy: (bold emphasis mine)

The deepest form of social control is to govern what a human being believes is true and false, right and wrong. When you short-circuit a person’s critical faculty and moral sense, he will obey authority with no need for force because authority has defined who he is. 

Such control requires the monopolization of information. That is why totalitarian states establish compulsory state schools, throttle freedom of speech and the press, broadcast propaganda, legislate the Internet, and obsessively monitor what people say to each other. They need to eliminate any competition in the ‘truth business’. And, so, those who know the “Emperor has no clothes” are silenced by various means. 

The control of what is true and false can be called the democratization of reality. ‘Facts’ are manufactured by those who control information and, then, they are broadcast widely to unquestioning people who believe them because the ‘facts’ spew from authorities or the media. If enough people believe the heavily gerrymandered stats on unemployment and inflation, then the economy is not so bad. If the media is upbeat about the economy, then consumer confidence will turn things around. If enough people believe the police “serve and protect,” then those who cry ‘brutality!’ become troublemakers. If politicians are viewed as “public servants,” then they cease to be masters. Thus, what is reality becomes established by consensus.

What is reality becomes established by the consensus is exactly the message imparted by by Mr. Carlin

Quote of the Day: The Myth of the Greater Good

The 19th-century British individualist Auberon Herbert addressed the issue of the “good of the greatest number.” He stated, “There never was invented a more specious and misleading phrase. The Devil was in his most subtle and ingenious mood when he slipped this phrase into the brains of men. I hold it to be utterly false in essentials.”

Why is it false? Because the phrase assumes as a given that a higher morality requires the violation of individual rights. Or in Herbert’s words, “It assumes that there are two opposed ‘goods,’ and that the one good is to be sacrificed to the other good — but in the first place, this is not true, for liberty is the one good, open to all, and requiring no sacrifice of others, and secondly, this false opposition (where no real opposition exists) of two different goods means perpetual war between men.” [Emphasis added.]

Herbert is relying on two intimately related theories: first, “the universality of rights”; and, second, “a natural harmony of interests.” The universality of rights means that every individual has the same natural rights to an equal degree.

Race, gender, religion or other secondary characteristics do not matter; only the primary characteristic of being human is important. A natural harmony of interests means that the peaceful exercise of one person’s individual rights does not harm the similar exercise by any other person.

My freedom of conscience or speech does not negate my neighbor’s. The peaceful jurisdiction I claim over my own body does not diminish anyone else’s claim of self-ownership. Indeed, the more I assert the principle of self-ownership, the stronger and more secure that principle becomes for everyone.

Only in a world where rights are not universal, where people’s peaceful behavior conflicts, does it make sense to accept the need to sacrifice individuals to a greater good. This is not the real world, but one that has been manufactured for political purposes.

Herbert explained a key assumption that underlies this faux world: the acceptance of the “greater good” itself. He asked, “Why are two men to be sacrificed to three men? We all agree that the three men are not to be sacrificed to the two men; but why — as a matter of moral right — are we to do what is almost as bad and immoral and shortsighted — sacrifice the two men to the three men? Why sacrifice any one… when liberty does away with all necessity of sacrifice?”

Herbert denied the validity of “this law of numbers, which… is what we really mean when we speak of State authority…under which three men are made absolutely supreme, and two men are made absolutely dependent.” Instead of accepting the law of numbers as an expression of greater good, Herbert viewed it as a convenient social construct, calling it “a purely conventional law, a mere rude, half-savage expedient, which cannot stand the criticism of reason, or be defended… by considerations of universal justice. You can only plead expediency of it.”

To whom was the social construct of conflict convenient? Why would a faux world of inherent conflict be created? By solving the manufactured problems, a great deal of power was transferred from individuals to a ruling class.

Herbert wrote, “The tendency of all great complicated machines is to make a ruling class, for they alone understand the machine, and they alone are skilled in the habit of guiding it; and the tendency of a ruling expert class, when once established, is that at critical moments they do pretty nearly what they like with the nation…”

Rather than solve a social problem, the ruling class had a devastating effect on the welfare of common people, who became “a puzzled flock of sheep waiting for the sheepdog to drive us through the gate.” Ironically, by claiming the collective was greater, the few were able to assume control over the many. The “greater good” devolved to whatever served the interests of the ruling class.

This is from Ms. Wendy McElroy at the Laissez Faire Books.

All the popular appeal to the emotions couched on (collectivist) 'nationalism' have been no more than vicious propaganda intended to uphold the interests of the ruling class.

Quote of the Day: Constructing Freedom-Oriented institutions

From libertarian Wendy McElroy at the Laissez Faire Books, (bold original)

What is an institution?

An institution is any stable and widely-accepted mechanism for achieving social and political goals. Traditional institutions of society include the family, court systems, the free market, and churches. Institutions generally evolve over time to reflect the history and dynamics of a culture. For example, the institution of common law evolved on a grassroots level to meet the demand for justice by average people. Equally, the institutions of money and the market arose to satisfy human need and desire for goods.

As those needs and desires change, so do the institutions. Sometimes the change occurs due to conscious human design. Trial by a jury of one’s peers, for example, was a procedure consciously designed to maximize the justice of verdicts. This court procedure weathered the test of time well enough to now be viewed as a cornerstone of Western jurisprudence. When institutions are responsive and grassroots in nature, they become such a natural part of human progress that they change in a spontaneous manner, as in the continuing evolution of language. Like the free market, they strongly encourage peaceful interaction because that is what benefits the vast majority of people.

The political system is the institution upon which libertarians focus. They commonly observe that politics ‘institutionalizes corruption’; political structures and procedures encourage bad results like the personal malfeasance of elected figures. A large reason for the corruption is that the political system is not responsive, not grassroots. As a static institution, it serves the embedded interests of an elite class rather than the dynamic ones of the average person. (The elite class consists of politicians and those with political pull.) What libertarians call ‘corruption’ is what the elites call ‘profit’. They have consciously sculpted the institution to increase their profits through such procedures as non-transparency.

In a sense, the embedded corruption of politics is good news for libertarians because it spotlights a basic truth about institutions. They can promote liberty or statism depending upon their structure, procedures and the embedded incentives. The Founding Fathers knew this. For example, they attempted to limit the government by constructing a tripartite system of checks and balances designed to prevent the centralization of power. The Bill of Rights created incentives toward liberty by laying down societal ground rules to be upheld by the Supreme Court. (Whether the best intentions of the Founding Fathers were doomed to defeat by the inherent nature of politics is debatable.)

The specific structures and procedures of any institution will determine the results it produces. As long as the procedures are followed, the motives of those participating in the institution are irrelevant. Elsewhere, I offered the example of a man who works in a candy factory with the intention of producing canned tuna. As long as he follows the workplace rules and procedures, however, he will produce candy. A police officer may want to promote libertarian justice but as long as he enforces the laws of a totalitarian state, he will produce injustice.

Equally, as long as everyone respects the rules of the free market, it will function as a mechanism of peace and prosperity even if some of its participants are ill intentioned human beings. You may buy goods from a man whom you would never allow into your home; he can detest your religion or skin color even as money peacefully changes hands. As long as the rules of the free market are observed, freedom itself is served.
The burning question now becomes: how do we construct institutions that encourage liberty?

Conclusion

There are two answers on how to construct freedom-oriented institutions. The first: do not to construct them at all. Allow them to evolve through the spontaneous interaction of individuals pursuing their own self-interest. This is how free markets function, families are created, free speech rings out… Many institutions require merely to be unobstructed.

But other institutions require some design beyond the “anything that is peaceful” rule. For example, a court system requires procedures of justice such as “innocent until proven guilty.” And, so, the second answer to designing institutions is: do so in as minimal a manner as possible and only to promote individual rights.

Quote of the Day: Intellectual Rights and Duties

Ms. Wendy McElroy at the Laissez Faire Books enumerates what she thinks constitutes our intellectual rights and duties…

The following are some intellectual rights and duties that I’ve evolved as guidelines for constructing — one person at a time — the type of intellectual society in which I want to live.

YOUR INTELLECTUAL RIGHTS

You Have the Right to Be Uninterested

When you are trapped in an unpleasant or boring conversation, you are well within your intellectual rights to state, “I don’t care to talk about this (or to you) further.” Make the statement without hostility, as a matter of fact, and then simply walk away. No one has an unconditional claim on your time or on your attention. And the assumption that you should care about every issue and event in the world is ridiculous. Don’t accept the unrealistic demand that you find everything and everyone interesting.

Everyone Has the Right Not to Understand

Most of us spend a lot of time trying to avoid uttering the sentence, “I don’t understand what you are saying.” Too often, people see this statement as an admission of ignorance or inadequacy, rather than one of self-confidence. No one understands everything, and it is folly to pretend you do. Nevertheless, the fear of appearing ignorant or stupid frequently underlies a reluctance to admit that you simply do not understand what is being said. Do not apologize. Just ask whoever is speaking to clarify what they mean. Most people are more than happy to expound at length in front of an attentive audience.

Everyone Has the Right to Make a Mistake

This is far more than a right. It is an inevitability. You will commit errors, and frequently. If this upsets you, then curse human nature. As a human being, you are a fallible creature without godlike or automatic knowledge. Yet many people will argue themselves (and everyone else) into the ground or into absurd intellectual corners, rather than admit, “I’m obviously mistaken about that one point.” There is no shame in admitting, “I made a mistake.” Indeed, there is great strength in being willing to acknowledge your errors and learning from them.

Everyone Has the Right to Change His Mind

Changing your mind or a stated position is not intellectual indecision or weakness. It is part of the learning process by which you discover errors and correct them. If someone convinces you on an issue, it is a mark of intellectual honesty and courtesy to say, “You’ve persuaded me to your point of view.” After all, what is the alternative? Holding onto an untenable position just because that is what you believed yesterday? Everyone has the right to say, “Obviously, I am wrong on that point,” and not to feel diminished by this act of intellectual honesty.

Everyone Has the Right to Disagree

Whenever you hear a statement with which you disagree, you have the right to say so. Often you are in situations in which your opinion would be unpopular if stated. Perhaps a family gathering has turned into a political discussion, and you hold the only dissenting view. Your alternatives are wider than either stewing in silence or starting an intellectual brawl. You don’t need to justify yourself. You needn’t become either hostile or apologetic. You can simply state, “I disagree,” and walk away. Or stay and argue. The option is yours.

At this point, many people will ask, “Why bother? Why cause trouble?” In some cases, you may reasonably decide that speaking out is not worth the price. But showing discretion is different than allowing silence in the face of offensive opinions to become a habit. Such habitual silence is destructive to the most-important aspect of your intellectual life: your own self-esteem. Breaking the silence and saying, “I disagree,” can be important. If it were not, most people would not feel such resistance to making the statement.

Everyone Has a Right to His or Her Own Opinion

Everyone has the right to so weighty a thing as an opinion, and to express it. You do not need a diploma, permission from your spouse, a dispensation from the church: Simply by being a human being, you have a right to reach your own conclusions and publicly state them. The more knowledge you have, the more likely your opinions are to be correct. But this does not mean that you should not refuse to reach a conclusion right now based on what you know. That is all anyone ever does: form opinions based on their current level of knowledge. After all, as noted above, you also have the right to change your mind if more or better information arrives. .

YOUR INTELLECTUAL DUTIES TOWARD OTHERS

Never Purposely Embarrass Anyone

People often make unsupported claims, contradict themselves or otherwise become vulnerable to being intellectually humiliated. Don’t do it. Argue as well as you can, but do not take psychological advantage of someone’s weakness. If you do so, then you will make an enemy of the humiliated person and win no points from onlookers who recognize an act of gratuitous cruelty when they see one. If the other person has become so irritating that you cannot continue discussion without launching into personal attacks, then walk away. Brute reason is as inexcusable as brute force.

Give the Other Person Time to Consider the Argument

Do not badger someone for an immediate response or to instantly concede a point you have established. After all, accepting what you say may mean that the person has to question other beliefs, and such a process can be extremely uncomfortable, especially if performed in public or under duress. Allow the person room to think and to change his mind gracefully.

Acknowledge Good Points

If the other person scores a point in the discussion, acknowledge it. Even if he doesn’t change your mind on the main issue, give him the credit he deserves by saying, “That’s an interesting perspective,” or, “You are obviously right about that.” This level of intellectual courtesy is so rare that you will acquire a reputation for fairness based on such remarks alone.

Freely Acknowledge When You Have Made an Error

Honesty works two ways. When you misstate a date, for example, admit the mistake without embarrassment and move on. If you “stick by your guns” and refuse to acknowledge an obvious error, the other person is likely to focus the rest of the argument on that weak spot. Once you have admitted the error, however, don’t allow the other person to hammer away on the point. If he attempts to do so, then cut him short and demand, “If this is how you treat a simple mistake, what would you do if I conceded your main point — ridicule me for agreeing with you?”

Be Tolerant of Small Slips

Don’t jump on the occasional silly statement or inane question. We all make foolish remarks at some time or other.

When You Are Uncertain of Something, Say So

If you are asked a question for which you don’t have the answer, say, “I don’t know,” or, “I haven’t given the matter any thought.” This is not only a sign of intellectual honesty, but as importantly, it is a way to keep from making a fool of yourself.

Avoid Ostentatious Displays of Knowledge

Never argue just to display your own cleverness. This is as offensive to most people as an ostentatious display of wealth, which usually causes resentment, rather than admiration.

Civility and mutual respect are the first things to go in despotic times. A regime that doesn’t trust people to manage their lives tends to undermine our own trust in others and ourselves. In the end, however, the state cannot manage our minds and our habits of thinking and communicating with each other. This we can and must control for ourselves. Let not the state take away our intellectual rights and responsibilities.

Thanks for the advice Ms. McElroy.

Quote of the Day: Your Identity Properly Belongs to you

Everyone has areas of utter privacy to protect. Some people wear lockets containing photos of deceased relatives; others daydream about a forbidden love; still other people lock the door while luxuriating in a hot bubble bath; or, perhaps, they write a love letter that is meant for one other set of eyes only. These acts are a line drawn between the private and public sphere; they constitute a boundary over which no other human being can rightfully cross without invitation.

If a neighbor reads takes it upon himself to read letters in your mailbox or copies down the details of deposits in a bankbook he has ‘encountered’ in your desk drawer, you would feel violated and enraged by the invasion. What is wrong for your neighbor to do is also wrong for a government agent to do because there is only one standard of morality. Theft is theft, invasion is invasion. You have the right to slam the door on the face of anyone who says differently. A peaceful human being owes no debt to any other person.

Hold the state up to the same standard as your neighbors…because there are no double standards of right and wrong. Privacy is a right, not an admission of guilt. Your identity properly belongs to you…not to the state.

This is from author Wendy McElroy at the Laissez Faire Books