What Can We Learn About Ourselves From Drug Dealers?
More than you think. Ask yourself this:
Why do drug dealers beat, shoot, kill or otherwise harm their customers, suppliers, and competitors when they disagree?
Some say it’s because they don’t know any better. Others will say it’s because they’re all low life, no good <insert your favorite racial slur here>.
I disagree. Regardless of one’s intellect or racial/ethnic background, I think it’s a safe assumption that most people, including drug dealers and idiots, prefer to settle disagreements without the risk of getting shot if they can avoid it.
Thus the answer is simple. Drug dealers shoot each other because they don’t have the means to settle their differences in court. Whether the disagreement is based in market share (“turf”), price-fixing, product quality, payment terms, trade secrets or any other myriad of reasons legitimate businesses sue each other over, drug dealers can’t rely on the Rule of Law and Private Property Rights to provide equitable settlement of their differences.
Thus, the drug dealers are left with only one option.
So what do you think would happen if legitimate businesses and citizens could no longer rely on or benefit from the Rule of Law?
Would they too resort to violence? Violence against their customers for non-payment or theft? Violence against their suppliers for inferior quality, disagreeable terms, or poor service? Violence against their competitors, neighbors, or government for any number of reasons?
Of course they (which is really “we”) would. Or, at least those who were ‘successful’ in such a world would. Because without the Rule of Law, violence is the only means of success. Survival of the fittest so to speak.
So, who is responsible for protecting the Rule of Law? At base, we all are. But in effect we hire the courts to do it for us. Which, of course, ultimately leads us to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The same Supreme Court that, in Kelo v. City of New London (2005) said that private real estate could forcibly and legally taken by the government from one person and given to another person if said government decided the recipient could make better economic use of the property. Of course we allowed them to forcibly take from us that other private property that we call money and give it to others back in 1913 with the ratification of the 16th Amendment. They just call that taxes instead of theft.
It’s also the same Supreme Court that in the Obamacare decision twisted what is clearly a fine into calling it a tax so an unconstitutional law could be defined as constitutional. Despite the fact that Democrats said it was not a tax AND the Constitutional requirement that all revenue-generating bills originate in the House, which the Obamacare bill did not (it was drafted in the Senate).
And, finally, earlier this week, the same Supreme Court that now says it’s legal for police to collect DNA from suspects and convicted persons alike. Further, the justices said it’s legal for the police to then submit that DNA to a national database for future use in law enforcement. Now, some might say that’s a good thing, or that it’s no different than collecting fingerprints (which the plaintiffs, in fact, used as precedent in oral arguments).
But let me ask you this: If a person is arrested, tried, convicted, and serves his sentence as prescribed by the courts, is his debt to society not “paid in full”? If he is arrested and later found innocent, does he not owe ANY debt to society? So why, in either case, would we need to violate that person’s Private Property Rights and 4th Amendment rights for “future use” by collecting his DNA now? Is collecting DNA and storing it in a database not a blatant admission by the Supreme Court that once you’ve been judged guilty (or now even simply detained or arrested) you are now OFFICIALLY considered by the government to be in debt to society forever? Me thinks so. As for the fingerprinting argument; Justice Scalia, who wrote a blistering opinion of dissent to this week’s decision as one of the court’s most conservative members, stated that the question of legality in collecting fingerprints for future use has NEVER come before the Supreme Court. Thus using it as an argument is not only without merit, but he also was suggesting that fingerprinting (as well as DNA collection) is flat out unconstitutional.
Folks, this is a so-called ‘conservative’ court. In fact, a VERY LARGE part of the focus in the 2012 presidential election was the likelihood that, if re-elected, Obama would likely get to appoint at least two new Supreme Court justices in his second term. If this is what we’re willing to accept and count on from a ‘conservative’ Supreme Court in regards to upholding the US Constitution, the Rule of Law and Private Property Rights (along with knowing we ABSOLUTELY don’t want an Obama court), then there is only one thing that lies ahead for legitimate businesses and citizens who have disagreements with one another or with their government:
Not because of ignorance, or racial/social inequality, or economic hardship, or anything else other than this: Civilized society, representative government, and free market capitalism simply cannot exist without the Rule of Law and Private Property Rights. We’re seeing them destroyed before our very eyes and when they become unavailable to us as a means of settling disputes, we will do exactly what the drug dealers do. You can count it.
Short URL: http://pundithouse.com/?p=14046