Wednesday, November 28, 2012

See how helpful The State is?

I ran across a story in the news a couple of days ago.  It said that "For the growing number of teenage girls who are incarcerated each year, detention may be the only time they get health care."

I see more than one disturbing thing in that sentence.

First, that the number of caged teenage girls is increasing.

Second, that State interference has made health care inaccessible to so many people.

And third, that some people try to justify the caging by pointing out that these girls need health care they aren't otherwise getting.

Even though the one girl mentioned in the story wasn't there directly as a consequence of the stupid and evil War on Politically-Incorrect Drugs, I'd be willing to bet money her crime is somehow tied to prohibition.  As is the vast majority of the abuse and other health issues discovered in the health screenings

End that idiotic policy, prohibition, and there would be a fraction of the current number of political prisoners held in cages in America in a few years- if not immediately.  And the rest of the crimes caused or exacerbated by prohibition would dwindle as well.  It would put reavers out of a job, which would be a good thing.  It would diminish the power of the judges.  It would help ALL of society.  Except those who drag society down- the drug warriors and their buddies on the violent supply side (with considerable overlap between the two) of the drug trade.  Those allies are a burden that society can't afford.  Ending prohibition would pull the rug out from under them.  Soon isn't soon enough.



  1. Just another example of blaming the market for the failures of intervention.

    In NH, the Welfare department is begging for more money, because there is more demand due to the economic downturn.

    This would require higher taxes, making the downturn worse.

    No kidding, Soon isn't soon enough.

  2. Libertarians in particular are easy targets for accusations of hypocrisy. As in, "no true libertarian would/should use state owned roads, libraries, etc.." Conveniently forgetting that for many things use of the state owned/operated option is the only option for a lot of reasons. And to be fair they kinda set themselves up for it too. They reflexively oppose any sort of collective action even if it's voluntarily arrived at. Go figure?

  3. I don't think I've ever opposed voluntary collective action, myself. In fact, if you dig through this blog deep enough you'll find I have said that I don't care if someone sets up a communist enclave- as long as it is strictly voluntary and people can opt out whenever they decide to.

    Collective doesn't bother me- coercive does. Unfortunately, most of what is seen as simply collective is in truth coercively collective.