Survivor: Ron Paul Edition

Presidential hopefuls in the Republican Party gathered together to debate the issues in South Carolina. Ron Paul drew the most attention for his provocative understanding of FREEDOM. His Libertarian view is the menu of choice should be expanded to include items like prostitution, cocaine, and heroin. The only limitation to freedom should be choices which directly (i.e. physically) harm others.

Michael Gerson correctly notes that Paul would be undeterred by data which shows areas which have decriminalized drugs has increased drug addiction rates. This is because of Paul’s modern, or libertarian, understanding of VIRTUE and VICE:

Quote 1: “How many people here would use heroin if it were legal? I bet nobody would.”

Quote 2: (He is making fun of an addict here) “Oh yeah, I need the government to take care of me. I don’t want to use heroin, so I need these laws.”

For Paul, in order for a person to be truly virtuous, he must do so to a heroic degree. If the Law “helps” him by eliminating temptations, then that doesn’t count as virtue. A virtuous person is one who lives in a dump but doesn't get dirty.

Gerson points out that this is a repeat of Herbert Spencer’s SOCIAL DARWINISM. Citizens compete, not cooperate, against one another in a game of 'Survival of the Fittest.' The Addict's inability to resist temptation does not garner the community's concern. It is simply every man for himself. A Public Philosophy of this kind would cultivate contempt, not compassion, towards the the weak in a society. A community of free individuals ultimately means the individuals are free from each other, which isn't much of a community at all.

Love it or Leave it

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Rick Perry Extended Interview
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

Governor Rick Perry and Jon Stewart debate the merits of federalism in this interview. Perry says the merit is that on controversial issues like medicinal marijuana and gay marriage each state can have their own laws. This allows people to leave the state which they disagree with.

Stewart replied the states are not monolithic so there is a minority who does not support the existing laws. For example, there are citizens in Texas who support the two issues mentioned above. Federalism leads to a Tyranny of the Majority which endangers basic rights.

But Stewart is begging the question. He is assuming these things are basic rights. The fact that people disagree about them is the reason why federalism is being proposed as a way to resolve the impasse. States are a “laboratories for democracy” which allow citizens to test a hypothesis.

Of course, Perry did not say that. Which makes you wonder how he will do if he does pursue a Presidential bid.

“Paging all dealers, I mean, doctors…”

Californians are preparing to vote on a measure to legalize marijuana this Tuesday. How did things get to this point?

Last week, supporters of drug legalization came clean about role of medical marijuana in facilitating the current measure:

I tell Cliff that what I’m most struck by is how the medical marijuana movement has euphemized the old glossary. “Users” are now “patients.” “Dealers” are “caregivers.” And the dope itself? “Medicine!” says Cliff, going for the assist. “There’s no more weed. I correct everybody now. Because that’s part of getting rid of the stigma. It’s medicine.”

But if its only allowed for medicinal purposes, surely doctors must be maintaining strict standards to prevent abuse, right? Not so, says Nicholas Kristof:

Special medical clinics abound where for about $45 you can see a doctor who is certain to give you the medical recommendation that you need to buy marijuana.

The charade which is medical marijuana is now being revealed for what it really is: a preliminary stage to weaken public resolve, enabling further drug legalization.

Euripides on Elvis

I have never understood The Bacchae by Euripides and the various interpretations of it have rung hollow. With that in mind, I was surprised to find myself nodding in agreement over Robert Reilly's take on the play:

Euripides and the Classical Greeks, from whom our Founders learned, knew that Eros is not a plaything. In The Bacchae, Euripides showed exactly how unsafe sex is when disconnected from the moral order. When Dionysus visits Thebes, he entices King Penthius to view secretly the women dancing naked on the mountainside in Dionysian revelries. Because Penthius succumbs to his desire to see "their wild obscenities," the political order is toppled, and the queen mother, Agave, one of the bacchants, ends up with the severed head of her son Penthius in her lap -- an eerie premonition of abortion.

The lesson is clear: Once Eros is released from the bonds of family, Dionysian passions can possess the soul. Giving in to them is a form of madness because erotic desire is not directed toward any end that can satisfy it. It is insatiable.

Reilly then applies this reading to an indictment on pornography.
I would link Reilly’s argument to Carson Holloway’s critique of pop music. The logic behind such music, e.g. Rock N’Roll & Rap, can traced back to Rousseau and Nietzsche who argued IN FAVOR OF Dionysian 'madness' i.e. music should indulge and even inflame one’s passions. What was criticized by Euripides and Plato is encouraged by the late Modern thinkers and is accepted as a matter of course by us today.
Elvis, a symbol of the Sex, Drugs, and Rock N’Roll since the 60’s, might vindicate Euripides on this point. Like King Penthius, his desire for the Bacchic frenzy led to him to a bad end. While it might not qualify as Tragedy, it was rather pitiable finish.

The Opium Wars & Drug Legalization

MercatorNet has an excellent article outlining the history of the Chinese Opium Wars. What I want to focus on here is the last stage of the history. Due to the Treaty of Tientsin in 1858, China was forced to legalize the importation of opium which eventually led to the domestic production of the drug. Here is the result:

The prevalence of opium consumption in China skyrocketed in the 19th century,
from about 3 million opium smokers in the 1830s, to 15 million opium addicts by
1890, or about 3 percent of the population at the time. According to the Chinese
delegation to the International Opium Commission of Shanghai (1909), this
increased to about 21.5 million by 1906. Others put the number close to 40
million people in 1890, or about 10 percent of the population, growing to
unknown levels from there. According to official Chinese figures, opium
consumption affected 23.3 percent of the male adult population and 3.5 percent
of the female adult population of China in 1906. Other estimates ranged from 13
percent to 27 percent for the male adult population of the country. By any
estimate, China was consuming between 85 percent and 95 percent of global opium
supply at the beginning of the 20th century. Never before or since has the world
known a drug problem of this scale and intensity.

Drug Legalization led to a proliferation in its use. This seems to be a rather obvious fact and a reader might wonder why the author chose to belabor the point with so many statistics. It might be because this obvious fact is not so obvious to many today. I have come across several people who deny this claim, though it seems self-evident to me.