Monday, May 25, 2009

The state's territorial monopoly of decision-making in action

Hans-Hermann Hoppe has pointed out the conflict of interest of granting a territorial monopoly on ultimate decision-making in many places in his writings. In the article above, he says,

"... a monopolist with ultimate decison-making powers is particularly bad. While other monopolists produce inferior goods, a monopolist judge, besides producing inferior goods, will produce bads, because he who is the ultimate judge in every case of conflict also has the last word in each conflict involving himself. Consequently, instead of preventing and resolving conflict, a monopolist of ultimate decision-making will cause and provoke conflict in order to settle it to his own advantage.

... The result of a state, then, is not peaceful cooperation and social order, but conflict, provocation, aggression, oppression, and impoverishment, i.e., de-civilization. This, above all, is what the history of states illustrates. It is first and foremost the history of countless millions of innocent state victims."

Hoppe's analysis of the state's territorial monopoly on ultimate decision-making is not the incoherent rantings of an academic madman aloft in some philosophical ivory tower. A judge in New Jersey has just dismissed a lawsuit against the Federal government over its invasion of Iraq. Underscoring the media's complicity in state aggression yet again, the AP news story covering this rather important event could not be more perfunctory.

The judge in the case claims that "second-guessing Congress is not the judiciary's duty." But that is exactly what the judiciary's duty is! What else is the Supreme Court doing, other than second-guessing Congress, when it strikes down a law or portions of a law as unconstitutional? Furthermore, Congress and the Executive have begun colluding against the public by circumventing the Constitutional requirement for a declaration of war before commencement of armed aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention Vietnam, Grenada, etc.) making relief from the judiciary our only recourseagainst the warfare State.

The courts will allow us to get abortions. They'll allow us to ride anywhere on the bus we like, even if we're black. They'll allow us to attend any public school we choose no matter our skin color. They'll allow us to marry if we're gay. But they won't allow us to directly challenge the State's right to wage war because war is the health of the State and war is the single biggest argument by which the State justifies its astronomical expenditures. To challenge the State's wars of aggression is ultimately to challenge the State's power to tax. The judge's paycheck being drafted on the US Treasury, he will never directly challenge the State's power to tax or its power to wage war in order to justify its power to tax.

The territorial monopolist of ultimate decision-making, in Hoppe's words, not only produces inferior goods at unconscionable prices (tax/inflation rate), it invites conflict and aggression in order to settle the dispute in its own favor. No one can really challenge the State's decision to wage war in Iraq, ultimately killing nearly 100,000 innocent people so far, not to mention the torture and state-sponsored terrorism of the Bush administration. Politicians in Congress can't challenge it because they have to worry about re-election. The President will never challenge it because war is the reason the Presidency exists (under the umbrella of the MIC, that is). And now, the people also have no recourse through direct complaint within the courts. Not that this should be surprising, the State's courts have never allowed the people to challenge the legality of the State's wars. It's just that this goes to show that the American State is no different than any other State. Its claim to be morally exceptional is falsified.

The US judicial system is devolving into a bunch of Star Chamber courts. The Federal government has become as bad as the British crown used to be. Maybe it's time to go back to the basics, like our parents did in the 60's, challenging the status quo, challenging the pat answers and moralisms of elected and religious leaders. Maybe it's time to start challenging authority and demanding answers that make sense and hold up under anything more than superficial examination. Like in a courtroom.

Global Warming Exaggerated

Global warming is an exaggerated problem says one of the principal contributing scientists to the IPCC report. Which is not surprising, really. I posted the views of one of Germany's leading climate scientists as reported by Der Spiegel way back in 2005.

Global warming may very well be a problem, it may be human caused and it may even be a serious problem. But this is where it is crucial to apply critical thinking skills to the issue - even if these things are true, we must examine the likely motives and intent of the chief proponents of solving the problem of global warming, namely, governments, politicians and scientists in the employ of governments. 

Particularly troubling to me is the frequent use of the phrase "scientific consensus" as if science is a democracy. Science benefits the most from the lone contrarian who happens to be right and can prove it. We should be very wary of language that stifles out-of-favor scientific opinions (so long as they are, really, scientific). Science is rarely, if ever, a black-and-white matter and is usually a matter of competing hypotheses which fit the available data better or worse. As data changes (due to technological advances or advances in experimental methodology), hypotheses that were once in favor can rapidly be falsified and replaced by previously obscure hypotheses.

In the case of the United Nations, the problem of global warming is especially convenient for making the case of global governance and especially global taxation and regulation. Global warming, by virtue of being a global problem, naturally requires international coordination not likely to occur between independent nations. It should not be surprising, then, that the organizations with the best chances of being in a position to exercise global governance power - either directly or indirectly - are the most passionate in making the case for the need to solve the problem of global warming.

Lastly, we should not think about the problem of global warming in terms of the nightmare scenario catastrophes that the Al Gore & Co. alarmists would have us think. Rather, we should think about solving the problem of global warming in terms of costs and benefits. That is, we should apply economic reasoning to the many humanitarian problems facing mankind today. The Copenhagen Consensus has done just this and they rank global warming at the bottom of the list of humanitarian issues in terms of the return-on-investment of lives saved/improved versus dollars spent.

All in all, global warming may be a real problem, it may be caused by human action and it may have very serious consequences over the long term. But these facts, if true, do not in themselves prove the case for massive global government interventions and costly national government measures, especially during this economic downturn.

The right of free association, divorce and secession

From Wikipedia,

"Freedom of association is the individual right to come together with other individuals and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests. The right to freedom of association has been included in a number of national constitutions and human rights instruments, including the US constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Freedom of association in the sense of workers' right to organize and collectively bargain is also recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Labor Organization Conventions.

The right to freedom of association is sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of assembly. More specifically the freedom of assembly is understood in a political context, although depending on the source (constitution, human rights instrument etc) the right to freedom of association may be understood to include the right to freedom of assembly."

The right of free association is a fundamental human right and tyrants have always agitated against this right throughout history. It's one thing if a lone crank says something crazy, but when 10, 100 or 1,000 people start saying it together, the tyrant has a tendency to take an interest and suddenly develops the urge to disperse crowds in the name of "public safety." Cf Tiananmen Square.

As Wikipedia notes, the US Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have acknowledged that the freedom of association is a basic human right.

But there's another freedom that's just as important, and it is the other side of the coin: the freedom of non-association. Everyone is free to not associate with persons that they do not want to associate with. Divorce, as messed up as divorce laws are and always have been, is an example of this principle in action. No man has the right to force a woman to stay in a marriage which she no longer wants to be part of for any reason, and vice-versa. This is the freedom of non-association. Marriage is voluntary and both parties must continue their consent to be married, or the marriage is dissolved.

Secession is the freedom of non-association on a political scale. No political entity has the legitimate right to force a group of people to remain in union if they do not want to be part of that political entity anymore. Interestingly, majority-rule advocates suddenly become advocates of the rights of the individual when it comes to the issue of secession... "but what about the people in the seceding territory who want to remain in the political union?" This is easily answered since the seceding political unit can have no less claim to sovereignty on the basis of the consent of a territorial majority than the territorial majority of the larger political union from which it is attempting to withdraw. Their claims to sovereignty being equal, and one unit no longer desiring to be party to the relationship, the relationship should be dissolved in accordance with the freedom of non-association.

Properties owned by the larger political unit can be handled through compensatory payment by the seceding political unit. All further entanglements can be dissolved and the seceding political unit can peacefully become its own, sovereign territory, collecting its own taxes, producing its own border defense and regulating its own money and domestic and international commerce.

The American "Revolution" was, in fact, an act of secession from the Crown. The South attempted, and failed, to secede in the war of 1861. The US Federal government with its astronomical deficits and burdensome debt and the Federal Reserve and its rampant inflation to finance the Federal debt, are saddling us with trillions of dollars of subsidies for the power elite orbiting Washington DC and the global power stratosphere. I can't tell any US state whether they should or should not secede. However, it must be understood that secession - like non-assocation - is a basic human right and that the objections of the larger political union ("You didn't get permission from 75% of the states, you can't secede!") are not valid so long as a majority of the population in the seceding territory want out.

The Federal Reserve: Looking out for Goldman, errr, I mean us

Turns out that private-public partnerships = private sector raiding public treasury. While the coziness between the Federal Reserve and the banking sector doesn't quite rise to the level of an all-out partnership, it's pretty close. Few married people are as close to their spouse as Goldman Sachs is to the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department.

Of course, conflicts of interest abound and you and I are the ones footing the bill.

But you're right, we all have a patriotic duty to pay our taxes. God bless Goldman Sachs, errr I mean America, Support our Troops and purple mountain majesty or something like that. Wall Street didn't just heist America to the tune of a few trillion, this is all just to protect the "necessary financial infrastructure" of the American public. It's the little people who would get hurt if these big fish weren't able to line their pockets. America is nothing like the mugging victim who gets hurt if he doesn't line the mugger's pockets. In fact, America is the heroic policeman riding in to save the day for everyone. Aren't you proud of your country? Be glad to give back just a small portion of what your country gives to you... after all, April 15th is the only day of the year that your country asks anything of you unlike the heroic public servants who contribute to the country's welfare 365 days a year. God bless Wall Street errr, I mean our public servants.

Now they're coming for Craigslist

There is a sudden nexus of negative energy in the media regarding Craigslist. Maybe people all over the country suddenly got into their heads all at the same time to start committing more crimes on Craigslist. Given that this would be an astonishingly improbable coincidence, I wonder if this was on this year's Bilderberg agenda. It's a more likely explanation, anyway.


Classical liberalism is, I think, little understood by the average American (or the average person from any country, for that matter). Misconceptions about what liberalism is abound. In American parlance, liberalism has become synonymous with democratic socialism. "Libertarianism" is roughly synonymous with classical liberalism in American parlance. American conservatives denounce liberalism because they reject democratic socialism. Many American liberals denounce libertarianism seeing it as nothing more than an adjunct wing of the Republican party, a front for Wall Street-style crony capitalism.

This is perhaps the most succinct summary of the ideas of classical liberalism I have encountered. It is the epilogue to a work of fiction titled Jonathan Gullible. I cannot speak for all libertarians, nor will I engage in an argument over who are the true heirs of classical liberalism. But I find the moral arguments of classical liberalism put forward in this document to be insuperable. I think it's important that people understand what classical liberalism really is - it is not a front for country-club Republicanism, it is not a front for a hidden, anti-values agenda. It is a principled commitment to the rights of all people based on the conviction that a world of people free to self-determine is the best of all worlds which can be realized in this physical universe and that a public policy of liberty is the most moral.

It's just a few hundred words... please read it.

The government has displaced God & family

Author Christine Smith has written a superb article discussing the displacement of God and family for which the government is responsible. The Christian community has long been saying that the government seeks to displace Christ as the role of savior, but the government does so much more than just this and the cultural displacement of the modern omnimax government has had profoundly negative effects. It is not an exaggeration to say that the government has had a central role in the breakdown of marriages, families, parent-child relationships, and the once-common expressions of personal faith and religious beliefs.

I believe it's time we revive the ancient principle of liberty - not just for myself or my special interests - but for all people. It's time for a return to a principled commitment to the freedom of individuals to speak, think and act as they please so long as they respect the life, liberty and property of their fellow man. There is no salvation through political activism. The government is owned and operated by the same money interests to whom you are ultimately paying your taxes via these bailouts. We don't need a violent revolution. We don't need reform. We need moral, intellectual, cultural and even religious clarity on the God-given right of every man, woman and child of any race or nation to be free. All people should be free to own the fruits of their own labor, to not have it seized by corrupt or over-reaching governments, and to move and act as they see fit, knowing that God (or Nature, as your beliefs may be) designed men with the natural disposition to co-exist peaceably long before humans came up with the terrible idea of legitimate coercion and aggression (government).

As more people begin to see the inescapable truth that the government has vastly over-extended any legitimate claim it may or may not have to regulate and tax, spontaneous resistance to the corrupt policies of the state will emerge without organization, planning or direction. We see this occur in the case of tax resistance where people spontaneously begin to "cheat" on their taxes or find new ways to earn tax-exempt income as the burden of the state becomes so heavy as to become worth the risk.

The way forward is so simple that most people overlook it: believe in liberty, understand its moral and historical basis, and share with others what you have learned. The Internet is an immensely powerful tool to facilitate this. Read, learn and share. That's it. As more of us spontaneously begin this process, the state will find it increasingly difficult to continue on its path of unrestrained power and property seizure.

Killing civilians - governments just can't help themselves

It's 2009 and government still targets civilians. It's been 64 years since the end of the Great Wars of the 20th century in which untold millions of humans died violently at the hands of men armed by their government with pistols, machine guns and atomic bombs.

Thank God for government!

Congress is fiddling while America burns

They could quote Antoinette with conviction: Let them eat cake. Of course, there aren't any more important matters to attend to.

Yes, please, let's stop talking about torture in the abstract

The UAE government brutally tortured a man who failed to deliver a load of grain valued at $5,000. The R-rated snippets of the XXX torture tape that are shown are stomach turning. This, friends, is torture. Waterboarding is also torture, just like the things shown in this tape are torture. That is not abstract, that is concrete. This man was brutalized, humiliated, and forced to undergo psychological and physiological destruction and terror (torture). Victims of waterboarding are forced to undergo psychological and physiological destruction and terror (torture). I don't understand what is abstract about that.

Note that, while he has mercifully, graciously and most beneficiously repealed the US government's power to torture with its own hands, his Worshipfulness Don Obama has not prohibited the practice of rendition which could allow the US government to outsource torture. Rendition is a far more fearsome weapon since the worst the US government could inflict with its own hands are tortures that are plausibly deniable, that is, tortures that don't leave marks or destroy body parts. Other, less pretentious governments are comfortable with doing our government's dirty work (probably in exchange for handsome financial rewards) to a much higher standard of "quality" - that is, tortures with more destructive effects on the victim.

We must stop allowing the government to throw us political bones to quiet us. The rendition programs must stop and Congress must be allowed to go in and investigate all the abuses that occurred in the secret prisons. The abuses of FISA, warrantless wiretaps, gagging NSLs, etc. must all be opened up and audited by Congress now before the executive seizes so much power that it is politically unstoppable. The Roman and Weimar Republics both fell to the trap of consolidated power in the hands of the executive. Let's not let the US government enslave us to the same model of centralized tyranny.

Obama supporters: Flyover was not a psy-op

So, there are one of two possibilities with today's buzzing of Manhattan by Air Force One - incompetence or psy ops. Now, if you support Obama, then you are not going to be inclined to believe that he and his administration (and the executive branch, by extension) are incompetent. It seems to me, therefore, that the only logical conclusion that Obama supporters can come to is that today's flyover was a psychological operation designed to rekindle the flagging memory of the 9/11 events.

Whether the result of intentional malice or of negligent incompetence (we will likely never know which), this was a big, big mistake. Some heads need to roll.

The Snitch State & The Seven Signs of Terrorism

Please report any suspicious behavior.

Edited to add: Just in case you thought this was too over the top to be real - it is not a parody. This was broadcast in Kansas City, MO, same place that gave us the MIAC report on Ron Paul terrorists. Is Missouri being used as a testing grounds for propaganda trial balloons? This ad is really, really creepy.

Dick Cheney "executive assassination wing"

Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh revealed last month that he is working on a book that will reveal information about an executive assassination wing that operated under Dick Cheney. Now, this is relatively old news, but it's very important news and I'm bringing it up now because I think it is important to keep this story alive in the popular consciousness. The current push for investigations of waterboarding and other illegal interrogation practices used by the Bush administration - which have been long known to have occurred - could be an intentional distraction from the far more important story of the assassinations that occurred under the Bush administration (and could be continuing to occur under the Obama administration).

There has been an ongoing consolidation of power in the executive branch - which today is unmatched since the end of World War II. Remember that Rome was a republic before Julius Caesar - a military general - was declared imperator (emperor). We the people should be very suspicious of the executive. The Founding Fathers were. We should take this opportunity to politically empower our Congressmen - not just the Senate - to investigate the executive and scale back the power of the President as far as possible. Democracy and tyranny are not mutually exclusive.

The Constitution has gone to the dogs

Actually, it should have gone to the dogs, but didn't. I'm talking about Leona Helmsley's estate, of course.

The contract clause of the Constitution says,

"No State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts..."

This means that private contracts cannot be changed by legislative edict. This clause is incredibly important because the willingness of private individuals to engage in profitable enterprise - which is the foundation of social welfare - crucially depends on their belief that they can realize a profit. In turn, their belief that they can realize a profit depends on their belief that they can hold parties to a contract liable to the terms in the contract. For example, lenders must have confidence that they can repossess the collateral for a loan if the loan is defaulted on. Otherwise, they will not take the risk of giving the loan in the first place. When lenders are too scared to lend, everyone is worse off.

In the case of Leona Helmsley's estate, the contract is a trusteeship and it is being blatantly violated by the judiciary. From the article,

Only $1 million of the estate, valued at about $5 billion, was donated to the care of dogs, which Mrs. Helmsley had designated as her primary beneficiary.

So, "the care of dogs" should have been the largest single item, since the definition of "primary" in this context is "greatest". Going on,

[A] judge reduced Trouble’s trust fund [from $12 million] to $2 million; the dog’s security costs the estate $100,000 a year.

This is a blatant violation of private contract. $12 million dollars was specifically stated by Mrs. Helmsley to go to the dog's care.

(The judge also negotiated a $6 million settlement with two of Mrs. Helmsley’s grandchildren who were explicitly left out of her will.)

This is the most egregious violation. Disinheritance - along with inheritance - is a basic human behavior and the meddling of the courts to violate it in this case has the effect of sending the signal to all holders of wealth (large or small) that their wishes regarding who will or will not receive money from their estate, after death, may not be respected. As with any violation of private contract, this reduces the incentive for individuals to build wealth (by contributing to the social welfare), making us all poorer.

It might seem inane to get all hung up about $10 million not going to the care of a single dog, or that only $1m is going to the care of dogs from a $5bn estate against the desires of the deceased owner of the estate. But it's exactly these kinds of cases where our commitment to the integrity of private contract and the rule of law are tested most. If we follow the "common sense" urge to override the obviously wacky decisions of Leona Helmsley, the consequences are much greater than whether a single dog has $2m or $12m from an estate put towards its care. The signal that is sent is, "if the court system thinks your contract is unusual, it reserves the right to rewrite it ex post facto." The effect is that a lot of contracts that could be written aren't. A lot of experimental business ideas or contractual arrangements that could be tried aren't. And we're left the poorer for this lack of imaginative and creative exploration of contractual arrangements.

Monopoly privilege always degrades quality. The quality of our court system is abysmal. The laziness of judges who don't want to study contracts on a case-by-case basis, and the artificial scarcity of producers of arbitration services guarantees that the types of contracts which can be written and enforced is very narrow. The business models which can be constructed on this contractual foundation is likewise constricted. We need to abolish the state's monopoly on the production of law.

The use of sodomy to save lives

I noticed a thread on an internet debate forum titled "The use of torture to save lives". While we're at this game of torturing people and their children - only for the grandiose and laudable motive of "saving lives" of course - let's broaden our horizons. Saddam Hussein is reputed to have kept a paid rapist on his staff who specialized in sodomizing and sexually torturing Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib. So, my question for all the chest-pounding, gung-ho "conservatives" who advocate the use of torturing children to save lives, what about sodomy? 

Let's say that the man with the intelligence of where the bomb is will not crack, even if his firstborn child is being tortured to death before his eyes buthe cannot abide being sodomized and his honor and manhood will cause him to break down and tell everything to make the sodomization stop. Would God be more abhorred by allowing thousands of innocents to die, or one man sodomizing another for the purposes of extracting "intelligence"? Surely, if God can overlook the unnatural and depraved act of torturing a child if it is motivated from the pure, burning desire to "save lives", He could overlook the much less depraved and unnatural act of sodomy. No?

Frankly, I understand how we can use CPR, open heart surgery and LifeFlights to save lives. I don't understand how torture - or sodomy - can save lives. I'm truly puzzled.

I told you so - calls for "robust action" to solve piracy problem

This CNN article says exactly what I predicted the authorities (and media) would begin saying... we need global governance, greater cooperation between existing governments, this is all caused by the anarchy and "lack of government" in Somalia, and so on and so forth. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Timely Cartoon: Pirates and Emperors

Wow, this is impressive! I guess the Somali pirates are so hated by the US government because they are competition in kind.

The One-World Crime Syndicate

Either you're part of it, or you're the enemy.

Somalia has been without a government since the mid-1990s. Rather than remaining embroiled in eternal, pervasive conflict as the Hobbesians predict, Somalia has steadily clawed its way out of abject destitution. Water, cell phones, internet cafes and other public infrastructure are produced in a political environment that is as close an approximation to a free market as exists anywhere on Earth.

The CIA has been funding resistance within Somalia to disrupt the independent evolution of Somali law and security outside the umbrella of the UN. This is how the one-world crime syndicate* works. If there is any place where people can go to be free of the syndicate, free of the theft of taxation and the indignity of capricious and illegitimate regulation by the crime lords, they must stamp out it.

Suddenly, two-bit Somali pirates are a threat to every living being on the planet. Now, we need the US and Indian navies and the United Nations to come in to establish "law and order" because the Somalis - without a taxing government - obviously have none and this is why their pirates are raiding ships. A quick glance at Wikipedia shows that there were 329 piracy-related incidents reported to the International Maritime Bureau in 2004. Hot-spots of piracy around the globe include "Indonesia, Nigeria, Somalia, and the ports of Chittagong in Bangladesh and Santos in Brazil" according to Wiki. But Somali piracy is suddenly a big, big threat to everybody and needs to be front-page news across the world.

The linked CS Monitor article describes Somalia as "a lawless state run by Islamist extremists that provides safe harbor to gangs of pirates." This is untrue to say the least. While Somalia has no central government, they do have law and to say that Somalia is "run" by anybody - let alone Islamist extremists - is absurd. Somalia is stateless exactly because nobody runs Somalia. And anyone who resists or attempts to escape the global tax-inflate cartel is labeled a "terrorist" or "pirate" by the government-media complex, so I am skeptical of the claim that Somalia "provides safe harbor to gangs of pirates."

Friends, these big reports of Somali piracy are completely unrelated to their newsworthiness. This has nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with the fact that Somalia doesn't have a government that is part of the global tax-inflate cartel. We tried and failed in 1993 to impose one. Now we're trying to make a case that Somalia really, really, really needs a government to stop these pirates, otherwise Somali piracy is going to end the world as we know it. (It seems to me that "go 'round!" would go a long way towards solving the problem...)

If there is any place on earth where people can go to conduct peaceful, productive business free of taxation and anti-competitive regulation, this is a threat to The Syndicate. The OECD and other such organizations have no other goal than to try hold the global taxation/inflation cartel together and to at least ostracize**, if not eradicate, anyone who does not play ball with the cartel. They even have a name for their greatest fear, tax competition - they call it "the race to the bottom." Somalis have vigorously resisted attempts to re-impose taxation upon them. I don't know what's going to happen this time, but the One-World Crime Syndicate is going to have to invent a pretty big excuse to justify the level of force that will be required to bring the indomitable spirit of Somalis to heel.

*Also known as "the global tax-inflate cartel"

**Via the 'tax haven' designation or painting them with the even more grim 'terrorist finance haven' moniker if they actually respect banking privacy and fail to cough up any records the tax bureaucrats happen to demand

British Police Commit Murder in Broad Daylight at G20 Protests

These are the jack-booted thugs of the rising police-state that the authorities want us to entrust our safety to. These people are the reason we're supposed to disarm and make ourselves vulnerable to the all-caring, all-loving state. If it weren't for the camera catching this on tape, the thin blue line would have stuck together and allowed a murder to go unreported, despite the fact that they are the ones who are supposed to be preventing and investigating murder to begin with. What a joke.

The "war on drugs" - is there even a question anymore?

The War on Drugs has languished on at one level or another for more than half a century. This film from 1938 showcases the often downright silly demonization of marijuana by government propaganda. Critics of the War on Drugs, such as Milton Friedman, have long argued that the DEA is the drug lord's and pharmaceutical company's best friend. By keeping pain-relief drugs scarce, prices are driven up and profit margins remain swollen.

Today in Oregon, deaths due to overdoses of legal drugs have surpassed deaths due to overdoses of illegal drugs. There are two possible explanations for this. Either deaths due to illegal drug OD have gone down so much that they are below the long-term OD rate of legal drugs or the OD rate of legal drugs has increased. Deaths due to illegal drug OD have not drastically declined.

Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Glaxo-Smith Kline - these are the names of the biggest kingpins supplying the drug addicts of this country. It won't be much longer before this plain fact cannot be hidden anymore. The drug war has nothing to do with preventing drug use and everything to do with limiting supply, squashing competition and maintaining high prices and large profit margins.

Just how much more deadly do the legal druglords of this country have to become before America wakes up and realizes what's really going on?