My earlier post about big government's systematic elimination of large denomination currency -- ostensibly to fight the war on drugs -- made me wonder whether big government's need for the war on drugs is based not so much on a realistic goal or genuine desire to eliminate illegal drugs so much as it is the need for a contrivance. The drug war rationale thus becomes a pretext to trick citizens into supporting measures they would not otherwise support. Because people don't want to give up their freedom lightly, they have to be provided with a plausible rationale. Citizens instinctively and rightly don't want the government to be able to rifle through their financial or medical records (or bodily fluids) but if they are told it's to fight the war on drugs, or money laundering, they're more likely to be pliant. Citizens are willing to give up substantial amounts of their freedom if they think it's for a "good" cause.

In that respect, I wonder whether the mechanism at work in the Drug War is similar to the mechanism being deployed in the Carbon War (war against Anthropogenic Global Warming). Whether you agree with the principle involved in the former (saving society from people with destructive drug appetites), or the latter (saving the planet from people with destructive carbon appetites), my suspicion is that the stated goals in both cases are not only unachievable, but are not the real goal, which is simply to have as much state control over the lives of citizens as possible, as well as a rationalization for taking ever more. In this respect, the fact that existing controls are "not working" becomes an argument for increasing them.

So, to those in control, it does not matter whether the measures work or the stated goals are achievable.

It is better that they are not!

To those who rule, the issue is not whether the draconian measures involving substantial losses of citizens freedom are "worth the price," for they operate under a very different pricing scheme -- one which is geared towards taking away freedom. Debates over whether the restrictions are "worth it" are off the mark, and help rationalize existing losses of freedom as well as further losses of freedom, for they validate the statist position that the government has the right to take away freedom in the name of protecting people from harming either their bodies or the planet.

Has the drug war "worked"? This question has been asked a million times, and the proponents simply assert over and over again that if it has, it must be continued, and if it hasn't, it must be stepped up. Evidence that drug use has gone down means that this is no time to let down our guard and our efforts should be increased. And, of course, evidence that drug use has gone up means that we have to redouble lest the war on drugs be "lost."

Will the war against carbon "work"? If experience with the war on drugs is any indication, such a question will simply become a similar rhetorical foot in the door. Evidence that global temperatures or CO2 have gone down means that this is no time to let down our guard and our war against carbon should be increased. And, of course, evidence temperatures have gone up means that we have to redouble lest the war on carbon be "lost."

Human lives are at stake. The very planet is at stake!

This is no time to let up on our war against our toxic greed.

Any loss of freedom is a small price to pay!