letter to johngalt's liberal friends

Last week I traded political emails with a group of friends, most of whom are liberal but one in particular who is very much so. The exchange began with his missive:

Dear Red States:

If you manage to steal this election too we've decided we're leaving. We
intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with
us. In case you aren't aware, that includes California , Hawaii , Oregon ,
Washington , Minnesota , Wisconsin , Michigan , Illinois and all the
Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and
especially to the people of the new country of New California.

To sum up briefly: You get Texas , Oklahoma and all the slave
states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get the Statue
of Liberty . You get Dollywood.

(...)

The rant continued, but I answered it by suggesting my "olive branch" idea:

Personally I think there’s a much simpler solution than any of this. It boils down to a simple trade. I put it like this:

“I offer an olive branch, from “one America” to “the other:” You let us drill for oil and we’ll let you smoke pot.”

That sounds like a win-win proposition to me. What do you say?

After explaining how such a trade would be a win-win for everyone but those who want neither legal oil or legal pot (and ignoring numerous baiting tactics like referring to Sarah Palin as a "mavericky MILF") I went on to draw the parallels between the two restrictions and call the liberals out on their propensity to control people:

And what do environmentalists have to give up in return? A nearly indefensible fear of extremely rare oil spills and terrestrial perturbation on drilling sites, yes, but more importantly, as you said – the ability to manipulate the behavior of individuals. “If people perceive that there’s an ample domestic supply, they’ll forget about conservation and the ultimate need for a transition to transportation that isn’t based on fossil fuels. The sooner we turn the page on oil, the better.”

There’s a lot for me to quibble with in those statements but what really, really blows my mind is how important it is to the greens to control other people. How different is this from drug laws, or abortion laws, or gay marriage laws, or any of the other “morality” issues that the religious right tries to impose through law?

This is why, to me, BOTH are indefensible – government restrictions on free and commercial use of pot and on free and commercial use of oil.

The entire letter, including my reason for choosing McCain over Obama in the closing paragraph, is attached below for posterity.

As far as I’m concerned the biggest reason to legalize pot is to reduce by one the number of laws that are largely ignored. Law should be objective, knowable and necessary. For this reason, and for reasons of utility and choice, I think it should be of value to pot aficionados to actually repeal government restrictions on the substance.

And what do environmentalists have to give up in return? A nearly indefensible fear of extremely rare oil spills and terrestrial perturbation on drilling sites, yes, but more importantly, as you said – the ability to manipulate the behavior of individuals. “If people perceive that there’s an ample domestic supply, they’ll forget about conservation and the ultimate need for a transition to transportation that isn’t based on fossil fuels. The sooner we turn the page on oil, the better.”

There’s a lot for me to quibble with in those statements but what really, really blows my mind is how important it is to the greens to control other people. How different is this from drug laws, or abortion laws, or gay marriage laws, or any of the other “morality” issues that the religious right tries to impose through law?

This is why, to me, BOTH are indefensible – government restrictions on free and commercial use of pot and on free and commercial use of oil.

Critics may say that I’m oversimplifying the oil issue but I believe I’m truly reducing it to first principles. All of the “reasons” for “turning the page on oil” can be refuted objectively. But they all boil down to the same thing – obfuscation of the physical reality that oil is the most concentrated, easiest to obtain, most portable and least dangerous fuel source on earth. (And this doesn’t even include it’s many other beneficial byproducts.) The only way to make this miracle substance less economical than windmills and solar cells is to restrict its production so that prices become artificially high. But the effect of this policy is to create oil kingpins in foreign countries where our laws don’t apply. See the other parallel to pot here?

If worldwide oil supplies really are about to be depleted then fret not, the economics of the “oil economy” will do what you want all by themselves – and sustainably so. If not then restricting US oil production is nothing more than a self-imposed trade prohibition which damages the US economy to the benefit of all others. Talk about killing jobs!!

In the meantime, John McCain and Sarah Palin both say they support massive government “investment” in alternative energy. I think this is wrong, but I fully expect they’ll spend our tax dollars on it. And I also fear McCain’s position supporting cap and trade for CO2 emissions. It’s a joke, and he’s on the environmentalists’ side, but I still support him over Obama. Why? Because Obama has never once used the word “victory” when discussing wars in Iraq OR Afghanistan, and because I have no doubt Obama’s true motive for the presidency is to gut national defense and balloon entitlement and public works programs. This is demonstrably unsustainable.

Sorry for the rant; one thing just sort of leads to the next.

Presidential Race 2008 Posted by JohnGalt at November 2, 2008 11:22 AM