I mean, we can argue that a nagging wife or a stingy person has a bad character trait. “Society” certainly does not get behind such nasty vices. That does not mean that nagging or stinginess ought to be outlawed.

Moreover, it is not even clear that we ought to disapprove of marijuana use (as opposed to abuse). When legalized, marijuana’s quality will improve dramatically, as big and small companies enter the industry to serve the demand and quality and price competition commences.

And for goodness’ sake, don’t scare us with the vision of children lying in the streets in a smoked (or drunken) stupor. I thought only left-liberals used “it’s for the children” trick. Parents protect their children from numerous harms; they can easily extend this protection, as they do already, to unadvised marijuana consumption.

I mean, look, Mises was right to have written that the harm one can do to one’s soul by consuming bad ideas is far greater that the harm one can do to one’s body by smoking some pot. Seen in this light, freedom of speech is the worst thing that befell us since the bubonic plague epidemic. If paternal and benevolent government censors had been empowered to protect the masses from bad ideas, perhaps socialism would never have reach such popularity. Perhaps O’Reilly own show is dangerous to the public; what if he infects the body politic with vicious ideas?

Where does protecting people from themselves end? Must we enslave the populace? The Drug Prohibition is a policy at war with itself.

What then is the meaning of “it was a blessing” supposed to be? When is death ever a blessing? I suggest that one must eventually give in to death and declare the earthly battle over, nevertheless death is never a blessing, whatever the state of the person is.

The only exception seems to be death that ends the painful pre-death agony. But even here we are again back to the idea that agony could be ended sooner or avoided altogether by killing the person. Praxeologically, if not legally, killing is the same as letting die, a deliberate human action that results in certain precise consequences.

Cf. Mises, Human Action, 13.

Is the drug war going on in Mexico right now just or unjust? A simple reply is that it is neither; it is rather insane: it’s arbitrary slaughter.

Still, this is indeed a private war between the Prohibition-induced militarized drug producers and the naturally militarized government. G-men, as it were, battle against gangs of drug-men. The citizens are mostly unharmed. Yet it was the government that made this war a reality by imposing and enforcing the Drug Prohibition. The drugmen could be said to be fighting for their natural right peacefully to produce private goods for the consumers. It is true that idealists of various kinds have for many decades tried to “save us from ourselves,” and for that they have a lot to answer. They “disapprove” of drug use, as if anybody cared for their solicitude. The idealists want to be Moses-like lawgivers presenting us with commandments like “Just say no to drugs (and if you don’t, we’ll kill you).” To them drug buyers and sellers are disgusting vermin to be exterminated or shoved into a government cage. They aim to cleanse the earth from the “impure.”

Anyway, the drugmen have the right to continue in their occupation of drug manufacture, and the government is being unjust in outlawing their trade and punishing them for it. The drugmen are in the right in jus ad bellum if obviously not in jus ad bello. But the latter injustice is, too, an easily foreseen consequence of the Drug Prohibition.

Why can’t Seoul reply as follows: “South Korea is a free country, in which free enterprise flourishes. We do not consider cutting off peaceful trade between individuals and business firms located in different countries to be a foreign policy tool. The South Korean government will not participate in the malicious program of impoverishing both the country, its trading partners, and the world.”

I mean, the sanctions explicitly “target” the sector which “sustains the economy.” How is that not a declaration of war? How is that not a total war on the citizens, including women and children, of Iran?

Are there no, you know, normal ideologies anymore? Is a single libertarian voice too hard to find these days? Is everyone either a fool or a coward? Come on, South Korea, reject the crazed sanctions idea!

But let’s be honest and point out that he is right: this is a private deal between the owner of the land and his customers. If the mosque people offer the guy the most money, there is nothing objectionable in his taking it. That’s free enterprise in action. And that’s how private property resolves conflicts: any private deal is none of anybody’s business.

Still, the terrorists derived some of their ideology from their Muslim faith. And there are plenty of “folks” out there who hate Americans with a passion. Maybe they actually hate the US federal government and its foreign policy, but, like most Americans, too, they fail to make the distinction between the state and the people. Here’s a clue: hate the state? Don’t attack the people. Again, hate the state? Attack state property, like aircraft carriers. Nobody would give a rat’s ass if a couple of these technological terrors sank. Have yourself a normal war, terrorists.

Even that will be extremely stupid, as it will only enrage the Leviathan. Look what happened after Timothy McVeigh’s own personal war. He single-handedly discredited local “leave us alone” movements against the feds. Bill Clinton bragged how McVeigh’s actions (evil surely in themselves) hurt his opposition. But a “normal” war would be an improvement.

Anyway, the key proposition I want to defend is: Let them hate so long as they (a) fear and (b) think it more profitable than dying to sell us their Middle Eastern junk. Hatred kills the hater not the hated. But as long then the former don’t fly airplanes into tall buildings or drop bombs on (again) the people, it does not matter to me what attitude they have toward me. You see, we in America have a freedom of emotions. You know, those private feelings which, if not expressed in plans and actions, are completely invisible to others? If that freedom is taken away from us, then which are going to be left?

And think about this: if terrorists feel like attacking the World Trade Center area again, maybe they’ll decide against it, because they’ll fear harming the mosque.

For the obvious unknown so far is whether the prisoners are in her custody legitimately. If they are, then the most the woman can be accused of is bad taste, even less than that: perhaps she is a bit flighty and just snapped the photos for fun. “Oh look at me, I’m so tough, I’m holding these sons of bitches by the balls!” What is the big deal, especially when in Israel women are required to “do time” in the military? In short, if the prisoners ought to be there, then she did nothing wrong.

On the other hand, if the prisoners are not supposed to be there, have in fact been kidnapped, are being held without trial, etc., then a picture (are you kidding?) is beside the point. The outrage is not that she is seemingly enjoying her power over the inmates (have people not heard of the Stanford prison experiment?) but that an injustice is being perpetrated: these men are innocent or at least have been wronged by the Israeli state and must be freed at once, and those who seized and imprisoned them unlawfully ought to be punished. The woman may have done us a favor by exposing a corrupt prison regime.

That’s about it.

Oh yes, the numerous back and forth accusations of hypocrisy, you know, “if it were Muslims holding Israelis captive, no one would care,” etc. are nonsense. The “argument,” if it can be called that, comes down to “everyone’s a scumbag, so it’s OK if the Israeli folks are, too.” Bleah.

If that is indeed the case, then gays stand condemned. But suppose that they have no such nefarious plans. Surely, the gays recognize the inferiority of their “marriage.” Then why rattle the good folks? The issue, it seems to me, turns entirely on a word. Gays should say: it’s fine if you don’t let us marry, but we’d like to be able to… shmarry! Shmarriage would be actuated by a different ritual (civil or religious or whatever — perhaps instead of rings, gays would exchange pens) and be governed by a different set of laws. Perhaps the legislators would simply copy the normal marriage laws into a new book called “Shmarriage Laws” without any alterations. Or maybe with a few alterations, big deal. Really, no one would be the wiser.

This way, it seems to me, the dispute could be resolved peacefully.

Second, this assumes that forest-owning entrepreneurs do not plant new trees when mature trees are cut down. Yes, some trees are unowned and people do not care to replenish their supply, because such trees are not private property. But in many cases the trees suitable to be a material for making paper are specifically re-grown. It is simply not the case that forests are not well cared for resources.

Third, the reason why I have such a wide choice of shoes is precisely that so many other people also want shoes. Their demand and their consumer competition are not an obstacle to me but a blessing. Similarly, if the environmentalists convinced everyone to stop eating meat, then the number of chickens alive would plummet. Same with the trees. Some tree farms are deliberately created where there were no trees before at all in order to satisfy the demand. The “derived demand” for the trees exists only because of the original demand for paper. If people stopped using the paper, these farms would cease to exist.

In the last scenario don’t forget to buy the Athrikus’ Ring of Power from Magic Rings and Things and Tome of Forbidden Knowledge from Helbrim’s Potions.