The article is astonishingly confusing and misleading because the author arguments that it is more/less guns what results in more/less deaths. And as such, that only by decreasing the amount of available guns the deaths can be reduced. In order to defend this position she tries to defend her position by bringing a sometimes useful comparison of explaining local problems (those of the U.S.) by comparison to more global regions (in this case, Latin America).
Rosenthal does not propose a better solution than the one she is trying to question and which was proposed by the NRA (National Rifle Association) to President Obama. Truth, “A society that is relying on guys with guns to stop violence is a sign of a society where institutions have broken down”. Why? Because the bureaucrats and the NRA consider as she does that it are guns the ones that “kill” and as such, it are guns the ones that “give life“. Neither of the cases can be more false.
The parallels between the Latin American countries with high homicide rates and the US Massacre of schools kids cannot be correctly understood behind the “more guns/less-more deaths” causal relationship.
Then, how? As usual in this times of miss-integration of concepts. The events in Latin American countries with high homicide rates and the US Massacre of schools kids have no parallels. The high homicide rates in Latin America are the result of a failed War on Drugs and the institutional decay caused by corruption, state failure in providing rule of law and the reconfiguration of power relations amongst many other causes. In this case the guns are not a cause nor a solution. The massacres in U.S. schools are in my opinion the result of a decay of family values and a philosophical problem of identity that can only be solved behind an urgently much needed moral revolution. In this last case it is not guns or the state which can do much about to change things.
Future massacres in schools can only by stopped from happening when the roots of family decomposition are diminished (divorces, unemployment, family violence, alcoholism, drug addiction, among many others). The murderers in these schoolswere seeking for revenge from society and saw that killing kids was the perfect way of enacting revenge on those he was angry with. Until we understand this things I see no probable hope for future improvement of any of the cases. As well, for as long we have journalists with a philosophy of life that relies on the State as the “giver” or “healer” of society’s problems things are also going to continue going in the wrong direction…
A couple days ago, Otto Perez Molina, recently elected as President of Guatemala; announced that he was willing to decriminalize the commercialization of drugs. According to U.S. authorities, Guatemala has became the transshipment point for more than 75 percent of the cocaine smuggled into the United States since 2005. Along with this, the Opium poppy cultivation is already done in large parts of the countryside making the production of Guatemalan heroin a greater and the newest worry for the United States. The country’s elites are already part of this business and the paranoia of crimes that used be a remembrance from Colombia‘s 1990s history seems to be repeating in these Central American countries.
What impresses me the most now is how this news has started spreading around my Facebook contacts (mostly libertarians and liberals). Both groups seem to be happy to hear this announcement by Guatemala’s President. However, both groups applaud the news for different reasons. The legalization/decriminalization of drugs will not be the panacea we all are hoping for. Specially not if started by any of the Central American governments. The reasons are many and I will begin by listing some of them to open the discussion,
Corruption, lax enforcement, and judicial impunity levels in Central America are among the highest of the world.
Drug lords and their new and powerful money have been mentioned by many analysts to be already part of the politic and economic elites of these countries.
The Central American countries in which this drugs are produced and transported are inhabited by a large majority of people living in the lowest leves of Human Development.
If legalized, the trade, production and commercialization of drugs (cocaine and heroine mainly) will be regulated by these governments.
Without any doubt, this regulations will enable and create legalized monopolies ruled with the partnership of previous drug lords and government officials.
It has not been advocated by any of the political leaders which road would take the legalization of drugs. This is important, because under current legalization procedures it is not the same to get the approval for a new medicine in the market as to get the approval for a new liquor, a new energizing drink or of a new edible product.
The history of the legalization (production, trade and commercialization) of items considered by many as drugs and for others as commodities has shown that for as long as a government elite hold the power to legalize it; it was in their power to take the first steps into the acquisition of a monopoly of its trade and production.
If legalized, the emergence of a coercive monopoly would be inevitable. As noted by Ayn Rand, the governments and their partners in these coercive monopolies “will be able of setting the initial prices and production policies independently of the market, with immunity from competition, from the law of supply and demand. An economy dominated by such monopolies would be rigid and stagnant.”
If we support the complete and absolute free trade of all commodities it is necessary that we do not grant to government an intrinsic right to regulate it. No compromise should ever be done with a government that requires regulation in order to give us legalization. Legalization should result in freedom and not in regulation. The drug trade should be opened to businessmen and entrepreneurs in the freest way possible. The freest way is that of requiring the traders to inform their buyers about all the necessary information about the products they are offering.
We may be taking part in a historical moment in which the most important thing are principles. Let us remember that one of the most valuable principles of trade is Freedom; and that one of the most valuable principles of government is to seek that i will Protect Individual Rights and not to regulate their lives.