Liberty & Power: Group Blog
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
The Fund for the Study of Spontaneous Orders at the Atlas Economic Research Foundation is seeking papers exploring the theme
“ORDERS AND BORDERS”
for its Second Conference on Emergent Order and Society
Selected papers will be presented at a conference to be held in Portsmouth, NH, November 1-4, 2008. After author revisions/responses, the papers will be published in our new, open source online journal, Studies in Emergent Order. The site is presently under construction.
We urge all scholars interested in exploring how emergent order analysis can contribute to our understanding of the social world to consider submitting a proposal. We seek original work in four basic areas:
1. Exploring the relations between emergent (spontaneous) orders and the instrumental organizations within them. For example, the relationship of corporations to the market, political parties to democracies, or schools of thought to science. To what degree are they benign, mutually beneficial, or conflicting?
2. Exploring issues involving the intersection and overlapping of different emergent order processes. For example, how do science and the market influence one another? How do science and democracy influence one another? To what extent can these influences be regarded as beneficial, neutral, or disruptive?
3. Exploring organizations that straddle the borders of different emergent orders. For example, the mass media must be both economically viable by serving consumers and also able to inform citizens in a democracy. A fishery must be economically viable and maintain its ecological sustainability. Different emergent processes are coordinated by different rules biased towards different values. How do they interact?
4. Exploring issues involving the borders of disciplines studying emergent phenomena. The distinction between emergent orders and instrumental organizations arose independently of disciplinary boundaries and a theoretical approach making use of it cuts across traditional disciplinary boundaries. Thus much work in economics, anthropology, ecology, philosophy and sociology of science, and political science independently discovers and explores similar territory without benefiting from similar work elsewhere. How might we develop a paradigm of study that integrates these boundaries?
Acceptable papers may be either case studies or more general theoretical explorations.
We invite those unfamiliar with the first conference to examine papers prepared for that gathering. You can view them at http://emergentorders.pbwiki.com
The password for access to the wiki site is: halcyon07
A description of the work of the Fund may be found on the Atlas website under the listing “Academic Programs” at http://atlasusa.org
Submission Guidelines and Procedures
Paper proposals should be submitted by April 30, 2008. The proposal should describe the anticipated argument and how it relates to at least one of the conference themes. Proposals should be no more than two pages double spaced, not including an optional bibliography of works the author anticipates discussing. Submit to William.Dennis@atlasusa.org
The Fund will select a maximum of 12 papers for inclusion in its conference, and will notify their authors by May 30, 2008. Final papers must be submitted to the Fund by September 1, 2008 in order to ensure conference participants adequate time to read them in advance. The Fund will pay those authors whose work is accepted a total of $2,000 for their paper, initial publication rights, and for their full participation in the conference, (plus room and board at the conference, and travel expenses, up to the equivalent of a roundtrip coach airfare from their location to the conference site). The Fund’s decision on the papers selected for the conference is final. Other support may be forth-coming for some of the other papers submitted, but no such support is guaranteed.
While I agree with the central theme of your article, it is depressing that you go on at the beginning, and again at the end, about the supposed anti-imperialism and anti-interventionism of George Washington, who, in my view, was the initiator of the Imperial Presidency.
Certainly, your view is reflected among a number of so-called libertarians, including Ron Paul and the folks at LRC and Antiwar.com, which recently had a piece on GW's supposed anti-militarism by a Law Prof. at the U. of Colorado. Their intellectual confusion, however, is reflected in the fact that the Mises Institute (linked at LRC as well) also recently published,"Generalissimo Washington: How He Crushed the Spirit of Liberty," excerpted from Murray Rothbard's classic, Conceived in Liberty, each of the 4 volumes of which, as they appeared, I had the opportunity to review in Reason magazine many years ago. If Rothbard's analysis is correct, and I believe it is, then you, Paul, LRC, Antiwar, and others, are in error in your overall views about Washington as anti-imperial, or opposed to intervention.
I have written on this extensively, and most of the articles are at one or more of the web sites in my Signature below. Therefore, I have time for only a few observations.
Washington, like Franklin, wanted a structure (representation) that would allow the Americans to eventually dominate the British Empire (as we now have today). They rejected peace overtures in 1778, when the Brits then began their real counter-insurgency policy. This group wanted Canada as a first war objective, early on. Adam Smith in a letter to George III, discovered in the 1930s, sized that group up nicely, perceiving they wanted Empire. For one group in the revolutionary coalition, the war was always about Empire!
Washington disliked the Militia, and wanted a traditional European type war, as did his inheritors, the South's leaders, many years later. In 1781, at the so-called" crisis" of the Revolution in the South, he sent La Fayette north to mount another assault to take Canada. Ethan Allen & the Green Mtn Boys, by then understood his game, and demanded"double pay, double rations & plunder," which meant the end of that imperial scheme.
The reason the Revolution was not more of a"4th generation insurgency" was because the British never occupied, let alone controlled, enough territory for the Americans to need to organize such a warfare. I have written about the one place, near NYC, we did so: http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1489
In short, the Brits were never anywhere close to that victory, always envisaged by occupiers, arguing for"surges" and other such tactics. A major ally of the Americans was the antiwar opposition in Great Britain, hence the need to use mercenaries, as the US increasingly now has to resort to.
The Brits had to abandon Philadelphia, not because of Washington's Europeanized Army at Valley Forge, marching around to its German trainers' tune, but because as the head Hessian General remarked, the American partisan/guerrillas lurked around every bend, taking the supplies coming up from the river, and could not be defeated. Sounds a bit like both Vietnam and Iraq! GW finally let his best general, N. Greene, off from herding supplies, to go south in '81 to head the increasingly partisan warfare efforts that chased the Brits to Yorktown, where GW again denied the Militia recognition of its victory. Wonder what WWII would have been like if someone like GW, had kept Gen. Patton gathering supplies (or, as the movie,"Patton," put is,"shoveling shit in Louisiana,") until late in the war?
No one mentions a third of the Hessians, 5,000, went"over the hill," to marry American women, who were thus slowly winning the war! A huge number of Japanese"boys" also did this, bogged down in China as they were, 1937-45. Hyam Solomon, the great Financier of the Revolution, whose family has never been compensated by the Congress, while other groups now clamor for same, died from the torture inflicted by the Brits (no Water Cure, please; we used that later after 1898) when he was taken prisoner while recruiting Hessian boys to cut out!
The guerrilla war at sea is virtually never mentioned, given all of the prose for the beloved Washington. 1,500 prizes, almost one a day, in contrast to JP Jones and the"official" Navy's several modest victories. No wonder, with burgeoning insurance rates, the Brit merchants wanted peace. Those massive prizes also provided the funds for New England's rapid industrialization afterwards.
Despite Washington's traditional war efforts for Empire, the American Revolution remains a great example of a"People's War, much as described by Tom Paine." That early struggle has taken many forms in the last two and a half centuries of our history.
After the War, as President in the 1790s, GW,"murdered" the Militia, as one historian has put it, finally laid to rest when Elihu Root, the real architect of the Empire, disbanded it in 1908, because it wouldn't fire on strikers against the Corporations, and we got the National Guard, which as Iraq has shown, is not the best military structure for occupying parts of the Empire. In the 1790s, Washington moved to undercut the Black Revolution in Haiti, offering our first"foreign aid" program, some $726,000, when that was real money, to keep the Creoles in power, a policy continued by another slave owner, Jefferson, and, another supposed libertarian icon as well. Jefferson's inept management of his own personal finances, not his writings and blather, serve as a perfect example of the spend, spend, spend mentality urged by our present leader!
GW's"no entangling alliances" thus meant, not non-interventionism, but rather unilateral intervention, in Haiti and elsewhere, a clear harbinger of what would occur in 1898 and after, right up to our interventionist present.
As we have evolved into the World's great Counter-Revolutionary Imperial Power, myths of our own Revolution continue!
A recent WSJ article, for example, mentioned the"minor American playwright", Mercy Otis Warren, as the first American to discuss"decline." He might have also noted her magnificent, 3 vol. History of the American Revolution. A hard core Republican, in a number of letters, she even chided her cousin, Abigail's (David McCullough doesn't get that right either) husband, John, for his"monarchical" tendencies. As the American Army attempts, in its Counter-Revolutionary strategy, to attempt to occupy a number of nations and put-down numerous insurgencies, putting in our own stooges, her observation that the American Revolution really began in Oct. 1768, when the British Army occupied Boston, is more relevant than ever.
Like other Empires, especially those attempting what Quigley called"Universal Empire," the US has failed in this effort. You are right about the Imperial Presidency, and the huge bureaucracies that sustain it. As the military becomes broke, in every way, we have yet to show the wisdom of the Romans, in adopting a more defensive posture since they couldn't even replace the 3 Legions lost to the Germans in 9 AD, several centuries before Gibbon described Roman"Decline."
With either Clinton or McCain, the military retreat will be slower than with Obama, who will move more quickly to the Welfare State dimension of Empire. But, that also demands internal choices! With only enough funds for either wheat from Eqypt, or more Circus games, one later Roman Emperor, naturally chose the latter. A master showman like Barack will give us many more, imaginative productions than Hillary or John could ever conceive of! Congressional"earmarks" will become increasingly domestic, rather than foreign/military. The Show, with the Media's help, must go on, and on, even unto total bankruptcy.
While I shall continue to write about Empire, I believe following the Quigleyian tactic of"Circumvention," coupled with a larger strategy of finding new"Instruments of Expansion," offer a more productive approaches, surely in one's own short lifetime within an Evolving Empire, than any frustrating efforts at real"Change" in the purely political realm. That is what we are attempting with the Marina-Huerta Educational Foundation, in Guatemala now, and then beyond. In A History of Florida ('99), I called this"People's Diplomacy," as opposed to Government's"Public Diplomacy."
You may want to look at Dan Eberly's forthcoming, The Rise of Global Civil Society: Building Communities and Nations from the Bottom Up (2008). The bad news is, as I observed in a meeting in 1988 in the State Dept. in DC, the Government also wants to control the NGOs, and the Chinese are already creating thousands of them, even as Bill Clinton moves to align his own NGO with global, corporate power brokers, as has Bill Gates. More than one nation can play the game that the US has in eastern Europe and Russia, even before 1991. Interestingly, in the last gasps of Rome, the"Civic Humanists" of that day proposed such an agenda to the Christians as a way to save the Empire, which the latter rejected because as Origen put it, they sought the"City of God." By then, of course, the earlier, decentralized Christian communities had become increasingly centralized under the Emperor and a centralized"Church."
Q predicted in 1961 that the new, democratization of"missile" weapons would make it impossible to put down Insurgencies, short of massive genocide, of which the US now leads in creating such killing fields The flip side of this was new sources of Energy, beyond the control of either the State on the one hand, or the large, corporations on the other, the partners in today's Corporatism, long ago observed in 1888 by José Martí when he was living in NYC. Solar and other technologies, offer far more, by way of decentralization, than the centralization=empire (Spengler) efforts of people like Al Gore trying to control those emerging technologies.
The parameters of American history, certainly including the Civil War, have always been, and continue to be, about the great, ongoing struggle between those who favor decentralization and those who favor centralization.
Aeon J. Skoble
UPDATE: Well, there's this.
Update 2: just to clarify (and preempt some flaming) - I'm not much of a NR guy, and Buckley's brand of conservatism wasn't as pro-liberty as I'd like -- indeed, sometimes downright anti-liberty -- but his providing an intellectual and popular voice for conservatism made the left less complacent and, even if it wasn't his intention, helped open the door for libertarian voices to jump in to the fray. (Was that too many mixed metaphors? Sorry.)
I will admit that I am completely baffled by the fact that so many people have voted for Clinton and so few for Dr. Paul. Are we Americans as a group really that clueless? Comparing the two above efforts just intensifies the mystery for me.
One of the great things about having the time to blog this year (thank you SLU for your generous sabbatical/leave policy) is that it really can be a platform for first drafts of other things, or just a space to organize your thoughts in a less than fully formal way. The transformation of a blog post into a Freeman piece is precisely why blogging is, or at least can be, really productive for a scholar.
Cross-posted at The Austrian Economists.
Roderick T. Long
[cross-posted at Austro-Athenian Empire]
Ive been reading Craig Nelsons new Thomas Paine bio. So far its pretty good on the whole a bit superficial philosophically and a bit too eager to entertain, but filled with lots of fascinating info I hadnt known before.
Unfortunately, Ive come across a major howler. And I fear that where theres one theres probably more.
Heres the howler, from p. 264:
John Locke, surrounded by Englands religious tumult, would come to believe that truly the Christian religion is the worst of all religions, and ought neither to be embraced by any particular person, nor tolerated by any commonwealth.
Did John Locke, the great defender of religious toleration and author of The Reasonableness of Christianity, really say that Christianity was unreasonable and shouldnt be tolerated? If true, this would be a surprising, startling fact that ought to prompt any writer even minimally familiar with the thought of the era to look more closely. But Nelson is evidently neither surprised nor startled.
So what did Locke actually write? Heres the passage in its original context; judge for yourself whether it says what Nelson thinks it does:
I answer: Is this the fault of the Christian religion? If it be so, truly the Christian religion is the worst of all religions and ought neither to be embraced by any particular person, nor tolerated by any commonwealth. For if this be the genius, this the nature of the Christian religion, to be turbulent and destructive to the civil peace, that Church itself which the magistrate indulges will not always be innocent. But far be it from us to say any such thing of that religion which carries the greatest opposition to covetousness, ambition, discord, contention, and all manner of inordinate desires, and is the most modest and peaceable religion that ever was. We must, therefore, seek another cause of those evils that are charged upon religion.
So did Nelson read the lines he quotes in their original context? If so, how could he have misunderstood them so badly? Or did he read them already excerpted by somebody else? If so, why wasnt he curious to check the context of such an unlikely quotation? (An endnote informs us that he read them in Lockes Two Treatises of Government. But the passage isnt in the Two Treatises, its in the Essay on Toleration.)
Now if Nelson can make a mistake this big and this obvious, how likely is it that thats the only one in the book? Not likely, alas; how many hard-to-catch errors are lurking behind this easy-to-catch one? In fact theres another somewhat harder-to-catch error, albeit a more minor one, on the immediately following page, where Nelson conflates two different anecdotes about Alexander Hamilton. But are there other, less minor flubs I didnt catch? That seems the way to bet.
Answer below the fold.
As if the long sentence wasn't a giveaway, it's that famous corporate shill F. A. Hayek in"The Corporation in a Democratic Society" in Studies in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics, U of Chicago, 1967, p. 305.
"If [the Palestinian] leadership truly believes, despite all evidence to the contrary, that a decent 'two-state solution' is still possible, now is an ideal moment to reaffirm the legal existence (albeit under continuing belligerent occupation) of the State of Palestine, explicitly in the entire 22% of Mandatory Palestine which was not conquered and occupied by the State of Israel until 1967, and to call on all those countries which did not extend diplomatic recognition to the State of Palestine in 1988 -- and particularly the U.S. and the EU states -- to do so now.
"The Kosovar Albanian leadership has promised protection for Kosovo's Serb minority, which is now expected to flee in fear. The Palestinian leadership could promise to accord a generous period of time for the Israeli colonists living illegally in the State of Palestine and the Israeli occupation forces to withdraw, as well as to consider an economic union with Israel, open borders and permanent resident status for those illegal colonists willing to live in peace under Palestinian rule."
"Of course, to prevent the U.S. and the EU from treating such an initiative as a joke, there would have to be a significant and explicit consequence if they were to do so. The consequence would be the end of the 'two-state' illusion. The Palestinian leadership would make clear that if the U.S. and the EU, having just recognized a second Albanian state on the sovereign territory of a UN member state, will not now recognize one Palestinian state on a tiny portion of the occupied Palestinian homeland, it will dissolve the 'Palestinian Authority' (which, legally, should have ceased to exist in 1999, at the end of the five-year 'interim period' under the Oslo Accords) and the Palestinian people will thereafter seek justice and freedom through democracy -- through the persistent, non-violent pursuit of full rights of citizenship in a single state in all of Israel/Palestine, free of any discrimination based on race and religion and with equal rights for all who live there, as in any true democracy."
Roderick T. Long
[cross-posted at Austro-Athenian Empire]
About a decade ago, much-missed Randian philosopher George Walsh (who once gave a student an A for showing up to his exam naked) offered the following remarks on Islamic history:
The forces of Islam quickly conquered the southern and eastern Mediterranean basin. There they encountered the Hellenistic culture which was already absorbed into Christianity. Translations of Aristotle had been made into Syriac in the sixth century by Eastern Christians, and these translations were in turn translated into Arabic in the ninth century. Other writings in Greek philosophy also became available. The Greek viewpoint was at first admired in Islam, unaware of what they were getting into, and it was advocated up to a point by a party called the Mutazilites, the pro-reason party in Islam. Greek philosophy, however, especially Aristotle, contradicted the whole Islamic viewpoint. The points of conflict were the following:
The Greek point of view was based on reason, the Islamic on faith and revelation. Greek philosophy regarded all of reality as knowable this was true even of divine beings like the Prime Mover knowable by reason. Whereas Islam believed that God was transcendent and unknowable. That is the second conflict. First is reason versus faith, second is the knowability of divine beings. Third, the Greeks believed the universe was fundamentally orderly and subject to regular law, but the Muslims believed that each event was separately decided by God's arbitrary predestination. Fourth, the Greeks believed in an ethics and politics based on reason. For the Muslims, ethics and politics were based on the Quran and sacred tradition.
Those who subscribed to any Greek philosophy, especially that of Aristotle, were soon in deep trouble. This is especially evidenced by the fate of the largely pro-Greek party, the Mutazilites. The sect of the Mutazilites represented a strong pro-reason reaction against the traditional doctrine of Islam. The traditional doctrine about the Quran was that it was part of the mind of God and therefore co-eternal with God. The real meaning of this doctrine is that it is a blasphemy to raise the slightest question about the Quran. The Mutazilites rejected this doctrine, and they said that it is making the Quran into a second God to make it unquestionable. The Quran, they said, is a creature just like a beast of the field, therefore it does not necessarily express the essential nature of God any more than a cockroach does (they didn't put it that way). The Quran must be subject to the interpretation of reason. If we find that a given thing is irrational and seems to be taught in the Quran, we conclude that God didnt really mean it this way; he merely talked obscurely at that point. If anything in the Quran seems contrary to reason, we must then reinterpret it in accord with reason.
This had an influence on the Christian Middle Ages. In this Mutazilite doctrine, we do not erect a second God and, at the same time, reason is saved. This is called the doctrine of the unity of God; it is really the doctrine of the priority of reason. Secondly, we apply this immediately to sections of the Quran which seem to teach predestination. Now predestination takes away moral responsibility and man, the Mutazilites said, is morally responsible. A good God would not reward or punish eternally unless man were morally responsible. This the Mutazilites called the doctrine of the justice of God and they presented themselves as defenders of the justice of God. But of course it was really the assertion of mans free will. These two pro-reason doctrines were accompanied by a strong emphasis on moral virtue and uprightness.
The Mutazilite position began to make some headway when, unfortunately, their own zeal proceeded to fanaticism, as does indeed happen sometimes with people advocating reason, as well as anything else. They sabotaged their own cause. They came into power and issued a requirement that all public officials swear that the Quran is created and not divine. Some who refused this doctrine were put to death. This is sometimes called the Muslim Inquisition, from 830 to 845 (ironic that the only real inquisition in Islam was initiated by the pro-reason faction). Of course there was a religious reaction and the Mutazilites were thrown out of power.
What strikes me as interesting about the final paragraph is the suggestion that the reason the liberal/secular/rationalist-leaning faction lost out is that they tried to impose these values by force and so created a backlash. A lesson, perhaps, for those today who think the way to liberalise/secularise the Islamic world is to force liberal/secular values down their throats?
"The United States has rejected proposals that would allow Serbia to annex a small strip of land in the northern part of Kosovo with a predominantly ethnic Serbian population and several sites that the Serbs consider to have important historical significance. At the same time, however, the United States is on record supporting Israeli proposals to annex strips of Palestinian land on the West Bank populated by Israeli Jews and other areas considered by Israelis to be of important historical significance. Ironically, the Kosovar Serbs have mostly lived on their land for centuries while the Israelis in the West Bank are virtually all colonists occupying illegal settlements built recently and in direct defiance of international law and a series of UN Security Council resolutions."
As Stephen Zunes explains,"Such double standards help expose the fallacy of U.S. claims that its recognition of Kosovo is based upon any moral or legal basis."
Roderick T. Long
[cross-posted at Austro-Athenian Empire]
Four Black History Months ago I blogged about Alexandre Dumass neglected status as a black writer. Frances most commercially successful writer, the author of The Three Musketeers and The Count of Monte Cristo was also the grandson of a freed Haitian slave; in response to a racial insult he once responded: It is true. My father was a mulatto, my grandmother was a negress, and my great-grandparents were monkeys. In short, sir, my pedigree begins where yours ends.
It would be fun to see a conference on issues of race and slavery in French romantic literature, organised around Dumass Georges, Hugos Bug-Jargal (which I see is also out in a new translation), and Vernes A Captain at Fifteen (which desperately needs a new translation).
Roderick T. Long
[cross-posted at Austro-Athenian Empire]
Robert Higgs confesses a dark secret from his familys past:
[M]y father had done something quite remarkable: he had left the sovereign state of Oklahoma, crossed the sovereign states of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, and entered into and established permanent residence in the sovereign state of California, all without the permission of any of the rulers of these states. Imagine that! ...
Many of the Mexican children with whom I grew up might have told a tale similar to mine. The only difference would have been that for them, the origin of their migration to California happened to be not one of the states of the United States of America, commonly known as America, but one of the states of the United Mexican States, commonly known as Mexico. Was this difference important? If so, why? Do the lines that government officials draw on maps sever the heart of humanity?
Read, comme lon dit, the whole thing.
In their position paper they state that, “additional research is needed to clarify marijuana’s therapeutic properties and determine standard and optimal doses and routes of delivery. Unfortunately, research expansion has been hindered by a complicated federal approval process, limited availability of research-grade marijuana, and the debate over legalization. Marijuana’s categorization as a Schedule I controlled substance raises significant concerns for researchers, physicians, and patients.”
One person who would have been delighted and vindicated by the above news was Dr. John Morgan, who ironically passed away on the same day that the physicians issued their statement. In a farewell to the good doctor piece posted on the Reason website Jacob Sullum tells an anecdote which illustrates just how much the drug reform movement specifically and the world in general has lost. After a conference panel in December during which Sullum had with some trepidation talked about the taboo subject of controlled use of amphetamines Dr. Morgan told him that, ” he agreed that concern about the ‘methamphetamine epidemic’ had made it difficult to talk about the drug's legitimate uses, which do not necessarily require a doctor's prescription to validate them. He said he had personally found methamphetamine tremendously useful during his education and career, calling it one of the safest drugs around when used responsibly. Coming from most people in most contexts, this would have been a startling admission. But coming from the eminently reasonable Morgan and delivered in his usual matter-of-fact tone, it cut through the hysteria and introduced a much-needed alternative perspective. Morgan made a career of doing that, and his well-informed skepticism will be sorely missed.”
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Charles W. Nuckolls
But people found thess labels wanting, and said, in essence, that they did not consider themselves either. What to do? At this point, the government introduced its new option: New Zealander.
What happened next was unexpected. From 2000 to 2006 the percentage of the population identifying itself as New Zealander grew enormously -- by more than 300%, in fact."New Zealander" is the fatest growing segment of the population. What does this do to the idea of the nation as bicultural?
It's too soon to say. But with Maori and non-Maori flocking to the new category in droves, one cannot expect the much-flouted biculturalism of the last thirty years to continue to resonate. The result will surely be the increasing irrelevance of ethnic categories -- unless, of course, those with a vested interest manage to keep them alive.
And this is quite possible. The irony is that the more victories are won in defense of Maori treaty claims against the Crown, the more ethnic categorization diminishes in importance to the public, Maori and non-Maori alike. This has led to palpable frustration on the part of activists, especially in the weakening Labour government, who must now seek more robust expression of their aims. The next stop, they say, is the issue of sovereignty and a national constitution that will establish scope for non-parliamentary form of government along"traditional" Maori lines -- whatever that means.
I suppose one never knows where the ethnic identity bandwagon will stop. A lot of New Zealanders are trying to jump off. Will the system let them?
The article quotes Jeff Schaler one of the harshest critics, from a libertarian perspective, of the medical marijuana movement: ”Being pro-marijuana is a religious crusade just as being anti-marijuana is a religious crusade. It has nothing to do with medicine. The reformers lie about marijuana just as much as the prohibitionists. To say marijuana is a cure all is just as ridiculous as saying it is evil. It’s neither.”
While we may disagree with Dr. Schaler on the medicinal worth of cannabis, after all aspirin does not cure anything either, we do agree on the solution to the problem, an end to government involvement with all aspects of the plant, medical, industrial and recreational, then people can decide for themselves if marijuana has medical value.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Chris Matthew Sciabarra