From: ez000281@hamlet.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.latin-america
Subject: Re: Colombia Newsbriefs 12/9 ed-lp
Date: 20 Dec 92 18:35:43 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis

Jose Camacho writes:

>Well, if you are consequent with your liberal ideas, perhaps you should. Or
>maybe it would be a good time to recognize that market economy cannot govern
>everything in life. Then, it becomes a matter of political choice to decide
>what should be subject to market economy and what not. And that's where the
>ideological foundation of economic liberalism starts to crack.

And who ever told you I was an economic liberal?  I believe in POLITICAL 
liberalism, but when it comes to the economy I believe the state has and 
important role to protect the rights of its citizens.   I believe that 
government should REGULATE service industries (phone, electric...), 
transportation (arilines), communications, and, of course, drugs.  The last 
economic liberal in your sense of the term was Adam Smith.  Since then, the 
state has been enlarging its role for the public good.  Of course, our state 
has not gone to the extremes of communism, by taking control of the productive 
process and "planning" the entire economy and by outlawing private property and 
putting it in the hands of this state.  To equate modern capitalism to a 
society where laissez fair runs wilds is a simplification of econmic history 
concocted only by utopians on the left and on the right.  We democrats have 
always been in favor of state regulation in the benefit of the public good, as 
long as it doesn't "plann" our entire economy and lets market forces assume the 
primary role in such process.  So, any equation in which a pro-capitalist must 
somehow allow for the production and consumption of harmful drugs based on 
laissez fair is over 200 years old, proper of the times in which child labor 
was rampant.

[...]

>>Wrong, we need to blame it on consumers as well as producers.

>I see no reason why. From the point of view of Colombians, it is not our
>problem that US citizens are dying in the streets, especially when their
>own government doesn't give a damn about it. When you start doing something
>about it here, then you can ask other countries to stop production. Until
>know, Colombia has and is still putting up the victims in the war against
>drug dealing, the US only puts the blame.

So, if the U.S. producess weapons en mass and begins selling them to Sendero 
Luminoso as well as to the Peruvian military so that they can shoot it out as 
they please you would find nothing wrong with this?  If poison is being 
produced abroad (whic by the way doesn't only affect our population, but also 
destroys lives in Colombia as well) you suggest we don't aid friendly 
governments in their effor to stop the process which has turned their country 
into a battleground of mafias and guerrillas?  Your assumption that we are not 
doing nothing about it here is entirely wrong.  Cocaine consumption has been 
steadily droping and drug arrests are as higher as they ever have been, not 
mention that we invest more money per capita on drug programs than any other 
government on earth, and then we have to listen to pro-cocainers like you tell 
us that its OK to have mafias producing it as long as we have a lot of junkies.

[...]
>>No, Jose there is nothing wrong with our system, in fact it is better off 
>>than the communist ones you defend so vehemently.
                              ^^^^^^

>The Communist ghost is at play again. But that will not divert me from the 
>main issue. Where have I advocated (much less vehemently) communism? I am
>criticizing economic liberalism, if for you that means being a communist, then
>it seems to me that your ideological scope is somewhat narrow.

Jose, I didn't accuse you of being a communist.  I accused you of "defending" 
communist since you continuously defend the policies and government of Fidel 
Castro, a self proclaimed communist, and his government in Cuba.  Or are you 
against his government?  If so, please say so, and I will say that you 
definitely don't defend communists vehemently.

>If you really think there is nothing wrong with your system, perhaps you 
>should take a walk downtown L.A. on a weekend and meet some homeless people.

Well with the cold snap, the homeless in Sacramento have been put into warm 
shelters and are being fed (fortunately we haven't reached the standards of 
Mexico regarding poverty, and our homeless are well fed, and even in some cases 
have plenty of wine to consume.  No, Jose, the issue is not that we are Shangri 
La, the issue is drugs, drug producers, guerrillas in the midst of drug 
traffick, and homelessness is simply diversionary.

>  Noriega is a prisoner of war
>>because he so happend to be a druglord who was also head of state and in 
>>order to arrest the criminal we had to ask president elect Endarra to allow 
>>us to go get him with force.  Its that plain and simple.

>As far as I know drug-traffic is not an internationally recognized reason for
>legal war.

What war?  We went to Panama for a couple of weeks to arrest Noriega on a 
request of the President elect of Panama, Mr. Endarra, for who the population 
voted en masse. Finally, since Noriega was not complying with internationally 
approved extradition laws, as dictator of Panama, he had become an 
international outlaw and had to be arrested.  Fortunately a Jury of U.S. 
citizens agreed he was guilty and he will now serve the remainder of his life 
in prison.  Perhaps you could pay him a visit at Marion since you simpathize so 
much with drug producers.

>>However, your suggestion that
>>we shouldn't erradicate the drug trade, but simply convince our coke addicts
>>and local pushers to drop the trade is absolutely inmoral.

>That is precisely the point. When the IMF "orders" Third World countries to
>slash their deficits to pay the international debt, eventhough that is going
>to have inmoral effects on most of the population, it is done in the name of
>economic orthodoxy, i.e. liberalism; when the same doctrine is invoked to
>explain why a business is as profitable as it is, you say it is inmoral. There
>seems to be a bit of contradiction here.

First of all, the IMF doesn't "order" these countries to slash deficits.  They 
simply say: You wan't more money?  Well begin paying first what you owe and 
we'll give you some more.  These governments, as with any other bank could 
simply say, well we don't want the money, or follow the route of Fidel Castro 
and say we don't owe anybody money.  Of course, not even Fidel himself does 
what he preaches since he wants to borrow more money.  Secondly, you shouldn't 
blame the IMF for such compliance, since it is precisely your government the 
ones who have gotten you into debt.  After all we have to pay our government's 
debt when we pay our taxes so why doesn't Latin America do the same?  As far 
the contradiction, please se above my positions on your so called "economic 
liberalism".

>>
>>What an example!! Garcia Marquez is a personal friend of Fidel Castro.  How
>>would you expect him not to assure his friend of keeping the drug pipeline 
>>open by criticizing U.S. policy?

>I don't understand why you don't read what people write before answering to
>things one never says. The point is, precisely, that Garcia Marquez, who is
>a personal friend of Castro, criticizes the guerrilla, which, up to recently,
>has been supported by Cuba. Now, it just shows you that your equation
>communist=drugdealing is absurd.

Well, I would suggest you do the same, for I didn't say that GM does not 
criticize the Guerrillas, I said he criticizes the U.S. policy which tries to 
help Colombians erradicate the Guerrillas.  GM, as his friend Castro, simply 
wants to have things both ways.

>I don't see how Garcia Marquez's criticizing Colombian guerrillas "criticizes
>U.S. policy". Perhaps the connection is too deep for me to see it.
 

Of course it is, you simply have to read deeper into his articles and 
interview and you will see that he has openly criticized U.S. policy towards 
drug enforcement on exaclty the same grounds as you have.

>I have never stated an interest in drug exports. I am only pointing out that
>a coherent economic liberal cannot argue against the economic logic behind
>drug trafficking. The basic point holds, in spite of your personal attacks.


Well fortunately I'm not an econmic liberal, so there is no need to pursue 
this further and I can keep blasting away at the drug producers (and their 
simpathizers, whithoug having you try to prove contracitions in my postions.


>Perhaps they [communists] are like me. But when several thousands of them have
>been killed by cartel people, I think they deserve much more respect than the 
>one you show for anyone who disagrees with you. How many US presidential 
>candidates have died victims to drug cartels? Because in Colombia we had 
>several in the past elections. Again, the dead are down there, and with that 
>state of affairs it is very easy to preach to those countries what they 
should 
>and shouldn't do.

Precisely that is why you have to erradicate the trade, so that mafias don't 
run the country.  Or do you want Pablo Escobar as president of Colombia?  After 
all, it would be so easier for us to delimit policy towards Colombian if he 
were head of state that I think it would be tempting to consider this.  As far 
as communists deserving respect in Colombia.  Perhaps those which abide by 
Colombias laws deserve plenty of respect and should their rights protected.  
After all, I feel at ease when I can talk with communists, for it simply 
assures me that freedom of expression is an integral party of my society.  
However when marxists plunder, destroy, terrorize, murder, rob, trade drugs, 
kidnapp and rape, then they deserve no respect.

>Of course they know what happens to the people: that's their business. But
>capitalist logic doesn't care about what happens to the people, otherwise
>guns wouldn't be sold to Somalia. That is not the point.

Guns were sold by the U.S. to Somalia when they had a stable government, not 
when the thugs began to rule.  Guns were sold in the days that Cuban troops 
invaded the country, not after the fall of Siad.  So I don't know what your 
talking about.  We are very carefull to whom we sell guns to, and right now we 
are investigating the entire Iraq fiasco so that such things (selling guns to 
facist agressors) will not be repeated.

>However, if you think that you can discard an argument by claiming it 
>coincides with Castro's propaganda, I think there is nothing more to say.

Why not, after all, listening to Radio Havanna talk about drugs is the same as 
reading Jose Camacho on the same topic.  Why is this so?  Pure coincidence?

>But cigarrettes are legal. Perhaps because they are produced in the US?

No, simply because they don't fry your brain in a coulpe of minutes, rather 
simply kill you slowly.  Perhaps becuase you can be productive as a smoker of 
tobacco but not as a smoker of crack.  Perhaps because you can pilot an 
aircraft and smoke buy you can't sniff cocaine and do the same. Perhaps....
BTW I'm all in favor of cigarrette taxes, regulations on publicity, and 
cigarette prohibitions on young smokers.  After all, I don't want you to think 
I'm and economic liberal.

>If you can't see the difference between someone who grows and distributes a
>deadly substance and someone who is telling you that the best way to get rid
>of the problem is by cutting profits, then I don't see the purpose of carrying
>on a debate.

Oh, so your in favor of the "distributors" of these substances, I thought you 
had confessed that you had nothing to do with the buisiness with those who make 
profits from the distribution, as the ELN in Colomiba, and head junkie Galan.

>>  The state has and
>>important role in assuring the health education and welfare of the populace,
>>and exterminate any mafias that have converted to market economy, while they
>>leave market force in charge of production (not destruction).

>This is not what Mrs. Thatcher thought, and certainly not what Mr. Reagan
>thought. Maybe they weren't economic liberals.

In spite of what your views are on the subject, Mr. Reagan did not abolish the 
FAA, the FCC or the FDIC, instead government control over production under 
Reagan actually increased.  What decreased was government PLANNING.  So, in 
spite of my differences with Mr. Reagan, I can't accuse him of being an 
economic "liberal".


>>  Drugs just
>>happen to be one of those thing of which we don't allow free markets
>>fortunately.

>That is not true: alcohol and tobacco are legal.

True, but according to the experts, a glass of wine isn't the same as a snort 
of cocaine.  As for cigarrettes, see supra.

>>The very same moment in which someone would have said: lets not charge Mayor
>>Barry I would have stood up against him.  Mayor Barry was convicted as the
>>criminal he was,and paid his due time in jail,  but all of a sudden, we have
>>cheer leaders defending a drug trafficker and asking the colombians to pardon
>>his sins.

>This doesn't disprove the point. Again, the perception in Colombia is that the
>US is asking them to cut production at a tremendous cost in lives and damage
>to the economy while the US system allows a convicted drugaddict to run for
>public office after serving a very short time.

Well then the problem is one of public relations.  We have to clear up this 
erroneous perception among Colombians, spread by druglords and marxist 
guerrillas,  A cocain addict like Mr. Barry deserves to go to prison for the 
time which he served, or do you want the death penalty for marihuana smokers?  
Secondly, one you have paid your debt to society in prison, you shouldn't be 
punished again by being stricken from your rigth as a citizen to run for public 
office.  Or do you believe that having spent even an hour in jail makes you 
untrustworthy all you life?  Mr. Barry can run for whatever he wants since he 
paid already for his substance abuse, and if some misinformed Colombians think 
we should execute Mr. Barry for having sniffed cocaine, we will simply have to 
educate them and erradicate these misconceptions proper of uncivilized behavior.

>Do you really think that the tons of cocaine that are introduced in this
>country come primarily through people with a couple of pounds in their
>intestines? Get real.

No, I just simply gave an example.  Drugs in this country are introduced by 
people like Mr. Galan, or like Mr. Castro, or like Mr. Noriega, or like Mr. 
Escobar.... By very powerful lumpencapitalists.

>
>Here we go again. I think you don't understand very well the point. One, I
>don't like economic liberalism, therefore I don't like market economies. Two,
>I am saying that for someone who has consistently defended such ideologies, it
>is inconsistent to criticize drug trade. Three, my question remains: why
>isn't the US government doing anything about the money which remains from the
>drug business in the US?

Well you shouldn't equate econmic liberalism with market economies, since 
there are "mixed econmies" like ours which have markets, and at the same time 
state regulations.  Furthermore as you know, I have never defended economic 
"liberalism" rather democratic liberalism so I don't see where all the fuss 
comes from.  As to your question about money laudering, the DEA is working 
every day on these matters.  In Puerto Rico alone they were able to convict a 
few bankers who were involved in money laudering.  So don't worry, our boys are 
doing a better job at this than the Colombian government, and the Europeans who 
have become the preferred center of money laundering in the world.


>>Let me assure you that if you happen to know someone who is laudering money
>>please inform the DEA so that we can proceed to arrest them.
>                               ^^
>Are you in the DEA or is this a Freudian slip?

No, I'm not in the DEA, in our society the citizens work hard to help our drug 
enforcement autorities keep up their good work in the war on drugs.  In fact, I 
consider myself to be one of their avid supporters.

>>What in hell is becoming of us?  Now communists are saying say yes to drugs!

>I really wonder what is becoming of you, if this is what you interpret from
>my posting...

I'm talking about your pal Galan, not you
.
Edelmiro