The war on poverty was a war on a social condition. That is not a war. It's a slogan--a political slogan to justify a social experiment and empower the government to gain more control over the efforts and money of some with the objective of making dependent upon government the day-to-day lives and hopes of others, those who were deemed poor, thus "eligible" to become dependent upon government, with all the strings attached. Some saw it as a redistribution of wealth, which is part of it, but only part of it. It also created a great bureaucracy, the only real beneficiary of the "war on poverty." A degree in sociology became the thing of the day (an MBA has recently taken its place, which can also be seen as a means to the redistribution of wealth, but in the other direction, as in welfare to multibillion dollar corporations, particularly if they can support war).
If you look up online the name Bastiat, you will eventually find a story about some wild hogs. In brief, it goes like this: There are some wild hogs that live out in the woods near a certain community. The whole community knows about them. They know they are totally wild and self-sufficient, and that no one can coral or tame them or even hunt them with any degree of success. A guy comes to town and says he will make them totally tame, domesticated and otherwise under his control in relatively short order, but some time being necessary to make that happen. Eventually the man has them all corralled and under his dominion. How? He gave them corn, more corn, and still more corn. In time they stopped being self-sufficient and were totally dependent upon that corn. So he put the corn in a coral, allowed them eat to their satisfaction and to submit their independence to their new-found need. Then he closed the coral gate. If you don't get it, forget about it.
Then came a war on drugs. A war on a commodity is not a war either. It's another political slogan defining another social experiment, justifying outrageous and otherwise unnecessary legislation. Drugs are a commodity, subject to supply and demand, but made profitable by what the market is willing to bear. The effective—not real—value of something is whatever buyers are willing to pay for it. Because they were (and still are) illegal, and because there is a certain dependency which comes with the instantaneous rewards or gratification of doing drugs, the price is high, but still whatever the market will bear. A greater supply, even though illegal, will tend to bring down the market price. The lower price is keep profitable by a larger market, the whole of the price still being well above actual worth.
Following very quickly on the heels of the war on drugs, if not at the same time, was a war on crime (specifically the "law and order" campaign slogan of Nixon/Agnew…who both turned out to be criminals). Crime is another social condition. It too is not a war; it's another political slogan and social experiment further justifying more outrageous and otherwise unnecessary legislation. The causes of crime are not easily defined and vary considerably, from an individual psychosis to a real need that cannot be satisfied legitimately, to just plain greed (mostly found in higher places but having nothing to do, in higher places, with an otherwise legitimate need). Much of the crime was generated by the illegality of drugs and/or, necessarily, an illegal means of acquiring drugs. Most of the crime was simply the illegal possession of drugs, but in too many cases further necessitating illegal means for buying those drugs, thus reinforcing the argument that drugs are really god-awful.
There are many theories on where drugs came from, meaning what made them so plentiful and what, further, created a demand (a demand being essential to any economic theories regarding the success of selling any commodity). I would say there are combinations of answers to that question, number one probably being that with the end of Prohibition (another social experiment, but from which, unlike real scientific experiments, we learned absolutely nothing) it became necessary for organized crime (of the "unwanted consequences" that come of politically motivated social experiments) to find a new market…alcohol now being legal again, regulated and taxed. Drugs were a good enterprise for organized crime, virtually a certainty, in fact. So, while J. Edgar Hoover was out chasing the "red threat," commies, pinkos, fellow travelers, and hippies with a flower in their long hair, all the time saying there was no organized crime in America, the drug dealers--the really big ones, as in organized crime--where establishing there supply lines and market…I figure. (Some claim that Hoover had the goods on all the politicians, but the Mob had the goods on Hoover…as in pictures of him in drag giving head to his lifetime companion, another lifelong "bachelor." True or not, it has certain logic to it, plus some evidence--such as a closet full of dresses--and does make a good theory…all things considered.)
The war on drugs and crime gave us a whole new set of outrageous laws, part of that political slogan (aided by other such slogans as "soft on crime," meaning anyone still attempting to stay aware of civil liberties, specifically, the Bill of Rights), followed, of course, by a whole new set of social experiments. It gave us, over a relatively short period of time, no-knock laws, absurd attempts at money-laundering laws (such as any cash transaction over ten thousand, then reduced to three thousand dollars, being immediately suspect), RICO, forfeiture laws, minimum sentences where the legislative branch ran all over the judicial branch (a violation of the balance of powers, the executive branch--DoJ--sending out federal prosecutors to impose its jurisdiction on the judicial branch), a three-strikes-you're-out law, and eventually privatized prisons and more citizens in prison, per capita, than any other country in the world…disproportionately minorities.
But hey--it's a war. But hey, I say, it's not a damn war; it's a political slogan and another social experiment…not having learned anything at all from the big social experiment called Prohibition.
And where are we today? We are fighting what has been billed as an endless war called the "war on terror." Well, terror is a state of mind, just like fear or anger or grief or even happiness. You don't declare an endless war on a state of mind. Okay, you say, it's actually a war on terrorism. That is actually a better term, but not the one our president and administration like to use. So, we have to ask, what is terrorism? Well, it works out it is just about anything they want it to be, but in reality (remember reality?) it's a tactic. It is not an enemy you can declare war on. It's a low budget, minimal resource and maintenance tactic used by an enemy with few resources that no real army one can face, honorably, on a battlefield.
To digress a moment--again--I keep thinking of a line by Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean. He is told by a dueling adversary, "I could beat you every time in a fair fight," to which Depp, the Pirate captain, says, "Well, that doesn't give me much incentive to fight fair, now does it?" That’s what we’re up against trying to fight terrorism; we simply don’t know how. Consequently we attempt do (not declare) war on whole nations, which necessarily has to involve a lot of innocent victims.
We went to war because of “weapons of mass destruction” being secretly held by Saddam Hussein. Anyone remember him or his “weapons of mass destruction”? That is why we got into Iraq. Does anyone remember? Now it is a war with terrorists who showed up from all over, who weren’t there before, and who aren’t going to give up or go anywhere. So why are we fighting this war? It’s called “war profiteering,” hundreds of billions of dollars of our tax money to big corporations who produce the machinery of death and destruction. And if Bush has his way, next it will be big corporations to rebuild Iraq. I could expound on that endlessly, but it’s been done quit well all over online. Look it up.
