For Liberty In Afghanistan

The headline screamed. It was belligerence to the hilt. India’s top-most strategic affairs analyst, K Subhramanyam, writing in the Times of India, was calling upon all the “good powers” he advises to “Smash the Opium Trade.” (In Afghanistan, to be precise.) To a libertarian, the word “smash” does not go with the word “trade” – any trade.

The article quotes some minor US anti-narcotics baboo as expert evidence, and says that the Taliban are being funded through the illegal opium trade. Ho hum.

In the meanwhile, as I scanned The Indian Express, I found a photo from the killing fields of Afghanistan – of a blown up SUV with a US soldier standing guard next to it. Who paid for the SUV? The US taxpayer. The money is now a dead loss. The SUV is irreparable. The US tried to “smash” something-or-the-other and got smashed back instead.

Actually, if Afghanis could legally sell their opium – and their fabulous charas as well – then each of them would be the proud owner of a SUV. And the entire world would prosper. These SUVs would be valuable assets. They would not be “smashed.”

If all governments stood aside and let all opium and charas trades be conducted on a voluntary basis, no Afghan would require Taliban support to sell his stuff.

In India, opium is legally cultivated and sold – as this news report from Rajasthan makes clear. This opium is a part of “tradition”: lest we forget the quaint story of senior BJP leader from Rajasthan, Jaswant Singh, serving opium to his guests. It must be “tradition” in Afghanistan too. I fail to see why traditions should not be upheld by the Law. True law is always “found,” not “made.” Positivism is a great enemy of Law.

From the point of view of Catallactics, two basic laws need to be restated. The first is that “value is subjective.” Such is the case with all “highs.” It is the subjective mind of the user that gives value to the high – be it opium, charas, ganja or single malt whiskey. We may not approve of certain highs – but that does not entitle us to stand between any man and his “pursuit of happiness,” a term that finds pride of place in, ironically, the US Constitution.

Secondly, Say’s Law of Markets indicates that all non-competitors gain when any good is sold. Thus, manufacturers of SUVs, refrigerators, colour TVs, etc. would gain if all this opium and charas got legally sold in markets. It would be Win-Win all around. Today it is Lose-Lose: the tax-funded SUV is smashed beyond repair and the opium and charas are not getting sold; or, worse still, if they do get sold it is with Taliban patronage. An open trading scenario would not require this protection.

Another newspaper today carries the report of a Taliban type affirming that “India is our eternal enemy.” Why make such enemies? Why side with the US in their senseless wars? Why try to “smash” traditional trades, thereby rendering the people poor? If my reader thinks through these questions, the dullness of the minds of these “strategic affairs analysts” would become obvious.

Away with this war-mongering!

Let all trades be free, and let Peace and Prosperity prevail in South Asia.