Tag: Vietnam War

Vietnamese Migration to Canada As a Template for Refugee Settlement

Alexander Robak | Canada

Following the conclusion of the Vietnam war and other military conflicts in South-East Asia, many refugees fled from their war-torn nations, and eventually settled in western countries such as the United States and Canada. These mass migrations reached their peak during the late 1970s but continued on through the 1980s. These refugees came to be known as “Vietnamese boat people” due to the fact that they fled their native country on boats and rafts. Following their departure from Vietnam by sea, hundreds of thousands of migrants were put into refugee resettlement camps in other South-East Asian countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, Philippines, and Hong Kong. Once in these camps, the refugees then dispersed into developed Western nations such as the United States, Australia, and Canada for permanent resettlement. The ways in which these refugees were resettled into Canada and other western nations were extremely successful and should be used as a template for resettling refugees in the future.

In Canada, the main method that was used to resettle migrant families following the Vietnam war was to set up a program of host families. With this program in place, Canadian households were able to voluntarily sponsor refugee families coming to Canada, and allow them to live in their household for a certain time. What resulted from this program was a grace period that allowed settling refugees to adapt to the Canadian style of life with their host families helping them, after which they would be put into Canadian society to thrive on their own. This grace period system was effective at allowing new Canadians to adjust to a way of life that is founded on the ideas of tolerance, respect, and freedom. This is in contrast to the country that they were fleeing, which was ruled by an authoritarian communist government that did nothing but crush these principles in favor of conformity and collectivism.

Before continuing with this analysis of a mass migration into Canada,  it is essential that the principles that Canada was founded upon are understood. These four principles are freedom, equality, tolerance, and respect. It is important that when introducing a group of migrants into Canadian society, the forces responsible for this migration are absolutely sure that this group of migrants is able and willing to comply with this standard set of values. Not only are these the values that have made Canada what it is today, but these are the values that differentiate the western world from the rest of the world. This mindset is not a modern idea and has existed since the beginnings of mass migration on a global scale. We can and should use this system as a sober second thought when considering mass migration into the western world from non-western nations. When the government of Canada accepted 50,000 Vietnamese refugees into Canada following the Vietnam war, those responsible were aware that these migrants were willing and able to comply with Canadian values.

It is crucial to the analysis of this migration that some background information on the cause of this refugee crisis is given. To summarize, the North Vietnamese communist forces were able to overtake the southern portion of the country in a bloody war that lasted from 1955 to 1975. The Northern communists were supported by the Soviet Union, and many Eastern Bloc countries including Czechoslovakia, Poland, and East Germany. On the opposing side, the Capitalist southern government was supported by superpowers such as the United States, Canada, and Australia. The explicit or covert involvement of major world powers means that this war was a proxy war. Both sides were supported by opposing superpowers fighting over control of an area. The war ended with the fall of Saigon in 1975 to the communist forces of Ho Chi Minh. What resulted was the continued persecution of capitalists and dissidents to the new authoritarian government. Many of those who fled Vietnam to escape persecution were South Vietnamese capitalists, who believed in the principles of freedom, equality, tolerance, and respect.

The Vietnamese people brought a factor to Canadian society that was extremely important and beneficial to the society at large. This factor was their entrepreneurship. Following the integration of these refugees into Canada, many of them set up their own small businesses, which were important to the growth of the Canadian economy. It was in this instance that the Vietnamese people’s entrepreneurial spirit showed us that they were important to Canada as a whole, and were worthy Canadians.

Upon the arrival of these refugees into Canada, they were generally well respected among Canadians for their hard-working attitude and willingness to integrate into Canadian society. A big part of the settlement of these refugees into Canada was their ability to maintain traditional Vietnamese culture, while also adopting the culture of their new home. In contrast to many refugee groups in the modern era, these Vietnamese migrants did not demand that Canadian society make accommodations for them and their culture. Rather, they were thankful that Canadians had allowed them to take refuge in their country. This was a very important factor concerning the settlement of these refugees into Canada.

Another part of the settlement of these refugees into their new home was the fact that they were only brought in if Canada was able to support them. These refugees were dependent on the goodwill of the Canadian people to support them, as they migrated into a completely unfamiliar land. The system created helped Vietnamese migrants to settle in Canada and be financially and socially secure.

The Vietnamese were successfully brought into a society in which they had no experience, and within a short span of time, had become productive members of society. This can be compared to the modern Syrian refugee crisis, where many were pushed out of their country out of fear of persecution during a civil war. However, the government handled this refugee crisis completely differently from the one that proved to be successful in the past. Rather than allowing Canadian families to sponsor refugee families, the Canadian government brought in more refugees than could be handled, and as a result, they were not properly assimilated into Canadian society. As a result of this mismanagement, rather than having a support system that integrates refugees into Canada, these refugees were simply put into the whole of Canadian society and expected to prosper on their own. The exact opposite has happened. The unemployment rate for Syrian refugees is astronomically high in comparison to the rest of Canada, and many of them wish for Canada to conform to their culture, rather than the other way around. In the case of the Vietnamese refugees, they were thankful to the Canadian people for supporting them in a time of need and were willing to conform to Canadian culture, customs, and values if need be, while also maintaining their own heritage. It is entirely debatable whether or not the same can be said for the Syrian refugee crisis.

It can be seen that the Vietnamese people who took refuge in Canada, fleeing communist persecution were properly integrated into Canadian society in a way that proved to be beneficial to all parties involved. The support system of using Canadian families to sponsor Vietnamese refugee families proved to be a great system that allowed refugee families to integrate into Canadian society at large, before being put into the country to survive on their own, with no support whatsoever. Seeing as this system has proved itself to be a more than adequate method of integrating refugees from a war-torn country into Canadian society,t is crucial that this system is used in the future to properly integrate refugees, rather than through mismanagement and supporting more than can be handled.

71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon.

Featured Image Source


The Prisoner’s Dilemma

By Craig Axford

“You may choose to confess or remain silent. If you confess and your accomplice remains silent I will drop all charges against you and use your testimony to ensure that your accomplice does serious time. Likewise, if your accomplice confesses while you remain silent, they will go free while you do the time. If you both confess I get two convictions, but I’ll see to it that you both get early parole. If you both remain silent, I’ll have to settle for token sentences on firearms possession charges. If you wish to confess, you must leave a note with the jailer before my return tomorrow morning.” ~ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

In January of this year, I wrote an article entitled Human Beings Are Wired For Morality. Some who responded to that article took it as a deterministic argument for a kind of innate moral sense programmed into us by our genes, while others treated it as evidence for a supreme being. It wasn’t intended as either.

Cooperation has been and continues to be fundamental to our success as a species. From social bonds like friendships that involve two or more people to societies with thousands or even millions of members acting together to forge and maintain entire civilizations, cooperation is key.

While undoubtedly genetics does play a role in the emergence of and subsequent sophistication of our social relationships, the word “wired” in my January article was meant as a metaphor rather than as a technical description of what’s actually going on within our brains. Both genes and the environment will necessarily drive the evolution of social tendencies in any creature, but the moral sense that arises with these tendencies is merely an inevitable byproduct of them.

The word social, therefore, should be taken as being synonymous with cooperation and all the moral baggage it brings with it. Whether we are talking about a tribe getting ready to go to war, a gang planning the robbery of a convenience store, a family, or a government formulating and implementing policy, cooperation, for better or for worse, lies at the root of all of it.

Likewise, the conundrum commonly known as the prisoner’s dilemma reflects our penchant for forming cooperative relationships and the inevitable trade-offs they demand from us. Though the dilemma is set in a jail and involves two individuals arrested on suspicion of a crime, the moral challenge it describes really has nothing to do with what the prisoners in the thought experiment are accused of doing. That always remains unsaid. It involves questions of trust, self-interest, loyalty, and betrayal. In other words, this at first seemingly simple problem actually goes to the heart of what it means to be human.

As of this writing, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy page for the prisoner’s dilemma lists 20 major permutations that have been developed since “Puzzles with the structure of the prisoner’s dilemma were devised and discussed by Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher in 1950, as part of the Rand Corporation’s investigations into game theory.” The Rand Corporation’s interest in game theory was motivated by the emerging potential for a global nuclear war.

 As the description provided at the opening of this article states, the dilemma arises because there’s an inherent tension between the options being given to the prisoners in the thought experiment. Each suspect has the option of selling out the other in exchange for the possibility of going free. If one suspect squeals and the other remains silent, it’s the silent partner that will do hard time. If each of them rats out the other, they’ll both face punishment but with a chance for early parole. If neither says a word then the prosecutor’s lack of strong evidence means they’ll get a short sentence on a minor firearms possession charge.

At first glance, pointing the finger at the other guy is the best choice, until one realizes the other guy may very well be thinking the same thing. If so, both prisoners face a longer sentence than they would if they both just kept their mouth shut. But maybe prisoner A thinks prisoner B is loyal to a fault, and so selling out B isn’t so risky for A. Clearly, even in such a relatively straightforward case as this, each prisoner requires a theory of mind — a capacity to imagine what the other prisoner may be thinking and why he may be thinking it — to have the best chance at navigating the choices the problem presents to the most desirable outcome, at least if we assume each prisoner’s interests extend no further than gaining their freedom.

Whether we find it relatively easy or difficult to come up with a solution to the original 1950 prisoner’s dilemma, the truly important problems that life confronts us with are rarely so sharply defined. That’s why game theorists have developed so many permutations of it since. Each has been applied to a variety of problems ranging from complex social interactions to evolutionary biology in an effort to determine the best strategies in every case. In the process, additional variables have been added to facilitate a more accurate accounting of reality.

For social scientists, one issue they confront with any version of the dilemma is the problem of salience. How people, and to at least some degree other social creatures as well, evaluate the importance of their relationships with others is a variable that eludes easy quantification. Loyalty, for example, might be a cherished virtue to one or both of the prisoners, but how important will also depend a great deal upon the strength of the connection between the two prisoners confronting the dilemma. Prisoner A may be more loyal than your average person under any circumstance, but much more so if prisoner B is a close friend or relative.

This brings us to the fact that most social interactions actually defy simple algorithmic assessment. To put it another way, dilemmas don’t occur in a vacuum the way the prisoner’s dilemma, in all its forms, could mistakenly lead us to believe. Prisoner B’s thinking isn’t just informed by her relationship with prisoner A. She might not even particularly like prisoner A. But someone she does have a meaningful relationship with may be particularly fond of prisoner A, causing her to think more carefully about any action that would directly impact prisoner A than pure rational self-interest alone would normally trigger.

Indeed, we’ll never find just two prisoners in the room even if they’re the only people we can see. Our social networks go far beyond our particular friendships, mate choices, business partnerships, etc. They exist in a contextual stew that includes variables ranging from our own individual values and goals to how we think our actions will be perceived by others when they learn of our choice. Maybe I know the other prisoner well enough to feel certain he would never snitch on me. In addition, I may not give a fig about him and couldn’t care less if he spent the rest of his life in prison. But I also have my reputation to think about and people whose opinion matters to me will know I took advantage of the other prisoner’s sense of loyalty so that I could go free. No matter how robust the models that scientists and philosophers come up with are, plugging each of these personal considerations into them is impossible because they aren’t precisely the same for any two people.

That said, a social scientist would at this point probably remind us that the word social is used to describe their work for a reason. What the models are designed to do is find the best strategies on average for coping with life’s real dilemmas. Thought experiments like the prisoner’s dilemma are merely means to that end.

These models typically assume sufficiently large populations and run their simulations over multiple generations to test every possible outcome and determine which strategy wins out eventually. Even the winning strategy will produce a number of individual losers, but it will produce relatively fewer of them than the alternatives. The particulars that complicate each individual’s experience of the actual or proxy dilemmas being modeled dance around the average outcomes produced like guests at an outdoor wedding reception whirling around the pole at the center of the tent set up for the evening’s festivities.

In their recent documentary on the Vietnam War, the filmmakers Ken Burns and Lynn Novik spent a good deal of time discussing the United States Government’s focus on the number of North Vietnamese and Viet Cong killed and the ratio of enemy fatalities to American deaths in any given period. This emphasis on the body count incentivized brutality, often leading US commanders to order their soldiers to take out villages or to engage any human they encountered in particular parts of the country without first determining whether their targets were combatants. It also resulted in a number of Vietnamese casualties being counted as combatants after the fact when in truth they were not.

In episode 4 of the 10-part documentary, an army adviser observes wistfully, “If you can’t count what’s important, then you make what you can count important.” In the case of the Vietnam War, linear quantitative thinking not only had the tragic effect of needlessly maximizing the death toll but blinded military and other government officials to the historical and cultural context in which they were doing it. The consequence of using the wrong metric to measure America’s “progress” — or perhaps the assumption that a right metric could even be found in the first place — prolonged the Vietnam conflict and made US success even less likely than it was to begin with.

The Vietnam War is a stark and tragic reminder of what can happen when we substitute formulas and quantification for reality. Both the physical and social sciences necessarily rely upon these tools to clarify the problems they are attempting to address, but when we mistake our charts and graphs for the thing they are describing we are mistaking the map for the terrain. Models are an extremely valuable means for narrowing the gaps in our knowledge, but they will never close them. Knowledge is asymptotic. 

Mistaking our maps for the territories they describe is particularly problematic in the context of the social sciences. Among other errors, it leads us to adopt simplistic essentialist views of human nature that have so far consistently missed the mark. This historic and ongoing failure of essentialism to successfully reduce the human condition to any single quantifiable trait or distinct set of traits has led many thinkers to the opposite and even more mistaken view that we are blank slates.

 In their recent article There’s No Philosophy of Life Without a Theory of Human Nature, the philosophers Skye C Cleary and Massimo Pigliucci remind us that the elusive nature of the human condition is not an argument for seeing ourselves as blank slates as many would have it. They conclude:

If we were truly tabulae rasae, why would we prefer certain things to others? What could possibly urge us to seek meaning, to build relationships with other people, to strive to improve ourselves and the world we live in? We do all that because we are a particular kind of intelligent social animal, just as the Stoics thought. And we do it within the broad constraints imposed by our (biological as well as contingent) facticity, as the existentialists maintained. There is no single path to a flourishing human life, but there are also many really bad ones. The choice is ours, within the limits imposed by human nature.

The prisoner’s dilemma, in all its present and no doubt future permutations, is a useful tool for thinking about the choices we face “within the limits imposed by human nature.” It invites us to consider the difficult decisions life presents us with within the context of our self-interest, our social relationships with others, and our biological constraints. Over the years it has provided us with models that have been used to improve our understanding of how cooperation likely emerged as well as insights into our own personal and collective biases.

However, like all models, its capacity to enlighten will forever be limited because our own complexity and that of the environment in which we live is not only too vast to ultimately grasp in its entirety but too fluid. The process of acquiring an understanding of the social and physical world we inhabit changes the very nature of that world. It is the ambiguity inherent in the dilemma itself that ultimately rests at the heart of our reality. Progress depends not upon resolving that ambiguity, but wrestling with it.

To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source

Follow Craig on Twitter or read him on Medium.com

Other stories that you may enjoy:

Barry Goldwater is Only Popular Today Because He Lost

By Ryan Lau | @agorisms

The liberty movement today does not have many elected officials to look up to. Considering that a large percentage of it doesn’t believe in electing officials at all, this is not surprising. Two main theories exist in regards to why those in power often are corrupt. As philosopher John Acton puts it, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The American presidency, of course, is nearly absolute power, and thus, lends itself to a whole lot of corruption.

Scientist David Brin, on the other hand, offers a much different theory. He says, “It is said that power corrupts, but actually it’s more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power.” This idea, of course, recognizes that power does not change people much, but rather, only corrupt people seek it.

Both of these quotes, though, share a very similar critical concept. Regardless of the nature of power, and whether it is the cause of corruption, there is a strong correlation between power and corruption. Even though those in power may not have started corrupt, they quickly become that way when the opportunity presents itself.

The Actor-Turned-Corrupted Official

One of the greatest examples of this quick change is Ronald Reagan. The former actor served as both California’s governor and POTUS, in the 1960s and 1980s, respectively. Both times, he campaigned on promises of limited government leading to a thriving economy. But both times, he failed to live up to this promise.

As the governor of California, Reagan actually signed off on the largest tax increase in the state’s history. This, of course, is highly antithetical to everything that he ran on. Despite this, Americans still elected him president in 1980 with a huge margin of victory.

However, Reagan, as president, once more abandoned his alleged virtues of limited government. Though he did cut the income tax considerably, he was, in other ways, not true to his word. Admittedly, some of this was due to resistance in a Democratic Congress. But still, much of the blame falls solely on the former president. From 1981 to 1989, the national debt increased by 186%. Deficit spending increased, and the budget increased. In fact, he even raised military spending by an alarming 35% in only eight years.

For these reasons, it is impossible to view Reagan as a supporter of small government without some pretty strong rose colored glasses. Upon entering positions of power, both times, he betrayed his alleged principles. This trait is not unique to Reagan though. In fact, due to the similarity of his campaign to Barry Goldwater, it is highly likely that Goldwater would have done the same, if elected.

Barry Goldwater: The Unproven Failure

In 1964, Lyndon B. Johnson handed Barry Goldwater one of the most crippling defeats in political history. After Kennedy’s assassination, there was little to no chance that the man would have been able to win. But what if he did?

Much like Reagan, Goldwater campaigned on promises of limited government intervention in the economy. He opposed FDR’s New Deal as a form of strong government overreach into the private sector, and is famous for also opposing a government strong enough to supply the citizens’ every need. Despite this strong personal position, his message would simply not have survived well in the tense political climate.

Differing from Reagan a bit, Barry Goldwater did have a track record of living up to his ideals. In his two terms as an Arizona senator, he retained most of his principles. But this is much more difficult to do as a president, especially when your ideas do not have a lot of support in the legislative body.

In 1965, Congress was heavily Democratic, with a majority in both the House and the Senate. These legislators overwhelmingly supported LBJ’s Great Society, and thus, would have fervently opposed the deregulation that Goldwater promised. So, even if he did adhere to his economic principles, it is highly unlikely that very many of them would have passed. Of course, Goldwater could have always passed some via executive order. But in doing so, he would have immediately violated his firmly held belief that a government should have very limited executive power. Thus, none of his economic ideas would come to fruition without abandoning the underlying principle behind them.

A Hypocritical Foreign Policy

Throughout the 1964 campaign, Barry Goldwater attacked LBJ relentlessly for his actions in Vietnam. Of course, it is true that Johnson lied to the American people about Vietnam, as well as needlessly brought the United States into the war. Goldwater was quick to point both of these things out, as well as call the war itself “Johnson’s war”. This all came after Johnson promised that he sought “no wider war” in Vietnam. Of course, this was not to be the case, as Johnson escalated the war and caused countless losses of American and foreign lives.

Conversely, Goldwater himself also had a very firm stance on opposing communism. Though Johnson’s allegations in the popular campaign ad “Daisy”, among others, that Goldwater would drop nuclear bombs on the North Vietnamese people were untrue, it is true that the conservative senator strongly supported action against communist regimes.

In July of 1964, Goldwater gave a speech in which he called for increased action to oppose communism. In fact, he called it “the principal disturber of peace in the world today”. He even went so far as to say that communist regimes were “enemies of every man on earth who is or wants to be free”, before referencing that America should become a beacon of freedom.

Without a doubt, these anti-communist sentiments imply a desire to spend considerable money opposing communist countries. Though Barry Goldwater may not have furthered the war as much as LBJ, his hawkish rhetoric suggests that any notion of small government would be crippled by increased military spending and presence throughout the world.

A Popular Loser

So, whether indirectly or directly, it appears Barry Goldwater would not have entirely lived up to his principles as president. Much like Reagan, corruption and bureaucracy would have crippled his ability to carry out limited government principles. American government, in a position of ultimate power, does not generally limit itself, hence the near-perpetual growth since its dawn.

Goldwater, a reasonably consistent voice for smaller government, would not have been an exception. His lack of success in 1964 ensured he could never go back on his own word, though, preserving his integrity and allowing him to become a role model for limited government advocates of today.

To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source

Libertarians and Neo-Progressives Aren’t That Different

Francis Folz | United States

For the first time in the last three election cycles, Ron Paul was not the old, white man who had the arcane ability to attract the diverse youth vote. In 2016, the role of Ron Paul was played by Bernie Sanders, and boy did Bernie play Ron Paul’s role well. However, once Mr. Sanders was defeated by Ms. Clinton, former Governor Gary Johnson doubled down on his support from millennial voters, stating that he and Mr. Sanders share similar positions close to 70 percent of the time.

I found it quite intriguing that two competing ideologies that, on the surface, couldn’t seem farther apart from each other actually share a plethora of dogmas in common. History is repeating itself, yet very few identify how civil libertarians and these modern-day progressive socialists have been on the same side of history as one another in the past.

In the 1960 presidential election, Americans elected John F. Kennedy by a narrow margin to be the next commander-in-chief. Kennedy, who had many libertarian inklings such as fiscal conservatism, the desire to abolish the Federal Reserve and the CIA, and his opposition to military conflicts. Unfortunately, JFK served only three years as president before he was assassinated and war hawk Lyndon B. Johnson took his place.

Barry Goldwater is often recognized as a man ahead of his time. In 1964, Mr. Goldwater, or should I say Mr. Conservative, defeated the Rockefeller establishment wing of the Republican Party and was nominated to be the next president of the United States. It’s important to note Mr. Goldwater wasn’t a conservative by present day standards, as his positions would be considered libertarian today.

The former senator from Arizona favored personal responsibility, proposed the idea that one must only be able to shoot straight to be in our armed forces, believed foreign entanglements are unnecessary and detrimental to our nation, and that American prosperity starts with laissez-faire approaches to economics. Regrettably, the War Party successfully convinced Americans that a Goldwater presidency would result in nuclear warfare, and as consequence, the Ron Paul of the ’60’s received only 52 electoral votes.

As Lyndon Johnson kicked the Vietnam War into high gear, the youth of the 1960’s became increasingly wary of America’s hunger for military conflict. Countless students defied their military conscription or celebrated Uncle Lyndon’s call to arms by burning their draft cards. Lamentably, the young minds involved in the anti-war movement were led by American communists like Students for a Democratic Society.

What many fail to consider is that libertarians found themselves on the same sides as the hippies, advocating for the end of the disastrous and unconstitutional Vietnam War. In 1969, libertarians were expelled from the conservative Young Americans for Freedom convention after a libertarian member burned his draft card. Although libertarians were not involved with organizations like SDS, their sentiment towards peace was just as strong.

Libertarians and the New Left most likely found themselves sympathizing or supporting the Free Speech movement of the early 1960’s. According to UC Berkeley campus rules at the time, certain political activity was prohibited or restricted to the Democratic and Republican campus clubs.

Students who desired to solicit money for Civil Rights campaigns or to speak out against the Vietnam War were either disbanded or arrested for violating campus laws. Although the Left is predominately considered the champions of the Free Speech movement, 60’s libertarians assumably supported the precepts of free speech, civil rights, and non-aggression.

In addition, the counterculture movement and libertarians shared a relaxed approach to social issues. Both libertarians and the left-leaning youth of the 60’s favored personal responsibility and decriminalization of non-violent offenses. Lastly, hippies and libertarians shared anti-authoritarian attitudes, which is ironic considering communism requires a large, centralized political authority.

Despite the hippies of the anti-war movement and the libertarians of the 60’s belonging to immensely different ideologies and organizations, both espoused similar positions regarding the most critical issues of their time. The similar views both sides formerly held have once again manifested itself in today’s politics, underscored by akin perspectives and, at times, differing solutions from the Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders coalitions.

To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source

The Root of America’s Drug Problem

By Mason Mohon | USA

Drugs are a critical issue in contemporary American society. Last month the drug problem in America made headlines once again with Trump’s declaration of the opioid crisis as a health emergency. Drugs are a serious issue, and it is widely known and accepted within libertarian circles that the war on drugs is a complete failure, yet many, including those libertarians, fail to see the heart of the issue, which is an addiction to dangerous substances.

There is a widely held assumption that drug addiction is the sole result of chemical hooks within drugs like heroin or morphine. People go under a few times, and boom, they’re addicted. Many assume that one who would take heroin 20 times over the course of 20 days would be heavily addicted by the 21st day, but that is not always the case. Chemical hooks are not the sole cause of addiction, and alone they are not a substantial enough to cause a drug addiction. Many people who suffer from substantial injuries are met with heavy sedatives for the reduction of pain, which are often more pure versions of the same dulling and numbing drugs one can purchase from dealers in back alleys.

This is a misconception. Addiction to drugs is overwhelmingly misunderstood, which is the reason so many have failed to suggest a proper antidote. In the 70’s, a few experiments were conducted that consisted of rats in cages that were offered two options: cocaine or heroin water, and regular, undrugged water. An overwhelming majority of the rats (nearly 100%) drank the drugged water until death. What should be taken from this seems obvious: humans, like rats, will drug themselves til overdose if the option presents itself. Some saw a very clear issue in this experiment, one of which was Psychology professor Bruce Alexander.

Bruce K. Alexander was a Canadian professor of psychology who was responsible for the Rat Park Study, which was conducted in the late 70’s and released in 1981. The issue he saw with the previous rat experiment was that the rat was alone, and its only options in its entire existence were to drink water or drug water. Alexander conducted another experiment, where he constructed a park for rats. This park included many activities for rats, which included food, friends, tubes to run through, and just about anything else to provide rats with a functioning social environment. Within this park was also the jug of water containing the drugs, which happened to go untouched. The conclusion drawn was that the opposite to addiction to drugs is not sobriety, but rather a connection to the world around the rats. The rat friends played a critical role in keeping them from the drugs, and this connection seems to be something our society is missing.

The experiment, though, has received criticism, particularly from UCLA and California State University Lecturer and Psychology Ph.D. Adi Jaffe. He wrote in Psychology Today that human addiction cannot find a solution from this situation, for we do not have some sort of director to create a utopian park where we can indulge ourselves to our heart’s desire without the need of drugs. Along with that fact, humans are profoundly more complex than rats and have a lot more going on. Jaffe is right, we do not have a solution within this study, but we can definitely identify a problem: a lack of inter-human connectivity.

Moreover, this experiment was not solely conducted on rats. The same experiment seemed to manifest itself in humans even earlier in the 70’s. That is, during the Vietnam War. Investigation during the war’s 16th year, 1971, lead the U.S. government and public to discover that 20% of current servicemen within the war were addicted to heroin, while 40% of troops had at least tried it. Along with heroin, other drugs were rampant. Post World War 2 research was light in the realm of the effects of drugs on a soldier’s performance, yet the U.S. government happily provided the military with drugs anyway. The suggested amount was 20 mg of dextroamphetamine for 48 hours of combat readiness, but that was barely followed, and the soldiers would be handed drugs like children being handed candy on Halloween night. A vast array of drugs were employed for these soldiers, leading the Vietnam War to be considered one of, if not the first pharmacological war.

The number of heroin users in the military force was expectedly alarming, and Nixon hastily declared the war on drugs to prevent drug use at home. When the now-veterans returned home, though, the results were absolutely astounding. One study, in particular, reported that when the soldiers returned to the United States, 95% of the veterans were able to eliminate the addiction completely almost overnight. This was not the result of Nixon’s drug war, though, because the regular heroin addiction train remained on track, with a 90% post-rehab relapse rate continuing to exist.

This phenomenon was because of the phenomenal environmental change, from one of the most brutal warscapes America has ever taken part in, back to the U.S.A. where the soldiers could spend time with friends and family once again. This was just like the case with the rats, except for the fact that the rats had no war to fight. The rats and soldiers alike bent towards drug addiction when put into a negative or lacking environment, but when surrounded with general positivity (a return home to friends) they were not subject to the same issues of addiction.

The root of addiction is not the drug itself, full of “chemical hooks” with minor effect. It is much larger; it is a lack of connectivity between humans. Drug addiction itself is not a problem, but rather, the problem is the distancing of humans from one another, perpetuated by a technological revolution allowing humans to “connect” across the cloud without connecting the way we have been biologically engineered to. Humans don’t love life, so they try to escape through things like drugs, pornography, binge watching of television, or overeating. These are all the consequences of a disconnected society. The state cannot force us to connect, but it sure is not helping that they continue to use the force of law against addicts while seeming to ignore the root cause of the problem itself.

The problem is not a simple one that can be solved by a statist’s government or an anarchist’s spontaneous order. It is one that is going to need to be solved by increasing human to human interaction in your own life, rather than the increasing isolation of the human in today’s world.