Isn’t Indian Prohibition Just Liberal Nanny State Futility?

Prohibition didn’t work in the larger American culture, but that doesn’t stop liberals who see minorities and the poor as an emotional playground for their social experimentation.  Nanny statism is rife in the Democratic Party.  It trickles down to Indian reservations, still under federal welfare control, as they always have been.

      Shouldn’t Indians take control of their own lives?  Indians are not children who need help at every turn.  Grown men and women can drink in their own homes and communities if that’s what they want to do.  This is the way the majority culture does it, as described in my recent post “Why Are Native Americans Being Picked On for Drinking Too Much?“

     White culture polices its own drunkenness.  Families ostracize members who are unruly.  Women don’t marry men who are prone to excessive drinking.  Families who drink themselves to death are doing society a favor by taking their genes out of the pool.   Good vigilantes can take care of drinkers and pedophiles in public areas if the police are overwhelmed, or if the tax burden is too great.

      To disallow the sale of alcohol on the Pine Ridge Reservation is to perpetuate the myth that Indians can’t manage their own affairs.  Next come more government grants and programs that must first exaggerate poverty and other forms of social debasement.

      Should we next outlaw the sale of fattening foods on the reservation to curtail chubbiness?  No, it’s an exercise in futility.  Self-control and self-reliance is only possible if individual, families, and social groups take control over their own lives.  If getting tough with public drunkenness is what it takes, then so be it.  Indians have as much inherent nobility and bootstrapping wherewithal as others do.

     According to the online dictionary a vigilante is simply “a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.”  There’s no reason that a worst-case scenario or negative construction need apply.

       People have a right to defend themselves and their communities if adequate law enforcement is either unaffordable or unwilling to do what it takes to get the job done, for whatever reason–almost the definition of law enforcement controlled by liberals from both parties.  Isn’t there a difference been a positive citizen’s patrol and a negative vigilante force, which shows up only as a last resort?