who knew?
for the 'n' word?
course, a couple of the chosen used it as well, but they're given a pass.
over-sensitive bunch over there?
not like YOU guys, of course
you guys are the best
You've come close to being banned here. My finger was on the button.
In the FTL board, you said to shoot a young man, like a dog, who was suffering from a psychological condition.
You have also had malicious words for Lauren.
I for one think it's a tribute to how worthless you are as a human being that you were banned from the FTL forum.
You should know that using that word is bad for business...
although i never use the n word, i am quite puzzled by its "new" use of it today.
blacks use it freely yet anyone else who uses it is a racist. is this correct?
in my days, it was used primarily used as a word of hatred...and now it appears to be used more casually amongst blacks. I am unsure why the blacks use it and direct it at each other.
otoh, blacks use the term cracker-ass for whites and often get zero static for using it.
I do not like racial slurs, gook, chink, towelhead, etc...and I distance myself from people who use it.
so it now seems to be politically correct to say the "N word" instead of saying nigger, so should we also use the "g word" for gook and call it the "t-word" for towelheads? ...and etc etc?
puzzled,
"Krackerass" Kola lol
What's the FTL forum?
Quote from: kola on April 14, 2008, 12:00 PM NHFT
although i never use the n word, i am quite puzzled by its "new" use of it today.
blacks use it freely yet anyone else who uses it is a racist. is this correct?
in my days, it was used primarily used as a word of hatred...and now it appears to be used more casually amongst blacks. I am unsure why the blacks use it and direct it at each other.
otoh, blacks use the term cracker-ass for whites and often get zero static for using it.
I do not like racial slurs, gook, chink, towelhead, etc...and I distance myself from people who use it.
so it now seems to be politically correct to say the "N word" instead of saying nigger, so should we also use the "g word" for gook and call it the "t-word" for towelheads? ...and etc etc?
puzzled,
"Krackerass" Kola lol
Yeah no kidding. The PC crowd really needs to go to hell.
Quote from: Luke S on April 14, 2008, 12:15 PM NHFT
What's the FTL forum?
It's a forum found at http://bbs.freetalklive.com (http://bbs.freetalklive.com) go there and see what they think of your drug war ideas.
Quote from: Landon Jeffery on April 14, 2008, 01:30 PM NHFT
It's a forum found at http://bbs.freetalklive.com (http://bbs.freetalklive.com) go there and see what they think of your drug war ideas.
*snicker*
Quote from: Landon Jeffery on April 14, 2008, 01:30 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 14, 2008, 12:15 PM NHFT
What's the FTL forum?
It's a forum found at http://bbs.freetalklive.com (http://bbs.freetalklive.com) go there and see what they think of your drug war ideas.
Ask for BonerJoe...
Quote from: Caleb on April 14, 2008, 11:53 AM NHFT
I for one think it's a tribute to how worthless you are as a human being that you were banned from the FTL forum.
lol
Quote from: Caleb on April 14, 2008, 11:53 AM NHFT
You've come close to being banned here. My finger was on the button.
In the FTL board, you said to shoot a young man, like a dog, who was suffering from a psychological condition.
You have also had malicious words for Lauren.
I for one think it's a tribute to how worthless you are as a human being that you were banned from the FTL forum.
not really....
it can be attributed to one or two whiny little maggots (see above poster), that got their panties in a fucking bunch.
politically-correct ,hand-wringing, snivelling douchebags, is the real answer.
totally uncalled for.
what a jerk.
Quote from: babalugatz on April 14, 2008, 07:54 PM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on April 14, 2008, 11:53 AM NHFT
You've come close to being banned here. My finger was on the button.
In the FTL board, you said to shoot a young man, like a dog, who was suffering from a psychological condition.
You have also had malicious words for Lauren.
I for one think it's a tribute to how worthless you are as a human being that you were banned from the FTL forum.
not really....
it can be attributed to one or two whiny little maggots (see above poster), that got their panties in a fucking bunch.
politically-correct ,hand-wringing, snivelling douchebags, is the real answer.
sometimes freedom is in the eye of the beholder
Quote from: babalugatz on April 14, 2008, 07:54 PM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on April 14, 2008, 11:53 AM NHFT
You've come close to being banned here. My finger was on the button.
In the FTL board, you said to shoot a young man, like a dog, who was suffering from a psychological condition.
You have also had malicious words for Lauren.
I for one think it's a tribute to how worthless you are as a human being that you were banned from the FTL forum.
not really....
it can be attributed to one or two whiny little maggots (see above poster), that got their panties in a fucking bunch.
politically-correct ,hand-wringing, snivelling douchebags, is the real answer.
The above poster happens to be the owner of the board that kicked your whiny little maggot ass off.
If Ian is "politically correct" then I'm Mother Theresa.
My point is that Ian is incredibly tolerant of a variety of opinions. If his board kicked you off, then it's only a matter of time here.
"Do you know how hard you gotta work to get kicked outta the Chuckie Cheeze?"
</Rodney Carrington>
baba don't you have a fence to deal with on the southern border?
Quote from: Caleb on April 14, 2008, 09:43 PM NHFT
Quote from: babalugatz on April 14, 2008, 07:54 PM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on April 14, 2008, 11:53 AM NHFT
You've come close to being banned here. My finger was on the button.
In the FTL board, you said to shoot a young man, like a dog, who was suffering from a psychological condition.
You have also had malicious words for Lauren.
I for one think it's a tribute to how worthless you are as a human being that you were banned from the FTL forum.
not really....
it can be attributed to one or two whiny little maggots (see above poster), that got their panties in a fucking bunch.
politically-correct ,hand-wringing, snivelling douchebags, is the real answer.
The above poster happens to be the owner of the board that kicked your whiny little maggot ass off.
If Ian is "politically correct" then I'm Mother Theresa.
My point is that Ian is incredibly tolerant of a variety of opinions. If his board kicked you off, then it's only a matter of time here.
i know who the fuck ian bernard is & what he does, champ.
fact is, no less than 3 others used the word "nigger", or "nigga" on that forum in the last few days.
lindsey, mr. jay, blackie.......
i used it in response to this video, and i think bill cosby would agree w/ me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJCb6lYdZG0
as to your other assertions, i offer the following:
1) malicious words for lauren;
- i said then & i'll say it now;
whoever was running the camera deserved a beating & here's why:
lately there have been videos posted on youtube, etc, that show various out-of-control law officers:
-the kid skateboarding & the 20 yr old accosted in the carpool lot at 2 am are excell. examples of the usefullness of the vid-cam in todays world. both cops lost their jobs. that's the way it should be. the traffic stop w/ lauren was NOT one of these. that much was obvious w/in the 1st few minutes of the officer speaking. you want to keep the cam running, in case something happens? fine.the incessant roadside baiting of the milford cops,
..." why are resting your hands on your guns, why?...am i threatening to you?, why?, why?"....., like a whining, misbehaving brat.....SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY...
i stand behind what i said.
- my stance on the driv. license issue, i also stand behind. i'm not going to beat it into the ground any further.
2) what i said re: the kid burning down his folks house?
- that's my caustic sense of humor
- i don't know the kid. didn't realize he's certifiable
- for that, mi dispiace, con tutto il cuore
so, caleb, you don't like me? i don't care.
ian doesn't like me? ditto
just that, if it was him that booted me, and for the reason listed above; it's bullshit & hypocritical
Quote from: AntonLee on April 14, 2008, 10:10 PM NHFT
baba don't you have a fence to deal with on the southern border?
anton, we ALL got a fence on the so. border to worry about, not just me
Quote from: babalugatz on April 15, 2008, 07:24 AM NHFT
lindsey, mr. jay, blackie.......
All good people. You actually sounded racist.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on April 15, 2008, 08:52 AM NHFT
Quote from: babalugatz on April 15, 2008, 07:24 AM NHFT
lindsey, mr. jay, blackie.......
All good people. You actually sounded racist.
why?
because i shit-talked loiue farrakhan, sharpton & jackson?
Quote from: babalugatz on April 15, 2008, 09:05 AM NHFT
Quote from: FTL_Ian on April 15, 2008, 08:52 AM NHFT
Quote from: babalugatz on April 15, 2008, 07:24 AM NHFT
lindsey, mr. jay, blackie.......
All good people. You actually sounded racist.
why?
because i shit-talked loiue farrakhan, sharpton & jackson?
Did you get a warning at all? and consequentially didn't follow it... I, for one, know that blackie has been banned from here
Quote from: Rebel on April 15, 2008, 11:20 AM NHFT
Did you get a warning at all? and consequentially didn't follow it... I, for one, know that blackie has been banned from here
He agreed to our terms of service. No warnings are guaranteed.
Like it or not we live in a double standard war. Whites used gov't to either perpetuate racism, or to look the other way when non gov't groups commited atrocities against innocent blacks. Whites dominated, and those that could have spoken out against the persucution, didn't.
There is a bunch of asses who claim the 'liberty' mantle then advocate for separation of the races. As a result I despise racists or those that sound/act racist. Call me PC till you're blue in the face, but racists have given us a bad name and I hate it.
If I had my way racism, or acts like it would get one banned. (If it looks, quacks, walks like a duck...)
Quote from: babalugatz on April 15, 2008, 07:24 AM NHFT
...you want to keep the cam running, in case something happens? fine.the incessant roadside baiting of the milford cops,
..." why are resting your hands on your guns, why?...am i threatening to you?, why?, why?"....., like a whining, misbehaving brat.....SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY...
I'll bet if it was the other way around, with Lauren's passenger resting his hand on his gun, and the officers' only response was to ask those same questions, you would say they are all a bunch of fucking pansies...
now wouldn't you??
Of course, they
were wearing shiny badges and "just doing their jobs", so I suppose it does make sense that
we are the ones who should snivel meekly at
their feet.
I wonder if that is what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote,
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Perhaps they really meant that the people's
police should keep and bear arms in order to forcibly protect the people from themselves, and instill fear in anyone who might dissent.
Lets not tolerate anyone who would cause the government to fear the people. After all, how the hell are the police supposed to force dissenters into submission, if they themselves fear those they are supposed to
serve... um,
rule, that is?
Quote from: Rebel on April 15, 2008, 11:20 AM NHFT
Quote from: babalugatz on April 15, 2008, 09:05 AM NHFT
Quote from: FTL_Ian on April 15, 2008, 08:52 AM NHFT
Quote from: babalugatz on April 15, 2008, 07:24 AM NHFT
lindsey, mr. jay, blackie.......
All good people. You actually sounded racist.
why?
because i shit-talked loiue farrakhan, sharpton & jackson?
Did you get a warning at all? and consequentially didn't follow it... I, for one, know that blackie has been banned from here
no rebel, and thanks for bringing it up....
no warning at all & as i said already, the 'n' word has been bandied about by others over there, but i'm the only outcast
Quote from: srqrebel on April 15, 2008, 01:20 PM NHFT
Quote from: babalugatz on April 15, 2008, 07:24 AM NHFT
...you want to keep the cam running, in case something happens? fine.the incessant roadside baiting of the milford cops,
..." why are resting your hands on your guns, why?...am i threatening to you?, why?, why?"....., like a whining, misbehaving brat.....SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY...
I'll bet if it was the other way around, with Lauren's passenger resting his hand on his gun, and the officers' only response was to ask those same questions, you would say they are all a bunch of fucking pansies... now wouldn't you??
Of course, they were wearing shiny badges and "just doing their jobs", so I suppose it does make sense that we are the ones who should snivel meekly at their feet.
I wonder if that is what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Perhaps they really meant that the people's police should keep and bear arms in order to forcibly protect the people from themselves, and instill fear in anyone who might dissent.
Lets not tolerate anyone who would cause the government to fear the people. After all, how the hell are the police supposed to force dissenters into submission, if they themselves fear those they are supposed to serve... um, rule, that is?
that's exactly my point.
they didn't haul ms. canario out of her house in the middle of the night for no reason.
she was speeding; got pulled over; had no license; got hauled off because, like it or not, it is the law (& no matter how many of you disagree w/ the licensing requirements, how many of you drive w/out one?)
the cops were cool/calm/collected & professional
IF they had acted like a lot of these rogue cops caught on tape, threatening & out of control, i would have cheered the cameraman on, wholeheartedly.
but there was no breakdown of protocol, no civil-rights violations, so then why poke the bear. over & over & over & over?
just reading your comments here are more than enough to send you packing.
i am sure your banning was more than just about using vulgar language.
u been a shit-stirrer since your first posting, troll.
kola
Quoteshe was speeding; got pulled over; had no license; got hauled off because, like it or not, it is the law
Passing legislation makes something law, but it does not make something ethical. Liberty means not needing permission to do something that creates no victim. Lauren harmed nobody, therefore her right to travel shouldn't be infringed.
Quotethe cops were cool/calm/collected & professional
The only think that disturbs me more than an upset person pushing another person into slavery is a person who does it without trepidation. C.S. Lewis wrote "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Quotebut there was no breakdown of protocol, no civil-rights violations, so then why poke the bear. over & over & over & over?
I can only speak of THIS forum since this is where I'm posting. This forum is for liberty activism. Your arguement above is akin to "The government is big, you should just roll over and take it". The reason for poking the bear is because it's a fucking trespasser, unwelcome and unjustified in it's existance. Lauren takes a stand against it. Bend over and take it is as much spam to these forums as Viagra ads.
shit-stirrer?
cuz there aren't ANY of those here already.
Also,
i've been thinking about the troll moniker. maybe i am a troll on this & the ftl website,
but what about people here & there that are trolls in this state.
case in point= caleb
he's so involved in this site & the fsp, but yet he hangs his hat on the other coast. he has nothing to do with living/working/voting/paying taxes in N.H.
& there are others as well.
at least i'm a NH native.
seems to me the 'trolls-extrordinaire' ,are the ones that hang around these sites, but don't actually LIVE HERE
Quote from: Kevin Dean on April 15, 2008, 02:04 PM NHFT
Quoteshe was speeding; got pulled over; had no license; got hauled off because, like it or not, it is the law
Passing legislation makes something law, but it does not make something ethical. Liberty means not needing permission to do something that creates no victim. Lauren harmed nobody, therefore her right to travel shouldn't be infringed.
Quotethe cops were cool/calm/collected & professional
The only think that disturbs me more than an upset person pushing another person into slavery is a person who does it without trepidation. C.S. Lewis wrote "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Quotebut there was no breakdown of protocol, no civil-rights violations, so then why poke the bear. over & over & over & over?
I can only speak of THIS forum since this is where I'm posting. This forum is for liberty activism. Your arguement above is akin to "The government is big, you should just roll over and take it". The reason for poking the bear is because it's a fucking trespasser, unwelcome and unjustified in it's existance. Lauren takes a stand against it. Bend over and take it is as much spam to these forums as Viagra ads.
poking the bear on the side of the road in the middle of the night is just moronic. you're not going to accomplish a thing.
poking the bear at the statehouse level w/ politicians & plenty of publicity is going to get you a lot further toward your goal.
Quote from: babalugatz on April 15, 2008, 02:10 PM NHFT
shit-stirrer?
cuz there aren't ANY of those here already.
Also,
i've been thinking about the troll moniker. maybe i am a troll on this & the ftl website,
but what about people here & there that are trolls in this state.
case in point= caleb
he's so involved in this site & the fsp, but yet he hangs his hat on the other coast. he has nothing to do with living/working/voting/paying taxes in N.H.
& there are others as well.
at least i'm a NH native.
seems to me the 'trolls-extrordinaire' ,are the ones that hang around these sites, but don't actually LIVE HERE
yur lucky i aint a moderator.
so for now,,addios...bon voyage to Iggyvile.
kola
Quoteyou're not going to accomplish a thing.
I agree, which is why I don't drive without a license. On the flipside, I don't need to berate someone who is standing up for something important to them. I'm not going as far as saying that you shouldn't be able to say what you want, but keep in mind, calling Lauren stupid on a forum full of her friends isn't going to garner good will. In your words, "you're not going to accomplish a thing."
Quotepoking the bear at the statehouse level w/ politicians & plenty of publicity is going to get you a lot further toward your goal.
Do you not see that this wasn't LAUREN's goal? How I choose to advocate for liberty is my business. I'll agree with you fully that political activism is needed, but I'm of the opinion that any single form of activism without the others is pointless. Having a populace against taxes means nothing if you don't have people willing to refuse taxes. Likewise, refusing registration without a populace who supports it is pointless. It's only when Lauren and David and anyone else does the civil disobedience WHILE the political activists like the NH Liberty Alliance are at work does anything actually move.
Tearing down people who are working for liberty, while you profess that to be your goal is stupid. How do you expect to spread the message of liberty in ANY fashion by destroying fellow activist with friendly fire?
Quote from: babalugatz on April 15, 2008, 09:05 AM NHFT
Quote from: FTL_Ian on April 15, 2008, 08:52 AM NHFT
Quote from: babalugatz on April 15, 2008, 07:24 AM NHFT
lindsey, mr. jay, blackie.......
All good people. You actually sounded racist.
why?
because i shit-talked loiue farrakhan, sharpton & jackson?
personally I don't care if you use the N-word or not. . . the N-word gets thrown around a lot there. . . being banned for it is stupid to me, but it's not my property. What does bother me is your love for the law. If there is a law, and it enforces something that doesn't hurt anyone, is it worth it to follow this law
F Licenses, F Registration, F Seat Belts, and F the police.
they're not my laws. I never agreed in writing to follow them. If you would like to state that by the mere fact that I got a license when I was 17 (thus agreeing to follow these laws) then the state entered into a contract with a minor, breaking another one of their laws. Either way, I win.
as for OUR fence on the southern border, I'll leave that to you to watch. . . because I just don't care. . . because I'm not a racist and I like most mexican people. Besides, the fence is nothing more than a large rust colored slice of swiss cheese. There are even parts of it that you can drive cars through.
or like I posted over on the FTL forum:
from http://www.choisser.com/border/borderfl.html
(http://www.choisser.com/border/surfence.jpg)
This is the southwestern corner of the United States. If this pesky ocean had not been encountered, this beautiful fence could have been made even longer.
(http://www.choisser.com/border/obelisk.jpg)
This marble obelisk was made in New York, and it was brought around the horn by ship and erected here in 1851 to mark the southwestern corner of our nation and proclaim our friendship with Mexico. The large round slab on which it sits was clearly designed to allow one to walk around the monument. This would now not be easy, because of the fence, which was no doubt erected to further celebrate our friendship with Mexico. We all know that "good fences make good neighbors"!
Quote from: 'AntonLee'or like I posted over on the FTL forum:
That post inspired my first blog post in almost a month. Too bad it won't let me applaud you twice in an hour. :(
Yeah, it's pretty obvious to me that we need to make that fence bigger, and put guards by the edge of the fence.
hey anton....
here's one, in a long litany of reasons, to worry bout illegal immigrants;
(oh, and being concerned re: the soverignity,security and well being of U.S. (legal ) citizens of this country, does not a racist make):
Here is a REAL INTERVIEW with an illegal Mexican at a protest march in Texas The reporter is trying to reason with an illegal Mexican named Juan.
This is good! Below is a good example of a discussion with a master of circular logic.
Don't be logical; don't respect the truth or your adversary, just say what you think and it makes a new case when the previous case gets too difficult to defend.
On the streets of downtown Houston, May 1, 2007.
Jim Moore reporting for a Houston TV station:
Jim: Juan, I see that you and thousands of other protesters are marching in the streets to demonstrate for your cause. Exactly what is your cause and what do you expect to accomplish by this protest?
Juan : We want our rights. We will show you how powerful we are. We will bring Houston to its knees!
Jim: What rights?
Juan: Our right to live here ... legally. Our right to get all the benefits you get.
Jim: When did you come to the United States?
Juan: Six years ago. I crossed over the border at night with seven other friends.
Jim: Why did you come?
Juan: For work. I can earn as much in a month as I could in a year in Mexico . Besides, I get free health care, our Mexican children can go to school free, if I lose my job I will get welfare, and someday I will have the Social Security nothing like that in Mexico !
Jim: Did you feel badly about breaking our immigration laws when you came?
Juan: No! Why should I feel bad? I have a right to be here. I have a right to amnesty. I paid lots of money for my Social Security and Green Cards.
Jim: How did you acquire those documents?
Juan: From a guy in Dallas . He charged me a lot of money too.
Jim: Did you know that those documents w ere forged?
Juan: It is of no matter. I have a right to be here and work.
Jim: What is the "right" you speak of?
Juan: The right of all aliens. It is found in your Constitution. Read it!
Jim: I have read it, but I do not remember it saying anything about rights for aliens.
Juan: It is in that part where it says that all men have alien rights, like the right to pursue happiness. I wasn't happy in Mexico , so I came here.
Jim: I think you are referring to the Declaration of Independence and that document speaks to unalienable rights not alien rights.
;Juan: Whatever.
Jim: Since you are demanding to become an American citizen, why then are you carrying a Mexican Flag?
Juan: Because I am Mexican.
Jim: But you said you want to be given amnesty ... to become a U.S. citizen.
Juan: No. This is not what we want. This is our country, a part of Mexico that you gringos st ole from us. We want it returned to its rightful owner.
Jim: Juan, you are standing in Texas . After winning the war with Mexico , Texas became a Republic, and later Texans voted to join the USA . It was not stolen from Mexico.
Juan: That is a gringo lie. Texas was stolen. So were California, New Mexico and Arizona. It is just like all the other stuff you gringos steal, like oil and babies. You are a country of thieves.
Jim: Babies? You think we steal babies?
Juan: Sure. Like from Korea and Vietnam and China . I see them all over the place. You let all these foreigners in, but try to keep us Mexicans out. How is this fair?
Jim: So, you really don't want to become an American citizen then.
Juan: I just want my rights! Everyone has a right to live, work, and speak their native language wherever and whenever they please. That's another thing we demand. All signs and official documents should be in Spanish. Teachers must teach in Spanish. Soon, more people here in Houston will speak Spanish than English. It is our right!
Jim: If I were to cross over the border into Mexico without proper documentation, what rights would I have there?
Juan: None. You would probably go to jail, but that's different.
Jim: How is it different? You said everyone has the right to live wherever they please.
Juan: You gringos are a bunch of land grabbing thieves. Now you want Mexico too? Me xico has its rights. You gringos have no rights in Mexico. Why would you want to go there anyway? There is no free medical service, schools, or welfare there for foreigners such as you. You cannot even own land in my country. Stay in the country of your birth.
Jim: I can see that there is no way that we can agree on this issue. Thank you for your comments.
Juan: Viva Mexico!
yeppers...call me a racist
Quote from: babalugatz on April 15, 2008, 06:48 PM NHFT
hey anton....
here's one, in a long litany of reasons, to worry bout illegal immigrants;
(oh, and being concerned re: the soverignity,security and well being of U.S. (legal ) citizens of this country, does not a racist make):
Here is a REAL INTERVIEW with an illegal Mexican at a protest march in Texas The reporter is trying to reason with an illegal Mexican named Juan.
Real interview? Seems like anti immigration propaghanda. What is the link to this interview?
Quote from: Caleb on April 14, 2008, 11:53 AM NHFT
You've come close to being banned here. My finger was on the button.
In the FTL board, you said to shoot a young man, like a dog, who was suffering from a psychological condition.
You have also had malicious words for Lauren.
I for one think it's a tribute to how worthless you are as a human being that you were banned from the FTL forum.
Caleb, speaking of "closeness to being banned", is there any way to know how close to being banned you are at any given moment?
Quote from: Luke S on April 15, 2008, 07:24 PM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on April 14, 2008, 11:53 AM NHFT
You've come close to being banned here. My finger was on the button.
In the FTL board, you said to shoot a young man, like a dog, who was suffering from a psychological condition.
You have also had malicious words for Lauren.
I for one think it's a tribute to how worthless you are as a human being that you were banned from the FTL forum.
Caleb, speaking of "closeness to being banned", is there any way to know how close to being banned you are at any given moment?
If you reach -100 karma your system will receive a virus that will do immense damage.
I understand that Caleb can sometimes be persuaded to give you karma points for silver.
Quote from: Luke S on April 15, 2008, 07:24 PM NHFT
Caleb, speaking of "closeness to being banned", is there any way to know how close to being banned you are at any given moment?
The only real admin is Kat. She bans people. She graced me with admin power so I could have power to give and take mega karma. Although I was tempted to ban bagalugutz, I wouldn't really actually do it. Kat will ban you for advocating violence or spamming or doing something fraudulent. Or if she gets fed up with you for some other major reason, but that is rare. As far as I know, you are a long, long way from that, so don't worry.
Your karma, however, is in the tank. Maybe you should ask yourself whether your positions are really as liberty oriented as you appear to think.
Quote from: babalugatz on April 15, 2008, 02:10 PM NHFT
shit-stirrer?
cuz there aren't ANY of those here already.
Also,
i've been thinking about the troll moniker. maybe i am a troll on this & the ftl website,
but what about people here & there that are trolls in this state.
case in point= caleb
he's so involved in this site & the fsp, but yet he hangs his hat on the other coast. he has nothing to do with living/working/voting/paying taxes in N.H.
& there are others as well.
at least i'm a NH native.
seems to me the 'trolls-extrordinaire' ,are the ones that hang around these sites, but don't actually LIVE HERE
You are a ridiculous person. I am not in the state, as you are aware, so how can I possibly be a troll in your state?
I am not involved much in the fsp. In the unlikely event that they reach their 20,000 goal, I will move back, per my commitment, but I haven't been to their site in probably 6 months. I come to this site because I have friends here. :) You come to this site to harass my friends and spew vitriol at them. When venom isn't frothing from your mouth, you are busy advocating some new blessed restrictions on other people's liberty.
Why, exactly, do you come here? Who on this forum is "your kinda people"?
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on April 15, 2008, 07:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 15, 2008, 07:24 PM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on April 14, 2008, 11:53 AM NHFT
You've come close to being banned here. My finger was on the button.
In the FTL board, you said to shoot a young man, like a dog, who was suffering from a psychological condition.
You have also had malicious words for Lauren.
I for one think it's a tribute to how worthless you are as a human being that you were banned from the FTL forum.
Caleb, speaking of "closeness to being banned", is there any way to know how close to being banned you are at any given moment?
If you reach -100 karma your system will receive a virus that will do immense damage.
I understand that Caleb can sometimes be persuaded to give you karma points for silver.
Tom Sawyer, I'm just curious, are you that kid I saw in the UN flag burning video that I saw?
Quote from: Caleb on April 15, 2008, 08:16 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 15, 2008, 07:24 PM NHFT
Caleb, speaking of "closeness to being banned", is there any way to know how close to being banned you are at any given moment?
The only real admin is Kat. She bans people. She graced me with admin power so I could have power to give and take mega karma. Although I was tempted to ban bagalugutz, I wouldn't really actually do it. Kat will ban you for advocating violence or spamming or doing something fraudulent. Or if she gets fed up with you for some other major reason, but that is rare. As far as I know, you are a long, long way from that, so don't worry.
Your karma, however, is in the tank. Maybe you should ask yourself whether your positions are really as liberty oriented as you appear to think.
Of course I'd never advocate violence (as far as I know -- according to some people on here's definition of advocating violence, somebody who thinks a marijuana user should be even so much as fined for breaking the law is advocating violence. I realize the connection, as behind every law there is a cop with a gun, but I still think the law is necessary.) But in the typical sense of the term: no, I'd never advocate violence.
As for my karma being in the tank, I have a good friend who lives here in Ohio who is a libertarian, and he and I agree on most issues. If you don't see me as liberty oriented, you probably wouldn't see him as liberty oriented either, even though he calls himself a libertarian. It's just that neither he nor I think that liberty-oriented = free-for-all.
I know you were using "free for all" in a different way, but true freedom must be for all. Or else it isn't for you. Someday, the socialists in this country are going to come after your guns, and then your gun will be against the law. What will you do?
Hitler had laws. I'm sure you wouldn't have liked a lot of his laws. Just because something is written down on a piece of paper that got voted on by some rich white men, doesn't make it moral. So when they come for your guns, you can count on me, a pacifist, supporting you if you decide not to cooperate with them. The difference is that I can't count on your support if they come after my medicine. Oh, you might say, "well, I think it should be legal for you to use it under those conditions," but you still think I should comply with the law and cooperate with it, until the rich white men decide to change their minds and graciously permit me to do it. And if that time never comes, then I should just go along, like a good little Nazi.
Never mind that the CIA uses the drug war to bypass congressional funding so they can commit crimes without even congress knowing about it. Nah. That's no big deal. Why should that be my concern. The fact that the rest of the world hates ME, just because I was born in this landmass, and wants to commit terrorism against me, is largely because of the CIA, which has been enabled by the drug war. but in your mind it's much more important to keep me from getting a nice little high than it is to prevent murder, rape, torture, pillaging, genocide, and other crimes that have been funded through "white gold" narco-trafficking. If I might make a little book recommendation to you, read "Whiteout".
Quote from: babalugatz on April 15, 2008, 06:48 PM NHFT
Here is a REAL INTERVIEW with an illegal Mexican at a protest march in Texas The reporter is trying to reason with an illegal Mexican named Juan.
This is good! Below is a good example of a discussion with a master of circular logic.
Don't be logical; don't respect the truth or your adversary, just say what you think and it makes a new case when the previous case gets too difficult to defend.
On the streets of downtown Houston, May 1, 2007.
Jim Moore reporting for a Houston TV station:
Gee, can't you at least
try?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/interview.asp
Something is fucked up. My computer has been off for many hours and I was in Manchester for allergy shots and Taproom Tuesday. I came back, logged in, (I was logged out, presumably just due to passage of time because I'm set to stay logged in for a week at a time), and I attempted to bump a couple of people's karma. For a couple of them, it said it had not been an hour. :o :o :o :o :o
Uhm, it most definitely had been an hour. Is someone into my account? Caleb, can you see any activity for me between about 4:30pm and 10:15pm today?
err...I'll check.
but I don't know if I can see that or not
I can't see any login IP that you haven't used before, but I can only see IP #'s where you've posted a message, and your current IP. Maybe Kat will know more. :-\ For now, I would change your password immediately.
Quote from: Luke S on April 15, 2008, 08:57 PM NHFT
Tom Sawyer, I'm just curious, are you that kid I saw in the UN flag burning video that I saw?
I think this calls for a new Shire Playing Card -- Tom Sawyer trapped in a child's body. >:D
Quote from: Caleb on April 15, 2008, 09:12 PM NHFT
I know you were using "free for all" in a different way, but true freedom must be for all. Or else it isn't for you. Someday, the socialists in this country are going to come after your guns, and then your gun will be against the law. What will you do?
If they did that, then they would be the ones doing something against the law, not me, since the right to keep & bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.
QuoteHitler had laws. I'm sure you wouldn't have liked a lot of his laws. Just because something is written down on a piece of paper that got voted on by some rich white men, doesn't make it moral. So when they come for your guns, you can count on me, a pacifist, supporting you if you decide not to cooperate with them. The difference is that I can't count on your support if they come after my medicine. Oh, you might say, "well, I think it should be legal for you to use it under those conditions," but you still think I should comply with the law and cooperate with it, until the rich white men decide to change their minds and graciously permit me to do it. And if that time never comes, then I should just go along, like a good little Nazi.
I don't know about NH, but here in Ohio, if the "rich white men" voted marijuana decriminalization into law, then the "rich white men" would soon find themselves voted out of office and replaced by people who are committed to protecting Ohio citizens and Ohio families from marijuana dealers and marijuana junkies, and who would criminalize marijuana once again. But that's not an issue right now since here in Ohio right now the "rich white men" are focused on making the penalties harsher for being a marijuana criminal, not more lenient, and certainly not on decriminalization.
QuoteNever mind that the CIA uses the drug war to bypass congressional funding so they can commit crimes without even congress knowing about it. Nah. That's no big deal. Why should that be my concern. The fact that the rest of the world hates ME, just because I was born in this landmass, and wants to commit terrorism against me, is largely because of the CIA, which has been enabled by the drug war. but in your mind it's much more important to keep me from getting a nice little high than it is to prevent murder, rape, torture, pillaging, genocide, and other crimes that have been funded through "white gold" narco-trafficking. If I might make a little book recommendation to you, read "Whiteout".
As far as I know, there isn't any pillaging or genocide going on here in the USA. If you're talking about murder, rape, torture, pillaging, and genocide that is going on in other countries, then it's not fair to ask Americans to hand over their tax dollars to police other countries, or to ask Americans to quit having the goal of a drug-free America because of stuff that's going on in other countries that doesn't even concern us.
As far as terrorism goes, we are not unique in being targeted by terrorists. Britain has been targeted by terrorists too, and they've had terrorist attacks against them, as have other countries. We had a really terrible terrorist attack on 9/11, but that doesn't mean we're the only country that's ever suffered a terrorist attack, so don't feel like we're being singled out.
you've given me many more reasons to never go to Ohio.
Ok, Luke, let's go down this rabbit hole a little. I think you're getting close, and you don't even know it yet.
QuoteIf you're talking about murder, rape, torture, pillaging, and genocide that is going on in other countries, then it's not fair to ask Americans to hand over their tax dollars to police other countries, or to ask Americans to quit having the goal of a drug-free America because of stuff that's going on in other countries that doesn't even concern us.
As far as terrorism goes, we are not unique in being targeted by terrorists. Britain has been targeted by terrorists too, and they've had terrorist attacks against them, as have other countries. We had a really terrible terrorist attack on 9/11, but that doesn't mean we're the only country that's ever suffered a terrorist attack, so don't feel like we're being singled out.
I am talking about Murder, rape, torture, pillaging, and genocide that is going on in other countries. But it's murder, rape, torture, pillaging, and genocide that is going on as a direct result of criminal actions committed by the Central Intelligence Agency.
Ok, let's look at two regions. First, you've got Central America. Costa Rica decided to play by the American rules, so they got away with very little American meddling in their affairs. But Honduras is practically a CIA client station. El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua were subjected to brutal "civil wars" where the US (particularly the CIA) was supporting military or paramilitary groups dedicated to defeating leftists movements. So, the US sets up a terrorist training facility. Let's be honest and call it what it was, because those guys were doing stuff that can only be defined as terrorism, and we were training them at Fort Benning in Georgia. It was given the cute little moniker "School of the Americas" where the US government trained latin american guerrillas in the art of brutality and terrorism. For more info, you can go here: http://www.soaw.org/
Anyway, so here's a famous example of the type of stuff that's going on. Like in El Salvador. You've got a guy named Oscar Romero, who is a bishop of the Catholic church, but he's a little too concerned about the poor for our tastes. So one of the SOA grads busts in and shoots the guy in the head while he's delivering a mass to his church. Stuff like that. It becomes a daily occurrence, right. And of course, the US guvmint doesn't just train these guys, they need weapons too. So the US keeps sending them weapons.
Well, Congress starts to learn what some of these groups are actually doing, and since some of them at least have a conscience, and all of them are worried about getting reelected, they start to tell the President, "No more weapons to Central America" - particularly Nicaragua, which was a particularly brutal affair. Congress cuts off the funding and forbids the CIA from spending any more money to fund terrorism in Nicaragua.
Enter a guy named Oliver North. Now Ollie's not going to let a little thing like morality stand in the way of funding his terrorist proxy wars. So he starts arranging arms deals, to bypass congressional funding and continue funding the Contras (terrorists) in Nicaragua. But what's interesting is how much of the funding came from cocaine, with the CIA personally running drug flights, as was detailed in Ollie's journals. Now, the American Congress eventually caught on to this charade and now the arms deals are common knowledge, but the drug deals haven't worked their way into mainstream consciousness.
Now, if you want to know why Latin Americans dislike the US so much, all you need to do is look at what the US government has been doing to them for the past half century.
What about the Arabs. Well, can you name a Middle Eastern vicious dictator who hasn't been funded by Washington? Saddam Hussein? Yep, he was "our guy". So was the Shah. (The CIA personally overthrew Mohammed Mossedegh and installed the Shah, who proceeded to commit crimes against his countrymen until they finally got fed up and overthrew the Shah, establishing the current theocracy in Iran. So is the Saudi Royal family.
So you've got these horrible murderers who receive funding from the US to keep them in power. This is going on all over the world. But sometimes, a guy who isn't "our guy" gets in power in a country, and that's when the CIA goes into overtime trying to overthrow that guy. (Think, Fidel Castro here.) And to overthrow governments, we have to create bad situations and discontent within that country, which is most effective by using violence and paramilitary groups. And that ain't cheap. You know, terrorism isn't free. But the problem is, where do we get the money to do these evil things. Congress is a little reluctant to earmark $100 Million to sow seeds of discontent in, say, Venezuela by random killings and assassinations, destruction of property, as well as economic warfare. I mean, don't get me wrong, Congress will vote for evil things. For instance, Plan Colombia, part of which says that we are going to spray food crops of desperately poor Colombian farmers with herbicide. Yeah, Congress will vote for evil things. But they like to keep it on the downlow as much as possible, and the problem is those pesky american dissidents are always throwing a fit every time we do something Nazi-esque. So Congress just won't pay for all the evil that we need to accomplish around the world.
If only there were a product that we could sell and launder the proceeds. A product that would generate quick amounts of cash. If only.
Ever noticed that the countries where the CIA is most active are also the countries that produce the most amount of drug?
Read Whiteout, Luke. Then we can talk more.
Quote from: Caleb on April 15, 2008, 09:54 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 15, 2008, 08:57 PM NHFT
Tom Sawyer, I'm just curious, are you that kid I saw in the UN flag burning video that I saw?
I think this calls for a new Shire Playing Card -- Tom Sawyer trapped in a child's body. >:D
More personal questions from Luke.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 16, 2008, 01:50 AM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on April 15, 2008, 09:54 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 15, 2008, 08:57 PM NHFT
Tom Sawyer, I'm just curious, are you that kid I saw in the UN flag burning video that I saw?
I think this calls for a new Shire Playing Card -- Tom Sawyer trapped in a child's body. >:D
More personal questions from Luke.
Kat I agree that he is asking alot of odd personal questions without even trying to build a positive reputation. Perhaps he is a clumsy Federal agent ;) Unlikely I am sure.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 16, 2008, 01:50 AM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on April 15, 2008, 09:54 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 15, 2008, 08:57 PM NHFT
Tom Sawyer, I'm just curious, are you that kid I saw in the UN flag burning video that I saw?
I think this calls for a new Shire Playing Card -- Tom Sawyer trapped in a child's body. >:D
More personal questions from Luke.
I'm sorry. The reason why I asked was because the kid in his avatar looks
exactly like the kid I saw on that video.
Quote from: Luke S on April 16, 2008, 02:39 AM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 16, 2008, 01:50 AM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on April 15, 2008, 09:54 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 15, 2008, 08:57 PM NHFT
Tom Sawyer, I'm just curious, are you that kid I saw in the UN flag burning video that I saw?
I think this calls for a new Shire Playing Card -- Tom Sawyer trapped in a child's body. >:D
More personal questions from Luke.
I'm sorry. The reason why I asked was because the kid in his avatar looks exactly like the kid I saw on that video.
Well maybe not exactly, maybe just a lot like. It's hard to tell.
Quote from: Landon Jeffery on April 16, 2008, 02:02 AM NHFT
Kat I agree that he is asking alot of odd personal questions without even trying to build a positive reputation.
Well let's see... what would give me a positive reputation...
I've burnt UN flags right in front of UN supporters before. I hate the UN. I hate Social Security. I hate Alphabet Agencies. I hate Medicaid and Medicare. I hate NAFTA. I hate the nanny state. I hate the sue-happy culture. I hate race-agitators. I hate gender-agitators. I hate socialists. I hate gun-grabbers. I hate the income tax. I hate Real ID.
There ya go. That's 90% of your platform right there, ain't it?
Quote from: Luke S on April 16, 2008, 03:04 AM NHFT
I hate race-agitators. I hate gender-agitators. I hate socialists. I hate gun-grabbers. I hate the income tax. I hate Real ID.
But you support building a wall around the US. You support the initiation of violence towards non violent people that are not harming others. So you must hate Individuals.
You must hate someone coming to this country without jumping through all the hoops that the government unfairly places in their way. I never had to jump through any hoops as I was born here. What more of a right do I have than they who could not choose where they were born?
You are heartless and insensitive to someone who may just want to get a little high. Why should I not have a right to my body? I don't care about some government approvel of what I can put into my body because it is my body and I understand that I and only I am responsible for what my body does. With that in mind I consider my reaction to the substances I put into my body. You claim that I will lose my mind and I won't be able to make that kind of decision. Your reasoning does not stand up in the face of numerous experiences I have had using(not abusing) what ever chemical, or natural, substance that I so choose willingly.
Quote from: Luke S on April 15, 2008, 10:42 PM NHFT...the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.
I want to know how I am supposed to write something on a piece of paper in order for it to become the "Supreme Law of the Land". In Dungeons and Dragons, if you wanted to write a magical spell scroll like the Constitution, you had to like use dragon blood and crush a pearl and put it in the ink, and then you had to memorize the magical spell that you wanted to empower the magical scroll with and you spent however many hours painstakingly scribing the scroll. If you made one tiny little mistake, the magic was ruined.
OK, so I'm sure it's a difficult process but apparently the founding fathers figured it out. Oh wait! That's right. We're living the the REAL WORLD, not The World of Grey-the-fucking-Hawk. Listening to statists spout their mumbo jumbo is like watching video of the snake handlers and strychnine drinkers in South Georgia. I realize you were raised to believe in this magical mumbo jumbo, but how do you not come to your senses when the irrationality of it is pointed out? What will it take for me to convince you that the founding fathers, the founders of this bullshit cult of statism, were just regular people like you and me, and when they write something down it doesn't cast a polymorph spell or a limited wish spell or a protection from evil spell. It just sits there on the paper because it's fucking normal ink on normal paper, written by people who were most definitely not Gandalf the Gray.
If that reality ever settles in, you might begin to understand why minions of the state are walking all over our rights and passing gun laws and enforcing them and stealing our money and on and on and on. But keep believing in the Constitution so you can feel comfy and cozy in your little fantasy land.
Oh, cartoon idea!
Quote from: 'Luke S'There ya go. That's 90% of your platform right there, ain't it?
You agree about 90% of the issues, but spit in the face of the platform. The platform is liberty, that using force or the threat of force to tell people how they must or mustn't live their lives is acceptable under ANY circumstance.
Quote from: Kevin Dean on April 16, 2008, 12:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: 'Luke S'There ya go. That's 90% of your platform right there, ain't it?
You agree about 90% of the issues, but spit in the face of the platform. The platform is liberty, that using force or the threat of force to tell people how they must or mustn't live their lives is acceptable under ANY circumstance.
I'm sure you meant un-acceptable right kevin?
Quote from: Kevin Dean on April 16, 2008, 12:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: 'Luke S'There ya go. That's 90% of your platform right there, ain't it?
You agree about 90% of the issues, but spit in the face of the platform. The platform is liberty, that using force or the threat of force to tell people how they must or mustn't live their lives is unacceptable under ANY circumstance.
:icon_pirat:
Quote from: babalugatz on April 15, 2008, 02:13 PM NHFT
...poking the bear on the side of the road in the middle of the night is just moronic. you're not going to accomplish a thing...
I agree that "poking" the government is counterproductive, and the message gets lost.
"Poking" occurs when one engages in actions one would not normally engage in, for the purpose of eliciting a reaction.
That is not the case with Lauren. She was simply minding her own business, doing exactly what she would have been doing if there was nobody around to interfere with her business. It was under those conditions that the cops forcibly inserted themselves into her life against her will.
Now seriously, who was poking who??!
Also, the proper audience for our message is (imo) not the government stooges themselves; but rather, the general public whose support empowers them to transgress against dissenting individuals. By refusing to meekly sanction the actions of the police as most people would, and by calling those actions into question on a public videotape, Lauren et al potentially caused a lot of members of the general public to think about these issues from a brand new perspective. That is what I call progress -- slow and painful as it may be.
It takes some serious fortitude to do the unpopular but
principled thing, and stand up to the bullies, as Lauren did. She is a hero. The jackbooted thugs who meekly "do their jobs" without ever giving thought to proper interaction with
their equals, are despicable scum -- no matter how much their conduct is in keeping with the government's arbitrary standards of "professionalism".
Quote from: srqrebel on April 16, 2008, 01:48 PM NHFT
Quote from: babalugatz on April 15, 2008, 02:13 PM NHFT
...poking the bear on the side of the road in the middle of the night is just moronic. you're not going to accomplish a thing...
I agree that "poking" the government is counterproductive, and the message gets lost.
"Poking" occurs when one engages in actions one would not normally engage in, for the purpose of eliciting a reaction.
That is not the case with Lauren. She was simply minding her own business, doing exactly what she would have been doing if there was nobody around to interfere with her business. It was under those conditions that the cops forcibly inserted themselves into her life against her will. Now seriously, who was poking who??!
Also, the proper audience for our message is (imo) not the government stooges themselves; but rather, the general public whose support empowers them to transgress against dissenting individuals. By refusing to meekly sanction the actions of the police as most people would, and by calling those actions into question on a public videotape, Lauren et al potentially caused a lot of members of the general public to think about these issues from a brand new perspective. That is what I call progress -- slow and painful as it may be.
It takes some serious fortitude to do the unpopular but principled thing, and stand up to the bullies, as Lauren did. She is a hero. The jackbooted thugs who meekly "do their jobs" without ever giving thought to proper interaction with their equals, are despicable scum -- no matter how much their conduct is in keeping with the government's arbitrary standards of "professionalism".
okokok
i wasn't talking about ms. canario's actions re:poking the bear.
she didn't act like an ahole w/ the cops
she was doin her civil disobedience thing...fine & dandy
i WAS referring re: poking the bear unnecessarily to the cameraman.
his innane actions had NOTHING to do w/ l.c.'s protest over licensing; he was simply trying to goad the cops into flipping out on him..it wasn't working, but he wouldn't shut the fuck up.
highly trained professional police officers such as they are would have no problem handling themselves in situations where people may try to agitate them or elicit a negative response. They're 'our nation's finest' our public servants. Police always handle themselves in the utmost professional manner even when it comes down to the few whose sole purpose is to draw them out.
coughbscough
baba, they'll turn on you in a second. You're not part of this brotherhood they have going.
Quote from: Caleb on April 16, 2008, 12:21 AM NHFT
Ok, Luke, let's go down this rabbit hole a little. I think you're getting close, and you don't even know it yet.
QuoteIf you're talking about murder, rape, torture, pillaging, and genocide that is going on in other countries, then it's not fair to ask Americans to hand over their tax dollars to police other countries, or to ask Americans to quit having the goal of a drug-free America because of stuff that's going on in other countries that doesn't even concern us.
As far as terrorism goes, we are not unique in being targeted by terrorists. Britain has been targeted by terrorists too, and they've had terrorist attacks against them, as have other countries. We had a really terrible terrorist attack on 9/11, but that doesn't mean we're the only country that's ever suffered a terrorist attack, so don't feel like we're being singled out.
I am talking about Murder, rape, torture, pillaging, and genocide that is going on in other countries. But it's murder, rape, torture, pillaging, and genocide that is going on as a direct result of criminal actions committed by the Central Intelligence Agency.
Ok, let's look at two regions. First, you've got Central America. Costa Rica decided to play by the American rules, so they got away with very little American meddling in their affairs. But Honduras is practically a CIA client station. El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua were subjected to brutal "civil wars" where the US (particularly the CIA) was supporting military or paramilitary groups dedicated to defeating leftists movements. So, the US sets up a terrorist training facility. Let's be honest and call it what it was, because those guys were doing stuff that can only be defined as terrorism, and we were training them at Fort Benning in Georgia. It was given the cute little moniker "School of the Americas" where the US government trained latin american guerrillas in the art of brutality and terrorism. For more info, you can go here: http://www.soaw.org/
Anyway, so here's a famous example of the type of stuff that's going on. Like in El Salvador. You've got a guy named Oscar Romero, who is a bishop of the Catholic church, but he's a little too concerned about the poor for our tastes. So one of the SOA grads busts in and shoots the guy in the head while he's delivering a mass to his church. Stuff like that. It becomes a daily occurrence, right. And of course, the US guvmint doesn't just train these guys, they need weapons too. So the US keeps sending them weapons.
Well, Congress starts to learn what some of these groups are actually doing, and since some of them at least have a conscience, and all of them are worried about getting reelected, they start to tell the President, "No more weapons to Central America" - particularly Nicaragua, which was a particularly brutal affair. Congress cuts off the funding and forbids the CIA from spending any more money to fund terrorism in Nicaragua.
Enter a guy named Oliver North. Now Ollie's not going to let a little thing like morality stand in the way of funding his terrorist proxy wars. So he starts arranging arms deals, to bypass congressional funding and continue funding the Contras (terrorists) in Nicaragua. But what's interesting is how much of the funding came from cocaine, with the CIA personally running drug flights, as was detailed in Ollie's journals. Now, the American Congress eventually caught on to this charade and now the arms deals are common knowledge, but the drug deals haven't worked their way into mainstream consciousness.
Now, if you want to know why Latin Americans dislike the US so much, all you need to do is look at what the US government has been doing to them for the past half century.
What about the Arabs. Well, can you name a Middle Eastern vicious dictator who hasn't been funded by Washington? Saddam Hussein? Yep, he was "our guy". So was the Shah. (The CIA personally overthrew Mohammed Mossedegh and installed the Shah, who proceeded to commit crimes against his countrymen until they finally got fed up and overthrew the Shah, establishing the current theocracy in Iran. So is the Saudi Royal family.
So you've got these horrible murderers who receive funding from the US to keep them in power. This is going on all over the world. But sometimes, a guy who isn't "our guy" gets in power in a country, and that's when the CIA goes into overtime trying to overthrow that guy. (Think, Fidel Castro here.) And to overthrow governments, we have to create bad situations and discontent within that country, which is most effective by using violence and paramilitary groups. And that ain't cheap. You know, terrorism isn't free. But the problem is, where do we get the money to do these evil things. Congress is a little reluctant to earmark $100 Million to sow seeds of discontent in, say, Venezuela by random killings and assassinations, destruction of property, as well as economic warfare. I mean, don't get me wrong, Congress will vote for evil things. For instance, Plan Colombia, part of which says that we are going to spray food crops of desperately poor Colombian farmers with herbicide. Yeah, Congress will vote for evil things. But they like to keep it on the downlow as much as possible, and the problem is those pesky american dissidents are always throwing a fit every time we do something Nazi-esque. So Congress just won't pay for all the evil that we need to accomplish around the world.
If only there were a product that we could sell and launder the proceeds. A product that would generate quick amounts of cash. If only.
Ever noticed that the countries where the CIA is most active are also the countries that produce the most amount of drug?
Read Whiteout, Luke. Then we can talk more.
Ok, I will read the book. But right off the bat I'd like to say that I find Oliver North's actions absolutely disgusting, and even quasi-treasonous. Oliver North sold US weapons to an enemy of the USA in order to fund an illegal war that has absolutely nothing to do with the USA. I don't know how in the world he got out of going to prison. Fact is, he should have gone to prison, and to this day he should still be in there for what he did.
I am very much for making examples of lawbreakers, as many conservatives are. But in addition to that usual conservative stance, I think that government officials who are caught breaking the law should have the biggest examples of all made of them.
Oh, and you know who else Oliver North reminds me of? Bob Ney and Bob Taft.
Bob Ney and Bob Taft make me absolutely want to vomit. Who are they you ask? Two corrupt Ohio politicians, the first a former US Representative from Ohio, the latter a former Ohio governor. What Ney did is he sold votes/favors to lobbyists.
Both Bob Ney and Bob Taft should have gone directly to prison for what they did. In fact Ney went to prison, and he's still there, but Taft got out of going. Actually to tell you the truth what Taft did wasn't as bad as what Ney did (i.e., taking golf trips from lobbyists without reporting it), but what he did is still against the law, and what makes me really mad about Taft is that he really didn't seem sorry when he had to fess up to what he did. I mean, he did all the lip service and all that, but I was not convinced at all that he was really sorry.
Now you all may not like me because I think marijuana criminals need to face justice. But don't think for an instant that I will do what many Republicans will do, which is to say that criminals need to face justice, and then turn around and defend people like North, Ney, and Taft, and say that they don't need to face justice.
Because I won't go there.
Quote from: Landon Jeffery on April 16, 2008, 03:19 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 16, 2008, 03:04 AM NHFT
I hate race-agitators. I hate gender-agitators. I hate socialists. I hate gun-grabbers. I hate the income tax. I hate Real ID.
But you support building a wall around the US. You support the initiation of violence towards non violent people that are not harming others. So you must hate Individuals.
You must hate someone coming to this country without jumping through all the hoops that the government unfairly places in their way. I never had to jump through any hoops as I was born here. What more of a right do I have than they who could not choose where they were born?
If you guys are opposed to NAFTA and the NAU, then by default you must also be opposed to this notion of "erasing the borders" which you seem to have. And if you are opposed to the notion of erasing the borders, then by default you must be in favor of the notion of keeping the borders. And if you are in favor of keeping the borders, then given the current situation on the southern border, you must be in favor of strengthening the southern border against the illegal border crossing which has been going on in droves there. Now from there, there are two ways which you can proceed: you can simply hire more and more border agents, or you can build a border wall. The thing is, there are so many people trying to cross that border that the border agents are often outmanned no matter how many of them we seem to hire. Thus they need something substantial to help them keep the border secure. Enter the border wall.
Quote
You are heartless and insensitive to someone who may just want to get a little high. Why should I not have a right to my body? I don't care about some government approvel of what I can put into my body because it is my body and I understand that I and only I am responsible for what my body does. With that in mind I consider my reaction to the substances I put into my body. You claim that I will lose my mind and I won't be able to make that kind of decision. Your reasoning does not stand up in the face of numerous experiences I have had using(not abusing) what ever chemical, or natural, substance that I so choose willingly.
There is absolutely no "right to get high" enumerated in the US constitution, nor in any of the constitutions nor statues of any state. There is, however, a
duty of each government within the US to protect its citizens from criminals and the crimes that they commit.
Now let's go back to Caleb's simulation of marijuana smokers that he has so graciously provided for us:
Quote from: Caleb"Whoa, dude, these bricks they're like hard but they're also soft. They're like sand, if you rub them sand comes off, but like, they're also, like, hard, like steel, only not like steel. But hard like steel. Kind of like a penis, if you think about it. hard. but soft. It's like they're sandy, but at the same time inpenetrable. But if they're made of sand, that makes them, like, glass, or chemically, or maybe, spiritually, the same as glass. But not glass, cause you can't see through it. But I wonder, I bet you can see through it. Like, maybe you just have to be at the right vibration or pulse or...I don't know the word, but I think like, if we were in a different phase, or dimension, we could see through the bricks. Whoa. That's like, really deep. I'm tired." Lays down, and looks up at the sky. "Dude ... do you think those clouds are like ... alive? I mean, we don't know what they're thinking ..."
Again, it's obvious that these people are in a very delusional state, as they are speaking complete and utter nonsense. If they are convinced that that brick has a "secret spiritual dimension" in which it is a see-through brick, what's to prevent them from thinking that they heard that brick talking to them and telling them to break into somebody's house? If they are convinced that those clouds have the ability to think, what's to stop them from becoming convinced that those clouds also have the ability to talk, and are telling them to go out and steal somebody's car?
So again, there is no "right to get high", and looking at the simulation that Caleb provided for us, it's pretty apparent why the Founding Fathers didn't create one, and why contemporary legislators are in no rush to create one, either.
Quote from: babalugatz on April 16, 2008, 03:05 PM NHFT
i wasn't talking about ms. canario's actions re:poking the bear.
she didn't act like an ahole w/ the cops
she was doin her civil disobedience thing...fine & dandy
i WAS referring re: poking the bear unnecessarily to the cameraman.
his innane actions had NOTHING to do w/ l.c.'s protest over licensing; he was simply trying to goad the cops into flipping out on him..it wasn't working, but he wouldn't shut the fuck up.
Fair enough.
In case you are not aware, the cameraman was Lauren's husband. Clearly, under the circumstances emotions were running a bit high.
I still think the questions were pertinent, and the delivery remarkably calm considering the emotional stress Lauren's husband was under.
The reason I consider the questions pertinent, is because they would be considered
more than reasonable if he was being detained by any other complete stranger with his hand on his gun.
I have a serious problem with the notion that a double standard should exist for someone wearing a dark blue uniform and a shiny badge -- especially given their track record of caring only about the rules of the criminal gang they belong to, rather than honoring the inherent rights of their equals.
[/quote]
There is absolutely no "right to get high" enumerated in the US constitution, nor in any of the constitutions nor statues of any state. There is, however, a duty of each government within the US to protect its citizens from criminals and the crimes that they commit.
[/quote]
Ever read the 9th Amendment? There's where your enumeration is bro.
Quote from: Luke S on April 17, 2008, 10:43 AM NHFT
If you guys are opposed to NAFTA and the NAU, then by default you must also be opposed to this notion of "erasing the borders" which you seem to have.
I oppose NAFTA and the NAU because they're tools of the government to enable rich, powerful U.S. corporations to become richer and more powerful by taking advantage of the markets that Mexico would provide. NAFTA is notorious for wrecking the Mexican farming economy, allowing U.S. corporations to dump cheap (subsidized) American food products into Mexican markets—which, among other things, makes Mexican farmers flee to the U.S. in order to find work. NAFTA is colonialism done through economic finagling instead of occupation. And the NAU is about creating a single
State spanning the entire continent.
I'm not opposed to eliminating borders
per se, provided it's not part of a ploy such as the above. As someone who doesn't believe in the legitimacy of the State I don't believe in its invisible lines on a map, either.
Quote from: Luke S on April 17, 2008, 10:43 AM NHFT
There is absolutely no "right to get high" enumerated in the US constitution, nor in any of the constitutions nor statues of any state. There is, however, a duty of each government within the US to protect its citizens from criminals and the crimes that they commit.
How is stopping someone from doing a drug
themselves protecting citizens from criminals? It's "protecting" the citizen from himself.
Quote from: Luke S on April 17, 2008, 10:43 AM NHFT
If you guys are opposed to NAFTA and the NAU, then by default you must also be opposed to this notion of "erasing the borders" which you seem to have. And if you are opposed to the notion of erasing the borders, then by default you must be in favor of the notion of keeping the borders. And if you are in favor of keeping the borders, then given the current situation on the southern border, you must be in favor of strengthening the southern border against the illegal border crossing which has been going on in droves there. Now from there, there are two ways which you can proceed: you can simply hire more and more border agents, or you can build a border wall. The thing is, there are so many people trying to cross that border that the border agents are often outmanned no matter how many of them we seem to hire. Thus they need something substantial to help them keep the border secure. Enter the border wall.
Did you even read what I wrote? I don't care if there are mexicans coming in droves to the US. Why should I or you care? You can't even answer my questions.
Quote
There is absolutely no "right to get high" enumerated in the US constitution, nor in any of the constitutions nor statues of any state. There is, however, a duty of each government within the US to protect its citizens from criminals and the crimes that they commit.
Now let's go back to Caleb's simulation of marijuana smokers that he has so graciously provided for us:
Quote from: Caleb"Whoa, dude, these bricks they're like hard but they're also soft. They're like sand, if you rub them sand comes off, but like, they're also, like, hard, like steel, only not like steel. But hard like steel. Kind of like a penis, if you think about it. hard. but soft. It's like they're sandy, but at the same time inpenetrable. But if they're made of sand, that makes them, like, glass, or chemically, or maybe, spiritually, the same as glass. But not glass, cause you can't see through it. But I wonder, I bet you can see through it. Like, maybe you just have to be at the right vibration or pulse or...I don't know the word, but I think like, if we were in a different phase, or dimension, we could see through the bricks. Whoa. That's like, really deep. I'm tired." Lays down, and looks up at the sky. "Dude ... do you think those clouds are like ... alive? I mean, we don't know what they're thinking ..."
Again, it's obvious that these people are in a very delusional state, as they are speaking complete and utter nonsense. If they are convinced that that brick has a "secret spiritual dimension" in which it is a see-through brick, what's to prevent them from thinking that they heard that brick talking to them and telling them to break into somebody's house? If they are convinced that those clouds have the ability to think, what's to stop them from becoming convinced that those clouds also have the ability to talk, and are telling them to go out and steal somebody's car?
So again, there is no "right to get high", and looking at the simulation that Caleb provided for us, it's pretty apparent why the Founding Fathers didn't create one, and why contemporary legislators are in no rush to create one, either.
This is a sidestep answer to my question. First off I don't need the constitution to "grant" me the right to get high. It is a natural right as only I can lay claim to my one and only body. The constitution is to constrain the government not to grant individuals rights and I hate how when I listen to the news and watch people like Bill O'Rielly(I bet you love him luke) they seem to think that if something is not in the constitution that you can't do it. Fuck that. Secondly I have never expierienced in my life a cloud or other inanimate object tell me what to do. If one does and I am stupid enough to follow its directions and enact violence on another then I deserve the consequences at that point. However just injesting something will not guarantee my commitance of a true crime. But let me make an example:
"Heeey Lou pass me a beer!" "what? did you just call me a queer" slurrs speach... "No man." "I fuckin heard it with my own twoo ears." Takes another swig of vodka "I swear it man" "I'll show you who's a queer." Swings fists at mike and gives him a bloody nose, Then Lou passes out.
Hmmm. I am sure that kind of behavior happens all the time when people drink. I suppose the alcohol drove him crazy. He was hearing things that weren't said. So your argument again does not hold up to logic. Your ideas are completely arbitrary and are based upon no moral ground. You cannot logically say that the government is trying to protect us from criminals(the ones supposedly "created" when they ingest pot) and still have alcohol legal(see story above). I wish you would have acknowleged my questions or at least attempted to answer them but instead you just wanted to say the same stuff you have been posting since day one in this forum.
Quote from: Luke S on April 15, 2008, 10:42 PM NHFT
As far as terrorism goes, we are not unique in being targeted by terrorists. Britain has been targeted by terrorists too, and they've had terrorist attacks against them, as have other countries. We had a really terrible terrorist attack on 9/11, but that doesn't mean we're the only country that's ever suffered a terrorist attack, so don't feel like we're being singled out.
...yeah, we've been responsible for plenty ourselves...
Quote from: Luke S on April 17, 2008, 10:43 AM NHFT
Now let's go back to Caleb's simulation of marijuana smokers that he has so graciously provided for us:
Quote from: Caleb"Whoa, dude, these bricks they're like hard but they're also soft. They're like sand, if you rub them sand comes off, but like, they're also, like, hard, like steel, only not like steel. But hard like steel. Kind of like a penis, if you think about it. hard. but soft. It's like they're sandy, but at the same time inpenetrable. But if they're made of sand, that makes them, like, glass, or chemically, or maybe, spiritually, the same as glass. But not glass, cause you can't see through it. But I wonder, I bet you can see through it. Like, maybe you just have to be at the right vibration or pulse or...I don't know the word, but I think like, if we were in a different phase, or dimension, we could see through the bricks. Whoa. That's like, really deep. I'm tired." Lays down, and looks up at the sky. "Dude ... do you think those clouds are like ... alive? I mean, we don't know what they're thinking ..."
Again, it's obvious that these people are in a very delusional state, as they are speaking complete and utter nonsense. If they are convinced that that brick has a "secret spiritual dimension" in which it is a see-through brick, what's to prevent them from thinking that they heard that brick talking to them and telling them to break into somebody's house? If they are convinced that those clouds have the ability to think, what's to stop them from becoming convinced that those clouds also have the ability to talk, and are telling them to go out and steal somebody's car?
So again, there is no "right to get high", and looking at the simulation that Caleb provided for us, it's pretty apparent why the Founding Fathers didn't create one, and why contemporary legislators are in no rush to create one, either.
Its satire man - an
exaggeration that apparently fits your very naive misconceptions of a pot smoker.
Pot is not a hallucinogenic - bricks and other inanimate objects aren't perceived to be talking when you smoke it!
No one who wasn't already dellusional while sober, is EVER going to be convinced by a brick that they should do
anything.I have to wonder, with your bizarre ideas of what a pot smoker is and does, if
you're not high...
I think everyone here who has had
experience with both would agree, that alcohol is far more of an interference to your mental and physical capacities than pot. And yet thats perfectly legal isn't it?
is there a right to drink coca cola? No? Those damn forefathers only THOUGHT they took care of everything. Luke, your arguments lead me to believe you're eating mushrooms.
it's ok, it's your right.
Quote from: Landon Jeffery on April 17, 2008, 12:02 PM NHFTI wish you would have acknowleged my questions or at least attempted to answer them but instead you just wanted to say the same stuff you have been posting since day one in this forum.
I've lost count of how many of my questions have been ignored by Luke. He can't answer them sensibly. Luke, you need to watch that video of the hearing at the state house about reducing penalties for marijuana possession in NH. It's about 45 mins long. Does someone have the link? They address lots of fallacies about marijuana, particularly in how it compares to other drugs like alcohol and tobacco.
Quote from: dalebert on April 17, 2008, 03:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: Landon Jeffery on April 17, 2008, 12:02 PM NHFTI wish you would have acknowleged my questions or at least attempted to answer them but instead you just wanted to say the same stuff you have been posting since day one in this forum.
I've lost count of how many of my questions have been ignored by Luke. He can't answer them sensibly. Luke, you need to watch that video of the hearing at the state house about reducing penalties for marijuana possession in NH. It's about 45 mins long. Does someone have the link? They address lots of fallacies about marijuana, particularly in how it compares to other drugs like alcohol and tobacco.
I doubt even if you had the link he would acknowledge the harmlessness of pot. He seems to set in his ways.
Quote from: Luke S on April 17, 2008, 10:43 AM NHFT
So again, there is no "right to get high", and looking at the simulation that Caleb provided for us, it's pretty apparent why the Founding Fathers didn't create one, and why contemporary legislators are in no rush to create one, either.
Who are these "Founding Fathers" that you speak of? Would George Washington count as a founding father? Do you know that he grew marijuana, and begged his fellow Virginians to plant it instead of tobacco.
The more you know... 8)
Quote from: BaneOfTheBeast on April 17, 2008, 01:32 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 17, 2008, 10:43 AM NHFT
Now let's go back to Caleb's simulation of marijuana smokers that he has so graciously provided for us:
Quote from: Caleb"Whoa, dude, these bricks they're like hard but they're also soft. They're like sand, if you rub them sand comes off, but like, they're also, like, hard, like steel, only not like steel. But hard like steel. Kind of like a penis, if you think about it. hard. but soft. It's like they're sandy, but at the same time inpenetrable. But if they're made of sand, that makes them, like, glass, or chemically, or maybe, spiritually, the same as glass. But not glass, cause you can't see through it. But I wonder, I bet you can see through it. Like, maybe you just have to be at the right vibration or pulse or...I don't know the word, but I think like, if we were in a different phase, or dimension, we could see through the bricks. Whoa. That's like, really deep. I'm tired." Lays down, and looks up at the sky. "Dude ... do you think those clouds are like ... alive? I mean, we don't know what they're thinking ..."
Again, it's obvious that these people are in a very delusional state, as they are speaking complete and utter nonsense. If they are convinced that that brick has a "secret spiritual dimension" in which it is a see-through brick, what's to prevent them from thinking that they heard that brick talking to them and telling them to break into somebody's house? If they are convinced that those clouds have the ability to think, what's to stop them from becoming convinced that those clouds also have the ability to talk, and are telling them to go out and steal somebody's car?
So again, there is no "right to get high", and looking at the simulation that Caleb provided for us, it's pretty apparent why the Founding Fathers didn't create one, and why contemporary legislators are in no rush to create one, either.
Its satire man - an exaggeration that apparently fits your very naive misconceptions of a pot smoker.
Pot is not a hallucinogenic - bricks and other inanimate objects aren't perceived to be talking when you smoke it!
No one who wasn't already dellusional while sober, is EVER going to be convinced by a brick that they should do anything.
I have to wonder, with your bizarre ideas of what a pot smoker is and does, if you're not high...
I think everyone here who has had experience with both would agree, that alcohol is far more of an interference to your mental and physical capacities than pot. And yet thats perfectly legal isn't it?
Exactly! It was satire of your ridiculous idea to send potsmokers to build a fence.
And this is not news to you. Despite me already correcting you on the actual effects of mj usage, you continue to quote me all over the place as rationale for your drug war, despite the fact that I am clearly not in agreement with your ideas, and have explicitly rejected your interpretation of my comments. This is not honest, Luke.
I will say it again: Pot causes you to ponder possibilities. It doesn't cause you to see things that aren't there or any other sort of thing like that. If you have statistical data (rather than anecdotal data) to back up your assertion that pot causes people to become violent, then please show it. Otherwise, quit acting like an expert on a subject which you have, by your own admission, absolutely no experience with.
Quote from: Luke S on April 17, 2008, 10:39 AM NHFT
Ok, I will read the book. But right off the bat I'd like to say that I find Oliver North's actions absolutely disgusting, and even quasi-treasonous. Oliver North sold US weapons to an enemy of the USA in order to fund an illegal war that has absolutely nothing to do with the USA. I don't know how in the world he got out of going to prison. Fact is, he should have gone to prison, and to this day he should still be in there for what he did.
I am very much for making examples of lawbreakers, as many conservatives are. But in addition to that usual conservative stance, I think that government officials who are caught breaking the law should have the biggest examples of all made of them.
Luke, Oliver North wasn't the criminal. Well, he was a criminal. But he was also the fallguy. This wasn't some new idea that Ollie had, some "never before tried" scheme. The CIA runs drugs routinely as a way of funding their operations. This has been known to the dissident community long before Oliver North. There are mainstream cultural references to CIA drug-running. For instance, the Lennon song
John Sinclair, (performed live on December 10, 1971) accuses the CIA of drug running. "If he'd been a soldier man, Shooting gooks in Vietnam. If he was the CIA, Selling dope and making hay. He'd be free, they'd let him be. Breathing air, like you and me."
And remember this, Luke: Even though Ollie was running drugs AND selling arms, he only got in trouble for selling arms, and that's because the CIA had been specifically forbidden by Congress to continue funding the contras. Why wasn't he in trouble for running drugs? Simple. A little thing called the Clandestine Service. I refer you to a 1996 Congressional Report on the Clandestine Service (a CIA department):
QuoteThe CS [clandestine service] is the only part of the IC [intelligence community], indeed of the government, where hundreds of employees on a daily basis are directed to break extremely serious laws in countries around the world in the face of frequently sophisticated efforts by foreign governments to catch them. A safe estimate is that several hundred times every day (easily 100,000 times a year) DO [Directorate of Operations] officers engage in highly illegal activities (according to foreign law) that not only risk political embarrassment to the US but also endanger the freedom if not lives of the participating foreign nationals and, more than occasionally, of the clandestine officer himself.
The short answer is that it isn't illegal for the CIA to run drugs. They are, by law, permitted to break the law.
Quote from: Caleb on April 17, 2008, 09:18 PM NHFT
And remember this, Luke: Even though Ollie was running drugs AND selling arms, he only got in trouble for selling arms, and that's because the CIA had been specifically forbidden by Congress to continue funding the contras. Why wasn't he in trouble for running drugs? Simple. A little thing called the Clandestine Service. I refer you to a 1996 Congressional Report on the Clandestine Service (a CIA department):
QuoteThe CS [clandestine service] is the only part of the IC [intelligence community], indeed of the government, where hundreds of employees on a daily basis are directed to break extremely serious laws in countries around the world in the face of frequently sophisticated efforts by foreign governments to catch them. A safe estimate is that several hundred times every day (easily 100,000 times a year) DO [Directorate of Operations] officers engage in highly illegal activities (according to foreign law) that not only risk political embarrassment to the US but also endanger the freedom if not lives of the participating foreign nationals and, more than occasionally, of the clandestine officer himself.
The short answer is that it isn't illegal for the CIA to run drugs. They are, by law, permitted to break the law.
:o Ooooooooooooohh mmmmmmy Goooooooooodd. :o
And it's right on the government's website, too.
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house/intel/ic21/ic21009.html
Well I'll be damned. Sending agents to foreign countries to commit extremely serious crimes...Oh my God.
It doesn't mention the countries that they sent the agents to, or what crimes exactly they committed. But in any event, they admit that they're doing it. And the law
allows them to do it. Well I've never heard of such a crooked thing in my life. I mean, it's not like I didn't know that the government does illegal things behind the people's back, since all governments do that, but I had no idea that what they did was that bad.
Furthermore, what if the other countries find out that these are US agents? What if the US begins to get a reputation for being a rogue nation that sends agents everywhere to subvert the laws of other nations?
What if this causes the people who are the victims of these crimes committed by these federal agents to become terrorists and attack the US? What if the countries in which they did the crimes decides to fund the terrorism? Especially with those itty bitty little nationalist countries where you never know what they're going to do next.
This really is not only immoral, it's absolutely reckless. I mean, did the CIA
think about this before they did this, or did they just decide to do this for no particular reason? I guess we'll never know. And where was Congress when all this was going on. This was a Congressional report, so somebody in Congress must have known about this. Was their brain in the off position somehow that day?
Quote
:o Ooooooooooooohh mmmmmmy Goooooooooodd. :o
And it's right on the government's website, too.
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house/intel/ic21/ic21009.html
Well I'll be damned. Sending agents to foreign countries to commit extremely serious crimes...Oh my God.
It doesn't mention the countries that they sent the agents to, or what crimes exactly they committed. But in any event, they admit that they're doing it. And the law allows them to do it. Well I've never heard of such a crooked thing in my life. I mean, it's not like I didn't know that the government does illegal things behind the people's back, since all governments do that, but I had no idea that what they did was that bad.
Furthermore, what if the other countries find out that these are US agents? What if the US begins to get a reputation for being a rogue nation that sends agents everywhere to subvert the laws of other nations?
What if this causes the people who are the victims of these crimes committed by these federal agents to become terrorists and attack the US? What if the countries in which they did the crimes decides to fund the terrorism? Especially with those itty bitty little nationalist countries where you never know what they're going to do next.
This really is not only immoral, it's absolutely reckless. I mean, did the CIA think about this before they did this, or did they just decide to do this for no particular reason? I guess we'll never know. And where was Congress when all this was going on. This was a Congressional report, so somebody in Congress must have known about this. Was their brain in the off position somehow that day?
At first I thought you were being sarcastic. But of course that is why terrorists are attacking the people in this country. Finally we have heard some good sense from you.
Quote from: Scott Roth on April 19, 2008, 01:21 AM NHFT
R U sure about that?
Scott, 999 times out of 1000 I would have dismissed what Caleb told me about what was said on the congressional report as just a crazy conspiracy theory, believe me I would. But this time there's no way I can deny it, as it is right on the government's own website.
I suppose it's possible that the congressman who wrote the report really hated the CIA and wanted to frame them for something they didn't do, but if that was the case, then where were all the other congressmen in the committee that released the report? In la la land?? Or maybe they all hated the CIA? If the entire House Select Committee on Intelligence hates the CIA, then there is a lot they can do to make the CIA's life difficult. Because if I'm not mistaken all bills pertaining to the CIA have to go through them. So they all could have made a great big stink every time a bill about the CIA came up and done all sorts of things to hamper it. But as far as I know, that didn't happen, so I don't think they released the report that they released just because they hated the CIA.
QuoteFurthermore, what if the other countries find out that these are US agents? What if the US begins to get a reputation for being a rogue nation that sends agents everywhere to subvert the laws of other nations?
Well, we wouldn't want the US to begin to get such a reputation. ;D Luke, that IS the reputation that the US has around the world. Go anywhere else in this world, (except maybe Israel, or another client state like Micronesia or someplace like that,) and you will find anger against the U.S. for precisely that reason. They don't hate us for our freedoms, they hate us because the American government has been destroying their lives since the end of world war II.
Ok, so you have the drug war set up for several reasons actually. Of course, they want to keep the drugs war to drive drug prices up high so that they can sell them and make money, but let's not forget who started the drug war in earnest: Richard Nixon. Not exactly a saint, with nothing on his mind but helping free people from their addictions. Nope. Nixon, of course, was all about power. So what do they do as part of the drug war? Of course, we have to keep track of all of people's financial transactions so we can see whose "laundering money." Laundering money is a ridiculous charge. Basically, laundering money is the art of trying to keep the government from knowing your financial business. Not exactly a crime against humanity, is it? But Uncle Sam knows that keeping track of your financial business is crucial to maintaining control. So the drug war gives it the pretext to keep tabs on you and invade your financial privacy.
The Drug War and the War on Terror(TM) are the two main justifications for every intrusion into your privacy. And they are trying to add a third, The War on Mexican Immigrants. Which has already brought us a Real ID and Internal checkpoints, and is already showing signs of promise in permitting the government to intrude even more onto our lives. So when you say stuff like, "I agree with you on 90% of the issues, I just disagree with a couple things," well the couple things are the foundation. The couple things are the things that permit the government to do all the other 90% of things that you agree with me on. They create these bogeymen "Scary Mexicans" "Scary Drugs" and "Scary Muslims" to scare us into letting them walk all over us.
Quote from: Rebel on April 17, 2008, 11:27 AM NHFT
There is absolutely no "right to get high" enumerated in the US constitution, nor in any of the constitutions nor statues of any state. There is, however, a
duty of each government within the US to protect its citizens from criminals and the crimes that they commit.
[/quote]
Ever read the 9th Amendment? There's where your enumeration is bro.
[/quote]
And there is the whole concept of ownership of one's body, the right to manage it any way you choose, as long as your choices don't harm any other human. Choose your toothpaste, your t-shirt, your mood-altering substance, your ice cream flavour, whatever you want. Just be responsible for your choices. So if you eat a lot of ice cream, don't ask taxpayers to pay for your liposuction. You get the idea.
Ownership of one's body - absolute ownership of one's body - is the antithesis of slavery, by the way.
ff
Luke,
You're giving my home state a bad name. Read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins. It gives a good run-down on the foreign policy of the U.S. throughout the last few decades. If you think Ollie North's actions were an anomaly, you are genuinely naive. The same goes with Taft and Ney. Crooked behavior by politicians and government officials is more normal than abnormal.
Which part of Ohio are you from? Do you think it's right to lock up an 18 year old kid for smoking a joint? Do you think imprisoning misguided, nonviolent kids is a good use of taxpayer's dollars? Ohio's tough stance on drugs does nothing to ebb the flow of them. I'm speaking from experience working with troubled youth in Ohio and also from watching many people from my hometown get arrested and thrown in jail in Ohio for nonviolent offenses. Hell, Ohio prisons can't even keep drugs out of the jails!!! How do you expect them to keep them off the streets? Throwing our youth in jail for nonviolent offenses just limits their future opportunities in life and steers them toward a life of crime.
Quote from: Luke S on April 19, 2008, 02:44 AM NHFT
Scott, 999 times out of 1000 I would have dismissed what Caleb told me about what was said on the congressional report as just a crazy conspiracy theory, believe me I would. But this time there's no way I can deny it, as it is right on the government's own website.
I'm like Michael Moore. I don't believe in conspiracy theories. Except the ones that are true. 8)
Quote from: Caleb on April 19, 2008, 10:39 AM NHFT
The Drug War and the War on Terror(TM) are the two main justifications for every intrusion into your privacy. And they are trying to add a third, The War on Mexican Immigrants.
You forgot Protecting the Children. Pretty much all offensive Internet legislation is justified in order to stop "child pornography" or otherwise protect children against supposed online predators. (The remainder of attacks on online freedom is usually about protecting "intellectual property.")
Luke, you seem to have twisted things around a bit. You imply the rights we have somehow come to us from the Government as if they are granted to us. When did this happen? Did I miss a Constitutional Amendment or something? Did the Pope come here and crown GW Emperor? What did I miss?
What do you think of live and let live...is there any room for that philosophy in your world?
How does taking a person who has harmed nobody and incarcerating them benefit society?
To put it another way, if a person is smoking pot, none of your business, if a person is smoking pot and
throwing garbage at you, then it becomes your business, they've stepped over the line. Are you sure
they weren't just throwing stale nachos or something? Cuz if they were fresh nachos, the stoners would
have eaten them, there's no way they'd have thrown them...but I digress.
What is preventing you from allowing another person the right to exist in a way, that you wouldn't
choose for yourself?
Think of all the negative energy that goes into forcing people to do things...think how much better we'd all be if we decided what worked for us and left that same decision to others to make also.
I mean none of us should be a "decider" for anyone but ourselves right?
Do you like nachos? Shouldn't they be made illegal? I mean they have stuff like peppers and chili sauce on them and can burn your tongue so they are potentially harmful right? Plus some mushrooms are psycho active and eating loaded nachos could be a gateway to pot smoking. Maybe they should be by prescription only? I think there may be a corellation between Nachos and Reefer, didn't Mexican migrant worker types come here and bring reefer, now it's common place...ditto nachos, nobody ate them back in the wonder bread 70s, now we're over run with nachos! Yup definitely a connection there. Quick build a border wall, keep the reefer smoking nacho pushers out ! :weed: :liquid_smoke: :liquid_smoke:
reefer on nachos?
not that I gotta try!! ;D
kola
QuoteWell, we wouldn't want the US to begin to get such a reputation. Grin Luke, that IS the reputation that the US has around the world. Go anywhere else in this world, (except maybe Israel, or another client state like Micronesia or someplace like that,) and you will find anger against the U.S. for precisely that reason. They don't hate us for our freedoms, they hate us because the American government has been destroying their lives since the end of world war II.
On the contrary, I've heard frequently that Americans often get special treatment when they travel abroad. In fact, I know this from experience.
I remember when my family and I went to Mexico and we got all sorts of special treatment and everything. That was a long time ago, when I was young and naiive, and before I knew about all the Mexicans coming across the border and everything. Maybe the reason why Mexico lets Americans across and then Mexicans give them special treatment is that said Americans will want to give Mexicans amnesty when they cross the border illegally. Well it looks like Mexico's little plan worked, because there are an awful lot of people in favor of amnesty now, including all 3 presidential candidates.
And then we went to Switzerland, and we got a whole lot of special treatment from them. And when I went to Poland, I got special treatment from them.
So the only thing I can conclude is that the countries that if the amount of people mad at Americans is proportional to the amount of crimes that the CIA commits in their countries, then the countries that the CIA agents committed the crimes in were definitely not Switzerland or Poland. Maybe they committed the crimes in France, since when we went to France everybody was snooty to us and sometimes they would get on us for the tiniest little thing. But I've also heard that that's just the way they are, so I don't know.
But for all we know, the CIA agents could have been committing the crimes in countries that nobody ever goes to, such as Pakistan and Uganda and Zambia and places like that. I know that Al Qaeda has offices all around the world (unfortunately), and I know that some of the perpetrators of 9-11 were from Saudi Arabia and places like that (not just Afganistan), so maybe the agents committed the crimes in Saudi Arabia, and it pushed one too many Saudi Arabians over the edge, and they all joined the Saudi branch of Al Qaeda and got on those planes and crashed them into the WTC.
Quote from: Caleb on April 19, 2008, 10:39 AM NHFT
but let's not forget who started the drug war in earnest: Richard Nixon. Not exactly a saint, with nothing on his mind but helping free people from their addictions. Nope. Nixon, of course, was all about power.
First of all, I'd like to say that I find Richard Nixon's actions absolutely despicable. What Richard Nixon did is he was involved with an incident where people broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters and tried to put bugs in it so they could listen in on them. I remember my grandmother telling me about how Richard Nixon sat there and lied again and again about what he did, saying that he wasn't a crook when he
was a crook.
Richard Nixon's actions are mitigated a little bit by the fact that his opponent, George McGovern, was planning to institute policies as president that were wholly absurd.
But they are aggravated once again by the fact that Nixon was also involved in breaking in to that man's psychiatrist's office who released the pentagon papers.
But they are mitigated once again by the fact that that man was not supposed to release papers from the Pentagon. Releasing papers from the Pentagon is a no-no. He should have gotten in deep trouble for that one. All releasing those papers from the Pentagon did was give the Pentagon's info over to the enemy, and give leftist radicals more ammunition to sabotage the war effort and thereby endanger the troops, which is never acceptable under any circumstances, regardless of whether he personally agreed or disagreed with the war.
So in the end, I suppose I'm not sure who I'm angrier at, Nixon or the people on the other side of the story. It really does seem like Nixon did things to really disgrace his office, and given that his office was that of President, that is certainly not a good thing.
But George McGovern(ment) was a socialist, and the DNC was prepared to try to elect a socialist to the highest office in the country, which is not a good thing, either.
Furthermore, releasing those papers from the Pentagon is equally bad to anything that Nixon did, and actually probably
worse. So I think in the end that if Nixon should have gone to prison, and the Watergate burglers should have gone to prison (which they did), then the guy who released those Pentagon papers
certainly should have gone to prison, and maybe for even longer than Nixon.
QuoteOf course, we have to keep track of all of people's financial transactions so we can see whose "laundering money." Laundering money is a ridiculous charge. Basically, laundering money is the art of trying to keep the government from knowing your financial business. Not exactly a crime against humanity, is it? But Uncle Sam knows that keeping track of your financial business is crucial to maintaining control. So the drug war gives it the pretext to keep tabs on you and invade your financial privacy.
Sorry, I can't agree with you there. Laundering money is only a crime when the money in question was gotten from either organized crime, or illegal drug sales, or something like that. If for whatever reason someone "launders" money that is clean, then it is no crime. Money laundering laws do not exist to oppress law-abiding citizens. They exist as an additional way for the government to nab those involved in organized crime and drug sales, a very worthy goal.
QuoteThe Drug War and the War on Terror(TM) are the two main justifications for every intrusion into your privacy. And they are trying to add a third, The War on Mexican Immigrants. Which has already brought us a Real ID and Internal checkpoints, and is already showing signs of promise in permitting the government to intrude even more onto our lives. So when you say stuff like, "I agree with you on 90% of the issues, I just disagree with a couple things," well the couple things are the foundation. The couple things are the things that permit the government to do all the other 90% of things that you agree with me on. They create these bogeymen "Scary Mexicans" "Scary Drugs" and "Scary Muslims" to scare us into letting them walk all over us.
Quote
You forgot Protecting the Children. Pretty much all offensive Internet legislation is justified in order to stop "child pornography" or otherwise protect children against supposed online predators. (The remainder of attacks on online freedom is usually about protecting "intellectual property.")
You folks are battin' 2.5 for 5 with what you just said. First of all, you're right about the "child pornography" scare. They really haven't come up with enough evidence to justify the scare tactics nor laws that they have come up with regarding child pornography. I haven't really seen any hard statistics from them wrt how many child pornographers they have caught, either. They catch one, and they say "OMG! WE CAUGHT A CHILD PORNOGRAPHER!", and they catch another and they say "OMG! WE CAUGHT ANOTHER CHILD PORNOGRAPHER!", and I'm sitting there thinking, "Ok, how many did you guys catch this year? Four? Was it worth it to waste all the government time and police time and money that you've wasted catching these four child pornographers?"
Intellectual property laws, and indeed also the legislative process relating to them, have been abused greatly. I recently heard that if you even copy so much as a
layout from another website and put it on your website, that is grounds for a lawsuit. That is ridiculous. A layout is not written material, nor is it a picture, thus there is no conceivable way it should be protected under copyright law.
Additionally, Disney frequently abuses the legislative process surrounding copyright law by sending lobbyists to Congress to essentially bribe the Congressmen to extend the copyright expiration date every time the copyright on "Steamboat Willie", which was the first cartoon featuring Mickey Mouse, is about to expire. Bribery is never acceptable, and the Congressmen who took the bribes from the Disney lobbyists should be impeached and removed from office.
Although I do believe that there is a need of the USA to protect its citizens against terrorists, the first step they should have taken wrt fighting terrorism should have been to stop the CIA from committing the serious crimes that they've ADMITTED that the CIA is committing in all those other counrties. And if the CIA had already stopped committing those crimes, then they should have released a statement to those other countries that the CIA has stopped committing crimes in other countries. In fact, they should have handed over the CIA agents that committed the crimes over to the other countries to face justice for the crimes that they committed (along with a very stern reminder that the US is a soverign nation, and this action in no way means that the US will start handing over people whenever other countries ask for them, and in no way will it start handing over people when an international tribunal asks for them).
Now instead of taking that
very prudent step as their first step, what was their first step? Oh yeah, it was making a stupid little color chart that does nothing to protect against terrorism.
And then there's the whole deal with the PATRIOT Act. I can't even name one terrorist off the top of my head who was caught because of the PATRIOT Act, so it sounds like it really is just one big waste of time, money, and a threat to civil liberties.
But I will give it to them that the stricter airline security has resulted in terrorists getting caught. I heard in Bush's State of the Union that they had caught a guy who was planning to fly a plane into the tallest building in Los Angeles, and they caught people who were planning to blow up airplanes heading over the Atlantic. So this doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a war on terror, it means that said war should not involve wasteful and invasive things such as the color chart, the PATRIOT Act, and Real ID.
On the issues of the drug war and the border wall, you folks are totally wrong, and I'm not in the mood to repeat myself right now as to why you're wrong.
Luke, last night while shuffling thru a couple of dollar bills in my wallet to pay for a plate of Nachos and a legal 20 oz. intoxicating beverage I thought I heard a voice...George Washington himself was looking up at me from one of the dollar bills and I thought I heard him say..."plant hemp" or something like that.
Now mind you I had been imbibing a legal intoxicant and it's possible he didn't say anything, maybe I was even having a "marijuana flashback" (I did have an urge to throw garbage, but restrained myself) but I coulda sworn the father of our country was talking to me.
I get confused sometimes, hemp is illegal, yet George Washington, who's picture hangs front and center
in many public schools , advocated planting it and I'm pretty sure he had a personal stash for getting down with the home boys, so why would hemp be illegal?
What earth shattering events have transpired since the good old days to make this innocuous weed
reason to incarcerate hundreds of thousands of people?
Do you suppose there are valid reasons to go against the wishes of the father our country?
I mean this guy could have been king, A VERITABLE DECIDER after the revolution, do you suppose all that reefer smoking had worn him out? Maybe he didn't even want to be President, maybe all he wanted to do was go home, cut down cherry trees and bang Martha y'think?
Shouldn't we take his picture down or at least draw mustaches on it or something?
Maybe mayor Quinta (Manchester NH) will ask for a post mortem resignation because George Washington's words send the wrong message to the school kids?
Maybe we should rewrite the history books and delete all references to George Washington, whaddya think?
Then don't Luke.
Everyday we talk to people who believe it is perfectly okay to use the police to commit horrible injustices to people who HARMED ABSOLUTELY NOONE. To me you are no different than any other cheerleader for this legal crime against innoccent people.
It is a crime against humanity to lock up millions of people for their choice of using a substance. The police are not locking these people up because they robbed a bank, or were driving erratically. Those are crimes that have victims. A pot cigarette has no victims. That is why even the police call them 'victimless crimes'. They know damn well that there is no victims.
It is people like you that make me proud that I don't pay as many taxes as I used to, despite the risk of being punished by gov't. Since I can't make you stop using the police to hurt people who have hurt noone, I can choose not to pay for as much as possible. Of course, then you will complain that YOUR taxes are going up, and I will laugh. You reap what you sow. If you sow/support imprisoning those that hurt noone, then you will reap/pay taxes through the nose to pay for it.
Quote from: alohamonkey on April 20, 2008, 12:36 PM NHFT
Luke,
You're giving my home state a bad name. Read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins. It gives a good run-down on the foreign policy of the U.S. throughout the last few decades. If you think Ollie North's actions were an anomaly, you are genuinely naive. The same goes with Taft and Ney. Crooked behavior by politicians and government officials is more normal than abnormal.
Which part of Ohio are you from? Do you think it's right to lock up an 18 year old kid for smoking a joint? Do you think imprisoning misguided, nonviolent kids is a good use of taxpayer's dollars? Ohio's tough stance on drugs does nothing to ebb the flow of them. I'm speaking from experience working with troubled youth in Ohio and also from watching many people from my hometown get arrested and thrown in jail in Ohio for nonviolent offenses. Hell, Ohio prisons can't even keep drugs out of the jails!!! How do you expect them to keep them off the streets? Throwing our youth in jail for nonviolent offenses just limits their future opportunities in life and steers them toward a life of crime.
Actually I
don't think anybody should go to jail for marijuana posession. They should be fined and sentenced to community service building the U.S.-Mexico border wall. And the amount of time that they have to spend building that wall should be proportional to the amount of marijuana that they had. And the fine they paid should go towards buying materials for building the wall.
Oh, and if you guys think noone has ever built part of the wall as a community service punishment for a criminal act, then you guys are wrong. I remember reading once how two men who ran a business in California that were caught hiring illegal immigrants were fined and sentenced to community service building that border wall, so it's not unprecedented.
Quote from: Luke S on April 22, 2008, 02:33 PM NHFTThey should be fined and sentenced to community service...
So they should be robbed and enslaved. And... you're a libertarian. :-\
Quote from: Free libertarian on April 22, 2008, 11:27 AM NHFT
Luke, last night while shuffling thru a couple of dollar bills in my wallet to pay for a plate of Nachos and a legal 20 oz. intoxicating beverage I thought I heard a voice...George Washington himself was looking up at me from one of the dollar bills and I thought I heard him say..."plant hemp" or something like that.
Now mind you I had been imbibing a legal intoxicant and it's possible he didn't say anything, maybe I was even having a "marijuana flashback" (I did have an urge to throw garbage, but restrained myself) but I coulda sworn the father of our country was talking to me.
I get confused sometimes, hemp is illegal, yet George Washington, who's picture hangs front and center
in many public schools , advocated planting it and I'm pretty sure he had a personal stash for getting down with the home boys, so why would hemp be illegal?
What earth shattering events have transpired since the good old days to make this innocuous weed
reason to incarcerate hundreds of thousands of people?
Do you suppose there are valid reasons to go against the wishes of the father our country?
I mean this guy could have been king, A VERITABLE DECIDER after the revolution, do you suppose all that reefer smoking had worn him out? Maybe he didn't even want to be President, maybe all he wanted to do was go home, cut down cherry trees and bang Martha y'think?
Shouldn't we take his picture down or at least draw mustaches on it or something?
Maybe mayor Quinta (Manchester NH) will ask for a post mortem resignation because George Washington's words send the wrong message to the school kids?
Maybe we should rewrite the history books and delete all references to George Washington, whaddya think?
Free Libertarian, back in Washington's time, the USA wasn't even close to being the great nation that it is today. There was thuggery, lawlessness, insurrection, rebellion, and all around anarchy all over the place. In fact up until very recently, there was a disturbing amount of organized crime in America, too. Don't believe me, read any history book.
Somewhere along the line, we as a society decided that we had to move above the thuggery, lawlessness, rebellion, anarchy, and organized crime that was the norm in early and middle America. Drugs such as hemp were made illegal as part of that move.
Quote from: dalebert on April 22, 2008, 02:41 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 22, 2008, 02:33 PM NHFTThey should be fined and sentenced to community service...
So they should be robbed and enslaved. And... you're a libertarian. :-\
First of all, I never said I was a libertarian. In fact at the very beginning I very explicitly said I was
not a libertarian. I am a hard-core, right-wing conservative.
Secondly, community service is not slavery, nor are fines robbery. That fact is made clear in the famed 14th "Anti-Slavery" Amendment. Although slavery was abolished, they made sure to write the Amendment to make it very clear that involuntary servitude could still be used as a punishment for a crime. Now up until recently, a criminal could be sentenced to hard labor in prison, where they would have to break big rocks into little rocks and such.
Now fast forward to today, where reforms have been instituted so criminals no longer have to engage in hard labor. Instead, they engage in easy labor, such as making license plates.
Quote from: Luke S on April 22, 2008, 02:45 PM NHFT
Secondly, community service is not slavery, nor are fines robbery.
I don't see how you can possibly establish that until you answer that question that was posed earlier, i.e. where does government gets the authority to do those things. What makes it "special"? And history has already proven that a majority doesn't establish authority. Majorities supported inter-racial marriage and Hitler, just as a couple of examples. And if you're going to say the Constitution, please tell me what's magical about it vs. if I write something down on a piece of paper.
Quote from: Luke S on April 22, 2008, 02:33 PM NHFT
Actually I don't think anybody should go to jail for marijuana posession. They should be fined and sentenced to community service building the U.S.-Mexico border wall. And the amount of time that they have to spend building that wall should be proportional to the amount of marijuana that they had. And the fine they paid should go towards buying materials for building the wall.
Oh, and if you guys think noone has ever built part of the wall as a community service punishment for a criminal act, then you guys are wrong. I remember reading once how two men who ran a business in California that were caught hiring illegal immigrants were fined and sentenced to community service building that border wall, so it's not unprecedented.
Luke, you are aware that one of the companies that is building the border fence was caught hiring illegal aliens, right? What should their community service be?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6626823
Quote from: Luke S on April 22, 2008, 02:33 PM NHFT
Actually I don't think anybody should go to jail for marijuana posession. They should be fined and sentenced to community service building the U.S.-Mexico border wall. And the amount of time that they have to spend building that wall should be proportional to the amount of marijuana that they had. And the fine they paid should go towards buying materials for building the wall.
you're fucking INSANE. . . I'll do the same community service that I do NOW because I want to. I won't go build your FUCKING RACIST border fence, not even if I did something that was REALLY wrong.
Smoking weed is not wrong, you just don't like it. Here you go, the two shits I give for what it is you like and don't like. For all I care, you can go down to the fence on the border and bury yourself in a pillar. I don't care what you think is best for the 'country'. . . if you want a border fence, I suggest you and all the racist fucks go buy the land, build the damn thing yourself.
Quote from: Luke S on April 22, 2008, 02:45 PM NHFT
First of all, I never said I was a libertarian. In fact at the very beginning I very explicitly said I was not a libertarian. I am a hard-core, spineless, dickless, right-wing racist piece of shit conservative.
all better now.
Quote from: Luke S on April 22, 2008, 02:33 PM NHFT
Actually I don't think anybody should go to jail for marijuana posession. They should be fined and sentenced to community service building the U.S.-Mexico border wall.
And if they refuse to build? Refuse to dig one posthole, drive one stake, stretch one piece of fence?
If you answer, "Okay then, go on home", then you truly don't support throwing them in jail. But if you think they should be thrown in jail until they build the fence, then, well... you're simply dishonest when you claim jail shouldn't be part of the punishment for possessing marijuana.
Quote from: dalebert on April 22, 2008, 02:58 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 22, 2008, 02:45 PM NHFT
Secondly, community service is not slavery, nor are fines robbery.
I don't see how you can possibly establish that until you answer that question that was posed earlier, i.e. where does government gets the authority to do those things. What makes it "special"? And history has already proven that a majority doesn't establish authority. Majorities supported inter-racial marriage and Hitler, just as a couple of examples. And if you're going to say the Constitution, please tell me what's magical about it vs. if I write something down on a piece of paper.
Ok, so let's assume that the government
doesn't have the ability to do these things. Well then, the government doesn't have the ability to enforce the laws. And then what do you have? You have anarchy. And anarchy in reality is anything
but what some of you folks think it is. In reality, it is not too far off what Thomas Hobbes says it is in his
Leviathan. It is a wretched condition in which life is "nasty, brutish, and short".
Now I disagree with Hobbes in that I do not believe that government must be a Leviathan in order to keep anarchy from happening. But I also think that if it is a Mouse, anarchy will surely happen.
Now what used to happen throughout much of history is that kings, when asked by people like you why they had the right to rule, would respond that God had given them Divine Right to rule.
Since the decline of religion happened, we don't live in the days of Divine Right anymore.
So what has to happen now instead is people have to make sure that all their children are educated in the works of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and people like that. Not to say that Hobbes and Locke are absolutely right, but I believe them to be the best political philosophers for children to start out with, because they help children to understand why government has to exist.
Furthermore relevant to this topic is one of the first things I was taught when I began my studies of History and Social Studies in middle school: the difference between a civilized society and an uncivilized society.
I remember my teacher saying that one of the hallmarks of a civilized society is a strong central government. And I remember her saying that one of the telltale signs that a society was an uncivilized society was that it had no strong central government. It is quite clear that my teacher was correct in this assertion, as if you look at all the countries where lawlessness reigns supreme, none of them have ever been very successful, and I would even go so far as to say they are a little bit uncivilized.
That is why even though I am a big believer in states' rights, I believe that there is a limit to states' rights, lest we lose the characteristic of having a strong central government, and go to having a weak central government.
Now if we went to having a weak central government, would we automatically become uncivilized? Probably not, but we would not be the superpower that we are today, and our internal affairs would be very chaotic.
Quote from: Luke S on April 22, 2008, 10:17 PM NHFT
I remember my teacher saying that one of the hallmarks of a civilized society is a strong central government. And I remember her saying that one of the telltale signs that a society was an uncivilized society was that it had no strong central government. It is quite clear that my teacher was correct in this assertion, as if you look at all the countries where lawlessness reigns supreme, none of them have ever been very successful, and I would even go so far as to say they are a little bit uncivilized.
The United States built itself to the "greatness" it supposedly is nowadays with a weak central government. Westward expansion happened with practically
no government in place. Nowadays, with the government as powerful as it is, the U.S. is going backwards: losing ground economically, scientifically, &c., to its competitors.
Holland built its commercial empire when the government got out of the way of private economic interests and let them grow and compete unconstrained and unregulated.
Rome gained much of its territory during its republican and
early imperial days. As the central government became more powerful and oppressive, that went downhill fast.
Need more examples?
[I assume you're defining "success" in terms of economic wealth, territorial expansion, or the other typical things nation-states usually use to consider themselves "successful."]
Quote from: Luke S on April 22, 2008, 10:17 PM NHFT
Ok, so let's assume that the government doesn't have the ability to do these things.
Yes, let's. That was my point. Doding the question Luke! You've established a DESIRE for government to have this authority. Now tell me where it comes from. Believing in Heaven doesn't cause it to exist. You can say we must believe in heaven; otherwise we will just die when we die. Guess what, Luke. Either it exists or it doesn't whether you believe in it or not.
This thing you have put your faith in, this government, doesn't exist. Where the FUCK does this authority come from? Quit dodging the question. You can continue to live in denial, in this fantasy land you have created, or you will have to one day face the cold hard reality. We have to face that reality and deal with it if we ever really want to live in a civilized society. What we have now isn't even remotely civilized. Practically every American thinks the government needs a major overhaul and has serious problems, but they won't ever fix it until they realize what the problem is. They've concocted this nanny state out of wishes and dreams and pink unicorns. They've tried to conjure something into existence that simply doesn't exist. Sure, there are people in uniforms, black robes, badges, politicians with fancy titles working in elaborate buildings, but they're all just acting out a play, perpetuating this lie. This moral superiority, this claim to special rights to rule over the child-like peons, that thing that needs to be at the heart of this elaborate play to make it mean something is nonexistent. That's why our government is nothing but an ultra-powerful mafia. They aren't morally pure; not even close. We've handed over our personal power to a massive crime ring and they're taking advantage of it. If you want us to live in a civilized society, you have to make that realization. Maybe years from now, when you've been struggling to "fix" this thing, you'll realize why you're wasting your time. It's rotten at the core and needs to be replaced entirely with something morally consistent.
Errr, I have to concede Luke's point. Without a strong central government, you couldn't have an empire.
Vee must haf a strong central reich, my fuhrer.
Quote from: Caleb on April 22, 2008, 11:47 PM NHFT
Errr, I have to concede Luke's point. Without a strong central government, you couldn't have an empire.
Vee must haf a strong central reich, my fuhrer.
I don't know about that.
Weak governments seem to foster imperial growth. Strong governments stifle it. (The Nazis
ended the German empire, remember?)
That's why we need
no government. >:D
Quote from: dalebert on April 22, 2008, 10:54 PM NHFT
Where the FUCK does this authority come from?
Fairy dust!
Quote from: FTL_Ian on April 23, 2008, 12:09 AM NHFT
Fairy dust!
That's right! Think happy thoughts, Luke, and you can fly!
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 23, 2008, 12:01 AM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on April 22, 2008, 11:47 PM NHFT
Errr, I have to concede Luke's point. Without a strong central government, you couldn't have an empire.
Vee must haf a strong central reich, my fuhrer.
I don't know about that. Weak governments seem to foster imperial growth. Strong governments stifle it. (The Nazis ended the German empire, remember?)
That's why we need no government. >:D
I'm struggling to think of a weak imperial power, and coming up empty.
But you missed my point. Everyone thinks they have the best system. Once you decide to do what you thinks "works best", you have abandoned all moral pretext. Which is, I believe, what everyone is trying to show Luke. He has no moral foundation at all for his beliefs. They are based on strong-arming people to enforce his own version of the way he thinks things ought to be. But he'll whine and complain if someone does the same to him (takes his guns, perhaps.) Then suddenly he becomes interested in rights. When he's the aggressor, he isn't interested in morality, only when he's the victim. Pretty much the way of the world, unfortunately.
Luke, thanks for replying. You are taking quite a bit of flack so, if nothing else I give you credit for hanging in there while being assailed by all of us who are of a different opinion.
Obviously your point of view includes permitting government control over people more than many of us would allow if we had a magic wand. You refer to "read any history book"...you might consider that a few history books are umm inaccurate or maybe some omit a few "minor" details .
You mention this is a great country...I think we have some good things, but let's not be blinded to the bad okay? I think we're #1 in incarcerating people % wise anyhow, we do seem to have a rather imperialistic approach to the rest of the world (700 bases, 130 odd different countries) and we are regularly fed propaganda from any number of media outlets. Our tax burden has risen immensely since the good old days and we are the only ones to ever use nuclear weapons, plus we need to get a license/permit for just about everything even to take a shit...I guess that leaves baseball and apple pie as the good things, uh maybe scratch baseball they're all a bunch of druggies and should be building fences instead of swatting balls over them right? Oh yeah nachos are good too, but those were brought in by swarthy Mexican types to ward off the munchies and give them something to eat when Mitt Romney types give them a break from mowing the lawn and scrubbing the floors.
You mention we shouldn't incarcerate pot smokers, and should make them build the wall to keep the hordes of sombrero types where they belong....so what if a pot smoker slices his hand on some wire fence or you know just doesn't give a fuck and won't work very hard? Do we give them medical treatment or make them stand in the corner or something? Do we then incarcerate them if they still refuse? What if a pot smoker has no arms or is in a wheel chair do they build your fence too?
...And since "everybody knows" Mexicans are a bunch of reefer smokers, would it be such a good idea to put pot smoking middle class white kids down on the border building a fence, so close to all that weed?
Wouldn't it be a better idea to have them build a fence along the northern border and keep the Canucks
up there with their hockey sticks and polar bears? Or don't you think we need a fence along the
Canadian border too? Are the Canadians somehow "less dangerous"? Shouldn't we be keeping an eye on them too? I mean they could come down here and smear maple syrup all over our door handles or something and they have a funny accent, always saying, "eh" at the end of sentences and stuff like that. Besides they copy our culture and they let people in Quebec speak french or english...they can't even make up their minds! Besides how did all of "our" oil get under their shale, the sneaky bastards must've stolen it from us while we were off protecting this hemisphere from the Viet Cong or Commies.
and they were up there munching flapjacks letting us do all the tough work. Bastards!
Oh yeah, so do you think George Washington's picture stays up or comes down? If he were alive today
he'd be building your fence down along the southern border for growing hemp right? Or should we keep your "history books" sanitized? Those weren't the history books you wanted me to read were they?
Final questions... are we "more free" today or "less free" than we used to be? How does making somebody work on a fence differ from incarcerating them ? Will the fence workers meals be paid for by tax payers ? Will they stay in the excess Katrina trailers and will they be guarded by guys named "Rodriquez" who joined the military in hopes of gaining U.S. citizenship, uh you know the right way? ;)
Quote from: Luke S on April 22, 2008, 10:17 PM NHFT
So what has to happen now instead is people have to make sure that all their children are educated in the works of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and people like that. Not to say that Hobbes and Locke are absolutely right, but I believe them to be the best political philosophers for children to start out with, because they help children to understand why government has to exist.
:duh:
Luke: Why don't you pick up a copy of Harry Browne's "Why Government Doesn't Work."
I was a diehard Democrat for 30 years...even voted straight ticket Democrat I'm embarrassed to say. Everyone on this forum probably has a book they've read that made the proverbial light bulb go on over their head. For me it was "Why Government Doesn't Work."
Luke, some of us are waiting with bated breath to hear your personal, honest, and direct response to the question, "Whence does 'the government' derive its presumed authority to govern?"
The question is not, "What would happen if the government did not have the ability to do what it does"... but rather, we seek your own clearly articulated conception of what is the actual determinant, and valid source, of authority... and how do you distinguish between valid authority vs. the fraudulent usurpation of authority?
Quote Luke<I remember my teacher saying that one of the hallmarks of a civilized society is a strong central government. And I remember her saying that one of the telltale signs that a society was an uncivilized society was that it had no strong central government. It is quite clear that my teacher was correct in this assertion, as if you look at all the countries where lawlessness reigns supreme, none of them have ever been very successful, and I would even go so far as to say they are a little bit uncivilized.>
Richard Maybury calls that the "Roman Disease". The belief that there must be a strong central gov't to 'maintain civilization'.
Most hellhole countries have long histories of strong central gov'ts. Then the victims of that gov't fight back. Then everyone calls that anarchy. Well maybe the victims of gov't wouldn't fight back if they were not being mistreated by their gov't.
Quote from: srqrebel on April 23, 2008, 09:29 AM NHFT
Luke, some of us are waiting with bated breath to hear your personal, honest, and direct response to the question, "Whence does 'the government' derive its presumed authority to govern?"
Keep waiting. This troll won't answer that.
Quote from: dalebert on April 22, 2008, 10:54 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 22, 2008, 10:17 PM NHFT
Ok, so let's assume that the government doesn't have the ability to do these things.
Yes, let's. That was my point. Doding the question Luke! You've established a DESIRE for government to have this authority. Now tell me where it comes from. Believing in Heaven doesn't cause it to exist. You can say we must believe in heaven; otherwise we will just die when we die. Guess what, Luke. Either it exists or it doesn't whether you believe in it or not.
This thing you have put your faith in, this government, doesn't exist. Where the FUCK does this authority come from? Quit dodging the question. You can continue to live in denial, in this fantasy land you have created, or you will have to one day face the cold hard reality. We have to face that reality and deal with it if we ever really want to live in a civilized society. What we have now isn't even remotely civilized. Practically every American thinks the government needs a major overhaul and has serious problems, but they won't ever fix it until they realize what the problem is. They've concocted this nanny state out of wishes and dreams and pink unicorns. They've tried to conjure something into existence that simply doesn't exist. Sure, there are people in uniforms, black robes, badges, politicians with fancy titles working in elaborate buildings, but they're all just acting out a play, perpetuating this lie. This moral superiority, this claim to special rights to rule over the child-like peons, that thing that needs to be at the heart of this elaborate play to make it mean something is nonexistent. That's why our government is nothing but an ultra-powerful mafia. They aren't morally pure; not even close. We've handed over our personal power to a massive crime ring and they're taking advantage of it. If you want us to live in a civilized society, you have to make that realization. Maybe years from now, when you've been struggling to "fix" this thing, you'll realize why you're wasting your time. It's rotten at the core and needs to be replaced entirely with something morally consistent.
Dalebert, I'm going to try to build bridges by starting off on what we agree on: your comment regarding the nanny state. You are absolutely 100% correct in your contempt for the nanny state. In my opinion, every last institution that is part of the nanny state needs to be abolished, and every law that relates to the nanny state also needs to be abolished.
As for your question about where government derives its authority to govern, I believe that government derives its authority from its ability to protect the rights to life, liberty, and property of its citizens, and in the case of the US, also from the Constitution that everybody agreed on when the original Confederation became a Constitutional Republic in 1788.
QuoteLuke, thanks for replying. You are taking quite a bit of flack so, if nothing else I give you credit for hanging in there while being assailed by all of us who are of a different opinion.
Obviously your point of view includes permitting government control over people more than many of us would allow if we had a magic wand. You refer to "read any history book"...you might consider that a few history books are umm inaccurate or maybe some omit a few "minor" details .
Free Libertarian, I find these discussions intellectually stimulating even if I don't agree with all of you on every issue. I'll continue to stay on until I'm banned or asked to leave by the Kannings, or forced off by some other mechanism.
As for allowing more gov't control than all of you would, let me just say this: Whenever I have gotten into a political debate in the last 3 years when I finally decided on my political beliefs, my beliefs that the income tax shouldn't exist, Medicare shouldn't exist, Medicaid shouldn't exist, gov't welfare shouldn't exist, etc., usually shock people. We've had those things for so long that now most people can't fathom life without one or more of those things. And my belief that the 2nd Amendment confers upon the individual the right to own any gun, even a full automatic, and that all of the government's mumbo jumbo about "concealed weapons" is unconstitutional, usually shocks them too.
So I guess you could say I'm somewhere in between where most people are, and where you guys are.
QuoteI'm struggling to think of a weak imperial power, and coming up empty.
But you missed my point. Everyone thinks they have the best system. Once you decide to do what you thinks "works best", you have abandoned all moral pretext. Which is, I believe, what everyone is trying to show Luke. He has no moral foundation at all for his beliefs. They are based on strong-arming people to enforce his own version of the way he thinks things ought to be. But he'll whine and complain if someone does the same to him (takes his guns, perhaps.) Then suddenly he becomes interested in rights. When he's the aggressor, he isn't interested in morality, only when he's the victim. Pretty much the way of the world, unfortunately.
No Caleb, I
do have moral foundation. The reason why the socialists have been taking over is that most people nowadays unfortunately DON'T, and thus they want free handouts from the government at the expense of everyone else. If the government tried to send me free goodies at everyone else's expense, I'd send them back along with a message that whatever government official(s) was responsible for this arriving at my door has absolutely lost my vote. So don't tell me I have no moral foundation.
And secondly Caleb, my right not to have my guns taken away is enumerated in the Constitution. I can't say the same for this supposed "right to have marijuana". Oh, and before you say "Ninth Amendment" like that other guy did, the Ninth is not a free-for-all amendment that means that everything is legal. It means only that the fact that a certain right is not listed in the Constitution does not automatically mean that people do not have that right. Some of you erroneously believe that the Ninth means that you can declare yourself a right to smoke marijuana. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
If I were to say to you that you have no right to smoke marijuana simply because it's not listed in the Constitution, and you cited the Ninth, then you would be right.
But if I were to say to you that you have no right to smoke marijuana because it's not in the Constitution,
and the federal and state governments have both found that it causes crime and have passed laws against it,
and the courts have found that people don't have that right, and you cited the Ninth at that point, then I would be right, and you would be wrong.
See how it works?
Quote from: Luke S on April 23, 2008, 08:09 PM NHFT
As for your question about where government derives its authority to govern, I believe that government derives its authority from its ability to protect the rights to life, liberty, and property of its citizens,
What do you mean by "ability"? This sounds like a might-makes-right argument. Are you claiming the authority comes from having lots of men with guns? If I build a death star and can hold the threat of destruction over the entire Earth, do I then become the legitimate authority? If I could destroy or seriously punish anyone who threatens your rights, so does my "ability" to protect you mean I can now decide what rights you, Luke, should have and what rules you must live by? Just trying to get you to think about these claims your making and help you to see why the claims seem so absurd to us.
Quoteand in the case of the US, also from the Constitution that everybody agreed on when the original Confederation became a Constitutional Republic in 1788.
Everybody? No, Luke. Please. Not by a long shot. The only explicit consent to the Constitution is a few wealthy slave-owners who signed it and even beyond that, what about the millions of people who weren't even born at the time to consent to it. You're throwing these terms around like the Confederation and the Constitutional Republic, but these are abstractions. Once again, we come back to this. If I suddenly claim authority over you the way the founding fathers claimed authority over everyone in the U.S., you would laugh at me. Well, unless I pulled a gun on you. Then you'd probably do as I said. That's what our government does. It's a criminal organization ruling via the constant threat of violence against dissent. There's no denying it Luke. You haven't given any evidence to the contrary.
Luke, thank you for replying well sort of anyway. You still haven't told me if we should make wheel chair bound pot smokers build walls along the Mexican border or if George Washington's picture should be taken down from public schools, but I'll let you think on that for a day or two longer.
Do you believe in a nanny state where the "authorities" decide what you will eat, drink and smoke? Do you think it's a government function to protect people from themselves?
Alcohol was banned during prohibition, now it's legal, does that mean alcohol is now "good"?
Many religions and societies have taboos against murder, yet the U.S. government sanctions it (see collateral damage any recent war or conflict) and has legalized it, does that mean it's good to kill innocent people?
You seem to think the existence of a manmade law that permits something somehow makes it okay and if something is illegal it must automatically be bad. Why is that?
In a local newspaper today I read where some legislator in Louisiana wants to make wearing low pants illegal. Now trust me I f'n hate that stupid low pants, underwear showing "style" but other than gritting my teeth or rolling my eyes why should I or anyone have the right to tell a kid he has to wear his pants a certain way? Does government have the right to tell a person how to dress?
Are you afraid to allow others the freedom to live their own life according to their ideas and not yours or an oppressive government?
The Constitution and bill of rights are fun to read and argue about but, they're still manmade aren't they?
If the Constitution were amended to take away freedom of speech, would that mean the right no longer exists or that it was simply taken away under pain of penalty, incarceration or death?
Isn't there any voice inside you that tells you to leave others alone as long as they're not harming you?
Doesn't that voice mean more than a pack of laws put together by the same type of people who try to rationalize and "legalize' murder? It does to me.
Quote from: Luke S on April 23, 2008, 08:09 PM NHFT
As for your question about where government derives its authority to govern, I believe that government derives its authority from its ability to protect the rights to life, liberty, and property of its citizens, and in the case of the US, also from the Constitution that everybody agreed on when the original Confederation became a Constitutional Republic in 1788.
Okay, I take it back. Luke is not a troll, he's just brainwashed.
Luke, I did not sign the constitution. (Nor does it matter if some long lost relative did.) I do not agree to this government and it's silly laws. Therefore, I have no obligation to it. While I will not obey the government people's dictates, I will live peacefully and not harm others or their property.
What would you like to see done to me?
Luke is what we're up against, in the long run. Like most Americans, he believes in "freedom," and hasn't a clue what it really means.
Quote from: Luke S on April 23, 2008, 08:09 PM NHFTalso from the Constitution that everybody agreed on when the original Confederation became a Constitutional Republic in 1788.
(http://www.getmilked.com/comics/comics/EveryoneIsStupid.jpg) (http://www.getmilked.com/comics/EveryoneIsStupid.html)
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 23, 2008, 10:34 PM NHFT
Luke is what we're up against, in the long run. Like most Americans, he believes in "freedom," and hasn't a clue what it really means.
I realized this a while back. Some of the politicians that say freedom is authority really believe that crap. Or they say it because they think it will be popular around election time.
It is the reason I am kinda tired of 'outreach', and would rather get those with like minds to try something different. anarchyhouseproject1.org/home
It is also why I now call myself an anarchist even though I don't really like the word, because it means so many things to so many people.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on April 23, 2008, 10:08 PM NHFT
Okay, I take it back. Luke is not a troll, he's just brainwashed.
Thank you, Ian! :)
As far as I can tell, Luke has always conducted himself respectfully on this forum. He has refrained from making put-down comments or calling people names, even when he was (regrettably) subjected to the same.
He is certainly outspoken, but there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, same goes for you and me.
I have far more contempt for the vast majority of sheeple who "play it safe" by either refraining from having an opinion, or letting others do their thinking for them.At least there is hope for those of us who
have opinions, and know the basis for our opinions, even when those opinions turn out to be dead wrong! :)
Quote from: Luke S on April 23, 2008, 08:09 PM NHFT
As for your question about where government derives its authority to govern, I believe that government derives its authority from its ability to protect the rights to life, liberty, and property of its citizens...
...yet it has demonstrated no such ability. In fact, quite the contrary: It's agents routinely destroy more "life, liberty, and property" than any other subset of individuals. While the supermajority of people earn their livings honestly by producing
marketable values (voluntarily purchased products and services), and wouldn't have it any other way, the agents of the government sustain themselves by extortion and plunder, maintaining their parasitic existence through an ever present Mafia-like threat of force.
Quote from: Luke S on April 23, 2008, 08:09 PM NHFT
...and in the case of the US, also from the Constitution that everybody agreed on when the original Confederation became a Constitutional Republic in 1788.
Are you implying that 230 years ago, a few individuals "created"
authority out of thin air, which authority somehow mystically exists in its own right, regardless of the desires of any human beings subjected to it?
Was there some secret recipe, whose ingredients the Founding Fathers mixed together with a mortar and pestle to "create" said authority? If not, then what exactly was the source of that "authority", that so fantastically continues to exert "itself" upon us today? Was it the blessing of God that conferred authority upon this piece of paper?
Think about it: If I write up my own constitution, and get a handful of people to sign on to it, does that mean the mechanism created to enforce it upon others, would operate on some inherent
authority of its own, independent of the consent of those affected by it? If not, then what is missing?
...or are you saying that
any mechanism that effectively protects "life, liberty, and property", automatically has "authority" to insert itself into the lives of anyone who disobeys its dictates, in order to enforce its own agenda? Now
that sounds like tyranny to me! Given some competition, it would amount to not only tyranny, but the barbaric chaos of gang warfare. Oh wait... come to think of it... Iran... Iraq... Vietnam... Korea... Cold War... Palestinian occupation... World War II....... nevermind.
Luke, you made a decent attempt at explaining whence the "government" derives its authority...
thank you for that :) Yet the basic question remains inadequately addressed:
What is the root source of the presumed authority of the individuals within the government, to impose themselves forcibly upon others? The constitution did not always exist. Does it follow that "authority" can be created at will out of thin air, by anyone with access to a pen and paper? Is "authority" derived from the unanimous consent of all who are subjected to it? Or are certain individuals, perhaps those of us who are more intelligent than the rest, imbued with special rights -- namely the right to create "authority" out of thin air, and impose it
by force, if necessary, upon those of lesser intellectual or moral character?
Suckin' up to him won't help ya... ;D
Ohhh yeah, he'd make ya build the wall.
Ignorant of the cultural contributions of cannabis users. First Luke should go burn his CD collection, no jazz, rockin' roll, blues... it would be a much grayer world.
Quote from: srqrebel on April 24, 2008, 11:21 AM NHFT
As far as I can tell, Luke has always conducted himself respectfully on this forum.
I can't agree with this. You don't respect others by snitching and advocating they be jailed/hurt.
Quote from: Luke S on April 23, 2008, 08:09 PM NHFT
As for your question about where government derives its authority to govern, I believe that government derives its authority from its ability to protect DESTROY the rights to life, liberty, and property of its citizens, and in the case of the US, also from the Constitution that everybody the white, landed, slave-owning elite agreed on when the original Confederation became a Constitutional Republic in 1788.
Fixed.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on April 24, 2008, 04:30 PM NHFT
Quote from: srqrebel on April 24, 2008, 11:21 AM NHFT
As far as I can tell, Luke has always conducted himself respectfully on this forum.
I can't agree with this. You don't respect others by snitching and advocating they be jailed/hurt.
That didn't happen on the forum, though. A minor point.
Quote from: Dylboz on April 24, 2008, 10:55 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 23, 2008, 08:09 PM NHFT
As for your question about where government derives its authority to govern, I believe that government derives its authority from its ability to protect DESTROY the rights to life, liberty, and property of its citizens, and in the case of the US, also from the Constitution that everybody the white, old, male, landed, slave-owning elite agreed on when the original Confederation became a Constitutional Republic in 1788.
Fixed.
Fixed again. ;D
I could also point out to Luke that the Confederation's replacement with that Constitutional Republic wasn't done exactly above-board, either.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 25, 2008, 12:51 AM NHFT
Quote from: Dylboz on April 24, 2008, 10:55 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 23, 2008, 08:09 PM NHFT
As for your question about where government derives its authority to govern, I believe that government derives its authority from its ability to protect DESTROY the rights to life, liberty, and property of its citizens, and in the case of the US, also from the Constitution that everybody the white, old, male, landed, slave-owning elite agreed on when the original Confederation became a Constitutional Republic in 1788.
Fixed.
...you forgot "hemp growing" old white guys >:D
Fixed again. ;D
I could also point out to Luke that the Confederation's replacement with that Constitutional Republic wasn't done exactly above-board, either.
Quote from: Free libertarian on April 25, 2008, 07:37 AM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 25, 2008, 12:51 AM NHFT
Quote from: Dylboz on April 24, 2008, 10:55 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on April 23, 2008, 08:09 PM NHFT
As for your question about where government derives its authority to govern, I believe that government derives its authority from its ability to protect DESTROY the rights to life, liberty, and property of its citizens, and in the case of the US, also from the Constitution that everybody the white, old, male, landed, slave-owning elite agreed on when the original Confederation became a Constitutional Republic in 1788.
Fixed.
...you forgot "hemp growing" old white guys >:D
Fixed again. ;D
I could also point out to Luke that the Confederation's replacement with that Constitutional Republic wasn't done exactly above-board, either.
Well, if we're gonna recount all the drugs they used, poppies were well known as "God's own medicine," and until relatively recently, Jefferson's own strain of medicinal poppies were for sale in seed pouches at Monticello, and their blossoms were featured in artistic rendering reproduced on T-shirts and postcards, also for sale there.
Well I'm back guys, and the first thing I'll do is I'll answer Free Libertarian's question about marijuana offenders who are disabled.
QuoteYou still haven't told me if we should make wheel chair bound pot smokers build walls along the Mexican border or if George Washington's picture should be taken down from public schools, but I'll let you think on that for a day or two longer.
Marijuana user offenders who are disabled obviously will not be the ones digging the holes, erecting the wall, et. al. All marijuana user offenders who are disabled, as well as all marijuana user offenders who do not live in a border state, will for their community service be assigned to special factories that will be built throughout the US (paid for by marijuana fines), in which the individual sections of the fence will be pre-made by the offenders. The disabled marijuana user offenders will get easy jobs that they can still do regardless of their disability, such as operating the machine that makes the razor wire. Those sorts of machines are largely able to run themselves, so the actual task will probably consist of cutting off the razor wire whenever there is enough to cover the top of one section of fence, and then carrying it to the next workstation.
Also guys, for the rest of you who've said that you've asked me questions and haven't had them answered, I'm sorry, but there are so many fired off at me that I try to answer as many as I can, but sometimes I miss a few.
Oh. And of course George Washington's picture shouldn't be taken down. Owning slaves is far worse than growing marijuana, so if he gets by w/o being taken down for the former, then obviously the latter isn't bad enough to get his picture taken down from public schools.
Unless it were to be taken down because all the public schools that it is located in are themselves being taken down. The public school system is an abject failure and a waste of our tax money. It should be utterly abolished.
What is morally wrong with smoking marijuana? Or is it OK to have laws against things and punish people for committing acts that are not morally wrong and do not hurt anyone?
QuoteMarijuana user offenders who are disabled obviously will not be the ones digging the holes, erecting the wall, et. al. All marijuana user offenders who are disabled, as well as all marijuana user offenders who do not live in a border state, will for their community service be assigned to special factories that will be built throughout the US (paid for by marijuana fines), in which the individual sections of the fence will be pre-made by the offenders. The disabled marijuana user offenders will get easy jobs that they can still do regardless of their disability, such as operating the machine that makes the razor wire. Those sorts of machines are largely able to run themselves, so the actual task will probably consist of cutting off the razor wire whenever there is enough to cover the top of one section of fence, and then carrying it to the next workstation.
Here I go wasting more key strokes...but, really, I'm serious when I ask this...are you for real Luke S??? ::) I'm tempted to head to Gambier/Mount Vernon Ohio and find you to see for myself.
You HAVE to be yanking our chains.
Quote from: 'Luke S'All marijuana user offenders who are disabled, as well as all marijuana user offenders who do not live in a border state, will for their community service be assigned to special factories that will be built throughout the US (paid for by marijuana fines), in which the individual sections of the fence will be pre-made by the offenders.
Quote from: 'Luke S'Oh. And of course George Washington's picture shouldn't be taken down. Owning slaves is far worse than growing marijuana
Why is owning slaves wrong? The idea of considering another human being to be inferior, and then using violence or the threat of violence to hold them against their will is something you'd consider wrong? Your posts on this forum have done nothing except express condemnation for others (Notice you don't even call them PEOPLE - they're 'marijuana user offenders' and not "people who smoke marijuana") and advocate that they should be forcibly put in labor camps. I see zero difference between a deep south slave picking cotton and your wall camps.
Quote from: 'Jan'Here I go wasting more key strokes...but, really, I'm serious when I ask this...are you for real Luke S?
Quote from: 'A paraphrase of someone elses post'I don't think Luke is a troll, I think he really believe what he says.
I believe Luke is just really really bad at playing the devil's advocate. It's a debate tactic I like to personally use, and I've seen others try to immitate it and they come off as pompous asses. Luke's ability to toss out things that are directly contrary to the ideas of liberty makes it clear he gets it. Either he's actually HOSTILE to liberty and knows it OR he's tossing off his own doubts as "devil's advocate" as a way to grok the logic. Most people I chat with ask me about taxes and when I explain it say "Wow, I've never realized taxes are force!". I have, however, had the occasional person who, once makes the connection between taxes and force, actually says "Oh, wow. Okay, I guess I need to change my answer - I DO think certain uses of force are okay." Most people simply won't admit it but there ARE people who think their goals warrant the use of force.
Quote from: Jan on April 25, 2008, 02:38 PM NHFT
QuoteMarijuana user offenders who are disabled obviously will not be the ones digging the holes, erecting the wall, et. al. All marijuana user offenders who are disabled, as well as all marijuana user offenders who do not live in a border state, will for their community service be assigned to special factories that will be built throughout the US (paid for by marijuana fines), in which the individual sections of the fence will be pre-made by the offenders. The disabled marijuana user offenders will get easy jobs that they can still do regardless of their disability, such as operating the machine that makes the razor wire. Those sorts of machines are largely able to run themselves, so the actual task will probably consist of cutting off the razor wire whenever there is enough to cover the top of one section of fence, and then carrying it to the next workstation.
Here I go wasting more key strokes...but, really, I'm serious when I ask this...are you for real Luke S??? ::) I'm tempted to head to Gambier/Mount Vernon Ohio and find you to see for myself.
You HAVE to be yanking our chains.
I can confirm to you that I am not yanking your chain. I have held these beliefs for a long time. I mean, I only came up with the marijuana user-wall builder-community service punishment idea a couple months ago, but I've always held the views that the border wall is an excellent idea that needs to be built as fast as possible, and that marijuana criminals are scum who deserve harsh punishment, so I'm not just saying what I'm saying to yank your chains, this is what I really believe.
Scum? Why? What possible logical reason, that is not an opinion unrelated to the use and effects of the drug, could you have for this position? And how then does that justify their enslavement? You are a slaver, you realize this, don't you? You are saying that by virtue of smoking a joint, a person forfeits enough of their humanity to then be subject to forcible labor and a total loss of liberty.
Just because you have held a belief for a long time doesn't make it correct. The U.S. government has been engaged in the drug war for over 30 years, and it is, was and always will be an abject failure, as well as a human rights disaster and completely immoral.
I ask again, what is immoral about smoking marijuana? The act, and it's effects, specifically. This is not about their culture or their politics or anything else, I am asking what about smoking a joint is wrong. And if there is nothing immoral about it (which, there isn't) then how is it moral to arbitrarily subject these people who have hurt no one, to enslavement, imprisonment and in many cases, lack of access to the most effective medicine available for their conditions, on the sole basis that you think they are "scum?"
Quote from: Kevin Dean on April 25, 2008, 02:54 PM NHFT
Quote from: 'Luke S'All marijuana user offenders who are disabled, as well as all marijuana user offenders who do not live in a border state, will for their community service be assigned to special factories that will be built throughout the US (paid for by marijuana fines), in which the individual sections of the fence will be pre-made by the offenders.
Quote from: 'Luke S'Oh. And of course George Washington's picture shouldn't be taken down. Owning slaves is far worse than growing marijuana
Why is owning slaves wrong? The idea of considering another human being to be inferior, and then using violence or the threat of violence to hold them against their will is something you'd consider wrong? Your posts on this forum have done nothing except express condemnation for others (Notice you don't even call them PEOPLE - they're 'marijuana user offenders' and not "people show smoke marijuana") and advocate that they should be forcibly put in labor camps. I see zero difference between a deep south slave picking cotton and your wall camps.
It's not labor camps. It's community service. They'll show up maybe 15 hours a week or something like that at these factories which will be built throughout the US and build sections of the wall if they don't live in a border state, and if they
do live in a border state, they'll work 15 hours a week erecting that wall. For the rest of the time, they'll just live wherever they live.
Quote
Quote from: 'Jan'Here I go wasting more key strokes...but, really, I'm serious when I ask this...are you for real Luke S?
Quote from: 'A paraphrase of someone elses post'I don't think Luke is a troll, I think he really believe what he says.
I believe Luke is just really really bad at playing the devil's advocate. It's a debate tactic I like to personally use, and I've seen others try to immitate it and they come off as pompous asses. Luke's ability to toss out things that are directly contrary to the ideas of liberty makes it clear he gets it. Either he's actually HOSTILE to liberty and knows it OR he's tossing off his own doubts as "devil's advocate" as a way to grok the logic. Most people I chat with ask me about taxes and when I explain it say "Wow, I've never realized taxes are force!". I have, however, had the occasional person who, once makes the connection between taxes and force, actually says "Oh, wow. Okay, I guess I need to change my answer - I DO think certain uses of force are okay." Most people simply won't admit it but there ARE people who think their goals warrant the use of force.
I swear to God I'm not playing devil's advocate or anything like that. I really do believe that marijuana criminals and other drug criminals are scum who need to be punished. As I've said before, I don't think freedom means free-for-all. There are restrictions, and people who violate those restrictions must be punished.
Quote from: Dylboz on April 25, 2008, 03:14 PM NHFT
Scum? Why? What possible logical reason, that is not an opinion unrelated to the use and effects of the drug, could you have for this position? And how then does that justify their enslavement? You are a slaver, you realize this, don't you? You are saying that by virtue of smoking a joint, a person forfeits enough of their humanity to then be subject to forcible labor and a total loss of liberty.
Just because you have held a belief for a long time doesn't make it correct. The U.S. government has been engaged in the drug war for over 30 years, and it is, was and always will be an abject failure, as well as a human rights disaster and completely immoral.
I ask again, what is immoral about smoking marijuana? The act, and it's effects, specifically. This is not about their culture or their politics or anything else, I am asking what about smoking a joint is wrong. And if there is nothing immoral about it (which, there isn't) then how is it moral to arbitrarily subject these people who have hurt no one, to enslavement, imprisonment and in many cases, lack of access to the most effective medicine available for their conditions, on the sole basis that you think they are "scum?"
I've already explained.
Quote
I believe that freedom comes from the fact that we are rational adults who are able to take personal responsibility for the consequences of our free choices. Drugs by their very nature take away our ability to know right from wrong, and therefore take away our ability to take personal responsibility for our actions.
Once I've ingested a drug, because I know longer know the difference between right and wrong, I'm not able to make responsible choices . Because my ability to make responsible choices has been taken away by the drug, I'm not able to take responsibility for my actions while on the drug, and thus I have no right to ingest the drug in the first place, unless I'm under the supervision of medical professionals who know what they're doing, and I'm in a dentist's office or in the hospital.
So I'm absolutely not advocating freedom just for me and not for anyone else. I'm advocating freedom for everyone so long as they have the ability to take responsibility for their actions.
Quote from: 'Luke S'It's not labor camps. It's community service.
If it's "community" service, why aren't all members of the community (yourself included) required to be there? How are the marijuana smoking members of that same community being benefited by this community service?
Quote from: 'Luke S'They'll show up maybe 15 hours a week or something like that at these factories which will be built throughout the US and build sections of the wall if they don't live in a border state, and if they do live in a border state, they'll work 15 hours a week erecting that wall.
And if they don't show up, what happens? If they choose not to show up are they absolved of the debt you claim they own, and free to go along their way without being further deprived of life, liberty and property?
Quote from: 'Luke S'I really do believe that marijuana criminals and other drug criminals are scum who need to be punished.
And you believe it is acceptable to use force to do that punishing, correct? Jail (or servitude at the THREAT of jail) is force.
Quote from: 'Luke S'There are restrictions, and people who violate those restrictions must be punished.
What prevents some person or group of people in the future from sending you to jail or shooting you for being what THEY consider "scum". You think marijuana users are scum and the people on this forum think you are. If the tables were turned, and you were jailed for narcing on non-violent people, what would make our actions okay?
How are you free to live your life if there's the threat that at some point, the people making decisions on "who should be punished" might target you? What is freedom if not for the security that this can't happen?
I'm new here.
Quote from: Luke S on April 25, 2008, 03:33 PM NHFT
Quote
I believe that freedom comes from the fact that we are rational adults who are able to take personal responsibility for the consequences of our free choices. Drugs by their very nature take away our ability to know right from wrong, and therefore take away our ability to take personal responsibility for our actions.
Once I've ingested a drug, because I know longer know the difference between right and wrong, I'm not able to make responsible choices . Because my ability to make responsible choices has been taken away by the drug, I'm not able to take responsibility for my actions while on the drug, and thus I have no right to ingest the drug in the first place, unless I'm under the supervision of medical professionals who know what they're doing, and I'm in a dentist's office or in the hospital.
So I'm absolutely not advocating freedom just for me and not for anyone else. I'm advocating freedom for everyone so long as they have the ability to take responsibility for their actions.
This is absolutely untrue. It is a fantasy. For an example, I take drugs every single day. Hard drugs. Oxycodone is chemically almost the same as heroin, and I ingest it into the hundreds of milligrams every day. Sure, it's under a doctor's supervision, if writing a prescription once a month is supervision. Yet, I am responsible, I come to work every day (I even drive!), I do my job, I do not commit crimes, and I have never hurt anyone while under the influence of the drugs I take. I can certainly guarantee you, I have never lost the ability to judge what is fundamentally right or wrong.
There is a big logical fallacy in your argument, in that if a person who uses drugs never takes an action that effects anyone but themselves, they have never done anything that merits your consideration. You are criminalizing what you perceive to be an increased potential or likelihood to commit a crime or make irresponsible choices. Yet, you can never eliminate either from society, since you can never know for sure what, exactly, motivates a person to do those things. What you can do, is hold them accountable for those actions, and those actions alone, that harm others, and only WHEN THEY OCCUR. Everything else is NONE OF YOU BUSINESS.
Pot smokers who sit at home and play video games and eat Doritos are none of you business, because in doing so, they have never made a choice or committed an act that could even fall into the categories of "right or wrong" that you are so concerned with.
Drugs alter, temporarily, your perceptions of time and space, they effect motor control, and sometimes lower your inhibitions. The drug has yet to be invented that changes one's fundamental morality, and thank goodness it hasn't. What you believe about drugs is pure propaganda, and it is just not true. It is a religious belief, not fit to be backed with violence. I can tell you exactly who shares it though.
Jihadi Fundamentalist Muslims. Is that the company you wish to keep?
You know who else thinks things like that? Rabid anti-gun lefties. They think the mere presence of a gun makes you more likely to kill or use it in a crime, as if the gun negatively affects your state of mind and changes your perception of right and wrong. Still like your new friends?
You might want to put aside your distaste for people altering their perception of reality, and separate their actions from their blood chemistry. We should hold people accountable when they do something that hurts someone else, no matter what they were on at the time, even if it was just adrenaline and anger, because that is all that matters. In fact, your position actually diminishes personal responsibility, by claiming that drugs relieve people of their morality. If you really believe that, then you could not punish them for the crimes they committed while high, because they don't know any better. They are victims as much as those they hurt. Your position just doesn't make any sense.
/troll food
The ignorant fear and hatred of cannabis users is plain and simple, bigotry.
Quote from: Luke S on April 25, 2008, 01:04 PM NHFT
Marijuana user offenders who are disabled obviously will not be the ones digging the holes, erecting the wall, et. al. All marijuana user offenders who are disabled, as well as all marijuana user offenders who do not live in a border state, will for their community service be assigned to special factories that will be built throughout the US (paid for by marijuana fines), in which the individual sections of the fence will be pre-made by the offenders. The disabled marijuana user offenders will get easy jobs that they can still do regardless of their disability, such as operating the machine that makes the razor wire. Those sorts of machines are largely able to run themselves, so the actual task will probably consist of cutting off the razor wire whenever there is enough to cover the top of one section of fence, and then carrying it to the next workstation.
If you work hard, we will eventually set you free.
I think I've heard of this somewhere.
I have no idea why I continue to play along with this guy, who thinks that me and my friends are "scum" (to quote him).
But here goes. Maybe I'll use questions instead of statements and see if that works.
1) Are you aware of any difference between a moral imperative and a law? If so, please explain.
2) What should a person do if he believes a law to be unjust? Is it possible for a law to be unjust? If so, please explain how a person should judge.
3) Are there cases where laws ought to be defied? Also, since by definition a person who is rebelling against a law that he perceives to be unjust will be in conflict with the law, please explain what the moral options are for a person serving in a position of authority when he encounters a person who is rebelling for the sake of conscience.
4) In America, there is a Constitution that was adopted by the States and the rich, white, old, male, pot-smoking scum who voted for it at the time. Some countries, however, (such as England) do not have a written constitution. On what principle should their laws be based? Is your answer based on a set of moral absolutes? If so, please explain why these same moral absolutes do not apply here in America. If your answer is not based on a set of moral absolutes, please justify it.
5) Do you believe that a group of people, pooling resources and acting together, can acquire rights that none of them possess? For instance, I don't personally have the right to murder you. Can I get together with a million of my closest friends and somehow acquire this right? If so, please explain the mechanism and process by which these extra rights are acquired.
6) Imagine a scenario in which you walk by my home, and observe me peacefully smoking pot with several of my friends. Doritos are also present. My friends are engaged in a pleasant discussion about peanut butter. Using only moral arguments (no legal arguments permitted), please explain how you acquire the right to enter my home and subject me to violence.
Luke if pot were somehow no longer illegal, would your prisoners uh "community service workers"
be released from their debt to society?
Would you have other offenders working there too? You know drunk drivers, petty thieves, crooked
cops and others? What if you built this "factory" just for Pot smokers and suddenly nobody smoked pot anymore, thus ending your labor supply and the fence was only half finished...would you then begin to incarcerate nail biters, people with bad breath or dandruff? Obesity? The "unemployed" ?
Are there any exceptions to your rule that pot smokers should do "community service"? Can you think of any redeeming quailties a pot smoker might have or all they all bad?
What if a pot smoking single mom has a pack of kids, no relatives and a broken down car, send her off to hitch hike to your factory? Turn on the cartoons and open a box of cookies for the kids and off she goes? Will you have society pay to watch her kids while she's working at your factory? Say she's one of those hot single moms, you know the kind with a penchant for tight clothing? ;)
Should she wear special baggy clothes so her attractiveness won't arouse the dufus guards who will man your prison camp? Or will your guards be neutered anonomous henchman types? You will have dufus guards won't you ? I mean the TSA can't hire them all! Who will make the lazy pot smokers meet their quotas?
Will your community service workers be strip searched on there way into your factory? Can't have them smuggling weed into the factory can we? Okay, now the hot single mom is a few years older say 39 and her 15 year old grand daughter gets nailed for pot...do we send a minor to your factory? Since the 15 year old is a minor do we have Catholic nuns strip search her on the way in to your factory to ensure her safety?
Should we have the "thought police" scan your brain to ensure you are staying on the pot smoker topic and not drifting off to other more illicit carnal thoughts? Oh wait a minute a thought isn't a crime (yet)... why? Because it's just a thought, there is no victim, right? So do you think we should control and prosecute "victimless crimes"? Or "thought crimes" ?
What would you do to a pot smoker who declined "community service" ? Would you arrest them and incarcerate them? Do you think federal laws where a persons assets can be seized if they're involved in "drug related" crimes are just? Do you think if a judge were busted for driving under the influence the state should seize his house too?
What about cops? Should they go to your factory or do they go to special cop prisons?
Do you recieve any scholarships, loans or grants to attend college? If you are late for a loan payment, would you be willing to work in "Lukes factory"?
... and finally what if it's a hot single mom who happens to be a cop, who's grandfather is a judge and she never paid back her school loans causing a downward spiral in her life to wearing tight shirts, smoking pot and fantasizing about hot sex with "freedom loving" trolls from Ohio is in a wheel chair because she was clipped by a mack truck with NHFREE on the license plate while hitchhiking on her way to your factory...oh shit where was I going with this? Toke, toke, bubble bubble (sound of a bong hit) okay Luke you win, I lost my train of thought, what time do I uh report to your factory?
Damn! After inbibing copious amounts of booze 'till almost midnight you're hitting the pipe before 7am!
You're my hero!
Quote from: Caleb on April 25, 2008, 08:47 PM NHFT
I have no idea why I continue to play along with this guy, who thinks that me and my friends are "scum" (to quote him).
But here goes. Maybe I'll use questions instead of statements and see if that works.
1) Are you aware of any difference between a moral imperative and a law? If so, please explain.
Moral imperatives are imperatives which differ based upon which moral system that you subscribe to. Legal imperatives, or laws, are imperatives which differ based upon which country or state or locality you live in.
Quote
2) What should a person do if he believes a law to be unjust? Is it possible for a law to be unjust? If so, please explain how a person should judge.
A law is unjust if it is in conflict with a higher law. For example, the puppet show law that Dave Ridley is going to break when he gets better from being sick is an unjust law, because puppet shows are protected by freedom of speech, just like movies are protected by freedom of speech. And the fact that he's getting paid for the puppet show doesn't take away his free speech protection, so the law is an unjust law.
The Michigan "no men seducing women" law that I was talking about earlier in another thread is an unjust law because it violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution, since it only makes it illegal for men to seduce women, and doesn't make it illegal for women to seduce men.
The Ohio "no killing flies within 160 feet of a church" law that I was talking about earlier on another thread is also an unjust law, since it violates the Establishment clause of the Constitution, because it only criminalizes killing flies next to churches. Not synagogues, not mosques, not anything else. That amounts to giving Christianity special protections that are not afforded to other religions, which violates the Establishment clause.
Quote
3) Are there cases where laws ought to be defied? Also, since by definition a person who is rebelling against a law that he perceives to be unjust will be in conflict with the law, please explain what the moral options are for a person serving in a position of authority when he encounters a person who is rebelling for the sake of conscience.
A law can be defied when it is an unjust law, as explained in #2. If someone is aggrieved by an unjust law, then they should defy that law.
Those in authority should listen to the arguments of breakers of unjust laws when explaining why the law is unjust. If the breaker of the law is correct that the law violates a higher law, then the unjust law should be struck down, and the breaker should be set free.
For example, there used to be a law in Michigan (which was often listed in Dumb Law joke books and websites) which made it illegal to swear in front of women and children. In 2004 or thereabouts, a man was canoeing on Lake Michigan, and his canoe tipped over, and he got all wet, and he got very, very angry and cursed continually for an hour and a half. The police heard him cursing, and wanted to punish him for something, so they fined him $150 alleging that women and children had heard him cursing, so he had broken the no cursing in front of women and children law.
Now my father and I argued about this because my father thought this was just punishment, but I had known about this law even before this incident, and I thought it restricted freedom of speech, and thus I thought the man's punishment was unjust punishment.
Anyway, the man went to court and argued against his fine, citing that the law was against both the First Amendment protection of free speech, and against the Equal Protection clause since the law protected women and children from swearing, but not men. The court ruled against the law and in favor of the man, and either at that time or shortly thereafter, the law was struck from the Michigan lawbooks.
Quote4) In America, there is a Constitution that was adopted by the States and the rich, white, old, male, pot-smoking scum who voted for it at the time. Some countries, however, (such as England) do not have a written constitution. On what principle should their laws be based? Is your answer based on a set of moral absolutes? If so, please explain why these same moral absolutes do not apply here in America. If your answer is not based on a set of moral absolutes, please justify it.
I'm not able to answer that question because it took me a long time to learn (at least some of) the ins and outs of American law. I don't know the ins and outs of other countries' laws at all, so I can't answer that question.
Quote
5) Do you believe that a group of people, pooling resources and acting together, can acquire rights that none of them possess? For instance, I don't personally have the right to murder you. Can I get together with a million of my closest friends and somehow acquire this right? If so, please explain the mechanism and process by which these extra rights are acquired.
No I don't believe that.
Quote
6) Imagine a scenario in which you walk by my home, and observe me peacefully smoking pot with several of my friends. Doritos are also present. My friends are engaged in a pleasant discussion about peanut butter. Using only moral arguments (no legal arguments permitted), please explain how you acquire the right to enter my home and subject me to violence.
I wouldn't do that, because I am not a police officer. And I couldn't make a citizen's arrest* either because I'm not a citizen of New Hampshire. So the answer is that I don't acquire that right. Only a citizen of New Hampshire making a citizen's arrest or a New Hampshire police officer would have that right.
*Note: Even if I were a NH citizen, I would not make a citizens' arrest on you or anyone else for doing this. I believe that a good rule of thumb for citizens' arrests is they should only be made if you are witnessing either a theft or a violent crime. Other arrests should be left up to the police.
QuoteI have no idea why I continue to play along with this guy, who thinks that me and my friends are "scum" (to quote him).
Caleb, I wholehartedly apologize to you and everyone here for calling you and your friends "scum".
Usually when I debate with people about this issue, the "for" side is not composed of marijuana smokers, but people who are arguing on the "for" side from a purely academic and philosophical point of view, so in most debates, I am able to say "marijuana users are scum" without attacking any parties in the debate. I had momentarily forgotten that that is not the case in this situation.
Although I do not agree with what you all are doing, that does not make it acceptable for me to call names, and for that I am sorry.
"The media and public fears of a direct causal relation between crack and other crimes do not seem to be confirmed by empirical data," the U.S. Sentencing Commission noted in 1995. "Studies report that neither powder nor crack cocaine excite users to commit criminal acts and that the stereotype of a drug-crazed addict committing heinous crimes is not true for either form of cocaine."
Above is a refutation of your foundational premise, from the very government you trust so much. The basis for your position is fallacious. All arguments following from that flawed premise are therefore invalid. You are, in a word, wrong.
Even CRACK does not destroy a person's moral compass, nor does it incite them to violence or criminal activity they would not otherwise commit. The theft they stereotypically engage in is a direct result of prohibition, in that a positive drug test removes them from the general employee pool, even though they are not impaired all the time (a crack high lasts 15-20 minutes, and a smoker may wait up to 24 hours before feeling an intense withdrawal craving... still, a cigarette break is comparable, in that they typically last 10-15 minutes), also prohibition artificially supports prices, forcing addicts to pay 300 - 1000% more than a free market price for their intoxicants, and lastly, the black market necessarily drives them into criminal associations in order to access their supply.
Quote from: Luke S on April 26, 2008, 06:48 PM NHFT
QuoteI have no idea why I continue to play along with this guy, who thinks that me and my friends are "scum" (to quote him).
Caleb, I wholehartedly apologize to you and everyone here for calling you and your friends "scum".
Usually when I debate with people about this issue, the "for" side is not composed of marijuana smokers, but people who are arguing on the "for" side from a purely academic and philosophical point of view, so in most debates, I am able to say "marijuana users are scum" without attacking any parties in the debate. I had momentarily forgotten that that is not the case in this situation.
Although I do not agree with what you all are doing, that does not make it acceptable for me to call names, and for that I am sorry.
This is akin to saying, "I forgot there were some black folks here, usually when I am arguing in favor of slavery, I can say 'put them uppity niggers in chains!' without calling for the forced labor of any parties to the debate."
While I appreciate the effort, I have to say it's a pretty half-hearted apology. You clearly still think pot smokes are scum, you're just sorry you said so to their faces.
Quote from: Luke S on April 26, 2008, 06:18 PM NHFT
Quote
5) Do you believe that a group of people, pooling resources and acting together, can acquire rights that none of them possess? For instance, I don't personally have the right to murder you. Can I get together with a million of my closest friends and somehow acquire this right? If so, please explain the mechanism and process by which these extra rights are acquired.
No I don't believe that.
Everything else you posted, not just in that reply, but anywhere you refer to drug or immigration laws, suggests otherwise. I wont call you a liar, though a less charitable man might, I'll just suggest you have not thoroughly considered the implications of your positions. As Ayn Rand used to say (and ironically, she should have taken her own advice), CHECK YOU PREMISES!
PS - Sorry for the triple post! :-\
This is a question for Luke:
Dear Luke,
Who owns your body? Who holds title to your body? Who has the right to manage your body, including the food you eat, the beverages you drink and the miles you walk?
Use to be, prior to our Constitution and its precurosr, the Declaration, kings announced that they owned the bodies of other humans. This gave kings a remarkable amount of control over the actions of other humans.
So, who owns your body, and do you own any other person's body? If you do own another person's body, to what extent?
ff
Quote from: Dylboz on April 26, 2008, 06:49 PM NHFT
"The media and public fears of a direct causal relation between crack and other crimes do not seem to be confirmed by empirical data," the U.S. Sentencing Commission noted in 1995. "Studies report that neither powder nor crack cocaine excite users to commit criminal acts and that the stereotype of a drug-crazed addict committing heinous crimes is not true for either form of cocaine."
Above is a refutation of your foundational premise, from the very government you trust so much. The basis for your position is fallacious. All arguments following from that flawed premise are therefore invalid. You are, in a word, wrong.
Did the US Sentencing Commission really say this? If so, was this statement published, or was this just something they said at a press conference or something?
I pity the "Just say no" generations.
Luke thinks he is being reasonable. Son you are just ignorant and the ignorance has been turned into bigotry.
Francis Young Administative Law Judge for the DEA
"Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man."
Luke, suck it up and admit you're a freemarketeer. Quit beatin around the BUSH ;D
Quote from: Luke S on April 26, 2008, 06:18 PM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on April 25, 2008, 08:47 PM NHFT
2) What should a person do if he believes a law to be unjust? Is it possible for a law to be unjust? If so, please explain how a person should judge.
A law is unjust if it is in conflict with a higher law. For example, the puppet show law that Dave Ridley is going to break when he gets better from being sick is an unjust law, because puppet shows are protected by freedom of speech, just like movies are protected by freedom of speech. And the fact that he's getting paid for the puppet show doesn't take away his free speech protection, so the law is an unjust law.
The Michigan "no men seducing women" law that I was talking about earlier in another thread is an unjust law because it violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution, since it only makes it illegal for men to seduce women, and doesn't make it illegal for women to seduce men.
The Ohio "no killing flies within 160 feet of a church" law that I was talking about earlier on another thread is also an unjust law, since it violates the Establishment clause of the Constitution, because it only criminalizes killing flies next to churches. Not synagogues, not mosques, not anything else. That amounts to giving Christianity special protections that are not afforded to other religions, which violates the Establishment clause.
What if that law conflicts not with a higher law, but with morality? What if the First Amendment didn't exist: Would the puppeteering law suddenly no longer be something that one could legitimately resist? Would the law suddenly be just? Do we need to Establishment Clause to show us that "no killing flies within 160 feet of a church" is a bad law?
What would happen if the Constitution were amended (or just cleverly reinterpreted—this is, after all, how it's usually done nowadays) to permit statutes authorizing something like slavery or extermination camps? Are these now just, since there's no "higher law" that conflicts with them anymore?
Quote from: Luke S on April 26, 2008, 06:18 PM NHFT
*Note: Even if I were a NH citizen, I would not make a citizens' arrest on you or anyone else for doing this. I believe that a good rule of thumb for citizens' arrests is they should only be made if you are witnessing either a theft or a violent crime. Other arrests should be left up to the police.
Well, now. You seem to believe there's a distinction between crimes of aggression—the theft and violence, which you believe citizens may enforce—and other kinds of crimes, which should only be enforced by the police. What's the distinction here?
Exactly. Your answer to #6 was particularly telling, because I asked for specific moral (not legal) justification for the action. You offered no moral answer, and only hinted at a legal justification.
These questions were designed to get you thinking about the moral foundation of laws. A law is meaningless. Hitler had laws that said Jews should be thrown in ovens. All a law is is a statement to this effect: "If you do this, I will do this to you." It has no moral significance. That's not to say that there is no moral justification behind it. The law could go like this, "If you murder someone else (a moral violation), I will put you in a cage for the rest of your life." Or it could just as easily read like this, "If you eat pop tarts (completely arbitrary), I will bop you on the nose." A law, in and of itself, tells us nothing about morality. It only tells us about consequences to violations of social mores. And these mores could be moral imperatives, or they could be arbitrary.
That's why I wanted to dismiss the concept of laws, and speak about morality. I am interested in discerning whether your drug laws, (in particular) are moral or arbitrary. You acknowledge that you personally have no moral right to subject me to violence if I am smoking pot. You also acknowledge that a group of people cannot acquire rights that none of them possess. Extrapolated properly, that would mean that in a society, no one would have such a right, and that is why you must appeal to the law and the legal foundation rather than any moral foundation to arrest me. But any law that appeals to itself for its own legitimacy is by definition arbitrary.
Quote from: Dylboz on April 26, 2008, 06:54 PM NHFT
While I appreciate the effort, I have to say it's a pretty half-hearted apology. You clearly still think pot smokes are scum, you're just sorry you said so to their faces.
That's EXACTLY what I was thinking. Thank you for expressing it so well.
Quote from: Caleb on April 27, 2008, 03:06 AM NHFTBut any law that appeals to itself for its own legitimacy is by definition arbitrary.
There was an episode of the Plastic Man cartoon where he turns himself into a bowling ball, then picks himself up and bowls himself. Even as a kid and before I'd had any physics classes, I knew that was bullshit!
Quote from: dalebert on April 27, 2008, 08:29 AM NHFT
Quote from: Dylboz on April 26, 2008, 06:54 PM NHFT
While I appreciate the effort, I have to say it's a pretty half-hearted apology. You clearly still think pot smokes are scum, you're just sorry you said so to their faces.
That's EXACTLY what I was thinking. Thank you for expressing it so well.
I'm gonna have to disagree on this one. There is never a rational need to apologize for an opinion -- only for expressing one's opinions in such a way as to personally offend.
I happen to have a not-so-nice opinion of Luke right now, because of some of the irrational ideology he has expressed here. There is no rational need for me to feel guilty about holding that opinion of him, thus no need to apologize. But if I express that opinion to him as a personal attack, then I had better apologize if I want to keep up the dialogue.
I fully accept Luke's apology.
Quote from: Luke S on April 26, 2008, 07:40 PM NHFT
Did the US Sentencing Commission really say this? If so, was this statement published, or was this just something they said at a press conference or something?
http://www.ussc.gov/crack/exec.htm
There's the executive summary of the report they gave to Congress on the matter of mandatory minimums and the crack/powder cocaine disparity. I'm not sure if that quote is in there, but there is a wealth of information about the drug's effects and relationship to crime. You'll find that they say the vast majority of crimes associated with crack are retail drug sales related, meaning, they wouldn't exist without the black market. They also say in chapter 2, that there are no psychopharmacological murders or assaults that can be directly attributed to cocaine, but the drug for which the greatest number can be counted is ALCOHOL.
Quote from: Luke S on April 26, 2008, 06:18 PM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on April 25, 2008, 08:47 PM NHFT
5) Do you believe that a group of people, pooling resources and acting together, can acquire rights that none of them possess? For instance, I don't personally have the right to murder you. Can I get together with a million of my closest friends and somehow acquire this right? If so, please explain the mechanism and process by which these extra rights are acquired.
No I don't believe that.
You know, Luke, it seems that you keep dodging the heart of the issue we keep calling you on. It is not clear whether that is intentional on your part...
I just know that I would really like to see you address this issue head on.If you do not believe a "collective" of individuals can have special rights that override the rights of the individual, whence does the "State"
ultimately derive its
authority to act upon an individual if said individual does not voluntarily grant consent?
Th American State has not been around forever. The US Constitution has not been around forever. You seem to attribute the authority of the government to the Constitution (correct me if I'm wrong). Then where does the Constitution derive its authority, that it passes along to the government?
If I get together with a handful of my friends and we draft a Constitution of our own... would our Constitution likewise grant us the
authority to impose it on our fellow human beings regardless of their informed consent? If not, what sets the US Constitution apart in that regard?
Please tell us what you consider to be the root source of authority.
Quote from: Caleb on April 27, 2008, 03:06 AM NHFT
Exactly. Your answer to #6 was particularly telling, because I asked for specific moral (not legal) justification for the action. You offered no moral answer, and only hinted at a legal justification.
These questions were designed to get you thinking about the moral foundation of laws. A law is meaningless. Hitler had laws that said Jews should be thrown in ovens. All a law is is a statement to this effect: "If you do this, I will do this to you." It has no moral significance. That's not to say that there is no moral justification behind it. The law could go like this, "If you murder someone else (a moral violation), I will put you in a cage for the rest of your life." Or it could just as easily read like this, "If you eat pop tarts (completely arbitrary), I will bop you on the nose." A law, in and of itself, tells us nothing about morality. It only tells us about consequences to violations of social mores. And these mores could be moral imperatives, or they could be arbitrary.
That's why I wanted to dismiss the concept of laws, and speak about morality. I am interested in discerning whether your drug laws, (in particular) are moral or arbitrary. You acknowledge that you personally have no moral right to subject me to violence if I am smoking pot. You also acknowledge that a group of people cannot acquire rights that none of them possess. Extrapolated properly, that would mean that in a society, no one would have such a right, and that is why you must appeal to the law and the legal foundation rather than any moral foundation to arrest me. But any law that appeals to itself for its own legitimacy is by definition arbitrary.
Nice job explaining this...mind if I steal this and use it now and then? I will always think differently of Pop Tarts hereafter too.
Quote from: Caleb on April 27, 2008, 03:06 AM NHFT
If you eat pop tarts (completely arbitrary), I will bop you on the nose.
You shouldn't joke about this, Caleb. Pop-tarts cause people to throw garbage in the streets. I've seen it. I was in this town where people were eating pop-tarts and there was garbage in the streets.
Also, pop tarts could possibly cause a sugar high, which causes people to go wild and be out of control and destructive. That's why pop tart eaters are scum.
I must apologize in advance if some of you people eat pop tarts. I didn't mean to call you scum to your face. I prefer to talk bad about you behind your back.
anyway.
where was i?......
Quote from: babalugatz on April 27, 2008, 04:33 PM NHFT
anyway.
where was i?......
Trying to think up more foulmouthed trollery to post?
Having the sudden revelation that "professional asshole" isn't something to be proud of?
Nah, I just use the "Show unread posts since last visit" link, so I see your posts, just like everyone else's. If you think I'm following you around, that seems to be a nice big case of self-importance, nothing more. Others have called you a completely worthless human being. I just think you're amusing. ;D
Quote from: Caleb on April 27, 2008, 03:06 AM NHFT
Exactly. Your answer to #6 was particularly telling, because I asked for specific moral (not legal) justification for the action. You offered no moral answer, and only hinted at a legal justification.
These questions were designed to get you thinking about the moral foundation of laws. A law is meaningless. Hitler had laws that said Jews should be thrown in ovens. All a law is is a statement to this effect: "If you do this, I will do this to you." It has no moral significance. That's not to say that there is no moral justification behind it. The law could go like this, "If you murder someone else (a moral violation), I will put you in a cage for the rest of your life." Or it could just as easily read like this, "If you eat pop tarts (completely arbitrary), I will bop you on the nose." A law, in and of itself, tells us nothing about morality. It only tells us about consequences to violations of social mores. And these mores could be moral imperatives, or they could be arbitrary.
That's why I wanted to dismiss the concept of laws, and speak about morality. I am interested in discerning whether your drug laws, (in particular) are moral or arbitrary. You acknowledge that you personally have no moral right to subject me to violence if I am smoking pot. You also acknowledge that a group of people cannot acquire rights that none of them possess. Extrapolated properly, that would mean that in a society, no one would have such a right, and that is why you must appeal to the law and the legal foundation rather than any moral foundation to arrest me. But any law that appeals to itself for its own legitimacy is by definition arbitrary.
No, I thought my answer to #6 was perfectly acceptable.
You asked me to imagine a scenario where I saw you and your friends smoking marijuana in your home, and you asked me what right I would have to go into your home and subject you to violence (which is libertarian code-speak for "arrest you for a marijuana violation").
I responded that I do not have that right, because I am neither a New Hampshire police officer, nor am I a citizen of New Hampshire. Thus I personally have no legal nor moral justification to arrest you for committing a marijuana violation in your home in New Hampshire.
My response was a perfectly acceptable response, Caleb. You asked me why do I have the right to do X, and I responded that I do not have the right to do X. That is a perfectly acceptable and reasonable response.
Yes, Luke, it is a perfectly acceptable response to say that you don't have the moral right to do so.
But when you consider your answer to #5, it also means that no one has that right, and any law that says otherwise is therefore inherently immoral.
Your being a police officer or not is irrelevant, because police officer is a legal distinction. And we weren't talking about laws, only morality. I presume that you wouldn't think that you needed to be a police officer to defend yourself if I attacked you? You would, presumably, say that you have a moral right to defend yourself. But when given the opportunity to show the moral foundation for using violence against pot smokers, you admit that you have no such moral right. And turn to a legal argument to create that right for someone else (a police officer, which is simply a legal distinction, not a moral one.)
Look at it this way, Luke. A police officer is just a guy you and your buddies hire to enforce your "laws". But if you don't have a right to use violence against me for something. And if your neighbor doesn't have that right. And if his neighbor doesn't have that right. And so on. If no one has that moral right, then you can't hire someone to use violence against me, because none of you have that right. Remember your response to #5.
Quote from: Caleb on April 27, 2008, 08:04 PM NHFT
Yes, Luke, it is a perfectly acceptable response to say that you don't have the moral right to do so.
But when you consider your answer to #5, it also means that no one has that right, and any law that says otherwise is therefore inherently immoral.
Your being a police officer or not is irrelevant, because police officer is a legal distinction. And we weren't talking about laws, only morality. I presume that you wouldn't think that you needed to be a police officer to defend yourself if I attacked you? You would, presumably, say that you have a moral right to defend yourself. But when given the opportunity to show the moral foundation for using violence against pot smokers, you admit that you have no such moral right. And turn to a legal argument to create that right for someone else (a police officer, which is simply a legal distinction, not a moral one.)
Look at it this way, Luke. A police officer is just a guy you and your buddies hire to enforce your "laws". But if you don't have a right to use violence against me for something. And if your neighbor doesn't have that right. And if his neighbor doesn't have that right. And so on. If no one has that moral right, then you can't hire someone to use violence against me, because none of you have that right. Remember your response to #5.
Caleb, you didn't listen very carefully to my answer. I said, "I do not have that right, because I am neither a New Hampshire police officer, nor am I a citizen of New Hampshire". Caleb, I am a citizen of Michigan going to college in Ohio.
The fact is that the reason why I do not have that right is that I am not a New Hampshire police officer. If I
were a NH police officer, I
would have that right. In fact, it would not even be a right, it would be my
duty.
As a New Hampshire police officer, I would be an officer that has been hired to serve and protect the citizens of New Hampshire, and to enforce the laws that the democratically elected government of New Hampshire has agreed on.
Government has the right to exist if and only if it has the consent of the governed. The question that you asked in #5 was could you get 1,000,000 of your friends together and acquire new rights. No you can't. But the government doesn't have to have consent of 1,000,000 people in order to rule. The bar is that it has to have consent of the majority of its constituents. If that majority is composed of less than 1,000,000 people, then that's all that it needs to rule. It doesn't need "additional rights" or any of that stuff.
Actually Caleb, now that I think about what I just said, this actually puts us here in the USA in a dangerous situation, because in most elections, the official who is elected receives less than 50% of the constituents' consent. Oh, it's true that he always receives a majority of the voters' votes, but not every eligible voter votes in every election. So if you add up all the eligible voters' votes who vote for the official that is eventually elected, and you divide that by the number of eligible voters, both those who voted and who didn't vote, then usually that turns out to be less than 50% since there are so many non-voters.
Ok now I think I see what you're saying Caleb (and Free Libertarian).
You're saying that the government said "X gives us the authority to rule", and then they point to John Locke's texts, and "government with the consent of the governed", and "government with the consent of the majority of voters", only problem being that they rarely in actuality have the consent of the majority of voters. Am I correct?
Anyway, Caleb and Free Libertarian, you're right. You're very right. Because if you have an election like Bill Clinton's election in 1996 where turnout was only something like 49% of eligible voters, then you can have a situation where 24.6% of the people vote for one guy, and he gets elected, and then you have a situation where 24.6% of the population gets to put a guy in there to tell 75.4% of the population what to do, and that's more akin to an oligarchy than a democracy. In other words, it's a great big no-no.
And perhaps part of the reason why a lot of you are anarchists is you think that in that situation, the people who didn't vote effectively voted for no-one at all for president, so that's 51% who voted for no-one. And then there's whatever amount of people who voted for Clinton, which was something like 30% (I'm forgetting about the electoral college here, but it would be the same results only more laborious calculations if I included them in the calculation), so based on that logic, 51% beats 30%, so we should have had no-one be president from 1997 to 2001. And by that logic we should have had no-one be in the House of Representatives in almost all of the districts, since whoever got the most votes in each of the districts usually didn't get more votes than all the non-votes. And same thing for the Senate and most of the state elections, since state-level elections usually get even lower turnout than national elections, if I'm not mistaken.
So am I getting at something here folks? Am I not getting at something here? What do you think? Truth be told, I've never thought of things this way before.
You are getting closer. But you are still quite a ways off. You keep running back to legal arguments. So you are presupposing the system that exists. We are trying to move you back to an earlier stage, so that you can analyze the inherent foundation for your government. But everytime you get close, you run back to the current legal situation, talking about police, etc. That is to say, when you get back to the point where your government is shown to have no foundation, you simply presuppose it and go onto a later stage. This is called "begging the question".
Before you can appeal to a law or to a legal situation such as Police officer or congressman or fuhrer, you need to first establish the foundation for the authority. It is convenient you dismiss other people's rights when they aren't your concerns. Remember the Niemöller poem
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.
When you are dismissive of the moral foundation for other people's rights, when we assign legitimacy to something merely because it is a law or it is a constitution, without concern for the moral foundation of it, then we set ourselves up for the rights that we are concerned about to be stomped on.
The classic case is your guns. You are dismissive of that, because you think that the Constitution enshrines your right to own a gun. But an activist Supreme Court or a Constitutional Amendment could change that for you in a New York minute. Then, you might be a little more concerned about the moral foundation for laws. Most of us here believe that if there isn't a victim, there cannot be a crime.
In other words, people don't have a right to curb other people's liberties based on possibilities of what might happen. Because that limits tyranny only to the extent of the imagination or lack thereof of the tyrant. If you can show a victim, an actual person who has experienced real, tangible loss, then you can quantify a crime. Otherwise, you have completely eroded the concept of rights, once you grant the idea that a government can somehow (through a Constitution or a law or a court ruling) arbitrarily tell people what to do, then no one has any rights in any sense of the term. It's only what the government lets them do or doesn't let them do.
Luke conflates "right" with "authority" (aka "power"). Not to mention confusing "right" with "right or wrong". He retreats from the argument that he's making a legal distinction, not a moral one.
Whether or not it is right for him to use force against someone who is harming no one (except possibly themselves) seems to be a matter of situational ethics to Luke. He's only concerned with legal authority, not whether or not it's the right thing to do.
I don't believe Luke has a clear definition for "authority"... nor is he able to identify it's root source.
Okay, well that was a long read getting caught up with this thread.
Luke, you are right in suggesting that any group of people can come together and form the government of their choosing, be it weak, strong, whatever. They would then be bound by that government for as long as any of them choose to remain within that agreement. However that does not give them the right to impose their government on anyone else.
The government created by the Constitution of the United States was not agreed upon by everyone at the time. There were fierce debates about it and many people wanted nothing to do with it. Rhode Island refused to send delegates to the convention that created it. When it came time to ratify it, it was unclear if it would pass at all. Ironically, New Hampshire was the state that put the Constitution into effect by being the ninth to ratify it. It was then imposed on the other 4 states, who ratified it after the fact.
Be that as it may, none of us, unless one of has a great secret, were parties to that original agreement. I know I for one have never had anyone come and ask me if I consented to be governed by the Township of Boonton, the County of Morris, the State of New Jersey, or the Federal Government of the United States. Hence, according to your argument, since I have not consented to be governed, the various governments must have no right to govern me.
Does that mean that I believe there should just be murder and mayhem in the streets with everyone free to do what they want? No. I do not think that anyone has the right to infringe on any other person's right to their life, liberty, and property. I guess that is where you and I part ways. It sounds like you believe that rights are rights only so long as the majority of a group of people believe you have that right and enumerate that "right" someplace on a legal document. I believe that people's rights are inherent. If you put a condition on a right then it is no longer a right, it merely becomes a privilege administered by someone else.
I am not a pot smoker. That is my personal choice. It is not my choice however to decide if you or anyone chooses to smoke pot. Those choices belong to each of you. I cannot make them for you, nor do I expect any of you to ask for my consent to make them for yourselves. Nor do I seek or need your consent to choose to ingest something, whether it be pot, tobacco, alcohol, trans-fats, or Pop Tarts. It is none of your business what I choose to ingest so long as it does not infringe on your rights.
Luke, how would you, or anyone else, be harmed because I chose to eat a Pop Tart, have a beer, or smoke a joint? If you are honest the answer is that you wouldn't be harmed at all. And if you are not harmed by me, why would you support having my freedom and my property taken from me for doing something that did not harm you?
Let's for a moment suppose that you like to drink energy drinks. And let's for argument's sake say that I find the drinking of energy drinks offensive, because they cause changes in people's personalities, make them more aggressive, more argumentative, and these drinks are detrimental to your overall health. Would you think it was right for me and my fellow energy drink haters to have those drinks banned, and to have your property and freedom taken away if you chose to continue to drink these in defiance of my wishes? I think you and I would both agree that that is a ridiculous scenario, but it is exactly the same scenario used to make pot illegal.
You claim to be in favor of freedom and liberty, but you want to be the arbiter of who has freedom and liberty. You are in favor of removing government laws and regulations that infringe upon your rights, but are more than willing to use that same government to infringe on other's rights, and are willing to violate other's rights provided they live in the same state as you. I'm not sure I understand how you feel you can have it both ways. How can you justify asking for certain things to be removed from yourself, but at the same time justify imposing things on others? Quite frankly I find your hypocrisy more offensive than the fact that you chose to malign people whom you do not know, including many of those who create and enforce the drug laws you espouse.
George
Luke, you were onto something when you started to realize that many of our leaders don't even have majority support. You were beginning to realize on a gut level why our government is illegitimate. That's often how it starts. Where it falls short is the notion that even if they did have a majority, they wouldn't have consent of the governed. Surely you've heard of tyranny of the majority. There are many historical precedents of it- Hitler's Germany, inter-racial marriage, etc. History has proven that majority support for something does not make it right. Majorities are well known for abusing minorities. Therefore, that is not a valid basis for government authority, even if a lot more people did actually vote.
Our founding fathers spoke of this. They knew a pure democracy was doomed to fail for exactly that reason. So in comes the Constitution, right? It was intended to act as a restraint on government power. Of course it doesn't work. So we should ask ourselves why. It's because it's completely arbitrary. Some people gathered and wrote it, but there was nothing to make it valid. It was just the opinion of a few people. Ratification by the states just brings us back to voting again, which even our founding fathers knew to be an invalid basis of authority.
So we have government as plastic man, turning into a ball and trying to pick itself up. It defies all logic. The government makes the claim "I am valid" and then backs that up with "because I say so." Ultimately, you will realize their authority comes down to might makes right. Anyone who questions their authority and acts against their arbitrary laws is subject to threats of fines or imprisonment and ultimately violence and potentially death if they resist those punishments.
Now if you're interested in the difficult task of establishing governments that are truly valid, that deserves it's own subject. SRQRebel is working on some writings about exactly that. These would be governments based on explicit consent of the governed which means they must be completely opt-in and cannot monopolize via force.
Quote from: dalebert on April 28, 2008, 09:10 AM NHFT
Surely you've heard of tyranny of the majority... They knew a pure democracy was doomed to fail for exactly that reason. So in comes the Constitution, right?
Wow! What great timing. This video was just posted. Watch this, Luke.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naJLn8rZMBM
Luke:—
You seem to understand that if an elected official isn't supported by the majority, but gets elected due to the low-voter-turnout scenarios that often happen, that his power is not legitimate. Simple question: If said official is supported by the majority, but you're not a member of that majority, why is he suddenly legitimately your ruler? If you don't support him, you don't support him: What's magic about having one or two extra people on the other side, turning a minority into a majority?
Let's be gentle, he's just barely starting to catch on, which is more than I had hoped for. Authoritarians rarely see themselves as enemies of freedom, just think of Giuliani's "Freedom is Submission" routine. They usually think they are protecting freedom from the bad guys, and they fail to see what little freedom is left after they've "saved" it. But, you've got him thinking about the illegitimate mandate these folks claim, which is a chink in the armor of neo-con "Democracy." Good work, folks! Carry on.
Poptarts are a gateway food, you think you'll never get hooked, but then they lead to frosted poptarts soon you start stealing stuff and next thing you know you're crushing up girl scout cookies and main lining them, it's a horrible thing.
Quote from: Dylboz on April 28, 2008, 01:41 PM NHFT
Let's be gentle...
Yeah... this has definitely erupted into a firestorm. I was thinking, too, that we should be careful not to gang up on him too much... browbeating only tends to alienate.
8)
Well...
There have been a lot of responses here, and this is going to be a lot for me to take in.
Anyway, for this post that I'm about to write right now, I'm going to skip any "intro" and just cut right straight to what is on my mind.
When I was a little boy, I thought that direct democracy would be the freest, purest government possible, and I thought that the USA should switch to being a direct democracy immediately.
But when I got older, I began to realize the dangers of what Dalebert was talking about wrt tyranny of the majority. And then I read works of Plato and Aristotle regarding government, and Plato and Aristotle provided very convincing arguments that direct democracy was folly.
So by the time I was about Tyler Stearns' age, probably even a little younger, I was thoroughly convinced that direct democracy would lead to disaster. So thus I thought that the best thing to do would be to remain having the republic that we have now. And in fact, I thought that it was a mistake to have the Senators be elected through a direct vote of the people, and I thought that it should go back to the way it was before, with the state legislatures electing them.
But recently I thought about things again, and what I realized is that I agreed with a higher percentage of Michigan ballot initiatives that "the mob" had passed than legislation that "the philosopher-kings"* had passed in the Michigan state legislature. And I asked my dad about it, and my dad said he thought the same thing too.
And you might say "Oh, well that's just you and your dad's opinions, and besides, you and your dad are Conservatives, not Libertarians."
But even from a libertarian perspective, the ratio of pro-libertarian legislation to anti-libertarian legislation passed by the mob in MI seems to be greater than that passed by the legislature. And for certain things, such as restriction on use of eminent domain, it's unclear whether it would be passed at all if it weren't for the mob. Think about it. Would the gov't restrict its own ability to use eminent domain? Maybe, maybe not. But it seems unlikely, and it seems like one of those things where they would have to absolutely be dragged kicking and screaming. But thanks to the mob's concern that it might one day be their turn to have their property taken away, it's finally been restricted at least a little bit in Michigan (by initiative). Thank you mob. No thank you philosopher-kings.
So I suppose this raises the question: I know direct democracy is bad. But perhaps the philosopher-kings are doing an even worse job of being a government than the mob would have done? If we were living in a tyranny, as some libertarians claim, (and as I believe Russell Kanning himself has claimed, only he used the phrase "police state", but for all intents and purposes a police state and a tyranny are one in the same), then that would be the case by default, at least according to Plato and Aristotle. Since the only thing lower down on the chain according to those two legendary political philosophers than a democracy (mob-rule) is a tyranny.
Now I wish I could say more, but I have to go now.
*For anyone here who is not familiar with Plato's Republic, the "philosopher-kings", also called the "guardians", were to be the elite ruling caste in Plato's ideal city. My reference here to state legislators and other members of government as philosopher-kings is an allusion to Plato.
Quote from: Luke S on April 30, 2008, 10:55 AM NHFT
...But recently I thought about things again, and what I realized is that I agreed with a higher percentage of Michigan ballot initiatives that "the mob" had passed than legislation that "the philosopher-kings"* had passed in the Michigan state legislature...
Indeed... no argument there.
You seem to recognize that both approaches to government have distinctly undesirable qualities. You have also identified that philosopher-kings often (though not always) make wiser choices than the mob of political voters.
Has it occurred to you that the very concept of legislation, of one individual
or group of individuals usurping other individuals' wills and judgements, could be the ultimate source of our greatest problems?
Have you ever ventured
way outside the box, and considered truly innovative approaches to establishing order, peace and prosperity in our interactive existence?
Luke, have you listed to or read the (audio)book "The Market For Liberty"? I think that's a really REALLY good book.
I've found myself often at a loss for words on how to explain liberty, and the reason is that I've found a LOT of people have some kind of flawed thinking (flawed in the sense that despite being "open minded" there's only so much room for abstract though)... They're willing to accept alternatives but not aware that self-government is one of those alternatives.
At the VERY least, "The Market For Liberty" addresses the ideas of morality and human nature like nothing I've ever really encountered before. It's a positive, uplifting and empowering perspective into human behavior and why we DO have the capacity (even the imperitive) to persue things that are benefitical rather than destructive.
Laissez-faire books (the copyright holder) has given permission to distribute this book freely, so PLEASE take a look at it. It is an introduction to some of the premises that we (As voluntaryists) take for granted (for instance, we beleive that people default to doing good rather than harm - the book goes into why) and why those beliefs affect our views on politics, government and social interaction. If you beleive "people without a moral compass" will go out and rape, rob and pillage then I can see why your arguement against drugs might hold but that belief is something we challange and the book will do a good job of putting things in perspective, I think.
You can download a zipped archive of the files http://media.libsyn.com/media/ftl/The_Market_for_Liberty.zip
I'll say it again...Luke, you need to read Harry Browne's "Why Government Doesn't Work."
Maybe it's just me, but saying "read this" or "listen to that" isn't actually addressing his point, I believe he wants to debates the merits of various methods of tyranny... err, I mean "government systems" with the people here.
'Cause, that could just me. :icon_pirat:
Quote from: Luke S on April 30, 2008, 10:55 AM NHFT
Well...
There have been a lot of responses here, and this is going to be a lot for me to take in.
Anyway, for this post that I'm about to write right now, I'm going to skip any "intro" and just cut right straight to what is on my mind.
When I was a little boy, I thought that direct democracy would be the freest, purest government possible, and I thought that the USA should switch to being a direct democracy immediately.
But when I got older, I began to realize the dangers of what Dalebert was talking about wrt tyranny of the majority. And then I read works of Plato and Aristotle regarding government, and Plato and Aristotle provided very convincing arguments that direct democracy was folly.
So by the time I was about Tyler Stearns' age, probably even a little younger, I was thoroughly convinced that direct democracy would lead to disaster. So thus I thought that the best thing to do would be to remain having the republic that we have now. And in fact, I thought that it was a mistake to have the Senators be elected through a direct vote of the people, and I thought that it should go back to the way it was before, with the state legislatures electing them.
But recently I thought about things again, and what I realized is that I agreed with a higher percentage of Michigan ballot initiatives that "the mob" had passed than legislation that "the philosopher-kings"* had passed in the Michigan state legislature. And I asked my dad about it, and my dad said he thought the same thing too.
And you might say "Oh, well that's just you and your dad's opinions, and besides, you and your dad are Conservatives, not Libertarians."
But even from a libertarian perspective, the ratio of pro-libertarian legislation to anti-libertarian legislation passed by the mob in MI seems to be greater than that passed by the legislature. And for certain things, such as restriction on use of eminent domain, it's unclear whether it would be passed at all if it weren't for the mob. Think about it. Would the gov't restrict its own ability to use eminent domain? Maybe, maybe not. But it seems unlikely, and it seems like one of those things where they would have to absolutely be dragged kicking and screaming. But thanks to the mob's concern that it might one day be their turn to have their property taken away, it's finally been restricted at least a little bit in Michigan (by initiative). Thank you mob. No thank you philosopher-kings.
So I suppose this raises the question: I know direct democracy is bad. But perhaps the philosopher-kings are doing an even worse job of being a government than the mob would have done? If we were living in a tyranny, as some libertarians claim, (and as I believe Russell Kanning himself has claimed, only he used the phrase "police state", but for all intents and purposes a police state and a tyranny are one in the same), then that would be the case by default, at least according to Plato and Aristotle. Since the only thing lower down on the chain according to those two legendary political philosophers than a democracy (mob-rule) is a tyranny.
Now I wish I could say more, but I have to go now.
*For anyone here who is not familiar with Plato's Republic, the "philosopher-kings", also called the "guardians", were to be the elite ruling caste in Plato's ideal city. My reference here to state legislators and other members of government as philosopher-kings is an allusion to Plato.
Luke, maybe in your attempt to find the "best" form of government, you will consider limited or "no government"?
For instance the very term "government" indicates authoritative direction or control. What if there was less governing?
Do you think chaos would ensue and people would throw garbage in the streets at will? (sorry old habit) Think of almost any time there's a war, did the "people" start the war or did a government?
Talk to some old war vets, many felt like they were shooting an enemy that was very much like them, all they wanted to do was go home and have a life too. Yet, they were all told their cause was just, god was on their side and they were protecting their country, go kill the bad guys son. Both sides were told this.
I'm of the opinion that more cooperation, respect and a live and let live would be more successful for people than finding the "best" form of government. I'm a small government person, and often side with the logic of those who are no government types. While far from perfect I try not to harm anyone , I hate having to kneel to kings, deciders and others who know what's best for me, I simply want to live a life where I can interact with those I choose to and vice versa. Is that a bad thing? Leaving people alone and expecting the same? What if more people felt that way and acted that way...would we need a government or anything like the one we have?
Don't you find just a little bit of hypocrisy in a government "bringing freedom" to foreign countries whether they want it or not while ratcheting down our few remaining freedoms here in this country?
Do you think propaganda is only something the bad guys use? Do you think the USA is god's favorite child and we are supposed to be the man of the house, policing the world while he's off creating other worlds?
Also since people are recommending books for you - The Emperor Has No Clothes, it's about the hemp prohibition etc.
I know, I know... :deadhorse: but I am determined to convince you that there are many reasons for the Hemp/Pot prohibition and the ones you have been indoctrinated with are not exactly accurate. You could continue to drink the kool aid or you could dig deeper. I challenge you to dig a bit. If you read this book, I promise to try to stop throwing garbage in the street too and will stop eating poptarts cold turkey.
Luke, sorry make that title of the book I recommended - The Emperor Wears No Clothes...earlier I said Has no clothes...occupational hazard of having grown up in the early 70's...you forget things. ;)
Quote from: Cyro on May 01, 2008, 02:45 PM NHFT
Maybe it's just me, but saying "read this" or "listen to that" isn't actually addressing his point, I believe he wants to debates the merits of various methods of tyranny... err, I mean "government systems" with the people here.
'Cause, that could just me. :icon_pirat:
I don't see a problem with it. If they think that those books speak to them, and they want to recommend them to me, then that's fine, and I'll read them when I get a chance.
I've read libertarian books before, and here's the thing.
On one extreme, you have Thomas Hobbes, who has an overly dim view of human nature, and believes that government has to be a Leviathan (i.e., absolutely huge government with very little in the way of individual rights) in order to harness those parts of human nature which cause violence, unrest, and agony, and to provide security against them.
On the other extreme, you have the libertarian authors, who have an overly optimistic view of human nature, and think we would be just fine under libertarianism, "voluntaryism", or if we had no government at all. And you also have Jean-Jacques Rosseau on this extreme as well.
The truth, of course, is in the middle of those two extremes.
And in fact, certain elements of the truth lie closer to one extreme than other elements.
In other words, when dealing with those parts of human nature which are associated with humanity's potential for evil, the government needs to take a more Hobbesian stance, so as to curtail them, and when dealing with those parts of human nature which are associated with humanity's potential for good, the government needs to take a more Lassiez-Faire stance so as not to curtail them.
How does one judge, Luke? How do you know that you aren't inadvertently doing just the opposite?
I think that laws are the single biggest contributer to the decline of morality. Because people subjugate their minds to the "law". If a law says it's ok, they think it must be ok. And if a law says that it is wrong, they think it must be wrong. The most moral person is a person who is fully conscious of his freedom to choose (and hence his responsibility for his choices). Laws deaden that, and turn the issue into simply obedience or rebellion, as if subjugating our decision making process to "authority" is somehow a virtue.
Quote from: Luke S on May 03, 2008, 12:02 AM NHFT
In other words, when dealing with those parts of human nature which are associated with humanity's potential for evil, the government needs to take a more Hobbesian stance, so as to curtail them, and when dealing with those parts of human nature which are associated with humanity's potential for good, the government needs to take a more Lassiez-Faire stance so as not to curtail them.
Care to offer your definition of "evil" and why we need one evil to combat another?
What Caleb said, and to expand, how do you know the people who happen to be in charge are picking the right things to do? This is at the root of the problem. We hand power over to regular people, just like us, who have those inherent good things AND EVIL THINGS just like us. Power attracts the most evil among us. People who are more inherently good don't want power over others. I was just watching Lord of the Rings on DVD again recently since I don't have TV and was thinking about Aragorn who's spent his whole life, like 80 years so far, trying to avoid becoming king to the point of becoming a stealthy woodsman and hiding under cloaks when he's in a pub. If you must have a king, that's the kind you want.
This corruption of government is inevitable as long as government is made up of regular people, which of course it must be. That's why we need a voluntary model as Menno suggests, which doesn't hold any special power over people. That way the market becomes a real checks and balances on them.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau is no libertarian. In fact, his notion of the social contract has been used to justify the very worst aggressions of the state, as if everyone in some geographic area, who have no choice but to interact with their neighbors, and is subject to the depredations of their local thug-ocracy, has, by their very existence there, approved of what's being done to them.
Quote from: Dylboz on May 03, 2008, 04:24 PM NHFT
Jean-Jacques Rousseau is no libertarian. In fact, his notion of the social contract has been used to justify the very worst aggressions of the state, as if everyone in some geographic area, who have no choice but to interact with their neighbors, and is subject to the depredations of their local thug-ocracy, has, by their very existence there, approved of what's being done to them.
Yeah, but I've known people who are libertarians who are such because they've accepted Rosseau's statements and premises concerning "the noble savage", and have rejected the rest of Rosseau's statements and premises, and have come to the conclusion that we are all "noble people", and should thus have a libertarian style of government.
Quote from: Kevin Dean on April 30, 2008, 07:35 PM NHFT
Luke, have you listed to or read the (audio)book "The Market For Liberty"? I think that's a really REALLY good book.
Well I just listened to the zeroeth chapter which said that slavery still exists, and I agree with that because that's what they did with Russell Kanning and Child support. Child support is nothing but a slavery system in which freeloading women can use the government to enslave men, and the government and lawyers can get a slice of the slavery money as well. It disgusts me.
So I suppose Chapter # 0 gets a :)
Chapter # 1 said that youth didn't like being drafted well here's what I have to say about that: If it's some overseas faraway war, then I can understand, but if it were a war in which the United States had to be defended or had to put down a rebellion like in the Civil War, then youth would have to be drafted, but they didn't even mention those situations in this audiobook, now did they?
And the audiobook also said that the God and Country fervor of the right couldn't make this society better. Well that's wrong on it's face. The God and Country fervor of the Right is what keeps this country strong. Now I'm more on the Country fervor side of things than the God fervor side of things like the Religious Right is, but still I recognize that the God side of the God and country fervor is necessary. It's just that I'm 75% country fervor, 25% God fervor, whereas the religious right is the other way around. Actually I'm 25% God fervor, 25% Country fervor, and 50% fervor of getting rit of all the freeloaders, deviants, druggies, criminals, illegal immigrants, and people like that.
So Chapter 1 gets a :(
And Chapter 2 gets a :( because it was saying bad things about the sacrificial nature of man. Sacrifice is part of freedom. It is NOT always wrong like this book says. Sacrifice is part of freedom. And sometimes death is a necessary sacrifice too. How dare this book say that sacrifice is immoral!
And it also said that drugs are ok when they are not.
Quote from: Luke S on May 04, 2008, 02:09 AM NHFT
Chapter # 1 said that youth didn't like being drafted well here's what I have to say about that: If it's some overseas faraway war, then I can understand, but if it were a war in which the United States had to be defended or had to put down a rebellion like in the Civil War, then youth would have to be drafted, but they didn't even mention those situations in this audiobook, now did they?
Luke, let me ask you a question, do you believe this?:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Quote from: Caleb on May 04, 2008, 02:36 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 04, 2008, 02:09 AM NHFT
Chapter # 1 said that youth didn't like being drafted well here's what I have to say about that: If it's some overseas faraway war, then I can understand, but if it were a war in which the United States had to be defended or had to put down a rebellion like in the Civil War, then youth would have to be drafted, but they didn't even mention those situations in this audiobook, now did they?
Luke, let me ask you a question, do you believe this?:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Yes I do believe that.
Ok, if you believe that, then several points:
You say that I should be able to be drafted so as to put down a rebellion such as that which happened in the civil war. How was the confederacy any different than the American revolution? Both were declaring independence, "altering it" and "instituting new Government, laying its foundation on such principles as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
Second point, an "inalienable" right is a right that is inherent, that cannot legitimately be taken away. Yet you believe I should be able to be drafted? I despise the American Government. I'm like 4 Non-Blondes, "And I pray, oh my God do I pray, I pray every single day FOR A REVOLUTION" I have completely withdrawn my consent. Yet you believe that you should be able to subject me to involuntary servitude for the purpose of preserving a government that I would like to see overthrown? How contradictory is that? I guess my rights aren't so inalienable after all. And it's not only contradictory to your founding principles, it's also self-defeating. Because I assure you that if I am ever drafted, I will do everything in my power to ensure America's defeat. Am I the guy you want serving?
Quote from: Luke S on May 04, 2008, 02:09 AM NHFT
And the audiobook also said that the God and Country fervor of the right couldn't make this society better. Well that's wrong on it's face. The God and Country fervor of the Right is what keeps this country strong. Now I'm more on the Country fervor side of things than the God fervor side of things like the Religious Right is, but still I recognize that the God side of the God and country fervor is necessary.
Let's reason on this a bit, Luke.
You are claiming that a better life can be achieved if people will adopt nationalism and develop strong national fervor.
Why is nationalism such a beneficial principle? Can you please explain the mechanism by which a person becomes a more moral person by adopting a strong patriotic sentiment? On what rational principle can nationalism be sustained? In other words, what makes your nation so much better than any others, such that I should feel superior on that basis?
Quote from: Caleb on May 04, 2008, 02:48 AM NHFT
Ok, if you believe that, then several points:
You say that I should be able to be drafted so as to put down a rebellion such as that which happened in the civil war. How was the confederacy any different than the American revolution? Both were declaring independence, "altering it" and "instituting new Government, laying its foundation on such principles as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
The difference between the USA during the American Revolution and the Confederacy during the Civil War was that the Confederacy was advocating and practicing slavery while everybody else was trying to get rid of slavery. That's what the difference is.
QuoteSecond point, an "inalienable" right is a right that is inherent, that cannot legitimately be taken away. Yet you believe I should be able to be drafted? I despise the American Government. I'm like 4 Non-Blondes, "And I pray, oh my God do I pray, I pray every single day FOR A REVOLUTION" I have completely withdrawn my consent. Yet you believe that you should be able to subject me to involuntary servitude for the purpose of preserving a government that I would like to see overthrown? How contradictory is that? I guess my rights aren't so inalienable after all. And it's not only contradictory to your founding principles, it's also self-defeating.
First of all, when the Founding Fathers said "inalienable", they were using a flexable definition of inalienable, which meant "cannot be taken away without just cause". Putting down a rebellion is most certainly just cause.
QuoteBecause I assure you that if I am ever drafted, I will do everything in my power to ensure America's defeat. Am I the guy you want serving?
No.
Quote from: Caleb on May 04, 2008, 03:01 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 04, 2008, 02:09 AM NHFT
And the audiobook also said that the God and Country fervor of the right couldn't make this society better. Well that's wrong on it's face. The God and Country fervor of the Right is what keeps this country strong. Now I'm more on the Country fervor side of things than the God fervor side of things like the Religious Right is, but still I recognize that the God side of the God and country fervor is necessary.
Let's reason on this a bit, Luke.
You are claiming that a better life can be achieved if people will adopt nationalism and develop strong national fervor.
Why is nationalism such a beneficial principle? Can you please explain the mechanism by which a person becomes a more moral person by adopting a strong patriotic sentiment? On what rational principle can nationalism be sustained? In other words, what makes your nation so much better than any others, such that I should feel superior on that basis?
I love nationalism so much. I hate all the people that took American nationalism away. It's like taking a piece of my heart away.
They have all these leftist events at all these colleges designed to tear apart America, and then somebody tried to have "catch an illegal immigrant day". And they were hounded and hounded by the left until they had to shut down the event. The Left has destroyed the national pride that used to be in this country, and it makes me sick.
I remember during 2001 and 2002 when finally a little bit of the nationalism got to come back. Just a tiny little bit. And I truly enjoyed that tiny little bit that got to come back. But then it went away again because the Left took it away again :( But believe me, I truly, truly did enjoy it for the short time that it was there.
Quote from: Luke S on May 04, 2008, 03:09 AM NHFT
The difference between the USA during the American Revolution and the Confederacy during the Civil War was that the Confederacy was advocating and practicing slavery while everybody else was trying to get rid of slavery. That's what the difference is.
Not so. First of all, the US was itself a slave nation. Not all the slave states seceded, and the emancipation proclamation freed only those slaves that were in the seceding slave states. Second, think about this for a moment: The United States was not the only nation that had to deal with the unjust system of slavery. Can you name any other country that solved its slavery problem via a bloody war? The US could have purchased all the slaves for a fraction of the cost of the war. Lincoln himself said that the war wasn't about slavery, it was about "preserving the Union"... Britain made a very similar argument: we can't let the colonies go, we must "preserve the commonwealth", and just like Lincoln feigned concern for slaves, Britain feigned concern for "his majesty's native population." Pretexts for war aren't hard to find. Substantively, there was no difference between the confederacy and the American revolution.
QuoteFirst of all, when the Founding Fathers said "inalienable", they were using a flexable definition of inalienable, which meant "cannot be taken away without just cause". Putting down a rebellion is most certainly just cause.
No, Luke, it is not a "just cause" to put down rebellion. The Declaration of Independence asserts the right of rebellion as an inalienable right, "to alter or abolish" remember? And the very act of trying to identify "just cause" for violating someone's inalienable rights is contradictory, it makes inalienable completely meaningless. I have a very nice copy of Jefferson's collected writings. They are brilliant, (so far as statists go). I no longer need it, and if you would like it, I will give it to you.
Quote from: Luke S on May 04, 2008, 03:20 AM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on May 04, 2008, 03:01 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 04, 2008, 02:09 AM NHFT
And the audiobook also said that the God and Country fervor of the right couldn't make this society better. Well that's wrong on it's face. The God and Country fervor of the Right is what keeps this country strong. Now I'm more on the Country fervor side of things than the God fervor side of things like the Religious Right is, but still I recognize that the God side of the God and country fervor is necessary.
Let's reason on this a bit, Luke.
You are claiming that a better life can be achieved if people will adopt nationalism and develop strong national fervor.
Why is nationalism such a beneficial principle? Can you please explain the mechanism by which a person becomes a more moral person by adopting a strong patriotic sentiment? On what rational principle can nationalism be sustained? In other words, what makes your nation so much better than any others, such that I should feel superior on that basis?
I love nationalism so much. I hate all the people that took American nationalism away. It's like taking a piece of my heart away.
They have all these leftist events at all these colleges designed to tear apart America, and then somebody tried to have "catch an illegal immigrant day". And they were hounded and hounded by the left until they had to shut down the event. The Left has destroyed the national pride that used to be in this country, and it makes me sick.
I remember during 2001 and 2002 when finally a little bit of the nationalism got to come back. Just a tiny little bit. And I truly enjoyed that tiny little bit that got to come back. But then it went away again because the Left took it away again :( But believe me, I truly, truly did enjoy it for the short time that it was there.
This doesn't answer a single question that I put to you. Nationalism is not unique to America. The Germans had a lot of Nationalistic fervor around the time of World War II. I am asking you "why nationalism is beneficial". You simply responded by a) affirming that you are nationalistic. b) expressing discontent with those that aren't nationalistic. c) reminiscing about a time when people were more nationalistic. None of these approaches answers my questions.
Quote from: Caleb on May 04, 2008, 03:27 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 04, 2008, 03:20 AM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on May 04, 2008, 03:01 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 04, 2008, 02:09 AM NHFT
And the audiobook also said that the God and Country fervor of the right couldn't make this society better. Well that's wrong on it's face. The God and Country fervor of the Right is what keeps this country strong. Now I'm more on the Country fervor side of things than the God fervor side of things like the Religious Right is, but still I recognize that the God side of the God and country fervor is necessary.
Let's reason on this a bit, Luke.
You are claiming that a better life can be achieved if people will adopt nationalism and develop strong national fervor.
Why is nationalism such a beneficial principle? Can you please explain the mechanism by which a person becomes a more moral person by adopting a strong patriotic sentiment? On what rational principle can nationalism be sustained? In other words, what makes your nation so much better than any others, such that I should feel superior on that basis?
I love nationalism so much. I hate all the people that took American nationalism away. It's like taking a piece of my heart away.
They have all these leftist events at all these colleges designed to tear apart America, and then somebody tried to have "catch an illegal immigrant day". And they were hounded and hounded by the left until they had to shut down the event. The Left has destroyed the national pride that used to be in this country, and it makes me sick.
I remember during 2001 and 2002 when finally a little bit of the nationalism got to come back. Just a tiny little bit. And I truly enjoyed that tiny little bit that got to come back. But then it went away again because the Left took it away again :( But believe me, I truly, truly did enjoy it for the short time that it was there.
This doesn't answer a single question that I put to you. Nationalism is not unique to America. The Germans had a lot of Nationalistic fervor around the time of World War II. I am asking you "why nationalism is beneficial". You simply responded by a) affirming that you are nationalistic. b) expressing discontent with those that aren't nationalistic. c) reminiscing about a time when people were more nationalistic. None of these approaches answers my questions.
Because it creates happiness, and it causes people to realize that we need to get rid of or punish freeloaders, druggies, criminals, and illegal immigrants, and it also helps people to see though the UN's lies, and to have the courage to stand up to the UN. I believe that one day it might even lead to freedom from the UN, and having the UN be kicked out of New York, if we could get enough of it.
It creates happiness? ::) Drugs create happiness.
On the basis of these benefits of nationalism that you have enumerated, would you therefore recommend nationalistic fervor to other nations as well? Perhaps Russia or Iran or China?
Quote from: Luke S on May 04, 2008, 04:04 AM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on May 04, 2008, 03:27 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 04, 2008, 03:20 AM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on May 04, 2008, 03:01 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 04, 2008, 02:09 AM NHFT
And the audiobook also said that the God and Country fervor of the right couldn't make this society better. Well that's wrong on it's face. The God and Country fervor of the Right is what keeps this country strong. Now I'm more on the Country fervor side of things than the God fervor side of things like the Religious Right is, but still I recognize that the God side of the God and country fervor is necessary.
Let's reason on this a bit, Luke.
You are claiming that a better life can be achieved if people will adopt nationalism and develop strong national fervor.
Why is nationalism such a beneficial principle? Can you please explain the mechanism by which a person becomes a more moral person by adopting a strong patriotic sentiment? On what rational principle can nationalism be sustained? In other words, what makes your nation so much better than any others, such that I should feel superior on that basis?
I love nationalism so much. I hate all the people that took American nationalism away. It's like taking a piece of my heart away.
They have all these leftist events at all these colleges designed to tear apart America, and then somebody tried to have "catch an illegal immigrant day". And they were hounded and hounded by the left until they had to shut down the event. The Left has destroyed the national pride that used to be in this country, and it makes me sick.
I remember during 2001 and 2002 when finally a little bit of the nationalism got to come back. Just a tiny little bit. And I truly enjoyed that tiny little bit that got to come back. But then it went away again because the Left took it away again :( But believe me, I truly, truly did enjoy it for the short time that it was there.
This doesn't answer a single question that I put to you. Nationalism is not unique to America. The Germans had a lot of Nationalistic fervor around the time of World War II. I am asking you "why nationalism is beneficial". You simply responded by a) affirming that you are nationalistic. b) expressing discontent with those that aren't nationalistic. c) reminiscing about a time when people were more nationalistic. None of these approaches answers my questions.
Because it creates happiness, and it causes people to realize that we need to get rid of or punish freeloaders, druggies, criminals, and illegal immigrants, and it also helps people to see though the UN's lies, and to have the courage to stand up to the UN. I believe that one day it might even lead to freedom from the UN, and having the UN be kicked out of New York, if we could get enough of it.
I remember the day when George W. Bush stood up to the U.N., and he said that the USA didn't need a UN permission slip to defend ourselves, and he went to war anyway. It was the first step of the chains of the UN being broken. And I remember all the sissy liberals who wanted the USA to be a slave to the UN whining about it, but George Bush didn't listen to any of their whining, and he made it very clear that he didn't need a permission slip from them, either.
If it weren't for all the nationalism that was behind George Bush, then Bush wouldn't have been able to break that first UN chain that was around the USA.
And I remember when liberals lied and said that there were no weapons of mass destruction over there, and they are still lying to this very day. I remember hearing very distinctly on the radio that they had found a lab that was in the back of a truck that was being used to make biological weapons. But of course the liberal media only said it as one tiny little footnote. But it did not escape my ears. It was obvious that Saddam Hussein was trying to get ahold of weapons of mass destruction, and the liberal media is continuing to lie and say that he wasn't.
The reason why they hate Bush is that Bush stood up to them like nobody else ever has in the history of modern America. And they did what they do best, which is lie, and they lied about Bush over and over again until everybody hated him. But not me. I think that he was the best president we have ever had, because nobody stood up to the UN the way that Bush did, and nobody took a stand for America like Bush did.
Quote from: Luke S on May 04, 2008, 04:32 AM NHFT
I remember the day when George W. Bush stood up to the U.N., and he said that the USA didn't need a UN permission slip to defend ourselves, and he went to war anyway. It was the first step of the chains of the UN being broken. And I remember all the sissy liberals who wanted the USA to be a slave to the UN whining about it, but George Bush didn't listen to any of their whining, and he made it very clear that he didn't need a permission slip from them, either.
If it weren't for all the nationalism that was behind George Bush, then Bush wouldn't have been able to break that first UN chain that was around the USA.
And I remember when liberals lied and said that there were no weapons of mass destruction over there, and they are still lying to this very day. I remember hearing very distinctly on the radio that they had found a lab that was in the back of a truck that was being used to make biological weapons. But of course the liberal media only said it as one tiny little footnote. But it did not escape my ears. It was obvious that Saddam Hussein was trying to get ahold of weapons of mass destruction, and the liberal media is continuing to lie and say that he wasn't.
The reason why they hate Bush is that Bush stood up to them like nobody else ever has in the history of modern America. And they did what they do best, which is lie, and they lied about Bush over and over again until everybody hated him. But not me. I think that he was the best president we have ever had, because nobody stood up to the UN the way that Bush did, and nobody took a stand for America like Bush did.
Thanks for that. I haven't laughed so hard in a month.
Now with thad being said, what I didn't agree with was the "spreading democracy" part. Meaning that Bush should have gotten rid of the truck with the biological weapons lab, as well as the other WMD's that they found, and of course gotten rid of Hussein and his regime, and then they should have left. That is what Bush did wrong. And that is where I as a traditional conservative disagree with the neoconservatives.
Quote from: Luke S on May 04, 2008, 03:09 AM NHFT
The difference between the USA during the American Revolution and the Confederacy during the Civil War was that the Confederacy was advocating and practicing slavery while everybody else was trying to get rid of slavery. That's what the difference is.
Luke,
As Caleb said there were a lot of slave holders in the colonies, north and south, with more in the southern colonies of course. There were still slaves being held in the "north" during the Civil War as well. Slavery did not become a big issue during the Civil War as far as recruiting and such until they started having a hard time finding volunteers. Then there was a major shift from preserving the Union to freeing the slaves. The recruiting ad my great-great-grandfather responded to didn't mention slavery at all. It was all about preserving the Union and that was in the summer of 1862. On the other side of the coin, the literature that was being distributed in the South that convinced my wife's family members to join the fight against the Union was all about retaining their rights, and the freedom to have a government of their choosing. The word slavery isn't mentioned because for many in the South slavery wasn't a primary issue since they owned no slaves. For many their concern was the incredible shift in power to the northern states, and how that power was being used against them in a wide variety of ways. You might want to spend some time reading original source material before you claim the war was about slavery. The war was fought about a much more complex issue than that, though you would never know it from modern texts.
I'm curious how you know that the Founding Fathers intended the word inalienable to have a flexible definition. They were generally pretty careful with the words they selected. What is your source for that information?
As far as the draft is concerned, one can only believe in the draft if one believes that the individual is the property of the state. I agree with Caleb here, there would be no purpose to drafting me into the United States military because it would be counterproductive. I would not serve them in any capacity. Now that being said, if there arose a time that I felt that my family, my friends, my neighbors, etc. were in danger of being harmed by an invading army, I'd be the first one to go meet them at the beach. I have no qualms about fighting or killing or dieing to defend my family, or helping my friends defend theirs if it comes to that. If you mean sacrifice is a good thing in that respect I would have to agree with you.
George
Arguing for a draft on the basis of need. That sounds like socialism style slavery. Poor people need your money. Only it's really a much worse form of slavery than that. Risking your life and even dying to protect others is noble, but being forced to risk or sacrifice your life for others is quite possibly the worse type of slavery imaginable, much worse that being forced to work on a farm or in a factory while others partake of the fruits of your labor.
Quote from: NJLiberty on May 04, 2008, 07:53 AM NHFT
I'm curious how you know that the Founding Fathers intended the word inalienable to have a flexible definition. They were generally pretty careful with the words they selected. What is your source for that information?
He doesn't have one. And I suspect he doesn't really care. From what I've gathered, and correct me if I am wrong Luke, he seems to view the Founders' main significance as being the framework of government that they left us, but doesn't really care much about their ideas. When I told him that Washington was a pothead, he responded that the world of the founders was a world of "thuggery, lawlessness, rebellion, anarchy, and organized crime", which spirit had apparently influenced the Founders, causing them to adopt these horrible positions such as tolerance of drugs. If that is your viewpoint, it's hard to see how you can possibly accept the Constitution as sacrosanct, but somehow that's a leap that Luke is able to make. It would seem to me that it would logically follow that if the worldview of the founders was one predisposed to "thuggery, lawlessness, rebellion, anarchy, and organized crime" then that viewpoint would have also been the basis on which they organized their government and the constitutional framework for that government, meaning that the Constitution is just a god-damned piece of paper, as W so eloquently described it.
Quote from: Caleb on May 04, 2008, 03:23 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke S on May 04, 2008, 03:09 AM NHFT
The difference between the USA during the American Revolution and the Confederacy during the Civil War was that the Confederacy was advocating and practicing slavery while everybody else was trying to get rid of slavery. That's what the difference is.
Not so. First of all, the US was itself a slave nation. Not all the slave states seceded, and the emancipation proclamation freed only those slaves that were in the seceding slave states. Second, think about this for a moment: The United States was not the only nation that had to deal with the unjust system of slavery. Can you name any other country that solved its slavery problem via a bloody war?
Well guess what. They had a chance to solve the slavery problem in the way that all those countries had solved their slavery problem, but they did not select that option. The option that the South selected was the "bloody war" option, so that's the option that unfortunately had to happen. If they had selected a different option, then we could have done that other option, but it was their choice whether they wanted to do it peacefully or whether they wanted to do it kicking and screaming and unfortunately they chose kicking and screaming.
QuoteThe US could have purchased all the slaves for a fraction of the cost of the war.
No that's not correct, because they would have either not sold them or just found more slaves once they had sold them.
Luke, the original draft of The Declaration of Independence was printed on hemp paper. Wonder if GW would want to smoke that in one of his staff meetings?
" Condi, don't bogart that G-D piece of paper, me and Dick want a toke!"
All kidding aside, you can't be serious that you think GW is a good president? How do you explain his
"missing" driving records, military records and that "mission accomplished" day he stood on the flight deck pretending he was a fighter pilot?
Luke if you're not just some comedian having a good laugh at our expense, I'm really sorry that you
are a GW Bush fan, really I am. I can't imagine how you came to the conclusion GW has done anything
in his entire life to warrant respect, but I suppose if you can forgive him all of his drug transgressions,whoring around and generally being a spoiled little silver spoon frat boy you have a greater capacity for forgiveness than me. I'd have trouble pissing on him even if he was on fire, so I do not share your opinion of his uh place in history as a great President.
Speaking of the draft...how did your patriotic boys GW and Cheney manage to avoid Vietnam?
Are you one of those who thinks war is for poor kids and Senators sons should be exempt from the draft?
Also do you intend to "serve your country" in the middle east by joining the military?
Or should college kids be exempt fro mthe draft too?
Luke, you love the USA so much you'd die defending it, right?
If the USA is so good in the eyes of the rest of Americans, why is it that the only way you believe a military can be supported by force? If people love their country, shouldn't they be willing to defend it?
And if being willing to defend your country with violence greats "good will" how do you justify getting rid of Iraqi good will by meddling with their nation?
If people must die for you to have the country you desire, I hope you forever remain homeless and alienated.
Quote from: Luke S on May 04, 2008, 01:23 PM NHFT
They had a chance to solve the slavery problem in the way that all those countries had solved their slavery problem, but they did not select that option. The option that the South selected was the "bloody war" option, so that's the option that unfortunately had to happen.
Urrh? The South chose to secede. The United States started the war to forcibly return them to the Union.
But, you are half right: Every other nation abolished slavery peacefully, and the U.S. chose not to select that option—but it was the
U.S. government, not the C.S. government, that made that choice.
Exactly! In Luke's topsy turvy world, the aggressor is the victim. It's like a man who beats up his girlfriend, then asks her "why'd you make me do that, baby?"
Quote from: Free libertarian on May 04, 2008, 02:03 PM NHFT
Luke, the original draft of The Declaration of Independence was printed on hemp paper. Wonder if GW would want to smoke that in one of his staff meetings?
" Condi, don't bogart that G-D piece of paper, me and Dick want a toke!"
All kidding aside, you can't be serious that you think GW is a good president? How do you explain his
"missing" driving records, military records and that "mission accomplished" day he stood on the flight deck pretending he was a fighter pilot?
Luke if you're not just some comedian having a good laugh at our expense, I'm really sorry that you
are a GW Bush fan, really I am. I can't imagine how you came to the conclusion GW has done anything
in his entire life to warrant respect, but I suppose if you can forgive him all of his drug transgressions,whoring around and generally being a spoiled little silver spoon frat boy you have a greater capacity for forgiveness than me. I'd have trouble pissing on him even if he was on fire, so I do not share your opinion of his uh place in history as a great President.
Oh my God you're right, I forgot completely about his drug transgressions!!
But the fact is that the transgressions did not occur during his presidency, nor did any of the other transgressions that you wrote about. What I wrote before was strictly an evaluation of him as a president.
QuoteSpeaking of the draft...how did your patriotic boys GW and Cheney manage to avoid Vietnam?
Are you one of those who thinks war is for poor kids and Senators sons should be exempt from the draft?
No I don't think that Senators' sons should be exempt from the draft. I don't think that at all.
QuoteAlso do you intend to "serve your country" in the middle east by joining the military?
Or should college kids be exempt fro mthe draft too?
The problem there is that my parents told me that I was absolutely forbidden from joining. I'd be tough for me to ignore them in that regard, because I love and respect them very much. I suppose one day I might have to though, on account of all the liberals that have said I'm hypocritical for supporting Bush and the military but not joining it. But I thought that at least I would wait until I was out of college. That's going to be in 2 weeks, so I might be doing just that in 2 weeks.
Oh, and to make it perfectly clear, if there were a draft I would certainly go. I wouldn't even try to "draft dodge" or anything like that. My great aunt who lives in Canada said that if there were ever a draft she would harbor me over in Canada, and my parents said that they would get me to her in Canada, but I would refuse all their efforts to do that. I would go.
On another note I listened to chapter 3 of "The Market for Freedom", and I heard the part about the poor black man selling sandwiches, and having spent a lot of time in Detroit throughout my life, that example really grappled my heart, because that's a typical scene from Detroit, folks. I remember one guy who would sell roses on the side of the street, and he would always be there selling roses, and he always had very tattred clothes, and he seemed very poor, and I doubt he had all the government licenses and blah blah blah he needed to sell the roses either.
A lot of people in Detroit have the "police vs. citizenry" view that libertarians seem to have, even though they're not libertarians at all. In fact they are very socialist, but still they have the "police vs. citizenry" view.
Anyway, you and that author are absolutely right that government regulations have been strangling the private sector, and you're absolutely right that it's killing our economy.
So Luke,
your favorite President was a dope smoker, his Vice President is a draft dodger and war profiteer and GW never was "really" in the military but he gets to play soldier when he wants to wear cool flight uniforms on aircraft carriers.
If this is a free country and we outlawed "involuntary servitude" how do you explain the draft? Isn't that contradictory? I mean with 700 bases in 130 different countries maybe you can change your parents minds about you voluntarily joining the military we clearly need more cannon fodder to police the world.
Luke if a foreign army was occupying our country would you quit school and defend your country?
These "defense companies" that were discussed in Ch. 8 absolutely send chills down my spine, to tell you the truth. They're private armies by any other name. And if you thought that police corruption and police brutality was bad, just wait until these private armies are put in charge of law enforcement, it'll be 5 times worse.
Private armies owned by rich businessmen for the purposes of "business protection" and "personal protection of the businessman", which is basically what this book is suggesting we have in this society again, have been responsible for some of the worst abuses and usurpations that have occurred against people throughout United States history, especially against their own laborers, and against the poor.
You think they won't act as thugs? Guess what guys, they have throughout history whenever they've been implemented. And they've been far worse thugs than any police department that we have right now in present day America.
Throughout US history while they were allowed to exist they were responsible for a reign of terror against laborers, the poor, and anybody else who dared stand in the path of or protest against those who employed them. I hate excessive laws, but I absolutely can't blame the government for outlawing those mercenary scum.
That is what the United States' Army is, thugs acting to protect rich businessmen, they are the mercenary scum you despise. In a free society, there would be NO restrictions on my ability to raise my own opposing army, or acquire advanced defensive hardware capable of resisting them. There would be no monopoly on organizing military defenses, and that's the point "Market for Liberty" makes. In fact, what the book ACTUALLY advocates is that everyone will get to buy into or organize their own defensive organization. That means it's subservient to its customer's demands, or it gets fired. The second half of your statement about abuse and usurpation is that those "private armies" were up against citizens who were legally and economically deprived of the means to self-defense, just as Americans are today, under the guise of "common sense gun control" and a generously subsidized military-industrial-security complex. A free market would be very, very different.
What blows my mind is you think that the government army is immune to the corruptive pressures you describe, and you imagine that the U.S. military has somehow NOT been a "terror against laborers, the poor, and anybody else who dared stand in the path of or protest against those who employed them." That is what is happening in Iraq. That is what is happening here in the militarization of the "civilian" police and the drug war. Plus, they've hired Blackwater and Custer Battles (on both fronts) to help!
Quote from: Free libertarian on May 05, 2008, 08:27 PM NHFT
Luke if a foreign army was occupying our country would you quit school and defend your country?
I know what's coming next after that question Free Libertarian. You think I don't know what's coming next, but actually I do.
Because truth be told, I saw a video today of the Mexican army going across into the Southwest on US soil on Youtube. And it turns out that they frequently invade to help drug smugglers smuggle drugs. And all that's left to fend them off I suppose are a bunch of vigilantes and nationalists because the National Guard is in Iraq and the US Army is mostly in Iraq.
There's a great big problem actually with serving the USA in that sort of capacity, which is that lately the government has been stabbing even their own servicemen in the back. I've even heard of cases where Border Patrol servicemen have been criminally charged for shooting back at illegal immigrants who shot at them first, or for shooting at illegal immigrants when they were in a situation where protocol told them that they were supposed to be shooting. In other words, servicemen are left out to dry because politicians want the Hispanic vote and politicians want the PC crowd's vote.
So if you weren't even a Border Patrol agent, let's say you were a Texas rancher with a ranch on the border and all of the sudden here comes the Mexican Army across the border with machine guns and drugs and you and your wife take your guns and you try to shoot at them and they shoot at you, and then then even if you survive that and they go back across the border from whence they came, next thing you know, you're in jail under the charge of "Illegally shooting at the Mexican Military". And you're in a US jail, not even a Mexican jail.
They've stabbed their own folks so many times in the back for those Hispanic votes, and they hardly even care about defending that border to tell you the truth. It's everybody BUT them who has to feel the consequences of the Mexican Army invading and bringing in drugs and illegal immigrants, not them. It's them who has to feel the consequences of whether or not they get the Hispanic vote, and that's the principle they operate on, not on the principle of the safety of the United States of America. And then they go and sabotage those people who do operate on the principle of the safety of the United States of America.
Luke is now channeling Jane. ;D
Luke, since my question of whether or not you'd defend your country was side stepped...what's the difference between our defending this country and a citizen in another country
wanting to defend his/hers from a foreign army? Are we endowed with some special rights or emotions that only Americans are allowed to have? Different rules for us because we're special?
I suppose "different rules" is official policy at least when Nuclear weapons are considered eh?
Do you think our appointed role of world police is justified? Do you think we should be occupying foreign countries and paying for it with $$$ and lives?
How do you explain our interventionist foreign policy? Are we doing it for noble causes in all the circumstances? What if we suffered an economic collapse (duh) or sunk to a lower tier in the world's power chain and another country rose as the super power and we were occupied? How bout them apples Luke...can't happen? Why not? Remember your history, we haven't always been the world superpower and there's a good chance we won't be forever, perhaps a change will occur in your lifetime...maybe you can throw rose petals at the feet of the Iraqi's who come to liberate you and your granchildren from the regime of GW Bush II 50 years down the road. Would you submit to a roadside stop, question and feel up session if Iraqi soldiers were here in the USA?
Also how do you explain your favorite President going to war without a declaration of war by congress?
Does he have special unwritten powers or can he ignore the Constitution when he feels like it?
Is waterboarding torture or just "enhanced interrogation? Is a warrantless wire tap something that happens in a "free country"? Opening your mail? Monitoring this forum? Free speech zones?
Feel "free" to side step these questions too and continue to think GW Bush is a tough guy and will protect you from the terrorists that live under everybody's bed. I just wish they could find his military records, I'm sure he deserves some metals or something. He reminds me of the rich kid in the neighborhood who had a swimming pool, nobody liked him and you really hated yourself for even thinking about asking if you could go in his pool. I'd rather run thru the sprinkler and eat this melting popsicle, thanks anyway George.
Quote from: Free libertarian on May 06, 2008, 07:46 AM NHFT
Luke, since my question of whether or not you'd defend your country was side stepped...what's the difference between our defending this country and a citizen in another country wanting to defend his/hers from a foreign army?
I can't answer for Luke, but as for myself if the roles were reversed and we were the ones who had been invaded and occupied I would be spending every day trying go make the occupiers' lives miserable in any way I could, assuming of course that I survived the initial invasion. That would include using any and all methods and materials at my disposal, whether they were approved by the "rules of war" or not, just as my ancestors did when they threw the British out.
People tend to forget that our patriots burned tax collectors' homes to the ground, tarred and feathered agents of the Crown, and otherwise assaulted their persons, as well as doing any manner of terroristic things to get their point across. The Boston Tea Party was a very tame example of what was going on then, though that seems to be the image people remember. The British sent the troops to Boston for a reason, and it wasn't because Sam Adams and the boys were marching around with protest signs.
George
Quote from: Dylboz on May 05, 2008, 11:09 PM NHFT
That is what the United States' Army is, thugs acting to protect rich businessmen, they are the mercenary scum you despise. In a free society, there would be NO restrictions on my ability to raise my own opposing army, or acquire advanced defensive hardware capable of resisting them. There would be no monopoly on organizing military defenses, and that's the point "Market for Liberty" makes. In fact, what the book ACTUALLY advocates is that everyone will get to buy into or organize their own defensive organization. That means it's subservient to its customer's demands, or it gets fired. The second half of your statement about abuse and usurpation is that those "private armies" were up against citizens who were legally and economically deprived of the means to self-defense, just as Americans are today, under the guise of "common sense gun control" and a generously subsidized military-industrial-security complex. A free market would be very, very different.
What blows my mind is you think that the government army is immune to the corruptive pressures you describe, and you imagine that the U.S. military has somehow NOT been a "terror against laborers, the poor, and anybody else who dared stand in the path of or protest against those who employed them." That is what is happening in Iraq. That is what is happening here in the militarization of the "civilian" police and the drug war. Plus, they've hired Blackwater and Custer Battles (on both fronts) to help!
I'm not claiming at all that the government police and army are immune to corruption, or haven't been responsible for abuses. I'm claiming that the rights abuses that the government police and army is responsible for will be nothing compared to the rights abuses that will happen due to private armies, and that
have happened in the past due to private armies when private armies owned by businessmen existed in America.
The reason behind that is this: When abuses by the police and army are uncovered, especially serious abuses, the politicians that are in charge of them can get chucked out of office over it, which has happened many times before.
On the other side, businessmen in a "lassiez-faire society" with private armies will be able to commit all sorts of abuses and won't have to answer to anybody but themselves and perhaps other powerful businessmen.
And I think the book's assertion that insurance companies would somehow magically stop the private armies when they got out of hand is just ridiculous, because in truth that's not what happens. What happened last time we had businessmen with their own private armies in this country is that the private armies were owned by whomever they were owned by, and there was no insurance involved or anything like that, and when labor would have a strike against the businessman, the private army was called out to forcefully bust up the strike. Sometimes laborers were even killed during that process, when they hadn't done anything but peacefully strike.
Quote from: Luke S on May 06, 2008, 09:35 PM NHFT
What happened last time we had businessmen with their own private armies in this country is that the private armies were owned by whomever they were owned by, and there was no insurance involved or anything like that, and when labor would have a strike against the businessman, the private army was called out to forcefully bust up the strike. Sometimes laborers were even killed during that process, when they hadn't done anything but peacefully strike.
You might want to do a bit more reading on that Luke. There was a great deal of abusive behavior on both sides. The private armies were generally called in when things started to get out of hand. Many of the strikes became very violent and many people who crossed the picket lines were severely injured by the "peaceful" strikers and whatever muscle the unions could muster.
I have to tell you if I owned a company and my employees walked out on me, that would be the last day they ever worked for me. If they didn't want their jobs then I would hire people who did. If my former employees insisted on then trespassing on my property, interfering with the workers I hired to replace them, or interfering with the activities of my business, I would have them removed, forcibly if necessary. Now, given that I never had to fire anyone in the ten years or so I had employees, and only ever had one person quit my employment (that was for a significantly better position during the whole Y2K scenario) I doubt I would ever be in the position of having anyone go on strike from my company, or my having to have them removed.
George
QuoteLuke, since my question of whether or not you'd defend your country was side stepped...
No Free Libertarian, I did not sidestep your question.
I said that there was a big problem with the fact that the government crucifies its own border agents when they try to uphold the law, even with this current situation with the Mexican Army invading the Southwest in order to help drug smugglers smuggle drugs.
So the answer to the question is yes, I am going to move down there to Arizona and I am going to watch that border. And if I see the Mexican Army come across on another one of their drug smuggler assistance invasions and I see them shooting at the Border Patrol (which is what they did last time), or if I see them shooting at anyone else, then I will shoot back at them. But beyond that, my hands are as tied by the PC liberals in the government who grovel for the Hispanic vote as Border Patrol's are.
Oh, and another note on the private armies that I forgot to mention last time:
Do you think those poor Detroiters in the middle of inner city Detroit are going to be able to pay for some private army to protect them? No, they obviously aren't. And they are in the situation where they need to be protected more than me right now in rural Ohio, or you in New Hampshire. So even though the Detroit police force is far less than ideal, at least they are better than nothing at all, which is what the majority of people in Detroit would have to protect them if we were to switch to these insane "private defense companies".
Oh, and that audiobook was flat out wrong when they said that police would say "sorry, but we cannot come unless a crime has been committed" if you call the police because you suspect a person might commit a crime. Maybe that's what they say in a big city like Detroit, but in my home town in Michigan, and here in this town, police can be called if a person sees a suspicious person, and the police will come. There is no way in hell that they would say "sorry, but we cannot come unless a crime has been committed", as the audiobook claimed they would. That sounds like something that the Detroit police may (or may not) do, but not our police.
Quote from: Luke S on May 07, 2008, 01:57 AM NHFT
Oh, and that audiobook was flat out wrong when they said that police would say "sorry, but we cannot come unless a crime has been committed" if you call the police because you suspect a person might commit a crime. Maybe that's what they say in a big city like Detroit, but in my home town in Michigan, and here in this town, police can be called if a person sees a suspicious person, and the police will come. There is no way in hell that they would say "sorry, but we cannot come unless a crime has been committed", as the audiobook claimed they would. That sounds like something that the Detroit police may (or may not) do, but not our police.
I agree with you there Luke. I have never known anyone here to call the police and have them tell them, "sorry, we can't come unless a crime has been committed."
From reading the various different forums there seems to be a big difference in police behavior in different parts of the country. Down here I am on a first name basis with most of them, have had them stop along the side of the road to chat with me about the deer or turkey in my yard, and they wave every time they go by. They've picked me up and given me a ride if I got caught by a sudden rainstorm while walking and caught my dogs and brought them back home on more than one occasion when they have run off after deer (and ignored the fact that they are unlicensed.) The county park police let my 74 year old father drive his truck down the paths to the river (motorized vehicles are banned on the park paths) so he can go fishing, and let him take as much of the fire wood they split as he wants. Unless you are doing something that is actually causing a problem they by and large leave everyone alone. It isn't Mayberry here, but there doesn't seem to be the adversarial relationship here between the police and the citizens that seems to exist elsewhere. I'm sure in a place like Detroit, or here in NYC where you might be shot responding to any given call, they respond and react differently. Maybe there they have to prioritize the calls and can't respond to every one where someone is just acting suspicious.
George
Luke thank you for replying that if a foreign army were in your country you would defend it. I agree with you. Good call. I suppose you now have a better understanding of why Iraqi civilians want to defend their country from a foreign army? Seems like maybe we as individuals aren't so different from the people in countries that we insist on occupying.
Also what's up with the Kurds? Geez I thought we gave them white hats and they were annointed good guys? Now they're being reported as "Kurdish Rebels" and we're giving Turkey maps of where to bomb them, I suppose the word rebels is used so we, the American public can distinguish them from everyday insurgents that live in the other parts of Iraq.
It gets so confusing keeping up with who's bad and who's good "over there", we should get a guide or something so when we turn on the TV we'll know which "team" to cheer for huh?
Or maybe we've decided we don't need the Kurds as much as we need Turkey and have now banished them to playing the part of bad guys?
Good luck in Arizona defending the border...oh yeah, how did the United States acquire Arizona?
Quote from: NJLiberty on May 06, 2008, 10:03 PM NHFT
I have to tell you if I owned a company and my employees walked out on me, that would be the last day they ever worked for me. If they didn't want their jobs then I would hire people who did.
Not necessarily. Your employees might be highly skilled people that it would take months to find replacements for. Would you rather be out of business for a month, if it means losing $1,000,000 per day, or would you rather sit down and negotiate with your employees in order to get them to go back to work tomorrow, because whatever they're asking for will cost you a lot less?
In a free society, collective bargaining, unions, &c., would still exist; the owners and managers of a factory aren't going to have some sort of absolute power over their employees. What there
wouldn't be is any sort of government force protecting workers' unions, of course.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on May 07, 2008, 12:18 PM NHFT
Quote from: NJLiberty on May 06, 2008, 10:03 PM NHFT
I have to tell you if I owned a company and my employees walked out on me, that would be the last day they ever worked for me. If they didn't want their jobs then I would hire people who did.
Not necessarily. Your employees might be highly skilled people that it would take months to find replacements for. Would you rather be out of business for a month, if it means losing $1,000,000 per day, or would you rather sit down and negotiate with your employees in order to get them to go back to work tomorrow, because whatever they're asking for will cost you a lot less?
In a free society, collective bargaining, unions, &c., would still exist; the owners and managers of a factory aren't going to have some sort of absolute power over their employees. What there wouldn't be is any sort of government force protecting workers' unions, of course.
I didn't suggest I would have absolute power over them, but if it reached the point that my employees walked out, then clearly they are not interested in working for me under the terms in which I can afford to employ them. Hence there is no reason for me to go back to them. I would not compensate them more than they are worth to me, nor would I expect them to work for less than what the job is worth to them. They are always free to go find another job, just as I am always free to end their employment.
As far as your question goes, if my employees reached the point where they felt they had to go on strike, then I would have no choice but to hire new employees, even if it meant my books gushed red for a while. I don't believe in wasting people's time by pussy footing around in negotiations. Whatever I ever offered my people was the most I was willing to pay them. If that was good enough for them then great, if it wasn't then there was a handshake and I wished them well. Could someone else have saved money by negotiating from a lower starting point, sure, but I would rather put the money in their pockets than waste my time having to recruit and train new people. In the end I always felt it cost me less doing it my way. I could leave and go on vacation for any length of time and knew that my people would be doing their jobs well...and I never had to call in the Pinkertons ;)
George