Questions for the Free State Project People

[Luke S]

Luke,

NHUnderground is not the FSP.
If you want to see government smaller than it is, the FSP is for you.

If there are areas where you still want government control, you are in the same boat that EVERY PERSON ON THIS FORUM, even the radical anarchists, were at one point.

If, on the other hand, one specific area of disagreement makes you think that you cannot possibly work with or live near these people, then you're correct -- FSP is not for you. Neither is civilized society of an kind. Buy a lot of land and go self-sufficient. Peace be with you.

d_goddard,

I was not the one who brought up the FSP. Dalebert was.

And I never, ever said that one area of disagreement alone would make me incompatible with a certain person or group of people. If anyone said anything like that, it was Dalebert, who said that he would not even want me as a friend due to our differences in beliefs about drug laws.

Some of my best friends are hard-core liberals. Living in academia, I have no other choice but to accept the fact that some of my friends will be liberals. In fact, last year I was the leader of a band in which I didn't even talk about politics with my fellow band members because I was (am) a conservative, and they were all liberals, and any time we would discuss politics, it would only cause big arguments. Instead, we dropped the issue of politics entirely and made beautiful music together.

Oh, and by the way I should mention that I was also very inspired by a speech in another one of your videos made by one Rep. Neal Kurk of the NH state House, who pointed out that opposing Real ID was an issue that stretched across Republican/Democrat party lines, and also across conservative/liberal and other ideological lines, rather than being an issue that was confined to one political party and one political ideology. And I also saw "nhfree.com" advertised on that video as well.

[dalebert]

Dalebert, I did not sign the pledge, and I was not considering moving to New Hampshire.

I'm relieved.

I will keep coming to nhfree.com. Until you guys kick me off, I guess.

That's cool. I have no problems chatting with you. I just won't put my trust in you... not yet. Like I said, people change. I am not the same person I was 20 years ago by far.

Denis has a point. NHFree is not the FSP. That's why I said check out some of the other forums that were started by FSPers. You might will probably find people less discriminating than me. I judge my personal relationships by the would-you-shoot-me? principle and don't ally myself with people who would shoot me. I guess I'm picky.

[Luke S]

Dalebert, I did not sign the pledge, and I was not considering moving to New Hampshire.

I'm relieved.

Oh wait a minute. That's right. I said I might move to NH if I worked in Massachusetts, since NH is right next to Mass., and Mass. is so small. Dalebert, I forgot about that. I'm so sorry Dalebert.

But I still won't join the FSP, and I won't sign the pledge, just like I said before.

[dalebert]

Oh well. I don't believe in using violence to stop behavior that I don't like so I can't stop you. Just don't come over to my house to borrow a cup of sugar. 

[Lloyd Danforth]

No, that's not all of what happens. It's part of what happens, yes. They commit crimes to get money to buy pot. But what also happens is that they smoke pot, and then it messes with their heads, and causes them to commit crimes. For example, I knew a guy at college who would smoke pot, and then whenever he would smoke pot, he would sometimes hit people who tried to talk to him or who went anywhere near him, i.e. committing the crime of assault and battery.

I've smoked pot with hundreds of people over 35 years and never saw anyone get violent.  On the other hand it seemed, for years, that I couldn't go to a Bar without seeing a fistfight.
You really don't know what yu are talking about!

[Becky Thatcher]

No, that's not all of what happens. It's part of what happens, yes. They commit crimes to get money to buy pot. But what also happens is that they smoke pot, and then it messes with their heads, and causes them to commit crimes. For example, I knew a guy at college who would smoke pot, and then whenever he would smoke pot, he would sometimes hit people who tried to talk to him or who went anywhere near him, i.e. committing the crime of assault and battery.

I've smoked pot with hundreds of people over 35 years and never saw anyone get violent.  On the other hand it seemed, for years, that I couldn't go to a Bar without seeing a fistfight.
You really don't know what yu are talking about!

Amen, brother Lloyd.  You took the words right out of my mouth.

[John Edward Mercier]

Actually, its not the always the alcohol.
We've had several non-alcoholic dance clubs in NH shut down due to violence... seems men get their hormones from someplace below their lungs and stomache.

[SethCohn]

Actually, its not the always the alcohol.
We've had several non-alcoholic dance clubs in NH shut down due to violence... seems men get their hormones from someplace below their lungs and stomache.

That's the evils of dancing.  Elvis was Satan's spawn, with his pelvis twisting!!!

[Caleb]

It's occurring to me that maybe Luke doesn't mean that he wants to use violence to stop people from using drugs. One of the things that was hardest for me when I was younger and didn't quite see everything the way I do now is the thought that a law IS by its very nature violent. It's easy to see that a law is intended to use violence against some evil guy, like a murderer or rapist. Those people are hurtful law breakers, right? Who cares if you use violence against them. But for more routine laws, it's hard to see the violence because it usually doesn't come to violence. I mean, when was the last time you saw someone get shot over some violation? Not normally. There's a fine, usually a peaceable-esque sort of banter between a cop and the guy who is usually quite aware that he's broken a rule, and then life goes on. So it was kind of easy for me to think of laws as nonviolent things. A law is made, and people just fall in line behind it. It took some thinking for me to see that they only fall in line because of the threat of violence, and that threat of violence will become real violence if they don't fall in line.

So I guess where I'm going with this is this:  Luke, I have in the past used pot. I used it for a medical condition. Thankfully, that medical condition seems under control by diet now, but I wouldn't hestitate to use pot again, if need be. Also, I enjoy the relaxing feeling that I get from pot, and the clarity that it brings to my thoughts. I find life to be more vibrant while using the drug. Now, the question for you is this: Should I personally be chained and dragged before a court, and then placed in a cage for doing this? 

Just because you are against something, doesn't mean you need to use violence to stop it. I am opposed to Heroin use. In that, if I had a friend that used heroin, I would ask him to stop and tell him that I would help him stop any way that I could, if he needed help. (It's very addicting.) I have also begged friends that I have to stop using LSD. LSD is not addictive, per se, and it is a fun sort of drug that lets' you see neat things ... but it also, in my opinion, can be destructive to the mind, and I hate to see my friends go down that route. I don't want to put a gun to their chest though. Is this what you mean when you say you are against drugs? What level of violence do you think is ok to use against someone else who is using a drug. Keep in mind, that people who are addicted to drugs tend to have other problems. There's some reason for the drug use. They need help. Is a cage the best help for these people?

btw, the violence that accompanies drugs is a result of drug prohibition, not the drug itself. When you make a product illegal, it creates a black market, and the accompanying turf wars lead to violence. The same thing happened with alcohol prohibition back in the day. Alcohol *can* make a person violent, as it tends to release inhibitions and bring out the true self, but it usually doesn't make people violent. The extreme violence associated with Prohibition was a result of the black market. Same with drugs today.

[Luke S]

So I guess where I'm going with this is this:  Luke, I have in the past used pot. I used it for a medical condition. Thankfully, that medical condition seems under control by diet now, but I wouldn't hestitate to use pot again, if need be. Also, I enjoy the relaxing feeling that I get from pot, and the clarity that it brings to my thoughts. I find life to be more vibrant while using the drug. Now, the question for you is this: Should I personally be chained and dragged before a court, and then placed in a cage for doing this?

Just because you are against something, doesn't mean you need to use violence to stop it. I am opposed to Heroin use. In that, if I had a friend that used heroin, I would ask him to stop and tell him that I would help him stop any way that I could, if he needed help. (It's very addicting.) I have also begged friends that I have to stop using LSD. LSD is not addictive, per se, and it is a fun sort of drug that lets' you see neat things ... but it also, in my opinion, can be destructive to the mind, and I hate to see my friends go down that route. I don't want to put a gun to their chest though. Is this what you mean when you say you are against drugs? What level of violence do you think is ok to use against someone else who is using a drug. Keep in mind, that people who are addicted to drugs tend to have other problems. There's some reason for the drug use. They need help. Is a cage the best help for these people?

Actually, I do not believe that marijuana users should get jail.

Instead of jail, I believe that marijuana users should be sentenced to fines and community service. And the particular piece of community service that they should be sentenced to is the building of the wall across the US-Mexico border. The money from the fine they paid will go toward buying materials to build the wall.
The rationale behind this is that most of the pot comes from Mexico, so once that wall is built, the pot will dry up. So in essence, marijuana users will be punished by helping to correct the problem that they propagated by purchasing the marijuana.

As for marijuana dealers, I haven't decided if the punishment for being a marijuana dealer should continue to be jail, or if they should be punished by having a much heavier fine, and a much lengthier sentence of community service building the wall than the users have. One side of me says that marijuana dealers are scum, and a scourge upon society, and there's absolutely no way they should get out of going to jail. But another side of me sees the argument that we really need more labor for the wall -- and badly. So I'm actually not quite sure which one of the abovementioned punishments dealers should get.

[Beth221]

well, if the marijuana "criminals" are punished by building a wall, if they want pot bad enough, arnt they going to just grow their own?  I think I know more folks to know a local grower/dealer, than users who get it from mexico. 

[SethCohn]

The rationale behind this is that most of the pot comes from Mexico, so once that wall is built, the pot will dry up.

Except that's not true.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=2735017&page=1

Contrasting government figures for traditional crops -- like corn and wheat -- against the study's projections for marijuana production, the report cites marijuana as the top cash crop in 12 states and among the top three cash crops in 30.

The study estimates that marijuana production, at a value of $35.8 billion, exceeds the combined value of corn ($23.3 billion) and wheat ($7.5 billion).

http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs21/21137/marijuana.htm

Marijuana production in Mexico may be declining as production in the United States rises: Very limited data from which to accurately gauge foreign and domestic marijuana production appears to indicate a 25 percent decline in marijuana production in Mexico (see Table 5) since production peaked in 2003. In 2005 marijuana production estimates for Mexico were only slightly higher than estimates for 2001 and 2002, when a severe drought greatly reduced marijuana production in Mexico; no such conditions account for the recent decrease. During the same period, law enforcement reporting strongly suggests an expansion of domestic cannabis cultivation and marijuana production, particularly in remote areas of public lands including national Forest System lands. These reports are supported by domestic cannabis eradication data for 2005 that show the highest level of cannabis eradication ever recorded (see Table 4) at a time when significant National Guard eradication resources were curtailed because of overseas deployments and Hurricane Katrina relief. Those states where cannabis cultivation and eradication were highest in 2005 include California, Kentucky, Tennessee, Hawaii, and Washington. Nonetheless, Mexico will remain a leading source of marijuana.

[Notanumber]

Luke, If I may call upon the learned words of a man greater than I:

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - Copy to Clipboard
  --  George Washington

When properly discovered and applied, the law is merely an extension of what is right and good with the world.  Historically, I think that as the common law developed, people understood that, because the penalties for being on the wrong side of the law were so tragic (death, torture, disembowelment, etc) that they reserved the law for the most heinous of offenses.  The one major problem came when religion got involved, and of course we in the U.S. made provisions to assure that that will never happen again.

One problem, I think, as we have progressed as a civil society, is that we have forgotten that law is force.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It is violent, even when it is polite.  Even a simple parking ticket, if resisted totally, will result in the eventual hunting down and killing of the transgressor.  This is crazy.

Historically, there are three types of law, felony criminal, misdemeanor criminal, and civil.

There was a time when felonies were only those crimes which had a potential penalty of death.  This is why I challenge people around me to think of the law as follows.  'This law that Im voting for here.  Would I feel comfortable and morally justified in killing someone who refuses to obey this law?  Would I literally be able to sleep at night if I killed someone to prevent them from breaking this law?'  If such a law is just, right and moral, then I should have no problem executing myself if called upon.

I cannot justify the killing of someone over a possession they have chosen to purchase, or a substance that they choose to put in their body.  I would feel justified in killing someone to keep them from murdering, robbing, burglaring, assaulting, molesting, or giving life endangering drugs to a child.

The next layer of historical law is the criminal misdemeanor.  Crimes which are punishible by fine or imprisonment.  Obviously, the more serious are borderline, and you would feel justified taking someones freedom, and their life only if they resist.  I would put in this category things like shoplifting, embezzlement, theft by fraud or deceit, etc.  People like this are a threat to society, but you would prefer to punish them if they give you any choice, and perhaps they will see the error of their ways later, but their damage is no threat to life, and as a result, their life should not be threatened.  Misdemeanors punishable by fine should be lesser crimes, that have real victims.  But you always have to keep in mind that if these people were to resist your application of the law, would you feel that they are a threat enough to society to warrant their extinction.  Personally, I cant think of many criminal misdemeanors that I would feel justified in killing a resistor over.  Maybe blocking access to a common waterway that the whole community depends on, or fouling the ground water.  Nonviolent crimes with no single ascertainable victim but measurable damage for many might fall into this group.

Finally Civil law is necessary for a society to prevent individuals from harming others, and to address past wrongs.  These simply use monetary damage awards and injunctions to stop damaging behavior.

Somewhere, we as a society that we can kill people just to make the world a better place.  Hence we have prohibition on guns, drugs, other items, etc.  We force people to adhere to crazy ordinances.  We make manufacturers install equipment they dont need.  etc.  We will put someone in prison for not paying a bill.

So I ask you Luke, would you shoot someone who uses heroin to prevent him from doing it?  would you feel comfortable locking him in a box, and putting a bullet in his back if he tried to escape.  Personally I cannot say that I would, which is why I support ending the drug war, for example.

[Luke S]

marijuana "criminals"

Sapphire! This is an excellent phrase! Marijuana users and marijuana dealers are, collectively, marijuana criminals.

Anyway, folks, I was not familiar with these new statistics indicating that more of it is coming from within the US now than from Mexico. Fair enough. But still, a substantial portion of it is still coming from Mexico, so the border wall will obviously solve a substantial part of the problem, even if it can't solve the entire problem. Given that, I still stand by what I said earlier about marijuana criminals (possibly excluiding dealers, who still might be punished through jail) being punished through having to contribute to the wall's construction.

Notanumber, as for heroin users, obviously I would not shoot a heroin user, or even a dealer, as heroin use, or even heroin dealing, are not capital crimes. I would not shoot the dealers for trying to escape jail, either, since escaping jail is not a capital crime. What I would do is I would take the same stance toward heroin criminals that I take toward marijuana criminals. A lot of heroin is coming from Mexico, so the heroin criminals would be punished right alongside the marijuana criminals by paying a fine and building the wall. (possibly excluding heroin dealers, who might still be punished through jail. And if the dealers do end up building the wall instead of going to jail, they will be there longer than those who were just users, and they will pay a bigger fine.)

[SethCohn]

Anyway, folks, I was not familiar with these new statistics indicating that more of it is coming from within the US now than from Mexico. Fair enough. But still, a substantial portion of it is still coming from Mexico, so the border wall will obviously solve a substantial part of the problem, even if it can't solve the entire problem.

Except that not only won't solve ANY of the problem, it's ignoring that will only increase the marijuana grown here, already a huge percentage, not to mention Canada. (You did follow the links, right?  Canadian pot is big business too...)

Given that, I still stand by what I said earlier about marijuana criminals (possibly excluiding dealers, who still might be punished through jail) being punished through having to contribute to the wall's construction.

And then you'll build a wall against Canada, right?  And then, since we'll still have massive pot growing here in the US, you'll do what?  The walls will be built... maybe you'll have the 'criminals' tear them down, break them into small rubble, and rebuild them?

God save us from people who ignore the facts, in order to continue believing whatever they want.