Stephen King claims that because he's rich, he should be taxed more. So, politically and economically, he's uneducated. Here's the link: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html
King, I bought and read most of your books when I was in 6th grade, and I enjoyed them. ...But you don't know dick about politics, the Federal Reserve, or the way what's left of "America" really works. Have some respect for Henry David Thoreau, Lysander Spooner, Frederick Douglass, and the long tradition of political nonaggression that came before you. Crack a book, read some Hayek, read some Harry Browne. Re-read Thoreau's "Resistance to Civil Government." The opening paragraph could just as well be about the Mexican DRUG War, as the Mexican War Thoreau was discussing.
When it comes to government, you don't get to decide how your tax dollars are spent.
When it comes to the private sector, you can always "opt out."
You acknowledge that the last 4 administrations have been "anti-business." Then, you bitch about there not being enough "regulation." LOL! Regulation sidesteps that core foundation of American jurisprudence, THE JURY. We, the jury, to be precise. We, the randomly-selected (in rare instances when a proper jury is called and seated, without prosecutorial stacking in "voir dire") people, who comprise the 4th branch of government.
So, what does the government do for me, that the private sector cannot? NOTHING. I am poor, and I don't want to give one red cent to the government. It is insulting to you to assume that because you're so dumb you think you're getting a great deal from the government that someone who is less well off can't be better-informed about the value they're getting from their dollar in government services. If you want to pay more, YOU CAN.
And what will your tax dollar buy? It will firstly,. buy things you cannot choose NOT to buy. The government is not Burger King, and you don't get to pick and choose what you want. My tax dollar will go to put my friends in jail, for victimless crimes. It will go to enforce the drug and gun laws on a horribly racist and classist basis. It will go for foreign wars of aggression that do nothing to keep me safe, and everything to piss off insane theocrats on the other side of the globe. It will go to crappy government schools that do a far worse job of educating our young than WIKIpedia does --to the extent that not one person in 1,000 can tell me how the Federal Reserve functions, or how jury trials are supposed to function. My tax dollars will deny gays equal marriage rights, and will put sex stores out of business. My tax dollars will harass comic book artists like Mike Diana, and musicians like the Dead Kennedys, in the name of christian theocratic values that directly contradic the First Amendment to the US Constitution. My tax dollars will be pissed away on pork-barrel projects in every state, all of which are less efficient than any private-sector provision of services that comes with a price tag, and the option of voiding contract for nonproduction. In short, because government is coercion, and this nation walked away from the idea of "a government by consent" when it passed the Federal Reserve Act into law, government services do not need to be competitive in any way with private sector services.
So what did I miss? Oh yeah, the FDA claims the right to actively deny me life-saving treatments, so innocent people can die young and in terrible pain while moronic fucks like you complain that you --and everyone else-- are not being forcible deprived of enough of their income. Watch a youtube video where Stephen Badylak shows that his lab can regrow every human organ, and replace it surgically with adult stem cells, then listen to him talk about how the life-saving procedures are being held up by the FDA, which may or may not give us slaves PERMISSION to save our own lives with his procedures. ...Since when did a free people need permission to engage in risking their own lives in order to save them? Since when were manufacturers not allowed --by the First Amendment-- to print "sweetened with stevia" on food products? (1986, when Donald Rumsfeld's "Searle & Associates" successfully lobbied the FDA to destroy natural competitors to Nutrasweet, that's when! Result: 150,000 type II diabetics per year dead from bad diet and a scientifically incorrect food pyramid taught to them in gradeschool.) Since when did the FDA get the right to hold up AIDS research and development for years while Big Pharma milked the gay and African communities for their patented "slow death" drugs? They never had any right to do any of this.
If you pay one dollar extra in taxes, not only will I not commend you for your "civic duty," I'll spit on your good name for being a naive, willing dupe of powerful, sociopathic prohibitionists.
America is a nation where the collective isn't supposed to steal from the individual, nor bar the individualist from following his dreams. But that's what the U.S. government does. Then, it tries, in a half-assed manner to undo some small amount of the damage it itself caused, and its lapdog liberal "popular intellectuals" come to its defense like whipped dogs.
Go back to writing books about rabid dogs that just want to be obedient, it seems you know a lot more about that than what it means to hold an American ideology.
And while you're at it, don't bother taking out your checkbook to end the drug war, or the foreign wars, or to pay an insignificant amount of the $16T Federal Debt (not including untenable outstanding liabilities of over $58T). You're right: that won't solve the problem --just like even taxing 100% of your income wouldn't solve the problem. The only thing that would solve the problem would be you coming to your senses, and being one more voice of truth, telling the young to drop out of the system, withold their support, and begin building the parallel institutions that will leave the American Police State in the dustbin of history, where it belongs.
Until then, ...we ask not your counsel, nor your arms.
Showing posts with label prohibition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label prohibition. Show all posts
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Newt Gingrich, Just One More Unphilosophical Sociopathic Politician
Newt Gingrich is a damned sociopathic idiot, proof below. Starting off, here's a portion of an interview he did last week:
Chris Moody, Interviewing Newt Gingrich for "The Ticket"
CM: Three Republican presidential candidates have shown an openness to handing over control of drugs and medical marijuana to the states. Would you continue the current federal policy making marijuana illegal in all cases or give the states more control?
Newt: I would continue current federal policy, largely because of the confusing signal that steps towards legalization sends to harder drugs.
I think the California experience is that medical marijuana becomes a joke. It becomes marijuana for any use. You find local doctors who will prescribe it for anybody that walks in.
CM: Why shouldn't the states have control over this? Why should this be a federal issue?
Newt: Because I think you guarantee that people will cross state lines if it becomes a state-by-state exemption.
I don't have a comprehensive view. My general belief is that we ought to be much more aggressive about drug policy. And that we should recognize that the Mexican cartels are funded by Americans.
CM: Expand on what you mean by "aggressive."
Newt: In my mind it means having steeper economic penalties and it means having a willingness to do more drug testing.
CM: In 1996, you introduced a bill that would have given the death penalty to drug smugglers. Do you still stand by that?
Newt: I think if you are, for example, the leader of a cartel, sure. Look at the level of violence they've done to society. You can either be in the Ron Paul tradition and say there's nothing wrong with heroin and cocaine or you can be in the tradition that says, 'These kind of addictive drugs are terrible, they deprive you of full citizenship and they lead you to a dependency which is antithetical to being an American.' If you're serious about the latter view, then we need to think through a strategy that makes it radically less likely that we're going to have drugs in this country.
Places like Singapore have been the most successful at doing that. They've been very draconian. And they have communicated with great intention that they intend to stop drugs from coming into their country.
CM: In 1981, you introduced a bill that would allow marijuana to be used for medical purposes. What has changed?
Newt: What has changed was the number of parents I met with who said they did not want their children to get the signal from the government that it was acceptable behavior and that they were prepared to say as a matter of value that it was better to send a clear signal on no drug use at the risk of inconveniencing some people, than it was to be compassionate toward a small group at the risk of telling a much larger group that it was okay to use the drug.
It's a change of information. Within a year of my original support of that bill I withdrew it.
CM: Ron Paul and Barney Frank have introduced a similar bill almost every year since.
Newt: You have to admit, Ron Paul has a coherent position. It's not mine, but it's internally logical.
CM: Speaking of Ron Paul, at the last debate, he said that the war on drugs has been an utter failure. We've spent billions of dollars since President Nixon and we still have rising levels of drug use. Should we continue down the same path given the amount of money we've spent? How can we reform our approach?
Newt: I think that we need to consider taking more explicit steps to make it expensive to be a drug user. It could be through testing before you get any kind of federal aid. Unemployment compensation, food stamps, you name it.
It has always struck me that if you're serious about trying to stop drug use, then you need to find a way to have a fairly easy approach to it and you need to find a way to be pretty aggressive about insisting--I don't think actually locking up users is a very good thing. I think finding ways to sanction them and to give them medical help and to get them to detox is a more logical long-term policy.
Sometime in the next year we'll have a comprehensive proposal on drugs and it will be designed to say that we want to minimize drug use in America and we're very serious about it.
=========================================
My comments on the above:
Gingrich believes in a constitutional republic? That's odd! Jefferson, Madison, and all of the Federalists AND Anti-Federalist republicans believed that ultimate power should be devolved to the states, and then to the individual! That part of their beliefs wasn't in controversy, just how best to achieve that. So, not only is Newt too damned stupid to see that the fourth amendment also applies to "scary negro property" (all of the drug laws have a racist origin, just google "Harry Anslinger" or "Why is marijuana illegal?"), he's also too stupid to favor state nullification, or jury nullification.
Where did this myth arise that Newt Gingrich is intelligent???? He's one of the stupidest, most bellicose, belligerent sociopaths the voters have ever put in office. Al Franken isn't right about much, but he's right about Newt Gingrich. The man is not only NOT an "idea man" --he isn't even fit to share the stage with Ron Paul.
And he even mentions Singapore's drug laws, when he encourages the idea that drug dealers should be put to death! (Newt also introduced a law that would put people to death for importing two ounces of marijuana! He also hypocritically admits to smoking it himself ...I guess he wants the person who sold it to him to be put to death --or, more likely, he wants a double standard that puts poor negroes to death, while allowing white offenders like himself a smack on the wrist! I've held two ounces in my hand before! So have a lot of college kids! ...Newt is a power-hungry psychopath who serves the prison industry!)
Does Newt know that in Singapore there is no freedom of speech, and no trial by jury?! Does he know that our own right to jury trial has been eroded, in order to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law, and the drug laws, and other mala prohibita that most reasonable people disagree with? (At least 1/12 of people on a proper, randomly-selected jury will vote to acquit on mala prohibita, victimless crime, charges, and vote to convict on actual crimes. That's why juries haven't been random in this country since 1850.) PLEASE, YOU IGNORANT REPUBLICAN PRIMARY VOTERS WHO SUPPORT NEWT: BUY A COPY OF THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, AND THE ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPERS, AND LOOK UP "JURY" or "JURIES" IN THE INDEX!!!! The jury is the final bulwark of the people against government tyranny. Newt stands against the power of the jury, of we the people.
And how have Singapore's drug laws (that the once free USA exported to them!) turned out? Poor women smuggle the drugs in their vaginas, and they are sentenced to DEATH without TRIAL BY JURY, while the rich drug kingpins simply view it as a cost of doing business!!! Newt is not in favor of a Republican style of government, unless by "Republican" you mean authoritarian dictatorship. Seriously? He wants the death sentence for the people in all of our families who have smoked marijuana, if they've ever sold any of it to make ends meet? That is murder by government, people! Aren't we as Americans better than that? And what about the puritanical "christians" who gave us the drug war? Are you now willing to say that christians don't turn the other cheek, that we don't forgive? That we MURDER?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE????
Just because Newt busses in 650 people to a damned bookstore doesn't and shouldn't mean he's a contender! He's just one more power-grasping sociopath.
If you vote for newt, then you totally and completely deserve to get the news tat while your daughter was a college, she started smoking pot, and ran afoul of Oklahoma's drug laws because her roommate is testifying against her for her possession of a quarter-pound, and now she's going to be put to death.
Anyone here who supports Newt Gingrich after reading this interview is sick in the head, and in no way favors a constitutional republic.
Every schedule 1 drug was legal in America before 1910. That's odd! From 1870-1910, the industrial revolution made America the wealthiest, freest, most innovative, most REPUBLICAN nation on earth! Newt stands directly in opposition to enlightenment values, trial by jury, and every other strong institutional limit on government power.
...And I didn't even scratch the surface of his corruption. I just focused on the worst aspects of his core philosophy.
He was a personal recipient of the bailouts ($2 million+). He divorced his wife when she was diagnosed with terminal cancer. He repeatedly contradicts himself, and yet his arrogance gives conformists the impression he's intelligent (because they've met so many intelligent people who are arrogant). As I listen to his blather on Fox News behind me (interview with Greta Van Sustern), he claims to admire Donald Trump (the bellicose asshole who tried to steal Vera Coking's house using eminent domain).
No candidate in the running is as mindlessly fascist as Newt Gingrich, with the possible exception of Mitt Romney. They both take their marching orders from the central bankers, without question or independent thought.
When you vote for Newt, you're voting for expanding the US prison industry, until there's a cell for everyone.
Chris Moody, Interviewing Newt Gingrich for "The Ticket"
CM: Three Republican presidential candidates have shown an openness to handing over control of drugs and medical marijuana to the states. Would you continue the current federal policy making marijuana illegal in all cases or give the states more control?
Newt: I would continue current federal policy, largely because of the confusing signal that steps towards legalization sends to harder drugs.
I think the California experience is that medical marijuana becomes a joke. It becomes marijuana for any use. You find local doctors who will prescribe it for anybody that walks in.
CM: Why shouldn't the states have control over this? Why should this be a federal issue?
Newt: Because I think you guarantee that people will cross state lines if it becomes a state-by-state exemption.
I don't have a comprehensive view. My general belief is that we ought to be much more aggressive about drug policy. And that we should recognize that the Mexican cartels are funded by Americans.
CM: Expand on what you mean by "aggressive."
Newt: In my mind it means having steeper economic penalties and it means having a willingness to do more drug testing.
CM: In 1996, you introduced a bill that would have given the death penalty to drug smugglers. Do you still stand by that?
Newt: I think if you are, for example, the leader of a cartel, sure. Look at the level of violence they've done to society. You can either be in the Ron Paul tradition and say there's nothing wrong with heroin and cocaine or you can be in the tradition that says, 'These kind of addictive drugs are terrible, they deprive you of full citizenship and they lead you to a dependency which is antithetical to being an American.' If you're serious about the latter view, then we need to think through a strategy that makes it radically less likely that we're going to have drugs in this country.
Places like Singapore have been the most successful at doing that. They've been very draconian. And they have communicated with great intention that they intend to stop drugs from coming into their country.
CM: In 1981, you introduced a bill that would allow marijuana to be used for medical purposes. What has changed?
Newt: What has changed was the number of parents I met with who said they did not want their children to get the signal from the government that it was acceptable behavior and that they were prepared to say as a matter of value that it was better to send a clear signal on no drug use at the risk of inconveniencing some people, than it was to be compassionate toward a small group at the risk of telling a much larger group that it was okay to use the drug.
It's a change of information. Within a year of my original support of that bill I withdrew it.
CM: Ron Paul and Barney Frank have introduced a similar bill almost every year since.
Newt: You have to admit, Ron Paul has a coherent position. It's not mine, but it's internally logical.
CM: Speaking of Ron Paul, at the last debate, he said that the war on drugs has been an utter failure. We've spent billions of dollars since President Nixon and we still have rising levels of drug use. Should we continue down the same path given the amount of money we've spent? How can we reform our approach?
Newt: I think that we need to consider taking more explicit steps to make it expensive to be a drug user. It could be through testing before you get any kind of federal aid. Unemployment compensation, food stamps, you name it.
It has always struck me that if you're serious about trying to stop drug use, then you need to find a way to have a fairly easy approach to it and you need to find a way to be pretty aggressive about insisting--I don't think actually locking up users is a very good thing. I think finding ways to sanction them and to give them medical help and to get them to detox is a more logical long-term policy.
Sometime in the next year we'll have a comprehensive proposal on drugs and it will be designed to say that we want to minimize drug use in America and we're very serious about it.
=========================================
My comments on the above:
Gingrich believes in a constitutional republic? That's odd! Jefferson, Madison, and all of the Federalists AND Anti-Federalist republicans believed that ultimate power should be devolved to the states, and then to the individual! That part of their beliefs wasn't in controversy, just how best to achieve that. So, not only is Newt too damned stupid to see that the fourth amendment also applies to "scary negro property" (all of the drug laws have a racist origin, just google "Harry Anslinger" or "Why is marijuana illegal?"), he's also too stupid to favor state nullification, or jury nullification.
Where did this myth arise that Newt Gingrich is intelligent???? He's one of the stupidest, most bellicose, belligerent sociopaths the voters have ever put in office. Al Franken isn't right about much, but he's right about Newt Gingrich. The man is not only NOT an "idea man" --he isn't even fit to share the stage with Ron Paul.
And he even mentions Singapore's drug laws, when he encourages the idea that drug dealers should be put to death! (Newt also introduced a law that would put people to death for importing two ounces of marijuana! He also hypocritically admits to smoking it himself ...I guess he wants the person who sold it to him to be put to death --or, more likely, he wants a double standard that puts poor negroes to death, while allowing white offenders like himself a smack on the wrist! I've held two ounces in my hand before! So have a lot of college kids! ...Newt is a power-hungry psychopath who serves the prison industry!)
Does Newt know that in Singapore there is no freedom of speech, and no trial by jury?! Does he know that our own right to jury trial has been eroded, in order to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law, and the drug laws, and other mala prohibita that most reasonable people disagree with? (At least 1/12 of people on a proper, randomly-selected jury will vote to acquit on mala prohibita, victimless crime, charges, and vote to convict on actual crimes. That's why juries haven't been random in this country since 1850.) PLEASE, YOU IGNORANT REPUBLICAN PRIMARY VOTERS WHO SUPPORT NEWT: BUY A COPY OF THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, AND THE ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPERS, AND LOOK UP "JURY" or "JURIES" IN THE INDEX!!!! The jury is the final bulwark of the people against government tyranny. Newt stands against the power of the jury, of we the people.
And how have Singapore's drug laws (that the once free USA exported to them!) turned out? Poor women smuggle the drugs in their vaginas, and they are sentenced to DEATH without TRIAL BY JURY, while the rich drug kingpins simply view it as a cost of doing business!!! Newt is not in favor of a Republican style of government, unless by "Republican" you mean authoritarian dictatorship. Seriously? He wants the death sentence for the people in all of our families who have smoked marijuana, if they've ever sold any of it to make ends meet? That is murder by government, people! Aren't we as Americans better than that? And what about the puritanical "christians" who gave us the drug war? Are you now willing to say that christians don't turn the other cheek, that we don't forgive? That we MURDER?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE????
Just because Newt busses in 650 people to a damned bookstore doesn't and shouldn't mean he's a contender! He's just one more power-grasping sociopath.
If you vote for newt, then you totally and completely deserve to get the news tat while your daughter was a college, she started smoking pot, and ran afoul of Oklahoma's drug laws because her roommate is testifying against her for her possession of a quarter-pound, and now she's going to be put to death.
Anyone here who supports Newt Gingrich after reading this interview is sick in the head, and in no way favors a constitutional republic.
Every schedule 1 drug was legal in America before 1910. That's odd! From 1870-1910, the industrial revolution made America the wealthiest, freest, most innovative, most REPUBLICAN nation on earth! Newt stands directly in opposition to enlightenment values, trial by jury, and every other strong institutional limit on government power.
...And I didn't even scratch the surface of his corruption. I just focused on the worst aspects of his core philosophy.
He was a personal recipient of the bailouts ($2 million+). He divorced his wife when she was diagnosed with terminal cancer. He repeatedly contradicts himself, and yet his arrogance gives conformists the impression he's intelligent (because they've met so many intelligent people who are arrogant). As I listen to his blather on Fox News behind me (interview with Greta Van Sustern), he claims to admire Donald Trump (the bellicose asshole who tried to steal Vera Coking's house using eminent domain).
No candidate in the running is as mindlessly fascist as Newt Gingrich, with the possible exception of Mitt Romney. They both take their marching orders from the central bankers, without question or independent thought.
When you vote for Newt, you're voting for expanding the US prison industry, until there's a cell for everyone.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Ongoing Murders in Mexico Caused by USA's Exported Drug War
This extraordinary documentary on the Juarez / Culiacan drug war shows the results of voting for Democrats and Republicans in the USA. Democrats and Republican politicians and voters agree: as long as it's poor brown people dying, we don't care! We'll keep on voting to prohibit drugs, even if it kills every last person in Mexico!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqh3do6RBXo&feature=related&has_verified=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqh3do6RBXo&feature=related&has_verified=1
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Roadside Bomb Escalates Mexican Drug War; Possible Solutions to Violence Remain Unmentioned by Authoritarian Politicians and "Experts"
Yahoo News notes that the "drug war" has gotten more violent, after a recent bombing.
The article goes into a lot of depth about how this happening further extends the costs of drug prohibition, but it doesn't mention the word prohibition at all. It leaves unmentioned the one single viable option for eliminating all such violence. After all, the option that eliminates this state-caused violence swiftly and completely is complete drug legalization, and complete drug legalization is not an option.
After all, although legalizing all drugs would instantly eliminate the violence associated with the in-demand black market in drugs, it would also do several other things:
1) It would undermine the ignorant philosophy of authoritarianism that most politicians use to get elected.
2) It would mean that the courts of lies (and the parasites who make their livings in them) would need to find a new means of providing for themselves.
3) It would mean that police could use their manpower eliminating child prostitution, rape, assault, theft, and murder: the kind of crimes that are difficult to solve, but require great forensic work for very little "payoff"...
4) It would mean an end to the practice of "siezing" (that is, stealing), private property on account of its being associated with illegal contraband
For the four reasons above, no politician in a position to legalize drugs is willing to talk about legalization. Thus, they damn us all to an incrementally-more-totalitarian system of government, and increasing levels of cartelized violence necessary to circumvent prohibitionist law enforcement. (Educated law enforcement universally opposes prohibition.)
Now I know that the idiotic statist voters (People who voted for Kerry, Bush, Obama, or McCain), and idiotic statist politicians (examples: Kerry, Bush, Obama, McCain) all have their bogus reasons for not wanting to legalize drugs. The most common of these objections is: "It would send the wrong message to the children, and there would be too many kids getting addicted to drugs."
But what message does our current system send to children? Let's think about that:
1) Inanimate objects have the ability to control you, to such an extent that you need to be prevented (saved, that is) from exercizing your own bad judgment, by government force. Even excepting the implication that so many people have bad day-to-day judgment, this conclusion is not born out by any credible research, and not born out by scientific fact. (I don't have time to get into that here, but there are many long volumes that have belabored this point, for anyone who is literate and curious. One of the better ones is "The New Prohibition" ed. Bill Masters.)
2) Whoever gets elected has the right to do whatever they wish, even if it violates the individual right to own private property. (I know that the prohibitionists will say that drugs have a large propensity for misuse. But certainly not more than alcohol, guns, gene-modification laboratories, and cars do, and we simply expect people to take responsibility for the use of those dangerous pieces of private property. In all those cases, we only punish someone if they are found to have injured or harmed SOMEONE ELSE in a trial by a jury of their peers.)
Historically, drug abuse doesn't even begin to approach the numbers of innocent people killed by the two prior beliefs. This is because those beliefs lead to "democide" or "mass murder by government".
Unfree governments, like our own, engage in mass imprisonment for victimless crimes. But when they become totalitarian (holding absolute power, with very uncompetitive elections), they engage in democide.
I'd rather that half of all adults were addicted to heroin as kids (which wouldn't happen even if heroin were legalized), than prohibition continue for one more day. Because the violence caused by prohibition damages innocent people who have nothing to do with drugs, far more than the drug use itself, and it also destroys the most precious commodity of all: the free market, and individual freedom, as a whole.
Of course, the solution to the problem is verboten by our public masters, to the extent that Yahoo's hack journalists can't even mention it on their front page story. ...Too many politically stupid people with a vested interest in the system would get mad!
...Hence, the desperate need for a new American revolution in thinking.
The article goes into a lot of depth about how this happening further extends the costs of drug prohibition, but it doesn't mention the word prohibition at all. It leaves unmentioned the one single viable option for eliminating all such violence. After all, the option that eliminates this state-caused violence swiftly and completely is complete drug legalization, and complete drug legalization is not an option.
After all, although legalizing all drugs would instantly eliminate the violence associated with the in-demand black market in drugs, it would also do several other things:
1) It would undermine the ignorant philosophy of authoritarianism that most politicians use to get elected.
2) It would mean that the courts of lies (and the parasites who make their livings in them) would need to find a new means of providing for themselves.
3) It would mean that police could use their manpower eliminating child prostitution, rape, assault, theft, and murder: the kind of crimes that are difficult to solve, but require great forensic work for very little "payoff"...
4) It would mean an end to the practice of "siezing" (that is, stealing), private property on account of its being associated with illegal contraband
For the four reasons above, no politician in a position to legalize drugs is willing to talk about legalization. Thus, they damn us all to an incrementally-more-totalitarian system of government, and increasing levels of cartelized violence necessary to circumvent prohibitionist law enforcement. (Educated law enforcement universally opposes prohibition.)
Now I know that the idiotic statist voters (People who voted for Kerry, Bush, Obama, or McCain), and idiotic statist politicians (examples: Kerry, Bush, Obama, McCain) all have their bogus reasons for not wanting to legalize drugs. The most common of these objections is: "It would send the wrong message to the children, and there would be too many kids getting addicted to drugs."
But what message does our current system send to children? Let's think about that:
1) Inanimate objects have the ability to control you, to such an extent that you need to be prevented (saved, that is) from exercizing your own bad judgment, by government force. Even excepting the implication that so many people have bad day-to-day judgment, this conclusion is not born out by any credible research, and not born out by scientific fact. (I don't have time to get into that here, but there are many long volumes that have belabored this point, for anyone who is literate and curious. One of the better ones is "The New Prohibition" ed. Bill Masters.)
2) Whoever gets elected has the right to do whatever they wish, even if it violates the individual right to own private property. (I know that the prohibitionists will say that drugs have a large propensity for misuse. But certainly not more than alcohol, guns, gene-modification laboratories, and cars do, and we simply expect people to take responsibility for the use of those dangerous pieces of private property. In all those cases, we only punish someone if they are found to have injured or harmed SOMEONE ELSE in a trial by a jury of their peers.)
Historically, drug abuse doesn't even begin to approach the numbers of innocent people killed by the two prior beliefs. This is because those beliefs lead to "democide" or "mass murder by government".
Unfree governments, like our own, engage in mass imprisonment for victimless crimes. But when they become totalitarian (holding absolute power, with very uncompetitive elections), they engage in democide.
I'd rather that half of all adults were addicted to heroin as kids (which wouldn't happen even if heroin were legalized), than prohibition continue for one more day. Because the violence caused by prohibition damages innocent people who have nothing to do with drugs, far more than the drug use itself, and it also destroys the most precious commodity of all: the free market, and individual freedom, as a whole.
Of course, the solution to the problem is verboten by our public masters, to the extent that Yahoo's hack journalists can't even mention it on their front page story. ...Too many politically stupid people with a vested interest in the system would get mad!
...Hence, the desperate need for a new American revolution in thinking.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Friday, May 7, 2010
The Brutality Democrats and Republicans Voted For: Why Prohibition Can't Exist Alongside America
As Radley Balko notes, 100-150 of these style of raids occur every day. The state conducts these raids on people it deems to be drug dealers, users, (or anyone else they don't like, or accidentally target, as in the case of Cory Maye). After all, there is no method of holding prohibition police (DEA, BATFE, FDA) accountable, other than the jury box, and now that juries have been completely eviscerated by the US "legal system" (by "voir dire" 1850-present, judicial instruction 1895-present, "contempt of court" threats to remain silent regarding defenses that question the validity of the law 1960s-present, licensing of lawyers 1832-present), this is what voting Democrat and Republicans buys.
Again: if you vote Democrat and Republican, you are responsible for the police terrorism of this innocent family, and the pointless murder of their pets. You are also responsible for the thousands of innocent people murdered --people not guilty of violating anyone else's rights.
And what would be so bad if this man had been allowed to smoke his pot, in his own home, the way his neighbors are allowed to get drunk? Would it be as bad as his children being turned against the police for life? Would it be as bad as the murder of his pets, and violation of his property rights? Would it be as bad as the loss of American freedom? Would it be as bad as the lucrative black market created by prohibition?
Prohibitionists are shallow, unintelligent conformists who vote for violence that has no legitimate justification. They should be universally held in contempt and socially ostracized, their business and friendship boycotted by decent people.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Saturday, August 1, 2009
RE: Radley Balko's Continuing Ownership of The Libertarian Blogosphere
http://www.theagitator.com/category/cory-maye/
Radley Balko is exactly right in his uncovering and continuing analysis of the Cory Maye case. I agree 100% with his assessment of the appeal. The Appellant attorneys both make LaDonna Holland look like a slobbering mongoloid (make that a slobbering _fascist_ mongoloid).
I can't commend Radley Balko highly enough. I am in awe of his ability to continually be on the cutting edge of what is important, relevant, and useful to the cause of liberty. The fact that he recommends Clay Conrad's book "Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine" is even more amazing. (Clay Conrad is the primary force in the jury rights movement in favor of challenging the unconstitutionality of "voir dire" AKA "prosecutorial jury rigging". )
The "jury duty" link below is Clay's.
http://isil.org/resources/lit/history-jury-null.html
-The History of Jury Nullification of Law
http://isil.org/resources/lit/new-hope-fija.html
-How Informed Juries Represent New Hope For Individual Freedom
http://www.juryduty.org/JuryDuty.htm
-How Prosecutors Rig Juries in Favor of Fascism, and What You Can Do To Set An Innocent Person Free
http://www.fija.org
-The Fully Informed Jury Association
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson
"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
—Thomas Jefferson
"If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another,
then, I say, break the law."
—Henry David Thoreau
PS: Judges: If you uphold Maye's conviction, you will be ruling in favor of secret police and "disappearances" in America, and you may be igniting the next civil war (read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross). Moreover, you will be hammering one more nail into the coffin of the principle of the moral right to self-defense (a big reason why those who perpetrate the drug war are guilty of treason; When it became obvious that the "war" could not be won, they failed to do what Hirohito did: surrender to avoid innocent casualties, ...like Cory Maye). Ignorance of philosophy is no excuse in this one: the side of justice has too much information.
PPS: Nice shot, Cory. I'm amazed you did it without the herstal 5.7. ...John Bad Elk (1900 SCOTUS http://openjurist.org/177/us/529 ) has nothing on you (I'm kind of surprised I haven't heard the case mentioned in reference to Maye yet). If you're not acquitted, Mississippi's Burning will outshine Los Angelos after Rodney King. I'll be able to roast marshmallows from Chicago on its flames. If you remain in prison until the Singularity, I hope you are treated as a hero, until the prison walls can be torn down. You should not lose your life to appease the white bigots' (anti-black, anti-drug, anti-gun-rights, anti-property rights, anti-America) "war on (some) drugs".
Long live Liberty, Free Cory Maye!
Radley Balko is exactly right in his uncovering and continuing analysis of the Cory Maye case. I agree 100% with his assessment of the appeal. The Appellant attorneys both make LaDonna Holland look like a slobbering mongoloid (make that a slobbering _fascist_ mongoloid).
I can't commend Radley Balko highly enough. I am in awe of his ability to continually be on the cutting edge of what is important, relevant, and useful to the cause of liberty. The fact that he recommends Clay Conrad's book "Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine" is even more amazing. (Clay Conrad is the primary force in the jury rights movement in favor of challenging the unconstitutionality of "voir dire" AKA "prosecutorial jury rigging". )
The "jury duty" link below is Clay's.
http://isil.org/resources/lit/history-jury-null.html
-The History of Jury Nullification of Law
http://isil.org/resources/lit/new-hope-fija.html
-How Informed Juries Represent New Hope For Individual Freedom
http://www.juryduty.org/JuryDuty.htm
-How Prosecutors Rig Juries in Favor of Fascism, and What You Can Do To Set An Innocent Person Free
http://www.fija.org
-The Fully Informed Jury Association
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson
"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
—Thomas Jefferson
"If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another,
then, I say, break the law."
—Henry David Thoreau
PS: Judges: If you uphold Maye's conviction, you will be ruling in favor of secret police and "disappearances" in America, and you may be igniting the next civil war (read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross). Moreover, you will be hammering one more nail into the coffin of the principle of the moral right to self-defense (a big reason why those who perpetrate the drug war are guilty of treason; When it became obvious that the "war" could not be won, they failed to do what Hirohito did: surrender to avoid innocent casualties, ...like Cory Maye). Ignorance of philosophy is no excuse in this one: the side of justice has too much information.
PPS: Nice shot, Cory. I'm amazed you did it without the herstal 5.7. ...John Bad Elk (1900 SCOTUS http://openjurist.org/177/us/529 ) has nothing on you (I'm kind of surprised I haven't heard the case mentioned in reference to Maye yet). If you're not acquitted, Mississippi's Burning will outshine Los Angelos after Rodney King. I'll be able to roast marshmallows from Chicago on its flames. If you remain in prison until the Singularity, I hope you are treated as a hero, until the prison walls can be torn down. You should not lose your life to appease the white bigots' (anti-black, anti-drug, anti-gun-rights, anti-property rights, anti-America) "war on (some) drugs".
Long live Liberty, Free Cory Maye!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
