Free State Project Forum

FSP -- General Discussion => Prospective Participants => Topic started by: Scoobie Snaxxx on August 09, 2002, 09:23:47 am

Title: I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Scoobie Snaxxx on August 09, 2002, 09:23:47 am
Yesterday I read Dr. Williams' article and I saw him on Hannity and Colmes.  I've visited the website and I like what I saw, mostly.
The premise that the federal government (all three branches) has constantly breached the Constitution, especially the 10th Amendment, is something that I wholeheartedly agree with.  The idea of a bunch of folks moving to a sparsely populated state and peacefully taking over sounds good as well.
But the question is, what kind of state will be created.  I have been looking through this BB and I don't like a lot of what I see.  I'm a conservative, not a libertarian.  Some rules are good.  I am sick of the old libertarian line, "We are losing the drug war, so let's just give up and legalize it."  what a stupid argument!  That's like saying, "Well, we have laws against murder, but people are still being murdered, so let's just leagalize it and watch the crime rate go down!"  Well sorry folks, drugs are bad, so is kiddie porn and abortion.  Yes, that's a value statement, its MY value statement, and yes, I try to impose it on others, peacefully of course.      
While I sympathise with this cause, if the majority of folks here are libertarian minded, I'll have to say, "Thank you but no thanks."  I would of course support their idea of a "free republic," but I am not sure that a anarchisitc libertarian society is preferrable to status-quo.
What can I tell ya, I'm currently reading "Amimal Farm" ;D
Before I commit myself to such a serious endeavor, I guess I need to find out more about the poobahs behind this endeavor.
Any comments would be gladly appreciated.

The Hammer of God
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Reaper on August 09, 2002, 09:56:59 am
Well, we have a lot of people from various political ideologies who all agree that the federal government currently has taken too much power, ignores the constitution and controls to much of our lives.  I think most of us in the FSP agree that we want to move towards more individual control and less government control.  Where we disagree is how far to move that direction.

I do not think you will find much support from FSP members with regard to continuing the drug war.  By the way the argument you posted about, "The drug war is a failure let's so lets abandon it" being equal to abandoning laws against murder is what is known as a "straw man argument".  Most libertarians dont wish to stop the drug war just because it's a failure.  They wish to stop it because: a) The drug war has killed more people than all illegal drugs combined, b) the drug war has been the major contributor to loss of our constitutional rights, c) the drug war is immoral in that it seeks to seize control of individuals who are harming nobody and dictate what they can do to their own body or some combination of those factors.  There are many other reasons to object to the drug war.

Now private individuals, organizations and groups would be free to use any peaceful means of persuasion to convince people not to use the currently illegal drugs.  

However, I think the vast majority in the FSP are opposed to continuing the use of law, law enforcement personel, jails, etc. in the war on drugs.  Not only does it not work but it also has in fact become a greater problem then the one it was meant to solve.  Sort of the proverbial "The cure is worse than the disease".

I don't speak for the FSP.  My opinions are my own.  I would definitely like to hear from any FSP members who want to continue the drug war in a free state.

"The care of every man's soul belongs to himself. But what if he neglect the care of it? Well what if he neglect the care of his health or his estate, which would more nearly relate to the state. Will the magistrate make a law that he not be poor or sick? Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves. God himself will not save men against their wills." - Thomas Jefferson -


Reaper
Proud Member of the FSP's lunatic fringe
"An Equal Opportunity Offender"
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: mikegags on August 09, 2002, 10:25:54 am

I am sick of the old libertarian line, "We are losing the drug war, so let's just give up and legalize it."  what a stupid argument!

As Reaper stated, that is most definitely not the LP argument for ending the Drug War.
Quote

Well sorry folks, drugs are bad, so is kiddie porn and abortion.  Yes, that's a value statement, its MY value statement, and yes, I try to impose it on others, peacefully of course.      

1) Yes, all those things are bad. But just because something is bad doesn't mean there needs to be a law against it.

2) In your example, 2 of the 3 acts involve a victim, and to me a crime requires a victim (other than one's self, as is the case with drug use).

3) Preaching is peaceful (and protected as in free speech), imposing implies some use or force or coercion. In our current society people use the govt to impose their views on others. That is what we want to get away from.

In a free society people with similar views, beliefs, values and morals should and will form smaller communities. If you think about it, that is how many of the states were founded. It is when the Fed govt came in and tried to make everyone "the same" in the name of equality, political correctness, security and fairness that this natural process was corrupted.
(There is more to it than that, but that's a big part).

IMNSHO, you do not come to this state if you want to impose your values on others. You come to this state if you want to share your values with others.
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Scoobie Snaxxx on August 09, 2002, 11:07:21 am
First of all, thank you for the quick replies.  Maybe I should do a better job of clarification.
1)  I do not dislike libertarians.  In fact on a large majority of issues, I find agreement; especially on the premise of the FSP.  So maybe I am being petty with my criticisms.  But then again, if the FSP does not want to be considered a bunch of "wackos (not my words, my wife's  :D)" there needs to be open debate about the specifics; which you folks are gracious to engage.
2)  The whole "Drug War" thing.  Look, my limited knowledge of libertarianism is limited to Neil Boortz and a little of Harry Browne (who gives me the willies, quite honestly).  Don't tell me to read Ayn Rand (I'm too damn busy  :)), I've listened to enough Rush songs to understand her gist.  I know that the argument for legalization is valid.  But so is the argument against legalization; I am not so convinced that it is a "victimless crime."  And please save me the "Straw Man schtick," my moral relativist friends use that all the time.  But please understand, I am not accusing you of being a moral relativist.  Let's face it, it's a complicated issue; I've been waffling on it for over 10 years.  But this is another argument for another day.
3) I guess I am curious of just how exactly the new state would be administered.  Would the US constitution be simple Xeroxed and implimented?  And then would the counties of the occupied state become "states themselves" and granted 10th Amendment autonomy?  If that is the case, then most of my fears would be allayed.  Because, as one of you mentioned, I could simply pick the community "county/state" where the majority of residents have a similar ideology to my own.  Our community, via the 10th Amendement would be self-governing with the exception of those responisibilities explixitly assigned to the federal authority via the Constitution.  As we all know, one way that the current US Federal government gains access to state sovereignty is to make more and more federal laws, thereby granting them jurisdiction; this is clearly unconstitutional but is done anyhow.
4)  There is a distinct difference between "government imposing its views on others" and "goverment representing the views/morals of those empowering the gov't."  I used the term, "impose" with tongue planted firmly in cheek.  However, I could not stand idly by as those in authority operate with blatent disregard for my morals.

Hope I have make myself clearer.

The Hammer
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Reaper on August 09, 2002, 11:35:06 am
First of all, thank you for the quick replies.  Maybe I should do a better job of clarification.
1)  I do not dislike libertarians.  In fact on a large majority of issues, I find agreement; especially on the premise of the FSP.  So maybe I am being petty with my criticisms.  But then again, if the FSP does not want to be considered a bunch of "wackos (not my words, my wife's  :D)" there needs to be open debate about the specifics; which you folks are gracious to engage.


Well, I think you'll find that we do not ALL agree on the specifics of any particular policy (there may be a majority here or there), we do all agree on the direction we want things to go.  The only question is how far, which we enjoy debating vigorously, openly and civilly.


2)  The whole "Drug War" thing.  Look, my limited knowledge of libertarianism is limited to Neil Boortz and a little of Harry Browne (who gives me the willies, quite honestly).  Don't tell me to read Ayn Rand (I'm too damn busy  :)), I've listened to enough Rush songs to understand her gist.  I know that the argument for legalization is valid.  But so is the argument against legalization; I am not so convinced that it is a "victimless crime."  And please save me the "Straw Man schtick," my moral relativist friends use that all the time.  But please understand, I am not accusing you of being a moral relativist.  Let's face it, it's a complicated issue; I've been waffling on it for over 10 years.  But this is another argument for another day.


I think once you eliminate the welfare state and the black market there is no objective case to be made in favor of drug prohibition.  If I'm wrong I'd greatly appreciate someone showing me.  For example, if I had a plot of land with my house on it and wanted to grow some marijuana plants, dry them and smoke them on my porch after work while playing my guitar and relaxing in the sunset.  Who am I harming besides myself?  What objective case could be made for arresting such a person?  Who would benefit from their incarceration?

3) I guess I am curious of just how exactly the new state would be administered.  Would the US constitution be simple Xeroxed and implimented?  And then would the counties of the occupied state become "states themselves" and granted 10th Amendment autonomy?  If that is the case, then most of my fears would be allayed.  Because, as one of you mentioned, I could simply pick the community "county/state" where the majority of residents have a similar ideology to my own.  Our community, via the 10th Amendement would be self-governing with the exception of those responisibilities explixitly assigned to the federal authority via the Constitution.  As we all know, one way that the current US Federal government gains access to state sovereignty is to make more and more federal laws, thereby granting them jurisdiction; this is clearly unconstitutional but is done anyhow.


We're all curious on that one.  We have a lot of different theories on how it may happen.  But to be honest I dont think anyone really knows.  After all it's never been done before.  We dont even know for a certainty if seccession will be necessary.

4)  There is a distinct difference between "government imposing its views on others" and "goverment representing the views/morals of those empowering the gov't."  I used the term, "impose" with tongue planted firmly in cheek.  However, I could not stand idly by as those in authority operate with blatent disregard for my morals.


Okay, then I do not understand.  What difference is there?  Please give me some examples.


Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: JasonPSorens on August 09, 2002, 12:40:15 pm
Judah - thanks for your comments; you sound like a reasonable & fair person.  However, the Free State Project may not be the thing for you at quite this time.  The deregulation of narcotics is an issue that most of us feel very strongly about.  The Constitution gives government no authority to regulate the substances adults put into their bodies, and the government's massive overreach in this area has led to the horrors of rampant asset forfeiture, botched raids & the murder of innocents, a massive bureaucracy, engagement in foreign quagmires like Colombia, and a host of other evils.  (Read James Bovard's blood-boiling "Lost Rights" and you will never think the same way about the Drug War again, I guarantee it.)  In other words, most of us view the legalization of drugs for consenting adults as a major plank in any attempt to rein in government to its proper functions.  That does not mean we condone drug abuse.  As a morally conservative Christian, I would like to see drugs nonexistent: through the work of God, the Church, and treatment centers.  Using the violence of the state for this purpose is both immoral and counterproductive.
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: mikegags on August 09, 2002, 01:12:45 pm

Judah - thanks for your comments; you sound like a reasonable & fair person.  However, the Free State Project may not be the thing for you at quite this time.  The deregulation of narcotics is an issue that most of us feel very strongly about.  The Constitution gives government no authority to regulate the substances adults put into their bodies, and the government's massive overreach in this area has led to the horrors of rampant asset forfeiture, botched raids & the murder of innocents, a massive bureaucracy, engagement in foreign quagmires like Colombia, and a host of other evils.  (Read James Bovard's blood-boiling "Lost Rights" and you will never think the same way about the Drug War again, I guarantee it.)  In other words, most of us view the legalization of drugs for consenting adults as a major plank in any attempt to rein in government to its proper functions.  That does not mean we condone drug abuse.  As a morally conservative Christian, I would like to see drugs nonexistent: through the work of God, the Church, and treatment centers.  Using the violence of the state for this purpose is both immoral and counterproductive.


Excellent response Jason. I know I couldn't have said it better.

I still have one concern: through all these topics and threads everyone is still talking about what they believe freedom is, what they should be free to do (etc). That's great to talk about, and I agree we all need to place to vent our frustrations, share our ideas and debate issues with others.

But none of that will get us the freedom we need to have any of those things. As with the arguments for and against a face-to-face meeting (yes, I finally found that thread) I have concerns about energy, resources and focus.

I am not a history expert, but I don't believe the F.F. met in Philly to talk about what to do about the environment and other moral issues. They waited until after they had won their freedom to figure out what to do with it.

Maybe I'm just impatient. I suppose that until we have the minimum number of members all we can do is talk. I just don't want to see our ranks filled with those simply for freedom to do something specific. I don't believe that is the kind of conviction required for what lies ahead. Although once the ball is rolling that is exactly the kinds of "citizens" we need.


Thanx
Mike

Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Scoobie Snaxxx on August 09, 2002, 02:34:51 pm
"However, the Free State Project may not be the thing for you at quite this time.  The deregulation of narcotics is an issue that most of us feel very strongly about."

I am sorry that this issue is so important to the majority of the group as to provide a lynchpin to its success.  
One of the reasons, whether you believe it or not, that the Libertarian party has never achieved mainstream status, is that most folks out there dismiss them as, "The Drug people."  Of course this characterization is not fair, however it is the reality.
Do I have a problem with someone growing their own pot and smoking it at their leisure?  No I don't.  I'd be a hypocrite to say that I haven't used narcotics myself.  But I've also driven safely above the speed limit, but I don't go crusading for a change in speeding laws.  Insert "straw man counterargument here".
This is the problem, most folks have no problem with legalizing pot, maybe even hash and opium.  But that about acid, crack, meth, heroin, coke? and so on and so on.
I know that you only need 20,000 so you probably all can find 20,000 people looking to legalized drugs.  But this begs the question, if this issue is so important to you, I can easily find you 20,000 in favor of drug legalization who only CARE about drug legalization.  What kind of society do you wish to forge when a large number of the citizenry are only concerned with their own euphoric state of consciousness.
I was really disappointed when it was suggested that the group, "really wasn't for me" do JUST to this one issue.  
I fear that you may ostracize many folks, like me, who probably can make a significant contribution to the organization.  I thought the possibility of dissenting voices were welcomed in a free society.
I've been to the drug meetings (NORML springs to mind), for every 1 person who believes in the moral/ethical arguments for legalization, there are 10 who just want to get stoned and free needles.
And as for, my questions of how exactly the new government will be run I see the following reply...
"We're all curious on that one.  We have a lot of different theories on how it may happen.  But to be honest I dont think anyone really knows.  After all it's never been done before.  We dont even know for a certainty if seccession will be necessary."
First of all, seccession WILL BE necessary.  Are you all Pollyannish enough to believe that one small state of radicals would cause instituitonal change?  The state to be occuipied will have 2 votes in the Senate and only 1 vote in the house (most likely).  The VAST majority of folks in Alaska want drilling in the ANWR, yet they never can get Congressional approval, even with the fact that Ted Stevens is one of the most powerful men in the Senate.
Secondly, I much admit, I am not prepared to give up my citizenship for something which has not been though out completely.  I understand that it is an experiment.  But most successful experiments are thought out ahead of time.
Don't get me wrong, I'll say again, I support the PREMISE, however; the more I see, the more I sense this is a single-issue group pushing an agenda without consideration of it's perception to others or a sensible plan for the future.
"The best laid plans of mice and men...."

Judah



Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: marciesmom on August 09, 2002, 02:51:08 pm
I don't think we're a "one-issue" group.  It's been presented that way by various and sundry individuals.  But the drug issue is a good litmus test, if you will, because the MAIN issue is restoring constitutional freedoms.  The idea is getting government out of people's everyday lives, and allowing them to experience the consequences (good or bad) of their decisions--WITHOUT everyone else footing the bill!  There are a variety of issues being discussed here on the website.  We're starting to "hash out" what it might mean to be part of a free society, in an age where information and travel are much more available than they were in 1776.  I know you're busy, but hang out awhile and find out what's going on in the various sections of the forum.
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Dex Sinister on August 09, 2002, 03:15:47 pm
2)  The whole "Drug War" thing.  Look, my limited knowledge of libertarianism is limited to Neil Boortz and a little of Harry Browne. <snip> I know that the argument for legalization is valid.  But so is the argument against legalization; I am not so convinced that it is a "victimless crime."  

It might be easier to understand the FSP's views on the drug war by looking at the history of Prohibition.

Not just the Prohibition was a failure and repealed, but that just 70 years ago people who thought that alcohol was evil and wanted to ban it knew that the only Constitutional way of doing so was to pass an amendment to the Constitution, authorizing the government the powers to control alcohol.

Then take a look at the amendment itself: It says nothing whatsoever about use, only manufacture, transportation, and sale. Even those who wanted to ban alcohol completely didn’t believe that they had the right to regulate what you, personally, consumed – only whether it was sold to you.

Only 40 years or so later, the Government declared “war” on drugs. If they needed a Constitutional amendment in the 1930’s, where did they acquire the rightful authority 40 years later?

And without the rightful authority to declare this “war,” against the American people as individuals, how is it that they spend billions of dollars a year “fighting” it?

I’m all for a “War on Drugs” – just as soon as that Prohibition on Drugs amendment is passed in a Constitutional manner, and ratified by the requisite number of States. [I’m not all for it philosophically, but that’s a different story.]
   
In the free state that the FSP proposes, we would merely be returning the government to its Constitutional boundaries on any number of issues. After all, there are any number of “wonderful” things that might be [theoretically] accomplished passing a law against this or that, or the other thing, but there are a very limited number of things that our government is actually authorized to do.

If you think, as I do, that the Founding Fathers had a pretty good handle on what was necessary to achieve freedom, then perhaps you may have to let go of some laws that may seems like a nifty idea to you, but that the government was never supposed to control in the first place.

Dex }:>=-


P.S. You might also consider that the wonderful legacy of Teddy Kennedy, and the whole rest of Kennedy clan, was made possible by the vast fortunes the family made smuggling illegal alcohol - during Prohibition. :-\
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Mega Joule on August 09, 2002, 03:32:23 pm
Quote
Quote from: Reaper
I think most of us in the FSP agree that we want to move towards more individual control and less government control.  Where we disagree is how far to move that direction.

I don't speak for the FSP.  My opinions are my own.  I would definitely like to hear from any FSP members who want to continue the drug war in a free state.

Giving up the war on drug?  Isn’t that like giving one’s approval to people to destroy their minds and bodies, steal to support their habit, sit around stoned all day collecting handouts from entitlement programs and private individuals and organizations?  Is not such blanket consent of the destruction of human lives morally reprehensible?  Should we not stand firmly on our moral convictions regardless of the ideals, morals, and personal choices of others?  Should not intervene with the full force of law to protect others even from themselves?  Should we not also protect everyone from everything that might be considered by them to be wrong, immoral, distasteful, or offensive?  While we are at should we not, while enforcing a ban on the currently illegal drugs, also ban (or at least strictly regulate) most if not all firearms, fireworks, “R” rated movies, some if not all herbal health supplements, pornography, nudity, drugs not explicitly tested and approved by the FDA, cross-dressing, homosexuality, same-sex-marriage, ad infinitum….?

 ???<Awakening from a deep trance>   :o“Oh no, I was temporarily possessed by the evil, tyrannical, usurpers known as the "feral" government”

Quote
Reaper
Proud Member of the FSP's lunatic fringe
"An Equal Opportunity Offender"

I am proud to count you among us loonies.

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
Albert Einstein


Meg
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Matthew on August 09, 2002, 03:40:59 pm
Scared me for a second!  I kept looking at the name of the poster.  Didn't sound like you talking...  I had a whole argument about to be written...  Thank god you were possesed.
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Mega Joule on August 09, 2002, 03:44:24 pm

Scared me for a second!  I kept looking at the name of the poster.  Didn't sound like you talking...  I had a whole argument about to be written...  Thank god you were possesed.


LMAO Gotcha

Meg
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Mega Joule on August 09, 2002, 04:30:34 pm
Quote
Quote from: JudahTheHammer

But then again, if the FSP does not want to be considered a bunch of "wackos (not my words, my wife's  :D)" there needs to be open debate about the specifics; which you folks are gracious to engage.

I was really disappointed when it was suggested that the group, "really wasn't for me" do JUST to this one issue.  
I fear that you may ostracize many folks, like me, who probably can make a significant contribution to the organization.  I thought the possibility of dissenting voices were welcomed in a free society.


Let me see if I follow this correctly.  We are "wackos (not my words, my wife's  :D)" because we openly discuss the multitude of legal and philosophical issues that can and will inevitably arise in an endeavor so great as this, but you assert that you should be able to express a “dissenting voice” (as indeed you should), apparently without the rebuttal of those who oppose your views (which is absurd).  If one among us is free to express themselves without condemnation, then so must we all be equally free.

Quote

I used the term, "impose" with tongue planted firmly in cheek.  However, I could not stand idly by as those in authority operate with blatent disregard for my morals.
The Hammer


You have every right to your morals.  They are yours and no one can rightfully deny you them.  You however, have no legal or moral right to force them on anyone else.  As to standing idly by, if those in authority truly and accurately represent the majority (or more ideally the supermajority) of the people at large, you will have the following choices: to live by their decisions, to vote for change, to peaceably assemble for a redress of your grievances, or to leave.

Quote

I've been to the drug meetings (NORML springs to mind), for every 1 person who believes in the moral/ethical arguments for legalization, there are 10 who just want to get stoned and free needles.


I will not argue your statistics (however unsupported by references conferring their accuracy), but I will say that I believe there are many FSP supporters who do not use drugs and yet see good cause to support an end to the war on drugs.  I for one do not see how locking someone up in jail for years because they were convicted on drug charges is an improvement to their quality of life.  

Quote

And as for, my questions of how exactly the new government will be run I see the following reply...
Reaper replied, "We're all curious on that one.  We have a lot of different theories on how it may happen.  But to be honest I dont think anyone really knows.  After all it's never been done before.  


” Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
Thomas Jefferson


Quote

"The best laid plans of mice and men...."

Judah


Tell that to the founding fathers.

"Every generation needs a new revolution."
Thomas Jefferson



“Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.”

Albert Einstein
Meg
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: mikegags on August 09, 2002, 04:39:22 pm

I am sorry that this issue is so important to the majority of the group as to provide a lynchpin to its success.

I too am afraid that just one issue, or several dozen issues, are the focus of this movement. That's the wrong approach. It won't work.

We need to focus on one goal: Freedom. Liberty. Pick your term. Only after that has been achieved can we sit down at the table and use that freedom to decide how we want to live.
Quote

I know that you only need 20,000 so you probably all can find 20,000 people looking to legalized drugs.  But this begs the question, if this issue is so important to you, I can easily find you 20,000 in favor of drug legalization who only CARE about drug legalization.  What kind of society do you wish to forge when a large number of the citizenry are only concerned with their own euphoric state of consciousness.

Thank You! Another voice of reason. This movement isn't, and can't be, about: drugs, abortion, welfare, same-sex marriage (etc). Its about freedom. Anyone who is joining just for these causes is in for a nasty surprise.
Quote

I was really disappointed when it was suggested that the group, "really wasn't for me" do JUST to this one issue.  
I fear that you may ostracize many folks, like me, who probably can make a significant contribution to the organization.  I thought the possibility of dissenting voices were welcomed in a free society.
I've been to the drug meetings (NORML springs to mind), for every 1 person who believes in the moral/ethical arguments for legalization, there are 10 who just want to get stoned and free needles.

I too am getting concerned that people are getting involved for the wrong reasons. This is NOT about creating a society with no morals or values, but a society based on personal freedom and responsibility where we don't need hundreds of laws because most people share the same level of morals and values. The founding fathers weren't perfect, but they shared a common set of basic morals and values.

We are most definitely not trying to create a party state (note that is exactly how the press will portray us).
Quote

First of all, seccession WILL BE necessary.  Are you all Pollyannish enough to believe that one small state of radicals would cause instituitonal change?  The state to be occuipied will have 2 votes in the Senate and only 1 vote in the house (most likely).  The VAST majority of folks in Alaska want drilling in the ANWR, yet they never can get Congressional approval, even with the fact that Ted Stevens is one of the most powerful men in the Senate.
Secondly, I much admit, I am not prepared to give up my citizenship for something which has not been though out completely.  I understand that it is an experiment.  But most successful experiments are thought out ahead of time.
Don't get me wrong, I'll say again, I support the PREMISE, however; the more I see, the more I sense this is a single-issue group pushing an agenda without consideration of it's perception to others or a sensible plan for the future.
"The best laid plans of mice and men...."

Another direct hit!

No one seems to want to talk about that here Judah.
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: JasonPSorens on August 09, 2002, 04:51:43 pm

I know that you only need 20,000 so you probably all can find 20,000 people looking to legalized drugs.  But this begs the question, if this issue is so important to you, I can easily find you 20,000 in favor of drug legalization who only CARE about drug legalization.  What kind of society do you wish to forge when a large number of the citizenry are only concerned with their own euphoric state of consciousness.
I was really disappointed when it was suggested that the group, "really wasn't for me" do JUST to this one issue.  


We're not a one-issue group.  Someone who favors drug legalization but does not favor abolishing income taxes would also probably not want to join with us.  We favor freedom across the board; I thought my response made that clear.

Quote

I fear that you may ostracize many folks, like me, who probably can make a significant contribution to the organization.  I thought the possibility of dissenting voices were welcomed in a free society.


Dissenting voices are fine, but what is the point of this Project if we just bring a bunch of Bob Dole Republicans into a single state?  We won't be changing anything, we won't be restoring constitutional government, we won't be standing erect and breathing the bracing air of true freedom and responsibility.  If you want to take a scalpel to the corpus of American government rather than a chainsaw, that's fine.  But I doubt you'll be wanting to join a movement that will be taking a chainsaw to it.

Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Mega Joule on August 09, 2002, 07:10:33 pm
Quote
Quote from: Reaper


Reaper
Proud Member of the FSP's lunatic fringe
"An Equal Opportunity Offender"


Without the fringe you cannot define the center.

Let the lunatic fringe unravel the fabric of complacency which leads to tyranny.

Meg
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Uncle Deedah on August 09, 2002, 09:16:39 pm
Folks, maybe I'm out of line here.

Judah is the second poster here with questions who has been told that "maybe the FSP isn't for you". I have had the same sentiment directed my way.

Y'all have, let's see here...

As of 10:15 or so Friday August 9th, 2002, the FSP has 751 signed up members. As a guy who has spent a day or two in sales I gotta tell ya, it's WAY too soon to suggest to people who show interest in your product that they may be in the wrong store!

Unk
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: JasonPSorens on August 09, 2002, 09:28:04 pm
Maybe so, but if we have no standards at all, then those who are really committed to the Project and its ideals will burn out or drop out.  We have to strike a balance between being principled and being open.  I think we can achieve both.

I simply don't see how agreement with the War on Drugs can be reconciled with our Statement of Intent, which clearly states that "the maximum role of government is the protection of individuals' rights to life, liberty, and property."  If you can justify your views solely in relation to the protection of individual rights, you are welcome in the FSP.  If one thinks the government's role is partly to make people good, or to give them whatever material resources they need/want, then I don't see why one would be interested in the FSP in the first place.
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Reaper on August 09, 2002, 09:43:45 pm
Judah is the second poster here with questions who has been told that "maybe the FSP isn't for you". I have had the same sentiment directed my way.

Y'all have, let's see here...

As of 10:15 or so Friday August 9th, 2002, the FSP has 751 signed up members. As a guy who has spent a day or two in sales I gotta tell ya, it's WAY too soon to suggest to people who show interest in your product that they may be in the wrong store!


Well, if we were selling used cars as is/no warranty I would agree.  However, we are looking for people with specific attributes.  It would do us no good to fill up to 20 or 30 thousand if many or even a few thousand were not willing to work for liberty except for themselves.  Liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to everyone else as well.

I mean who doesn't want to be "free"? Right?  Until they realize, "Oh my! I have to let other people be free to live in ways I find morally repugnant?!".  "Well, I just can't do that!"

In my opinion at that point it's just, "Well, sorry.  Thanks for your interest! Enjoy your police state/theocracy/whatever."



Reaper
Proud member of the FSP's lunatic fringe!
"An Equal Opportunity Offender"
MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN, NOT THE FSP'S.
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Uncle Deedah on August 09, 2002, 10:24:49 pm
Reaper,

Don't worry, I'm not selling you used cars. But, whether you like it or not, you are SELLING your ideas.

Every single thing that has ever changed your world for the better, or the worse for that matter, started out as an idea that was sold to another person. To paraphrase Gordon Gecko "Sales, for lack of a better word, is good." Not used car sales, not pots and pans sales, not vacuum sales, but persuasion. Persuasion is very easy if you honestly believe in what you represent. It's just being able to show a person why you and he share the same self interests. Sure, you might not agree with every point a newbie makes, but think about it...


This place has had, I would guess, some of the best mainsteam exposure it's ever had thanks to Walter Williams. Y'all have had I would guess a nice jump in traffic from folks who obviously share your interest in freedom, it's a great opportuinity to win friends on at least SOME points.

You said "It would do us no good to fill up to 20 or 30 thousand if many or even a few thousand were not willing to work for liberty except for themselves.  Liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to everyone else as well."

I agree. 100%

The whole tennant of Libertarianism is that folks should (in essence) work, decide, and think for themselves. If folks who look here don't see how joining forces will win freedom for what they care about, they will, just, sort,,,, of,,,,, fade,,,,,,,, away

Maybe we need to try to show the newcomers why they will be better off by joining the effort than by telling them that their desire for at least SOME freedom should perhaps look elsewhere.

Unk

Yeah, I get grumpy sometimes, sue me

:o
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: antayla on August 09, 2002, 11:21:32 pm
These people who support the WoD would be singing a different tune if they knew some of these political prisoners personally.  I've met plenty of drug users, and I tell ya, they aren't the enemy here.  I'm sorry, chillin with a bowl on a friday night (or selling someone a bowl on a friday night) isn't causing the "breakdown of society" er some crap like that, any more than running up to 7-11 for a 40 ouncer is gonna.  When your son or daughter (possibly highly sucessful son or daughter) gets busted by the feds (because some TIPS mofo called in the Gestapo who are using the new and improved system of injustice) and thrown in prison for having an eighth in their house... well if you have a heart you will fight with us.  

This is interesting stuff... http://www.hr95.org/hr95faces.html  Downright messed up even.

Also my drug war page...
http://antayla.bravepages.com/puzzle/drugwar.html

Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Uncle Deedah on August 10, 2002, 10:17:24 am
Judah,

If you are still reading I would like to address some of your points.

"I do not dislike libertarians.  In fact on a large majority of issues, I find agreement; especially on the premise of the FSP. "

That's great. I am probably about in the same place you are.

"I know that the argument for legalization is valid.  But so is the argument against legalization; I am not so convinced that it is a "victimless crime."  And please save me the "Straw Man schtick," my moral relativist friends use that all the time."

Would you have any objection to allowing medical marijuana? If we could start there, and if the world doesn't come to an end because medical marijuana is legalized, maybe folks like you would be willing to try the next step. Libertarians don't seem to realize that people are not ready to see heroin sold in gas stations.

"I guess I am curious of just how exactly the new state would be administered."

I would suppose in about the same way it is now, at least at first. Even if the FSP can get 50,000 people move to one state they will still have to work within the legal framework in place.

"There is a distinct difference between "government imposing its views on others" and "goverment representing the views/morals of those empowering the gov't."  I used the term, "impose" with tongue planted firmly in cheek.  However, I could not stand idly by as those in authority operate with blatent disregard for my morals."

Neither could I. My morals tell me to treat others well, and to try to help those who are being mistreated. Is there a way to find balance between the morals you hold for yourself and the amount of freedom you will allow others?

Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: cdbern_99 on August 11, 2002, 05:24:14 am
To legalize or not to legalize really isn't the issue that needs addressing.  The real issue is individual rights.

When Hitler came for the Jews... I was not a Jew, therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the
Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the
industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then, Hitler attacked me and the
Protestant church and there was nobody left to be concerned.
Pastor Martin Niemoller

The challange with being an American is to allow others their right to choose, even when we disagree with it.
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Scoobie Snaxxx on August 12, 2002, 08:43:47 am
Once again, thank you all for promoting this discussion.  And especially thank you to those who either support me or at least sympathize with my position.
Someone asked me whether I would support "medicinal pot," my response is "Sure if Granny needs to smoke a bowl to help her out with her glocoma, I have no problem with it."
Here are my reservations with the drug issue.
1)  Comparing drug legalization with prohibition is not helpful.  Alcohol has been a part of our culture for literally thousands of years.  Having a glass of wine with dinner, having a brewski at a ballgame, receiving Holy Communion; these activities are quite common and accepting within most cultures.  Prohibition was a failure because the government was dictating that that part of our culture was unacceptable and years and years of tradition was counter-productive and morally reprehensible.  Society, as a whole, rebelled against Prohibition and through the "democratic" process, the amendment was repealed.  Remember that Prohibition was legally conceived via the Constitution.  It was NOT unconstitutional; it followed the correct procedures (the amending process).  We cannot decry it as criminal; even though in hindsight it was a bad idea.  In other words, we (as Americans) did it to ourselves here, within the construct that the Framers gave us.  
2)  Comparing alcohol to drugs is a pseudo red harring.  Why do I say this?  Aren't both substances mind altering substances?  Yep.  But once again, culture comes to mind.  There is not an "alcohol culture" as there is a "drug culture".  Now some (if not most) of you probably disagree with me here, but my experiences have shown me that there is, within the legalization community, a "drug culture."  I believe that this movement is counter-productive, divisive, and myopic.  Trust me, I've been there, "Wu-Tang baby!".  Ever see a kid with a Budwiser medallion hanging from his neck?  I haven't, but I have seen a kid with a Bud medallion?  With the notable exception of George Thorogood, (feel free to sing along), "If you don't start drinking, I'm gonna leave," some popular music (primarily hip-hop but not just hip-hop) has embraced drugs, Wu Tang and Cyprus Hill (which I kinda like actually) spring to mind.  
2)  Once again, democracies ought to represent the morals/values of the majority.  The large majority of people I know use alcohol, a small minority use drugs.  A substantial percentage of the non-drug using populace do not believe that drug legalization has any societal good.  I understand the concept of respecting minority rights, but at the same time respecting minority rights does not mean capituation to them.
3)  I would think that the offical stance of the FSP concering drug legalization would be NONE!  Drugs are not mentioned in the Constitution.  There should be no federal statutes for or against drugs.  Individual communities ("states" in the US, I have no idea what the free state would call them) should set the standards.  See the answer that would satisfy me is, "The FSP has no drug policy per se, localities would determine whether or not there is legalization in their communities."  Let's say we take over Delaware; the people in Dover want legalization and the folks in Wilmington do not.  What's wrong with that?  The citizen has the the right to choose which community he wishes to be part of and can move accordingly.
Am I totally off base here?  

Judah

as for whoever reminded me that the Kennedy forture was created through bootlegging, yes i know.  whenever i hear that name, as an irish catholic, i cringe  :D
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Reaper on August 12, 2002, 09:11:09 am
Here are my reservations with the drug issue.
1)  Comparing drug legalization with prohibition is not helpful.  Alcohol has been a part of our culture for literally thousands of years.  Having a glass of wine with dinner, having a brewski at a ballgame, receiving Holy Communion; these activities are quite common and accepting within most cultures.  Prohibition was a failure because the government was dictating that that part of our culture was unacceptable and years and years of tradition was counter-productive and morally reprehensible.  Society, as a whole, rebelled against Prohibition and through the "democratic" process, the amendment was repealed.  Remember that Prohibition was legally conceived via the Constitution.  It was NOT unconstitutional; it followed the correct procedures (the amending process).  We cannot decry it as criminal; even though in hindsight it was a bad idea.  In other words, we (as Americans) did it to ourselves here, within the construct that the Framers gave us.  

The only difference between the two is alcohol prohibition was immoral and done constitutionally and drug prohibition is immoral and done unconstitutionally.

2)  Comparing alcohol to drugs is a pseudo red harring.  Why do I say this?  Aren't both substances mind altering substances?  Yep.  But once again, culture comes to mind.  There is not an "alcohol culture" as there is a "drug culture".  Now some (if not most) of you probably disagree with me here, but my experiences have shown me that there is, within the legalization community, a "drug culture."  I believe that this movement is counter-productive, divisive, and myopic.  Trust me, I've been there, "Wu-Tang baby!".  Ever see a kid with a Budwiser medallion hanging from his neck?  I haven't, but I have seen a kid with a Bud medallion?  With the notable exception of George Thorogood, (feel free to sing along), "If you don't start drinking, I'm gonna leave," some popular music (primarily hip-hop but not just hip-hop) has embraced drugs, Wu Tang and Cyprus Hill (which I kinda like actually) spring to mind.  

You've obviously never seen "Animal House" or about 100 other movies which represent the "alcohol culture" quite clearly (or simply dont recognize it as such).  There are also MANY alcohol related songs besides George Thorogood, (Margaritaville anyone?).  The "alcohol culture" eludes you because it's mainstream and as such goes unnoticed.  The reason most of these "kids" wear pot leaves, etc. is BECAUSE it's not legal/accepted.  If alcohol were still illegal they likely would be wearing Jack Daniel's medallions, etc.  The argument just doesn't hold water.

2)  Once again, democracies ought to represent the morals/values of the majority.  The large majority of people I know use alcohol, a small minority use drugs.  A substantial percentage of the non-drug using populace do not believe that drug legalization has any societal good.  I understand the concept of respecting minority rights, but at the same time respecting minority rights does not mean capituation to them.


What's right and wrong is determined by who is in the majority then?  So, the majority have the right to control the private behavior of the minority?  How is that moral or any different from the tyranny of the majority we have now?
How about the soveignty of the individual?  What about the right to ownership of ones own body so long as your actions do not harm another?  Capitulation has nothing to do with it, unless they are asking you to do it with them.

3)  I would think that the offical stance of the FSP concering drug legalization would be NONE!  Drugs are not mentioned in the Constitution.  There should be no federal statutes for or against drugs.  Individual communities ("states" in the US, I have no idea what the free state would call them) should set the standards.  See the answer that would satisfy me is, "The FSP has no drug policy per se, localities would determine whether or not there is legalization in their communities."  Let's say we take over Delaware; the people in Dover want legalization and the folks in Wilmington do not.  What's wrong with that?  The citizen has the the right to choose which community he wishes to be part of and can move accordingly.
Am I totally off base here?  

Judah

As far as I understand it, the purpose of the FSP is not JUST to eliminate unconstitutional federal regulations but ALSO to establish a free state following basic libertarian principles. Any state which respects the sovereignty of the individual cannot support the so called "war on drugs" in its current law enforcement form.
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Uncle Deedah on August 12, 2002, 11:10:41 am
Judah,

I am not an FSP member, so my thoughts are merely that, mine. You stated; "The large majority of people I know use alcohol, a small minority use drugs.  A substantial percentage of the non-drug using populace do not believe that drug legalization has any societal good."

I agree. Arguing that drug drug legalization has societal good is a tough one. That's why so many of us who have experimented with drugs have stopped doing so as we mature, we recogize it as a hindrance to our personal growth.

I am in favor of harm reduction rather than wide open drug laws. I believe that the laws against drug use as they stand now create more problems than they solve, more crime, more corruption of public officials, more addicts who cannot get help with their problem, etc. Therefore we need to find ways to reduce the harm these laws cause, it's the Christian thing to do. Once simple reforms work, medical marijuana for instance, or decriminalized pot, or even money moved from fighting the drug battles to treating the wounded, thoughtful people may be ready to try more radical reforms. But it's not going to change overnight. Ideological purity is fine though I would hate to see this effort fail because the FSP makes the same mistake that the Libertarian Party makes on a regular basis. Being right, but getting nowhere with it.

I also believe firmly that the phrase "take over a state" is very counter-productive to this effort. It casts the effort as one of antagonism toward the folks who live there now. Don't expect a warm welcome with that kind of talk. Expect downright hostile. Suppose if 20,000 folks do move to one state with a population of 2 million or so, that 20,000 is STILL only 1% of the population. 1% of the population doesn't take over nothing, except in dreams.

So let me ask you Judah. Why did you check this site out? You even took the time to post. What is it that you would like to see changed about the way things are run now?

Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Scoobie Snaxxx on August 12, 2002, 11:29:34 am


As far as I understand it, the purpose of the FSP is not JUST to eliminate unconstitutional federal regulations but ALSO to establish a free state following basic libertarian principles. Any state which respects the sovereignty of the individual cannot support the so called "war on drugs" in its current law enforcement form.


This is my ENTIRE problem with this exercise.  What I read/heard about the group from Dr. Williams said that the FSP is seeking to create a state based on the existing US constituiton.  This is NOT the same as "establish[ing] a free state following basic libertarian principles."  You wish to create a quasi-anarchistic (i know you won't like that term, sorry) libertarian state.  That is fine, good luck.

But my mind is still drawn to the Preamble..."We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union, ensure for domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence and to secure the blessings of liberty upon ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America"  --I'm doing this from memory, so I may be off a tad.

But the idea of how to "ensure domestic tranquility" is a matter of debate.  Some folks believe that certain INDIVIDUAL behavior, drugs, prostitution, etc, is counterproductive to domestic tranquility (Gammorah comes to mind).  You don't have to agree with this, but you have to acknowledge its existance.  You must remember that a people voluntarily give some of their liberty up in order to form a workable gov't.  Within that pervue you can go from one exteme, anarchists, to another, authoritarians.  This is really where the line between libertarians and conservatives shows up.    
I don't agree with socialists, I believe that their primary assumption about human nature is wrong, but as long as their views are consistant, I can see where they are coming from.
If you wish to find a libertarian state, all the power to you.  But I think there really needs to be an emphasis on this fact.  (And I am not blaming anyone in particular here).  DO NOT shroud your cause as saying that you are simply trying to enforce the Constitution as it was written.  While there may be several similarities between a free state and a pre-Civil War America (before the Constitution really started getting trashed, and no I DON'T MEAN SLAVERY, I mean the South's right to succession and Lincoln's clear disregard for the Constitution), there will be differences, important differences.  

You really should mention on your homepage, "Conservatives need not apply."  That's fine, it's your right.  We ALL discriminate in one way or the other.
I still think you can find 20,000 libertarians, or at least 20,000 nihlists  ;D


Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: admin on August 12, 2002, 11:34:50 am
Regarding drug legalization in a free state, a few points.

I think if you cannot go along with legalization of drug use in private, on your own private property, FSP is probably not for you.  Nobody of libertarian leanings could come up with a rationalization for busting down peoples' doors and hauling them off to jail for partaking in a peaceful behavior that has absolutely no effect on anyone else.

There is nothing preventing people who are opposed to drug use from living in communities that have voluntary agreements against visible drug use: no smoking pot on your front lawn or back porch if it's in view of other home, whatever.  The same could be applied to alcohol use or anything else.  Of course, the consequences of violating such policies would not be criminal in nature, more like getting kicked out of the neighborhood, or paying a fine.

Public property, however, is another matter.  We debated in length on other threads about restricting behavior in public (taxpayer funded) areas.  I think it is totally consistent with libertarianism to have drug use prohibited in public areas, if that is the desire of the majority of taxpayers in that area.   So, as you point out, drug use restrictions could be different in different areas.  Under no circumstances, however, could restriction by the state be enforced on private property.

Charles
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Reaper on August 12, 2002, 12:07:19 pm
You really should mention on your homepage, "Conservatives need not apply."  That's fine, it's your right.  We ALL discriminate in one way or the other.
I still think you can find 20,000 libertarians, or at least 20,000 nihlists  ;D  


There are many strong conservatives who are NOT in favor of the war on drugs:

"I'm interested in bringing peace on the street ... (but) ... the war on drugs is simply bringing more killing rather than less killing. I'd like to take the profit out of distributing drugs at the street level." - William F. Buckley, Jr., Editor, National Review, in support of drug legalization -

"Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves. God himself will not save men against their wills."  - Thomas Jefferson; October 1776 -

`What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from saying that they don't like something to saying that the government should forbid it. When you go down that road, don't expect freedom to survive very long.' - Thomas Sowell -

"Every friend of freedom must be as revolted as I am by the prospect of turning the United States into an armed camp, by the vision of jails filled with casual drug users and of an army of enforcers empowered to invade the liberty of citizens on slight evidence." - Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize-winning economist -

"We in this country have to make up our minds -- -- we can not have it both ways: we cannot be both drug-free and free." - Lester Grinspoon, M.D., Harvard Medical School -

"Although I am a strong political conservative, I now believe that the costs of our fruitless struggle against illegal drugs are not worth the modest benefits likely to be achieved." - Prof. Ernest van den Haag -

"Every dollar spent to punish a drug user or seller is a dollar that cannot be spent collecting restitution from a robber. Every hour spent investigating a drug user or seller is an hour that could have been used to find a missing child. Every trial held to prosecute a drug user or seller is court time that could be used to prosecute a rapist in a case that might otherwise have been plea bargained."- Randy E. Barnett -

So, you see, it's not an issue that excludes conservatives by any means.
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Scoobie Snaxxx on August 12, 2002, 12:48:40 pm
Ok, I'll rephrase...
"ANYONE who does not favor drug legalization need not apply."

oh that's right, you are not a single-issue group  :P

The Hammer
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Scoobie Snaxxx on August 12, 2002, 01:01:59 pm
Reaper:

Thanks for all the quotes, it must have been really hard to cut and paste from the NORML webpage. ;)
You know, after reading those quotes, I must be wrong.  I mean if I don't agree with Jefferson on everything, I must be deranged.  I have GOT to find me a slave to impregnate!

Quoting other people is nice to support your own well thought out point.  I could easily find you a score of quotes supporting the position of keeping drugs illegal.  It doesn't change anything.

Look I have discovered what I was seeking.  My questions answered.  Dissention is not appreciated.  The Free State will not give autonomy to the sub-federal unit and therefore is NOT trying to simply replicate the Constitution.  Once again, this is fine, your group has the liberty to do what it pleases.

The best part is, I have NEVER stated to any of you my actual feelings about legalization of drugs.  Mostly, I was playing devil's advocate to see how some of you would address a minority view (well at least a minority view at a libertarian BB :D).  As it is written, "Some animals are more equal than others"

Inability to compromise with others may be your undoing.  Speaking as an ideologue, trust me, the hard line is hardly ever successful; especially when you are trying to do something as large-scale and powerful as the Free State Project.

I wish you all the best of luck in your endeavour, if you actually suceed it will be to the benefit of us all.

The Hammer of God (oh sorry didn't mean to offend you with the God thing, you guys are pushing for a totally secular state as well, which of course the United States is most definately NOT)  ;D

Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Reaper on August 12, 2002, 01:13:57 pm
Let's see:

1) Restore the federal constitution
2) End the war on drugs
3) Remove stiffling unnecessary regulations
4) Lower taxes
5) Increase personal liberty AND responsibility
6) Remove laws on consensual crimes for consenting adults.

Well, there's 6 issues off the top of my head real quick.  I'm sure others here can add many more.  Doesn't sound like a one issue group to me.

Oh, and none of those quotes came to me via the NORML web page.  However, I fail to see what that has to do with it in the least.

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." - George Washington, 1796 -
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: amyday on August 12, 2002, 02:52:52 pm

Ok, I'll rephrase...
"ANYONE who does not favor drug legalization need not apply."

oh that's right, you are not a single-issue group  :P

The Hammer


Many christian groups will say that if you are homosexual, you need not apply. This doesn't mean that they are a single-issue group. I think the FSP would also say that if you favor the government owning all the means of product you need not apply. I would also think that if you believe that the government is responsible for the education of all children, then you also need not apply. You are using faulty logic if you take that fact that we believe support of the drug war is incompatable to our goal and jump to the conclusion that it is our single issue. We have a lot of issues where we would like to see change.
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: JasonPSorens on August 14, 2002, 09:00:13 pm
I'm interested in hearing how any conservative constitutionalist can argue that the federalized War on Drugs is compatible with the Constitution.  The "domestic tranquility" part is just one of the side benefits that the Founders thought would result from replacing the Articles of Confed. w/ the Constitution; it emphatically IS NOT a right of Congress to do whatever they think improves "domestic tranquility."  Congress has enumerated functions, and controlling what substances consenting adults put into their bodies is not one of them.  Alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment; why not drug prohibition?

As for the idea of compromise versus a hard line - when we start acting in the public arena we will start with moderate positions like legalization of marijuana.  However, we need to have people who are more radical than that if they are to be activists.  It's a fundamental principle of politics that activists are more radical than voters.  With 20,000 activists dedicated to radical reduction of government, that should result in pretty significant reduction in government in the short term if we are willing to tailor our message to existing realities.  Then we can talk about what to do next, once the beneficial effects of marijuana legalization become obvious.
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Reaper on August 14, 2002, 09:12:46 pm
Did somebody say radical?    ;D
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: JasonPSorens on August 14, 2002, 09:19:29 pm
Yeah, color me part of the "flexible radical" faction, I guess. ;)
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: fubar on August 14, 2002, 11:53:56 pm
Quote
I'm interested in hearing how any conservative constitutionalist can argue that the federalized War on Drugs is compatible with the Constitution


I don't suppose 'conservative constitutionalists' would make such an argument.  However, playing devils advocate (which I think is in short supply around here), it couldn't hurt to take a look at probable constitutional arguments the Free State will face.

Quote
we will start with moderate positions like legalization of marijuana


As good a place as any for the devil to start....  Precedent shows in California and Alaska (others?) that the Fed is loath to challenge a State, on constitutional grounds, when 'medical use' is used to legalize limited use of marijuana.  US v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative smoothly dodged the issue, and also showed that proponents of drug use are loath to challenge the Feds on constitutional grounds.  My personal suspicion is that neither party wants to test the extent of the Commerce Clause in the constitution.

As long as these little rebellious acts are restricted to limited 'manufacturing and distribution', the Feds are content to allow us our petty freedoms.  

"legalization of marijuana" can easily be permitted by the Feds as long as it is for medical purposes and limited in distribution.  There is no judgment or opinion stating this, it is more a circumstance of abstention, and 'perhaps' common law.  

Wow...I'm on a role.  I'll start another message to continue...consider it a smoke break.
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Reaper on August 14, 2002, 11:57:17 pm
For those interested in analysis of every detail of cannabis prohibition, covering medical and full legalization I highly recommend:

http://www.marijuananews.com

The author, Richard Cowan, has some brilliant insights and analysis of various attempts, court cases and constitutional issues.
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: fubar on August 15, 2002, 12:30:57 am
Quote
Wow...I'm on a role.  I'll start another message to continue...consider it a smoke break.


Anyway, where was I?  Oh ya, constitutional arguments against States legalizing the use of Marijuana.

Lets say the Free State wants to legalize marijuana in general, not restricted to medical use.  It is not the 'use' of marijuana that would cause a challenge.  it is the 'manufacturing and distribution' of marijuana that would be in contradiction to the 'controlled Substances Act' (CSA).

Already, the feds have 'allowed' limited manufacturing and distribution even though it is contrary to CSA and following legal code.  However, I can assume that the Free State legalization would result in mass manufacturing and distribution.  This would be a whole new ball game, and you can bet your britches the Feds (ATF?) would arrest, confiscate, jail, and 'shoot in the line of duty'.  They need no constitutional justification for their actions; they act according to legislation and following legal code.  (legislation is not required to provide constitutional authority at the time of enactment).

So there the Free State sits, with its citizens in Fed custody, private property now owned by the Feds, and bodies to bury.

The Free State files suit against the United States of America and said suit finds its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.  There is no redress against the actions of the ATF, as they were acting under the color of law.  The suit is merely to establish that the residents of the Free State may, in the future, exercise their rights to smoke whatever they want.

I know I've been long winded in setting up the actual constitutional arguments, but I do think it important the FSP'ers discuss strategy, law, and barricades in detail (not just as 'geez, if I would be king' dreams.).

Anyway, I feel another smoke break coming on.  If ya'll are sick of my writings, just skip the next one from 'fubar'.   :-\
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: JasonPSorens on August 15, 2002, 12:48:45 am

(legislation is not required to provide constitutional authority at the time of enactment).


This is actually a very controversial doctrine.  The FF's thought that legislators should absolutely consider constitutionality when considering legislation.

Quote

So there the Free State sits, with its citizens in Fed custody, private property now owned by the Feds, and bodies to bury.


After the FS legalizes marijuana, it will still be federally illegal so there won't be a massive increase in manufacture right away.  No bodies to bury probably, but some high-profile arrests.  Leading to...

Quote

The Free State files suit against the United States of America and said suit finds its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.  There is no redress against the actions of the ATF, as they were acting under the color of law.  The suit is merely to establish that the residents of the Free State may, in the future, exercise their rights to smoke whatever they want.


No redress against the ATF's past actions, but we could have the CSA struck down.  If that doesn't work we pass laws banning ATF & FBI actions in state.  Fedgov has to sue us; they'll win, but it will take some time.  In the meantime we propose a compromise by which we ban the export of marijuana from the FS to the rest of the US, but production, distribution, and use in-state become legal.  Over time we "forget" to enforce this provision but the fedgov is too busy to make us do it.

Or...the fedgov takes a hard line and refuses to compromise.  State militia created & mobilized, & and we have a faceoff.  Suits, countersuits, and threats fly back & forth, the upshot being that the fedgov decides to compromise.
Alternative to militia: referendum on secession, & we decide to press a whole host of issues at the same time.  All these demands must be met in order for the referendum to be cancelled.
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: fubar on August 15, 2002, 01:15:22 am
Quote
For those interested in analysis of every detail of cannabis prohibition, covering medical and full legalization I highly recommend:

http://www.marijuananews.com


I'll check it out after I'm done.  Kind of a test, to see how off-base I am  ;D

Quote
I feel another smoke break coming on


All done, and ready to finish this project that started out as a much shorter version....

Of course the Free State would challenge the CSA, based upon the fifth, ninth, and tenth amendments to the Constitution.  The Feds would counter with Section 8, clause c, of the United States Constitution (giving Congress the power to regulate commerce among the several States).

Now, you may think smoking pot in the Free State has absolutely nothing to do with 'commerce among the several States', but some current Justices of the Supreme Court would beg to differ.  Since the "New Deal", it seems that 'among the several States' includes 'intrastate commerce that effects interstate commerce (directly or indirectly)'.

Several cases have led to this situation, but if you want a good example of what the Free State would face, you can look at US v Lopez (1995).  It deals with the 'Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990'.  Check out all opinions, and you will see that the only shining example and hope for the Free State is with Justice Thomas.  It is possible that Rehnquist and others would join Thomas, but I wouldn't hold my breath.   http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZO.html

OK, I'm all smoked out and rather tired.  Hope I haven't bored too many of you.   8)

BTW, I highly suspect that JS knows all, and is only trying to stir the 'pot'....
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: fubar on August 15, 2002, 01:29:48 am
Quote
we propose a compromise by which we ban the export of marijuana from the FS to the rest of the US, but production, distribution, and use in-state become legal.


Why not write that into the original State legislation thereby forgoing the Commerce Clause (until it becomes apparent that the Free State is not enforcing the restrictions)?
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: JasonPSorens on August 15, 2002, 01:30:12 am
You're right that current Justices have been very slow in restricting the abuse of Commerce Clause interpretation.  However, they're moving in the right direction.  Also, part of the problem lies in lawyers, as since the New Deal they have not been willing to argue from a strong originalist position.  This despite the fact that Scalia has said that he favors "original intent of the framers" as the best theory of constitutional interpretation.
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: JasonPSorens on August 15, 2002, 01:31:36 am

Quote
we propose a compromise by which we ban the export of marijuana from the FS to the rest of the US, but production, distribution, and use in-state become legal.


Why not write that into the original State legislation thereby forgoing the Commerce Clause (until it becomes apparent that the Free State is not enforcing the restrictions)?


We could do that, depending on the circumstances.  However, if we are to create tension with the fedgov, which I think we should do whenever we can and get away with it, because it will help to polarize our voters in favor of autonomy, I think we should try to push the envelope on occasion.
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: JasonPSorens on August 15, 2002, 01:34:03 am
Oh, also remember that our Senators will have a big role in the appointment of federal appeals court judges.  If we can get good ones in there, then the Supreme Court will have to grant cert in a myriad of cases where "our" judges are striking down federal laws left and right.  They're typically loath to do that.  (Note: federal appeals courts cover several states.  So we'll have to try to expand into neighboring states for this to work.  An advantage for the West?  Can someone list what appeals courts exist, and what regions they cover?)
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: fubar on August 15, 2002, 01:41:57 am
Quote
Oh, also remember that our Senators will have a big role in the appointment of federal appeals court judges.  If we can get good ones in there, then the Supreme Court will have to grant cert in a myriad of cases where "our" judges are striking down federal laws left and right.  They're typically loath to do that.  (Note: federal appeals courts cover several states.  So we'll have to try to expand into neighboring states for this to work.  An advantage for the West?  Can someone list what appeals courts exist, and what regions they cover?)

oooow...this is getting good!  If nobody weighs in by the morning (pacific), I'll start the research.  
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Mega Joule on August 15, 2002, 01:59:50 am
Quote
Quote from: Jason P. Sorens

Congress has enumerated functions, and controlling what substances consenting adults put into their bodies is not one of them.  Alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment; why not drug prohibition?


Why son, that would be because papa fedgov has determined that citizens acting according to their own will pose a real and present danger to the United States (or at least to the maintenance of their many government pork projects like providing jobs for all of those feds out kickin' in doors).  Come on, you don't really expect them to give up the WOD do you?  They're busy getting rich and powerful from the whole business.  Why doesn't it require a constitutional amendment?  Cause they decided it doesn't and they don't give a D**N about the constitution.  They crap on it every chance they get.  But you already know that and that is why we're all here.   ;)

Quote

As for the idea of compromise versus a hard line - when we start acting in the public arena we will start with moderate positions like legalization of marijuana.  However, we need to have people who are more radical than that if they are to be activists.  It's a fundamental principle of politics that activists are more radical than voters.  With 20,000 activists dedicated to radical reduction of government, that should result in pretty significant reduction in government in the short term if we are willing to tailor our message to existing realities.  Then we can talk about what to do next, once the beneficial effects of marijuana legalization become obvious.


You're right.  You've got to have that radical fringe and there are plenty of us with you now that will be willing to push the edge of the envelope when the time comes.  Remember, without the fringe you don't know where the middle is.

Meg
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Dex Sinister on August 17, 2002, 03:20:15 am

Also, part of the problem lies in lawyers, as since the New Deal they have not been willing to argue from a strong originalist position.  This despite the fact that Scalia has said that he favors "original intent of the framers" as the best theory of constitutional interpretation.


Part of that problem is that "original intent" to the Supremes isn't original intent to a libertarian. Judge Richard Posner identifies seven competing philosophical doctrines operating in the courts - but none of them are like the libertarian originalist position.

It gets truely bizzare. The "living document" sorts want the government to do any damn thing they feel it should, but the "original intent" sorts generally want government protection of individual rights to stop exactly with the enumerated rights in the BoR - extending them any further isn't the "original intent."
Granted, these are different doctrines, but hardly opposing ones.

Out of five different doctrines advanced regarding the 16th amendment applying the BoR to the states, exactly none of them have ever advanced even a "we should strictly scrutinize all of the listed BoR guarantees against state predation" doctrine.

Dex }:>=-
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: JasonPSorens on August 17, 2002, 10:36:27 am
Well, there used to be such a doctrine, connected with the Lochner case.  I believe Roger Pilon and others at Cato advocate reviving the Lochner standard.  From what I understand, though, it is uniformly ridiculed in law schools.
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Dex Sinister on August 20, 2002, 05:17:17 am

Well, there used to be such a doctrine, connected with the Lochner case.  I believe Roger Pilon and others at Cato advocate reviving the Lochner standard.  From what I understand, though, it is uniformly ridiculed in law schools.


That's because Lochner is the 1905 "right of contract" case, which established that states could not improve working conditions or engage in consumer protection. Sure, it's a freemarket decision saying that states cannot interfere with the right of an employee to contract with an employer, but it was also brought against an employer who required his employee to work more than 60 hours in a week.

Not what would be considered the most "enlightened" of decisions today.

It's a "substantive due process" case finding of liberties not explicitly protected by the text of the Constitution against state predation to be impliedly protected by the liberty clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Fundamentally, however, this was a federalist v. state case which resulted in 25 years of knocking down state laws against things like max work hours. The pendulum swung back to a more "state's rights to oppress the businesses" position for a while, and then wandered over to protect individual rights like privacy.

Justice Holmes' dissent points out the difficulty from a judicial point of view:

"The liberty of the citizen to do as he likes so long as he does not interfere with the liberty of others to do the same, which has been a shibboleth for some well-known writers, is interfered with by school laws, by the Postoffice, by every state or municipal institution which takes his money for purposes thought desirable, whether he likes it or not."

"... Some of these laws embody convictions or prejudices which judges are likely to share. Some may not. But a Constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the state or of laissez faire. It is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar, or novel, and even shocking, ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States."
 

Here's a link for those interested:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/libertyofk.htm

Dex }:>=-
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Dave Reese on August 22, 2002, 01:21:51 pm
On a practical level, I'd agree with you 100% that the fedgov has no consitutional authority to prosecute the war on drugs. Like it or not, it's an issue to be left to the states.

Philosophically, I'm ambivalent about legalizing drugs on the state level, simply because I'm terrified of the toll widespread drug abuse might take on our society. This presupposes, however, that
a. drug abuse would increase should legalization occur, and
b. drug abuse would result in greater harms to society than the present abuse of the constitution and of federal powers.
However, legalization is consistent with conservative principles. Just like I don't like the government getting into people's bedrooms, I don't like the government telling people what they can and can't ingest. I would submit that the precedent set by the war on drugs has at least influenced current efforts to restrict tobacco use and fatty foods; if nothing else, it encourages paternalism.

Politically, drug legalization in the Free State will pose some interesting problems. I haven't devoted a lot of time to thinking about it yet, but at first glance it seems that the average Joe will immediately latch onto this issue when made aware of the presence of the FSP in his state. It's safe to say that he'll be encouraged to think this way by the media, and that we'll be characterized as libertines. How will we combat this? It's tricky: the WoD has certain constitutional and civil liberties problems and must be addressed, but making the WoD the center of our concerns could alienate the public, whose support we will absolutely require. I'd also bet that a freedom-loving, conservative state (again, necessary for the success of our movement) would be reluctant to throw their support behind a bunch that they (rightly or wrongly) perceive as a threat to public morals. If legalization is an important part of the campaign, how will one sell it?
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Dave Reese on August 22, 2002, 01:35:47 pm
At the same time, I must add that drug legalization might be a brilliant issue with which to force a fedgov-stategov confrontation.

a. it will give the impression that the FSP is hardly the party of the hardline right, as rightwingers are hardly interested in repealing the WoD and generally support an authoritarian federal policy,

b. it will attract sympathy from the left and center. Remember how they flocked to defend Oregon when that state passed their assisted-suicide law and met with federal resistance?

c. it will demonstrate that the FSP is a separate political animal entirely - radical constitutionalism.

I think it'll confuse the heck out of the country. But when people play "word-association", the new corollary to "state's rights" could be "pot legalization", which is certainly preferable to "slavery" or "segregation."
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: bud on August 23, 2002, 09:46:14 am
Re: Drug "legalization".  

Most people won't see it this way, but I see a difference between legalizing drugs and simply not having laws that prohibit a person using them.  The gummint doesn't have the constitutional right to prohibit such behavior in the first place, so it doesn't need to do the opposite, which would be to make a law allowing it.  All that needs to be done is revoke any laws that prohibit victimless behavior or actions. The gummint should just butt out.
The politweasels and bureaurats know that prohibition (booze then, drugs now) didn't and doesn't work, and had and is having serious unintended consequences.  They are so dependent on drugs for revenue (the CIA runs both the opium and the cocaine trade), dependent on the property confiscations(some "law enforcement agencies" are over 50% dependent on stealing peoples' property for operating expenses) and dependent on the drug war to justify their never-ending curbs on individual freedom, that we will NEVER see any successes in the war on drugs.  The gummint can't afford to win it.  Of course, the war on drugs has been absorbed by and is now part of the War on Terrorism.  That war will never be won either.  Just think, never-ending, world-wide, unrestricted war--gummint's dream come true.   War is SO good for big business.
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Kelly on August 23, 2002, 05:48:52 pm
Hi there, I also am new to this forum, and although I have not signed on with you as of yet, I will be regardless of the stance on this issue.
  I am concerned however that people who disagree on this issue might be chased away from joining the project.  I don't think that someone who is not for full legalization of drugs, should necessarily consider themselves to be unsuited to the groups purpose.
  I think libertarians in general would have a much easier time spreading their philosophy if they tried to frame the issues a little more carefully.
  I would imagine that most conservatives that disagree with drug legalization would at least agree that it is not a federal issue unless we decide to amend the constitution, as with prohibition.  I would also assume that most free staters here would agree that federal legalization of drugs is not really what is on the table here. ( We are after all talking about working within a state. )
  A better way of approaching the drug issue might be to accept, as it seemed to be implied by the original poster, that this issue is essentially a local issue.  If dry counties for alcohol a feasible then I see no reason why the same might not apply to drug use.
  Just thought I would give some input with regards to limiting your member base a bit to prematurely.
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: JasonPSorens on August 24, 2002, 10:28:00 am
Those are good thoughts, Kelly.  Certainly a local option on drug laws would be a vast improvement over what we have now, and could well result in an end to gang involvement in drugs, asset forfeiture, tainted drugs, and all the other ills we associate with the War on Drugs.  I think someone who favored such a position would fit in well in the FSP, so long as he or she isn't opposed to working with people who have a more radical view.
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Joshua B on August 24, 2002, 02:03:44 pm
And I would be one of the radicals.

I have a passion about not taking any drug that negatively effects my conscioussness and my faculty of logic, and I have never taken any drug including tobacco or alcohol or marijuana in my entire life.  However, I also have a passion about liberty.

Just a question Kelly, if someone on their own property was growing marijuana and making their own licker, and they soled those to consenting adults, and this person was doing absolutely no harm to anyone, this person was not intiating physical force against anyone.  This person's only income was selling these things also.  Would you be willing to invade his property, point a gun to his forehead, and demand that he stops growing  marijuana and making licker or you will shoot his head off?

How about someone that is growing industrial hemp?  Which is not even a drug, and making thousands of useful things from it, like seeds that have more protein then soybeans.. super-rope that is a thousands time stronger then nylon?  Hemp paper that lasts a thousand years?  Would you stick a gun to their head too?

In both instances, that is the evil that banning of anything in existence has done, I don't care what it is, and if you think banning it makes it go away think again... it just makes it so black market gets all the profits, and some very nasty people sell it.  The CIA absolutely does not want any drug legalized, it enjoys being the major drug importer of America.  You might want to think about things such as this before you think banning ANYTHING is a good idea, government has absolutely no right telling me what I can have, buy, sell, or make privately, PERIOD.
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Kelly on August 24, 2002, 03:16:11 pm
  If the question is would I hold a gun to someones head to prevent them from doing such thing, the answer is, of course not.
 You are however making the assumtion that no harm is being done to others.  Although in the case of drugs and liquor I would agree with you, there are certainly many others who would not.
 You and I would likely make good neighbors because we share veiws in this area.  I am only suggestion that I also am willing to accept that others may differ and I see no problem with them living in a society that does not allow such things as long as they do so voluntarily.
 I personally would not support a constitutional ammendment banning the use or sale of drugs or alcohol, but if the federal government wants to operate a war on drugs or have any influence in this regard that is what is required to give them such authority.  Similarly I would not support a state making such laws, but they may have the authority to do so depending upon their state's constitution.
 Ultimately it seems preferable that these things be handled at the local level, this would allow people to decide for themselves what they deem appropriate for their community.  
 I hold this opinion on most things.  The federal constitution is designed to give the feds power to protect only those rights that are listed within the bill of rights.  The State constitution does the same thing for the state.  Laws within communities might provide further protections, either real (ie: freedom of speech), or percieved, (ie: laws designed to protect property values).  None of these levels provide me with rights, my rights are inate, and include the right to not participate in any of the above.  Exercising those rights however might require my removing myself from the group at large.
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Joey on August 25, 2002, 12:46:35 am

I was just skimming through the posts and I see you guys are discussing the drug war deal.

Yes, drugs are harmful and I will be the first to attest to this:

http://www.joeydauben.com/Pray.htm

But, throwing someone in jail for possessing a plant or carrying a "water pipe" is absolutely absurd.

The Libertarian Party is making a goal for federal drug prohibition by 2010. Though I like the party and am a member of it, the LPs drug war goal is a bit far-fetched.

Someone mentioned the CIA. The CIA, by far, is the biggest drug dealer far and wide.

I believe there should be regulation (i.e., taxes) on certain drugs like marijuana, but I don't believe our prisons should be home to drug users. I believe medical treatment is needed as opposed to the strict punishment.

Besides, can you imagine would it would be like if drugs were legalized? Every major bank in the world would collapse (this coming from an ex-DEA agent) and many world governments would default.

I mean, pull up a search on Mena, Arkansas some time. You'll be surprised who is at the top of all drug cartels (I'll give you a hint: the last name is B-U-S-H).
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Stirling on September 18, 2002, 12:00:51 am
You said: "Well sorry folks, drugs are bad..."

Here's my personal libertarian view on drugs.  "I strongly recommend against recreational use of legal or illegal mind altering chemicals."  I don't do legal drugs (alcohol) or illegal drugs and  I think that you shouldn't either.

There is some persuasive research that shows that when drug use is legalized, that drug use among young people actually declines.  It turns out that the current prohibition on drugs makes drugs seem exciting and makes kids want to try them just to see if they can get away with it.  Drug prohibition also ensures that drugs will be more dangerous than necessary and if a kid tries drugs he or she might die from a bad batch."

How long will people insist on a policy that makes drugs more attractive to children?  Join the libertarians who say, "Yes, recreational drug use is probably not good for you, and we certainly disaprove, but we have to stop the policy that makes drug use more appealing to kids."
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Zack Bass on September 18, 2002, 03:14:26 am

....  Join the libertarians who say, "Yes, recreational drug use is probably not good for you, and we certainly disaprove, but we have to stop the policy that makes drug use more appealing to kids."


I prefer the libertarians who say, "Lots of things are risky, but the Government has no business whatsoever having any policy at all on drug use, or any involvement other than to make sure that what is sold as crank actually contains the proper percentage of pure methamphetamine, and what is sold as crunchy frogs actually contains real crunchy frogs."
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Steve on September 18, 2002, 01:54:10 pm
Quote
Zack said:
I prefer the libertarians who say, "Lots of things are risky, but the Government has no business whatsoever having any policy at all on drug use, or any involvement other than to make sure that what is sold as crank actually contains the proper percentage of pure methamphetamine, and what is sold as crunchy frogs actually contains real crunchy frogs."

:D
At the political level, we should have the self restraint to keep our *should* opinions to ourselves.  
And I know I hate soggy frogs.
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Zack Bass on September 18, 2002, 03:24:15 pm


And I know I hate soggy frogs.



I used to work as a chemist at the FDA in Wash.D.C., and many of the inspectors had a reasonable attitude.  One of them said he went to one place where they were mixing the vitamins in a large bucket, with a shovel.  But when he tested samples, they showed consistent and adequate levels of all the ingredients, so he said what the heck.
But there was one guy, my supervisor's supervisor, nearer to policy level, who was complaining about the recent (this was in 1964) proposal to grind up fish for high-protein "fish meal" supplements.  He said, "they grind up the shit and everything.  I don't want to eat shit."  I couldn't help thinking even then, years before I knew I was a libertarian, why not label it Fish With Shit and let people decide.
(I guess he never ate shrimp.)
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Penfist on October 16, 2002, 10:45:01 am
Quote
"We are losing the drug war, so let's just give up and legalize it."  what a stupid argument!  That's like saying, "Well, we have laws against murder, but people are still being murdered, so let's just leagalize it and watch the crime rate go down!"  Well sorry folks, drugs are bad, so is kiddie porn and abortion.  Yes, that's a value statement, its MY value statement, and yes, I try to impose it on others, peacefully of course.


You're obviously missing the most important difference between doing drugs and being murdered. People who ingest drugs do so voluntarily. People who are murdered never consent to it.

Ironic that a poster named Scoobie Snaxxx is complaining that society shouldn't have the freedom to do drugs. Are we supposed to take you seriously?

How do you impose your values on others peacefully? The definition of impose is: To obtrude or force (oneself, for example) on another or others. That doesn't sound too peaceful to me.

What I hear you saying is that you'd join us if we were just willing to accept that it is alright for you (and probably anyone you authorize) to impose their will on other people for reasons other than self-defense.

Why don't you work on expressing yourself more straightforwardly so I don't have to spend time intrepreting your comments in the future. Stop muddying the waters by lumping murder and kiddie porn together with victimless "crimes"  such as drug use.

You end your ridiculous post by signing as the "Hammer of God." Please keep your hammer to yourself. We have enough people insisting they are carrying out God's will on earth already. I'm more interested in joining with people who mention God very little and ask lots of questions when they do. People who think they have all the answers relating to God's will are, in my experience, best kept locked up.
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Penfist on October 16, 2002, 10:53:15 am
Quote
I prefer the libertarians who say, "Lots of things are risky, but the Government has no business whatsoever having any policy at all on drug use, or any involvement other than to make sure that what is sold as crank actually contains the proper percentage of pure methamphetamine, and what is sold as crunchy frogs actually contains real crunchy frogs."


Good answer, my apparentely naked brother!
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Robert H. on October 22, 2002, 02:10:25 am
Already, the feds have 'allowed' limited manufacturing and distribution even though it is contrary to CSA and following legal code.  However, I can assume that the Free State legalization would result in mass manufacturing and distribution.  This would be a whole new ball game, and you can bet your britches the Feds (ATF?) would arrest, confiscate, jail, and 'shoot in the line of duty'.  They need no constitutional justification for their actions; they act according to legislation and following legal code.  (legislation is not required to provide constitutional authority at the time of enactment).

No offense to Fubar here, but this idea that "legislation is not required to provide constitutional authority at the time of enactment" is a very dangerous doctrine.  There may be no phrasiology in the Constitution to the effect that:  "Congress must first determine the constitutionality of legislation before enacting it," but the Constitution does strictly limit what Congress may legislate on in the first place, thereby creating the necessity for legislators to ensure that they are not stepping over their constitutional limitations in enacting legislation.  There is also the fact that all members of Congress take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, which oath would include adhering to the 10th amendment's limiting Congress's legislative authority to its delegated powers.

The doctrine that Fubar refers to is an ultimate product of the Marshall Court, which originated the doctrine of judicial review, and has had a progressive effect of everyone expecting the Supreme Court to proactively strike down unconstitutional measures of the Executive and Legislative branches.  That expectation has, in turn, essentially freed the Executive and Legislative branches of any constitutional conscience when it comes to enacting various measures.  Congress and the President now basically do what they want and say:  "Let the Supreme Court strike it down if they want to."  They have ever more progressively run amok when it comes to constitutional restrictions on their authority because they no longer consider themselves concerned with constitutional issues (with regard to the vast majority of items that come down the pike).

This is a dubious, and I contend, dangerous, doctrine because it effectively unties those hands that the Constitution was intended to bind.


"But what is of most importance is the high sanction given to a latitude in expounding the Constitution which seems to break down the landmarks intended by a specification of the Powers of Congress, and to substitute for a definite connection between means and ends, a Legislative discretion as to the former to which no practical limit can be assigned.  

In the great system of Political Economy having for its general object the national welfare, everything is related immediately or remotely to every other thing; and consequently a Power over any one thing, if not limited by some obvious and precise affinity, may amount to a Power over every other...The British Parliament in collecting a revenue from the commerce of America found no difficulty in calling it either a tax for the regulation of trade, or a regulation of trade with a view to the tax, as it suited the argument or the policy of the moment."  - James Madison

Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: 5pectre on November 01, 2002, 09:43:35 pm
Alcohol has been a part of our culture for literally thousands of years.

*laugh*, so have opium, marijuana, magic mushrooms, peyote, coca (not cocaine), ayhausca and many more currently 'illegal' drugs. yet you would advocate the continuing prohibition?

perhaps you should do some research before spouting rhetoric. :)

Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: rob_marlett on November 04, 2002, 11:26:23 pm
For the topic of considering constitutional government, The question is not if drugs are dangerous to the user, nor if they should be illegal because of the harm done to those around the user (there are already good laws concerning harming others) there should not even be discussion as to whether or not the drugs should be illegal at all. the question very simply is whether or not the FEDERAL government has the constitutional authority to ban such an item. the exact argument applies to the federal regulation of firearms, medications, and all other products or goods - excluding imports and exports - which they do have the responsibility to "regulate" and tax.  There are many things against which there should perhaps be laws, but these rights are retained by the people and the states individually - at which level of government there is a lot more direct accountability to the people. I fear however, that in actual practice, state soveriegnity died with the Civil War. :-[
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: rob_marlett on November 05, 2002, 03:27:56 am
I'm not an expert either, but even a simple reading of the text of the constitution reveals that they have no such authority... forgive my style, but I like to ask questions sometimes just to point out the obvious answer.
as to the "can" issue... sure they can as long as we let them.  The entire purpose of the second amendment was so that we didn't have to let them. (just in case this gets read by someone who has been fed the liberal line on that one... e-mail me at rmarlett@bellsouth.net and I'll send you the proof.)
Just from my 30 hours or so of reading into it, it looks to me like FSP is a last ditch effort to avoid having to excersize the second amendment rights (in light of the numberous quotes concerning its purpose made by the founding fathers.)
"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government." – Thomas Jefferson
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." – Thomas Jefferson
"...it is indispensable that some provision should be made for defending the Community agst (against) the incapicity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate." - James Madison
God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it."  - Daniel Webster
 The most distressing thing I've found in recent years however, is that the actual text of the US Constitution is virtually irrelevant in a federal court - they rely now on case law interperatations more than on the text. I was at risk of having my entire lawsuit (challenging the Constitutionality of an ordinance) thrown out, because I had not (at first) supported it with case law... I've since corrected my mistake (of assuming the Constitution was still the Supreme law of the land, but I'll never be able to view the court system with any respect at all again.
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: rob_marlett on November 05, 2002, 11:11:32 am
the great thing about FSP, that seperates it from groups that just get gunned down by ATF and FBI versions of the KGB, is that there is not a common location - you're all moving to a state, not a rural spot in one county. It is easy enough for the government to make excuses for raiding the Montana freedmens compound, or anhilating the Branch dividians in Waco, texas...  but a series of 20000 swat style raids all over the state? that would be a tough one for even the liberal media to swallow.
Obvious to the carefull thinker, is that this project was carefully thought out, even if only half planned (for good enough reasons, as has been explained in other places.)
I am neither financially nor physically able to move, and (unless I win this lawsuit against the city) I'm not sure I ever will be again.
I certainly agree with the "try everything else first" approach to the use of force. I've advocated just that in the several articles I've written and published in conservative newsletters, but it is important that people recognize that an attempt to overhaul a state government and challenge the authority of federal laws via state soveriegnity could result in the installation of martial law to "create stability in the region".  particularly if many of the people involved have already been labled as radicals for one reason or another.
while I'm at it... what is so darn radical about wanting the government to abide by the laws that created it?  I know, I'm preaching at the choir.  In other forums, articles, posts, etc... I found a heck of a lot of enthusiasm, and only a few voices of thoughtfull reason... having looked close enough to eventually find out, it seems the right people are in the right positions to make this work if it can, but I would have to suggest that some carefully thought out articles be made availible for those who know only enough to comprehend that our current government isn't constitutional... these are people on whom FSP is depending on to be activists... they need educated if they are willing to learn, and I'd suppose they are if they are willing to move !!! has this already been addressed? I've spent many hours on this now, and still haven't seen all of the various threads !!!
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Reaper on November 05, 2002, 12:37:34 pm
Perhaps many of us moving to the chosen state should make an effort to "become the media"?

If we had a porcupine or two working in every major media establishment in the chosen state it could lead to more favorable, or at least honest, coverage.

Perhaps some of us should start gather press experience and upon arrival apply to the bigger newspapers, television newsrooms for work.
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: JasonPSorens on November 05, 2002, 02:19:31 pm
We should definitely start a newspaper and some have already mentioned that they would be interested in buying radio stations.
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: rob_marlett on November 06, 2002, 07:26:57 pm
in the short term, I think it may be wise to do some carefully designed advertising in areas where FSP ideology seems to already have a foothold, and in each of the prospective target areas... might be good to know something about which areas would be happiest to have FSP moving in... has anybody compared membership roles to see if any of the target areas are already populated with members?  If it's a close run between 2 states, except that one already has 25 or 30 members more than the other, it makes good sense to give that some consideration...
I think advertising, rather than polling might be the best use of strained resources ... any results from the advertising could certainly assist in determining what percentage of the population would be open to liberty based theories.
perhaps the number of members in each of the target states could be made public prior to the decision, thus assisting members with their own choice in voting for states.
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: JasonPSorens on November 08, 2002, 08:47:59 pm
Membership is remarkably even across states, even candidate states.  Some older but still relevant statistics can be found on a thread in the "General Discussion" board called "What the FSP Looks Like."  NH and Maine recently have pulled ahead in terms of # of FSP member because their state Libertarian Party organizations have endorsed us and promoted us to their membership.  However, we're hoping to get the other 8 candidate states to do the same.
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: rob_marlett on November 08, 2002, 09:08:33 pm
there was an amazing corolation in those early numbers between the states with the most regulatory and tyrranical governments and the membership levels !!!! Is there any plan for updating those numbers?  looks like there's gonna be a lot of cold people from florida, texas and california... definitely worth it for freedom though.
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: JasonPSorens on November 08, 2002, 09:32:45 pm
Well, the reason those states had higher numbers was that they had higher populations. :)  You'll note that on the thread I also have per capita figures, which are very even across states.  I do plan to update the figures as soon as I get the time.
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: rob_marlett on November 08, 2002, 09:39:47 pm

I guess I should have looked at the others before I spoke... I've been considering ways to get some publicity for FSP here locally, and I have a few ideas... I've got to talk to a couple people with some connections I don't have, then I'll broadcast it if it is possible...   there is a large population of folks here in my area who would agree at least in principle, and some would be willing to join FSP I know, the problem is getting the information out to them... I'm working on it.
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: RidleyReport on November 14, 2002, 05:16:15 pm
Rob_Marlett wrote

<< It is easy enough for the government to make excuses for raiding the Montana freedmens compound, or anhilating the Branch dividians in Waco, texas>>

I have yet to see evidence from a credible source that would indicate it was the Feds rather than the Davidians who did most of the annihilating at Waco.  

The FedGov has done plenty of *real* stuff that is bad and well documented.  That makes it unnecessary for us to add myth to the proven reality.
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Zxcv on November 15, 2002, 10:33:21 am
Dada Orwell, I think most people who looked into the matter would disagree with your contention. And even if what you say were true, the events leading up to the annihilation were wholesale violations of the Davidians civil rights.

It is pretty unlikely a free state would face anything of that magnitude, though. The Davidians and Weavers did not die in vain; the government took a huge setback in those raids because a huge number of people had their eyes opened. Subsequent events (Montana freemen, etc.) prove the feds have tamed down their tactics considerably.

On the initial posting, the question that Scoobie Snaxxx raised - there is nothing stopping people from starting a CSP (Conservative State Project). In fact this is the way the nation should go - socialists move to places like Vermont, libertarians to the FSP states, conservatives to CSP states, etc. Then see which one works best! (I didn't read the whole thread so I don't know if this point was already raised.)
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Matilda on December 05, 2002, 10:55:24 pm
Once we have the 20,000 people and we move to the state, will there be some sort of additional outreach to local residents?
Title: Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
Post by: Robert H. on December 07, 2002, 01:18:18 am
Once we have the 20,000 people and we move to the state, will there be some sort of additional outreach to local residents?

There's been some discussion of this, and I've seen general agreement that we need to do what we can to blend into our new state communities, foster opportunities (both economic and social), and also work with existing political infrastructure and community groups (churches, clubs, etc...).

There's not so much that we can plan in any detailed fashion at this point of course because we do not yet know what state we're going to be choosing.  Once we know that, we can plan more specifically, but even then a lot of what happens will depend upon how we operate in the target state:  as members of an existing party, forming a new party, local and regional "cells," business ventures, "activist" events, and so on.  Those are some of the options that we'll have to consider.

For more info on discussions about how to proceed with community affairs, etc., see the following link:

Free State Political Strategy (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=20)

And here's a link to a discussion that was started by someone who was not thrilled about the FSP considering their state:

What About Being An Unwanted Presence? (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=550)