Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JasonPSorens]

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.

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.

[Mega Joule]

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

[Uncle Deedah]

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

[JasonPSorens]

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.

[Reaper]

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.

[Uncle Deedah]

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

[antayla]

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

[Uncle Deedah]

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?

[cdbern_99]

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.

[Scoobie Snaxxx]

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  

[Reaper]

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.

[Uncle Deedah]

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?

[Scoobie Snaxxx]

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  

[admin]

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

[Reaper]

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    

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.