Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: I'm interested, but I have questions.  (Read 26379 times)

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5724
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
« Reply #45 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?)
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

fubar

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
  • I'm a llama!....AM NOT!
Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
« Reply #46 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.  
« Last Edit: August 15, 2002, 02:00:11 am by fubar »
Logged

Mega Joule

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 291
Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
« Reply #47 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
Logged
"One essential of a free government is that it rest wholly on voluntary support.  And one certain proof that a goverment is not free, is that it coerces more or less persons to support it, against their will."  (Lysander Spooner, 1867)

Dex Sinister

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 216
  • Where are we going & why are we in this handbasket
Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
« Reply #48 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 }:>=-
Logged
"[Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people.'"

--Aristotle.

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5724
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
« Reply #49 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.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

Dex Sinister

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 216
  • Where are we going & why are we in this handbasket
Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
« Reply #50 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 }:>=-
Logged
"[Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people.'"

--Aristotle.

Dave Reese

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
  • I'm a llama!
Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
« Reply #51 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?
Logged

Dave Reese

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
  • I'm a llama!
Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
« Reply #52 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."
Logged

bud

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
  • I'm a llama!
Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
« Reply #53 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.
Logged

Kelly

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
  • I had to give up being a llama!
Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
« Reply #54 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.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2002, 05:50:21 pm by Kelly »
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5724
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
« Reply #55 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.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

Joshua B

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
  • I'm a llama!
Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
« Reply #56 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.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2002, 02:06:14 pm by Joshua B »
Logged

Kelly

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
  • I had to give up being a llama!
Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
« Reply #57 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.
Logged

Joey

  • Guest
Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
« Reply #58 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).
Logged

Stirling

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12
  • I'm an airplane nut!
    • Beautiful Stirling Engines
Re:I'm interested, but I have questions.
« Reply #59 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."
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Up