Homesteading Forum banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
10,488 Posts
I read not that long ago that a politician in Florida was fighting to stop the RKBA violations against MM card holders.

Does anyone know how he's fighting this? Is it as discrimination against civilians? Government employees aren't above the law, and as such, when any of them fails any type of drug test they should also be disarmed, professionally and personally. This would include cops, gov building security, and soldiers. It's only fair. Thoughts?
As long as marijuana is on the DEA Schedule of Drugs, there’s no way around it. As it stands today, federal law gives the DEA regulation power over drug scheduling, and federal law also gives itself regulatory controls over something that the constitution specifically says that it has no power to regulate.

Neither hurdle is constitutional, but both are extent, nonetheless. It’s a case of two wrongs making a wrongerer.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10,488 Posts
Sounds like the dispensaries need to get their lawyers on this.
That doesn’t do anything. Not trying to be a nay-sayer, but the whole thing is illegal, and isn’t even built on logic, so no amount of arguing it from a civil-rights standpoint will do any good.

Marijuana is listed as Schedule 1, which is the category for drugs at high risk for abuse which also have no known medical benefits. Putting aside the gaping medical marijuana card loophole exploited by pot heads nationwide, it has been prescribed to 10s, if not 100s, of thousands of genuinely ill people. It clearly has at least some legitimate medical purpose, yet it remains on Schedule 1.

Even moving it to another slot on the Schedule doesn’t solve the issue, though, because the MJ question on Form 4473 states that ANY illegal user of any “regulated drug” is a prohibited person. At the federal level, if MJ remains regulated, anyone who uses it without a prescription would be ineligible to purchase a firearm.

Moving it to Schedule 2+ would at least lift the jeopardy from people who currently have a valid prescription for it, but, in my opinion (as a non-MJ user), that still doesn’t address the fundamental problem: neither the word “recreational” nor “drug” shows up any where in my copy of the 2nd Amendment.

We can try to put bandaids on the breach of civil liberties, but having the government in a regulatory role, at all, means that the breach can’t be healed.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10,488 Posts
So if we have a substance that's presence is hard to test for, and we don't test for it because the cops didn't show up, we can accurately determine that it is responsible for accidents that were so minor the cops didn't show up. Got it.

Driving under the influence is driving under the influence, true, not responsible in any case. Under the influence of alcohol, marijuana, prescription medication, distraction, age, sleep loss no difference. Some people are responsible and some are not.

But honestly I don't see marijuana being responsible for the type of accidents we see from other causes. Sure your reaction time can be increased, but you are going to be acutely aware of it and maybe even concerned, and probably correct for it in a very meticulous fashion. Rather than a drinker barreling down the road cleaning out both ditches and ignoring intersections and oak trees, I see a pot smoker being more laser focused on staying precisely between the lines, their ability to do so being impaired, but the focus causing them to correct, and at some point with enough inebriation they are going three miles per hour. With heavy enough use they might stop and take a nap, or to look for snacks, and perfectly organize the change in the console, but I just don't see the careless abandon, blackout drunk, wild careening at a high rate of speed associated with alcohol use. When I hear things about the dangers of marijuana on our roadways, it sounds an awful lot like a strawman argument. A random statistic, and a very predictable one, an increase in accidents, can just be blamed on a group of people we don't like, and don't understand because we don't like them.
The more fundamental problem is that we approach these situations, from a law & order standpoint, from the wrong direction. Why is driving impaired illegal in the first place?

It doesn’t matter if someone is drunk, high, distracted, incompetent or stupid. As a society, we don’t care about that. What we want to prevent is people being injured by the negligence of other drivers and, just like we do with so many other things, we try to legislate what we see as some of the causes of that thing, limiting the rights of the people who most likely will never do the thing we were really trying to legislate away.

Prosecution and punishment should be reserved for those who actually harm others, not those who only did something that someone else happens to think may hurt others in certain circumstances. Trying to legislate away modes rather than outcomes just results in us all losing Liberty.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10,488 Posts
Very well said. Think of the open bottle laws. What can it possibly hurt for a guy to knock back a cold one while his friend drives him around. If his friend can't be responsible and refrain from borrowing a sip, …
Back that up one step. Why do we want to prevent the driver from having a beer in his cup holder, rather than a cup of coffee or soda? As a society, does a driver drinking a beer while he’s driving harm us in some way?

Why is there a penalty for drinking a beer on the way home from work, and why is it the same as driving while drunk? Why is the penalty for driving drunk higher than the penalty for actually causing an accident while stupid (yet sober)?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10,488 Posts
Screw it! Why have any traffic laws at all? Let's just careen down the road as fast as we want to go with nothing but a few feet of distance and a yellow line (maybe) between us.
My goals, when I’m on the road, are to not harm anyone else or their property, and neither me nor my property be harmed by anyone else. How fast they’re going or what color the lines between us are is of no concern to me.

Why does it bother you so much?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10,488 Posts
I have been threatened more by drivers hooked on phones than drivers hooked on pot or alcohol.

I cannot make up my mind if I buy the @GunMonkeyIntl argument. Everything you read says drinking increases the odds of an accident, but everything written by media and government is a lie.
I’m not saying that drunk driving doesn’t increase the odds of an accident. I’m certain that it does. My point is that attempting to legislate away the likelihood of an undesirable event occurring is incongruous with Liberty.

The logic that was used restrict us from having the choice to drink a beer while driving is the same logic that was used to demand that firearms in the home be stored unloaded and locked up. It’s the same logic that will be used someday to put restrictions of freedom on males, in order to reduce the likelihood of crime.

I don’t drink and drive because I accept the seriousness of the potential outcomes of that behavior. The closest I come to drinking and driving is that getting to one of my barns requires me driving about 400y to the end of my dead end road. Occasionally, the cup holder of my tractor or buggy will have a beer in it when I go there. The odds of me harming someone or their property while doing that are even lower than the odds of me getting stopped and facing legal jeopardy for it. The fact that there’s even a chance that I could face criminal penalty for it are proof, in my opinion, that our legislation on the matter is improperly aimed.

Criminal legislation should be reserved for direct redress of the specific events that we want to prevent, not the things that someone decides may increase the likelihood of those events occurring. That is a recipe for the erosion of Liberty, all in the name of our own good.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10,488 Posts
There is a line that some liberty is spent on the idea of a civil society. I'd like to think a battle rages to keep us on the libertous side of the line. Sadly there is not.
I agree with that 100%, but I think that line needs to be objective and clear. That’s precisely why I’m a devotee of Liberty, but pay no more credence to anarchy than I do to Marxism.

Marxism and anarchy are adjacent ends of a circular spectrum in the same way that communism and fascism are. Left to their ultimate devices, they both end up in the same place.

Law and order are necessary, but law and order come at a cost of Liberty, and Liberty is no cheap commodity. When a law is proposed, its cost in Liberty should be honestly and soberly considered, with deference always going to Liberty. If a proposed restriction addresses anything other than, directly, the outcomes we wish to curtail, then it shouldn’t pass scrutiny and should be summarily rejected in preference of a restriction, if one such can be found, that does directly address the undesirable outcome.

The legislation of indirect, allegedly statically-contributing causes is the guaranteed path to tyranny.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10,488 Posts
Marxism and anarchy are adjacent ends of a circular spectrum in the same way that communism and fascism are. Left to their ultimate devices, they both end up in the same place.
@GunMonkeyIntl You are confusing Anarcho-capitalism, a type of Individualist voluntaryism and Anarcho-socialism, an oxymoron fantasy.
No, I’m not.

If one draws a circular spectrum, with Marxism on one side and anarcho-capitalism on the other, they appear to be very different on the diametric opposition. On one side, the individual has no rights, with everything being doled out with theoretical equity. On the other side, the individual is free to do whatever they like with results playing out according to free inputs and outputs.

Taken to their logical, only possible, outcome, though, they become exactly the same thing. He who is strongest has whatever he wants, and everyone else has only what that strongest member decides he can do without and leaves for them.

In anarcho-capitalism, so-called justice is doled out according to the means of the one seeking justice. His right to property is only guaranteed by his ability to defend it. He who gathers the most wealth, therefore, has not only more property, but a stronger right to keep that property.

The first half of that is as it should be, and that’s because the right to property is one of the sacred rights. It doesn’t matter how wealthy or poor you are, or how strong or weak you are. Everyone’s right to their property is equal.

That’s how the rule of law tempers capitalism. Gather what you will, the accumulation of wealth and power should not weaken the claims that the less wealthy have to their property. Our system of law, flawed as it is, gives the weak a vehicle for fair recourse against the powerful.

Government is a risky contract to sign, but there has to be some minimum contract in place- with that best contract being the least… but not nothing.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10,488 Posts
There's a lot of information about how Might Makes Right isn't the ultimate in human interactions in An/Cap society here:

The Not So Wild, Wild West | Terry Anderson, P.J. Hill

... And it was originally published just down the river from me at the University of Montana
Yep, and that “information” is the same rationales and logical fallacies that the Marxists use when trying to tell us how communism can actually work. They paint a utopian picture that ignores inconvenient inevitabilities.

In Anarcho-capitalism, we all own what we own, with no societal security in it. When someone trespasses against our rightful property, our only recourse for justice is to take it back ourselves. If the powerful trespasses against the weak, the only redress the weak have is to build a Union more powerful than the one behind the trespasser.

Just as Marxism and Oligarchy/Monarchy shortly distills down to a single point of hyper-centralized power dictating the rules to everyone else, anarchy, in any of its forms, results in the accrual of power in one central point.

You take my saw, so me and my buddy come to get it back. You see us coming, and get three of your buddies to come to your aid. The village we live in see this developing and rush to my side to see right done, so you make a deal with the city to support you. I go gather together two cities worth of torch and pitchfork carriers, and, within a few weeks, a king is anointed to decide which one of us gets to keep my saw.

The king sees it’s a better saw than the one he had, so he grants it to himself… for the good of all.


Our original form of government was about as close as one can get to the flame of anarchy without falling onto the water slide that takes it immediately back to Monarchy/Oligarchy/Communism.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10,488 Posts
From the first link I provided:

"The purpose of this paper is to take us from the theoretical world of anarchy to a case study of its application. To accomplish our task we will first discuss what is meant by "anarchocapitalism" and present several hypotheses relating to the nature of social organization in this world.

These hypotheses will then be tested in the context of the American West during its earliest settlement. We propose to examine property-rights formulation and protection under voluntary organizations such as private protection agencies, vigilantes, wagon trains, and early mining camps. Although the early West was not completely anarchistic, we believe that government as a legitimate agency of coercion was absent for a long enough period to provide insights into the operation and viability of property rights in the absence of a formal state. The nature of contracts for the provision of "public goods" and the evolution of western "laws" for the period from 1830 to 1900 will provide the data for this case study.

The West during this time is often perceived as a place of great chaos, with little respect for property or life. Our research indicates that this was not the case; property rights were protected, and civil order prevailed. Private agencies provided the necessary basis for an orderly society in which property was protected and conflicts were resolved.

These agencies often did not qualify as governments because they did not have a legal monopoly on "keeping order." They soon discovered that "warfare" was a costly way of resolving disputes and lower-cost methods of settlement (arbitration, courts, etc.) resulted. In summary, this paper argues that a characterization of the American West as chaotic would appear to be incorrect."
Yes. You’ve posted that link a couple times, and it’s far from the first time an anarchist has tried (and failed) to use the “Wild West” as an illustration of how anarchy can actually work. It’s predicated on a series of logical fallacies.

The argument relies on the contradiction that the Wild West was not as lawless as history has painted it while simultaneously being more lawless than it actually was. Contrary to the argument, there was government, in one form and/or another, throughout nearly all of what we refer to as the wild west. Using it as an example of lawlessness, according to the true definition of the word, is dishonest. In the same breath, they will provide anecdotes about prosperity and peace, conveniently ignoring the countless examples of murder and theft, and then close the point as if they’ve somehow managed to prove a negative.

The hinge pin of Anarcho-capitalist justice is, in the context of the Wild West, private security services like Pinkerton’s. Using that as a proof of concept is inapt, though, given that Pinkerton’s was operating as a security augment in an era where government based justice existed but was only stretched thin, and completely ignores the documented corruption and abuses that Pinkerton’s agents participated in.

A modern adaptation of that would be the private security firms that were employed in the GWOT. Iraq, circa 2004 was even closer to an anarchic theatre than the US west circa 1870, and the private security contractors were serving the same functions as Pinkerton’s was in the old west. If one wants to use that illustration in their argument claiming how well anarcho-capitalism can work, they’d be challenged to construct that argument without leaving out Black Water.

The self-styled academic papers in support of anarcho-capitalism all end up being exactly as intellectually-dishonest as the ones written to claim how great communism can be. They are because they have to be. One can’t construct an argument in favor of either without having to cherry pick misleading isolated events while willfully ignoring the mountain of historical evidence that proves that neither can work.

In either system, the powerful have the power necessary to accumulate more power, and there is no baseline protection for the weak to protect what little power they have. The accumulation of power, unchecked by the rule of law becomes an unstoppable physical principle, like that of planetary accretion.

Of course, that won’t stop pseudo intellectuals with an agenda from writing papers about how they’ve singularly figured out how to overcome the laws of physics and create a communist or anarchist government that somehow won’t result in all of the power being consolidated into the hands of a select few individuals.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top