Principia Discordia

In my recent Critique of Discordia, I ran into a lot of "I don't want to proselytize any Religion" and "What's in it for Discordianism?" complaints. These are valid concerns, and ones that I agree with, I might add. They do however betray an apparent inability on my part to clearly establish what the hell I am talking about. So, let me offer a clarification of some issues that were left unanswered in the last discussion.

First of all, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "DISCORDIANISM." I can say this with a straight face because I am, in fact, a Discordian. I do not believe there is any useful set of guiding principles, mythos, or imagery that could ever be compiled into anything even remotely resembling a Religion whose purpose is to "teach" people anything. You cannot teach anyone anything worthwhile by acquainting them with a static mythology and expecting them to "get it." They won't.

I am a Discordian, and I do not believe in "Discordianism." I believe, rather, in DISCORDIA, which is not a religion, or a "path," or a "journey," or any such bollocks. Instead, Discordia is a phenomenon. It is a peculiar situation that arises every time a bunch of disjointed, disconnected, Discordians cooperate against large odds to accomplish something.

So I am not looking to enlarge, enhance, or enrich "Discordianism" with new members. My aim is not to establish "us" as some kind of recognizable -- let alone respectable -- religious or philosophical sect. I like my Discord as it is: impossible to replicate anywhere. If it ceased to be that, it would cease to be useful to me.

So when I say I want to see DISCORDIA make an impact, here is what I'm talking about: I'm talking about a widespread knowledge that SOMETHING IS HAPPENING. Because look -- something IS happening: BILLIONS of people are being screwed out of their natural rights; liberty is being devoured by fear; cultures are drowning in oceans of bullshit; responsibility is being erased. Can we change any of that? No. But we can sure as hell make more people AWARE of it.

As for "Discordianism," as far as the Masses are concerned, that should be no more than a sticker on our product. Their shoes were made in China, and their mindfuck was made in "Discordianism." Let them know that the Legion of Dynamic Discord exists: but don't bother trying to tell them what it is, they'll just misunderstand anyway.

Ultimately, "Activitism" is not a requirement for all Discordians -- and it should be OFF LIMITS to anybody who wants to sell "Discordianism." But it is a sacred sacrament to those of us who count ourselves as Discordians who want to see DISCORDIA grow. Not as a movement, not as a philosophy, and sure as hell not as a religion -- but as a mysterious phenomenon that forces people to ask questions.

Quote from: vexati0n on December 01, 2008, 06:30:38 PM
In my recent Critique of Discordia, I ran into a lot of "I don't want to proselytize any Religion" and "What's in it for Discordianism?" complaints. These are valid concerns, and ones that I agree with, I might add. They do however betray an apparent inability on my part to clearly establish what the hell I am talking about. So, let me offer a clarification of some issues that were left unanswered in the last discussion.

First of all, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "DISCORDIANISM." I can say this with a straight face because I am, in fact, a Discordian. I do not believe there is any useful set of guiding principles, mythos, or imagery that could ever be compiled into anything even remotely resembling a Religion whose purpose is to "teach" people anything. You cannot teach anyone anything worthwhile by acquainting them with a static mythology and expecting them to "get it." They won't.

I am a Discordian, and I do not believe in "Discordianism." I believe, rather, in DISCORDIA, which is not a religion, or a "path," or a "journey," or any such bollocks. Instead, Discordia is a phenomenon. It is a peculiar situation that arises every time a bunch of disjointed, disconnected, Discordians cooperate against large odds to accomplish something.

So I am not looking to enlarge, enhance, or enrich "Discordianism" with new members. My aim is not to establish "us" as some kind of recognizable -- let alone respectable -- religious or philosophical sect. I like my Discord as it is: impossible to replicate anywhere. If it ceased to be that, it would cease to be useful to me.

So when I say I want to see DISCORDIA make an impact, here is what I'm talking about: I'm talking about a widespread knowledge that SOMETHING IS HAPPENING. Because look -- something IS happening: BILLIONS of people are being screwed out of their natural rights; liberty is being devoured by fear; cultures are drowning in oceans of bullshit; responsibility is being erased. Can we change any of that? No. But we can sure as hell make more people AWARE of it.

As for "Discordianism," as far as the Masses are concerned, that should be no more than a sticker on our product. Their shoes were made in China, and their mindfuck was made in "Discordianism." Let them know that the Legion of Dynamic Discord exists: but don't bother trying to tell them what it is, they'll just misunderstand anyway.

Ultimately, "Activitism" is not a requirement for all Discordians -- and it should be OFF LIMITS to anybody who wants to sell "Discordianism." But it is a sacred sacrament to those of us who count ourselves as Discordians who want to see DISCORDIA grow. Not as a movement, not as a philosophy, and sure as hell not as a religion -- but as a mysterious phenomenon that forces people to ask questions.

:mittens:

I love this idea, vex. I'm pretty sure I am one of the folks who misinterpreted you in the other thread, so I'm glad you clarified.

:mittens:
this about sum it up for me.  i still can't imagine admitting to being a part of some group calling themselves 'Discordians' and all of the implication therein.  calling it a phenomenon is probably the best word i've heard for it. it retains the subjectivity of it's (loosely termed) adherants without defining a static goal.

This is full of WIn and I agree with all but this bit:

Quotesomething IS happening: BILLIONS of people are being screwed out of their natural rights; liberty is being devoured by fear; cultures are drowning in oceans of bullshit; responsibility is being erased. Can we change any of that? No. But we can sure as hell make more people AWARE of it.

I'm not sure how or why those particular issues are dropped in here. They don't seem to be particularly Discordian to me.

i'm terrible with examples, i guess. so sue me. i guess focus more on the "liberty is being devoured by fear" point. this isn't just your average bland altruism that i'm trying to talk about, it's that the character of our society is devolving to a point where nothing important matters at all. and it isn't just general, out-there stuff. if i live in a town where everyone is buckled down and repressed for fear of what might happen if they're not, that makes it more difficult for me to exercise my own inherent freedom, and that isn't okay with me.

i'm not really trying to save the human race, but it would be nice to foster an environment where real freedom isn't synonymous with danger, and where individual expression can be appreciated for what it is rather than abhorred for what people think it might be.

like it or not, we all have a personal stake in the larger society we live in. i don't think i can come to terms or accept the notion that Big Things just don't matter at all, because they effect me. and when the Big Things that are happening, happen because people are generally too unconscious to notice what's going on around them, and I do notice them, then what absolves me of a responsibility to draw their attention to it? It's like being on a bus when the driver has a heart attack and the rest of the passengers are asleep, then deciding it isn't my job to do something about it.

I don't give a fuck about saving the world, but god dammit, these apes are trying to take me down with them and I want to do what I can to stop them.

Quote from: Ratatosk on December 01, 2008, 07:32:23 PM
This is full of WIn and I agree with all but this bit:

Quotesomething IS happening: BILLIONS of people are being screwed out of their natural rights; liberty is being devoured by fear; cultures are drowning in oceans of bullshit; responsibility is being erased. Can we change any of that? No. But we can sure as hell make more people AWARE of it.

I'm not sure how or why those particular issues are dropped in here. They don't seem to be particularly Discordian to me.

Just about anything posted as an example of something we should focus on will be immediately neutralized by the "or maybe not" crowd.  :p

--But that's not a very pragmatic approach to getting shit done.


When I was at the Discordian gathering at esozone, Metaphorge was pushing this meme about a Vegan McDonald's opening up downtown. He repeated it like six or seven times before someone questioned him on it. Later, he confessed that it was hogwash (of course) but it's a funny and attractive lie he's trying to spread. And to that I said, "Cool, I can run with that."

Later, Telarus pointed out that that's one the good things about the Discordian society, is that we're willing to run with each other's jokes. I think what Vex is saying is that we don't have to come up with "Discordian Activities", (any discussion thereof will die on the table due to hard-wired ambiguity) we just have to support each other's energy.

Though all the things Vex listed there may or may not be "Discordian" (and frankly, I'm getting very :boring: about trying to pin down a mission statement that we all agree on), but I support it because they're good ideas.

Isn't THAT the point of the rant? That none of us can point specifically at Discordia, but the shit we do, (whether it's "Discordian" or not) IS Discordia.

Quote from: vexati0n on December 01, 2008, 08:14:30 PM
i'm terrible with examples, i guess. so sue me. i guess focus more on the "liberty is being devoured by fear" point. this isn't just your average bland altruism that i'm trying to talk about, it's that the character of our society is devolving to a point where nothing important matters at all. and it isn't just general, out-there stuff. if i live in a town where everyone is buckled down and repressed for fear of what might happen if they're not, that makes it more difficult for me to exercise my own inherent freedom, and that isn't okay with me.

i'm not really trying to save the human race, but it would be nice to foster an environment where real freedom isn't synonymous with danger, and where individual expression can be appreciated for what it is rather than abhorred for what people think it might be.

like it or not, we all have a personal stake in the larger society we live in. i don't think i can come to terms or accept the notion that Big Things just don't matter at all, because they effect me. and when the Big Things that are happening, happen because people are generally too unconscious to notice what's going on around them, and I do notice them, then what absolves me of a responsibility to draw their attention to it? It's like being on a bus when the driver has a heart attack and the rest of the passengers are asleep, then deciding it isn't my job to do something about it.

I don't give a fuck about saving the world, but god dammit, these apes are trying to take me down with them and I want to do what I can to stop them.

Oh I grok all that and I agree. I do think we should care about what's going on. I do share your concern that this shit is getting bad out here in the real world... I just don't think Discordia is necessarily the right tool for social change in those particular areas. Discordia seems to work great for individuals getting divorced from their Dogma... but society seems to need something far more than a mindfuck and a pretend secret society.

I just felt that it gave your overall excellent post the feel of the Yippie movement. I personally love the Yippies, they did some great stuff... I mean they had thousands of people attacking cultural institutions, pulling pranks, organizing protests and smoke-in's... and in the end, they get a footnote, or maybe a couple paragraphs in history, with the awesome picture of flower girls filling National Guard rifle barrels with flowers.

The pranks pulled by the Yippies were great, but their tie to the Causes, led to them being easily boxed in with the hippies, labeled and then forgotten. We'd get the same treatment, but have the labels post-modern or 'moral relativists' stamped on us.

So, if your Discordia needs to champion those causes, I'm cool with that, its your trip man. I suppose it just came up as a bad comparison in my head. :)

Cram is closer to my point than i am, embarrassingly.

Quote from: vexati0n on December 01, 2008, 08:55:54 PM
Cram is closer to my point than i am, embarrassingly.

Piffle, what's to be embarrassed about tossing up two, count em, two great threads about the future of our Goddess Blessed Mess that is Discordia?

I suppose I'm way to picky about stuff like I stated here,

with vex and cram's points combined, this thread gets :mittens: :mittens: DOUBLE MITTENS

(and some pickles for ratatosk..)

Good shit, Maynard.

Quote from: Triple Zero on December 01, 2008, 10:49:09 PM
with vex and cram's points combined, this thread gets :mittens: :mittens: DOUBLE MITTENS

(and some pickles for ratatosk..)

dood a lee do dood a lee dood a lee dood a lee do

:wink:

 :lulz:

Quote from: Ratatosk on December 01, 2008, 07:32:23 PM
This is full of WIn and I agree with all but this bit:

Quotesomething IS happening: BILLIONS of people are being screwed out of their natural rights; liberty is being devoured by fear; cultures are drowning in oceans of bullshit; responsibility is being erased. Can we change any of that? No. But we can sure as hell make more people AWARE of it.

I'm not sure how or why those particular issues are dropped in here. They don't seem to be particularly Discordian to me.

I think those expamles are excellent topics to focus a bit of energy on.   It could turn into tons of fun once some people have figured out a few interesting ways to raise attention on those subjects.

Quote

QuoteBILLIONS of people are being screwed out of their natural rights

ie. Raise a stink about how troublesome it is for some people to search through trash heaps because there are too many black bears.   fucking black bears think they own those trash heaps, , wtf are the bums supposed to survive on when they are threatened by black bears?  get people to sign petitions for safer trash heaps for bums...

this would cause people to think about animal rights, which would probably make some think about human rights..  but to what extent, I dont know.  ugh.....

Vex I think you're very well shaping the language used in the discussion of this phenomenon.

This also reinforces that people can be Discordians and not ever have heard of them.

Quote from: Cramulus on December 01, 2008, 08:38:36 PM

Though all the things Vex listed there may or may not be "Discordian" (and frankly, I'm getting very :boring: about trying to pin down a mission statement that we all agree on), but I support it because they're good ideas.

Sometimes I prefer a lot of boring with big rewards.

---

Quote from: Ratatosk on December 01, 2008, 08:48:59 PM

The pranks pulled by the Yippies were great, but their tie to the Causes, led to them being easily boxed in with the hippies, labeled and then forgotten. We'd get the same treatment, but have the labels post-modern or 'moral relativists' stamped on us.

THE LABELS!
  \
:omg:

I don't suppose they were "boxed in" with hippies at all because they were hippies? And called themselves "Yippies"?

---

Quote from: vexati0n on December 01, 2008, 06:30:38 PM

So when I say I want to see DISCORDIA make an impact, here is what I'm talking about: I'm talking about a widespread knowledge that SOMETHING IS HAPPENING. Because look -- something IS happening: BILLIONS of people are being screwed out of their natural rights; liberty is being devoured by fear; cultures are drowning in oceans of bullshit; responsibility is being erased. Can we change any of that? No. But we can sure as hell make more people AWARE of it.

RAH!

Quote from: Net on December 02, 2008, 02:46:50 AM

I don't suppose they were "boxed in" with hippies at all because they were hippies? And called themselves "Yippies"?

Ignorance ITT.

Quote from: vexati0n on December 01, 2008, 06:30:38 PM
In my recent Critique of Discordia, I ran into a lot of "I don't want to proselytize any Religion" and "What's in it for Discordianism?" complaints. These are valid concerns, and ones that I agree with, I might add. They do however betray an apparent inability on my part to clearly establish what the hell I am talking about. So, let me offer a clarification of some issues that were left unanswered in the last discussion.

First of all, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "DISCORDIANISM." I can say this with a straight face because I am, in fact, a Discordian. I do not believe there is any useful set of guiding principles, mythos, or imagery that could ever be compiled into anything even remotely resembling a Religion whose purpose is to "teach" people anything. You cannot teach anyone anything worthwhile by acquainting them with a static mythology and expecting them to "get it." They won't.

I am a Discordian, and I do not believe in "Discordianism." I believe, rather, in DISCORDIA, which is not a religion, or a "path," or a "journey," or any such bollocks. Instead, Discordia is a phenomenon. It is a peculiar situation that arises every time a bunch of disjointed, disconnected, Discordians cooperate against large odds to accomplish something.

So I am not looking to enlarge, enhance, or enrich "Discordianism" with new members. My aim is not to establish "us" as some kind of recognizable -- let alone respectable -- religious or philosophical sect. I like my Discord as it is: impossible to replicate anywhere. If it ceased to be that, it would cease to be useful to me.

So when I say I want to see DISCORDIA make an impact, here is what I'm talking about: I'm talking about a widespread knowledge that SOMETHING IS HAPPENING. Because look -- something IS happening: BILLIONS of people are being screwed out of their natural rights; liberty is being devoured by fear; cultures are drowning in oceans of bullshit; responsibility is being erased. Can we change any of that? No. But we can sure as hell make more people AWARE of it.

As for "Discordianism," as far as the Masses are concerned, that should be no more than a sticker on our product. Their shoes were made in China, and their mindfuck was made in "Discordianism." Let them know that the Legion of Dynamic Discord exists: but don't bother trying to tell them what it is, they'll just misunderstand anyway.

Ultimately, "Activitism" is not a requirement for all Discordians -- and it should be OFF LIMITS to anybody who wants to sell "Discordianism." But it is a sacred sacrament to those of us who count ourselves as Discordians who want to see DISCORDIA grow. Not as a movement, not as a philosophy, and sure as hell not as a religion -- but as a mysterious phenomenon that forces people to ask questions.

Nice.  As I have said, "Discordianism happens to me every time I walk out my door."

It's not a religion, it's an event.

Quote from: BAWHEED on December 03, 2008, 12:23:57 AM

Quote from: Net on December 02, 2008, 02:46:50 AM

I don't suppose they were "boxed in" with hippies at all because they were hippies? And called themselves "Yippies"?

Ignorance ITT.

Do tell.

Quote from: Net on December 03, 2008, 12:47:57 AM

Quote from: BAWHEED on December 03, 2008, 12:23:57 AM

Quote from: Net on December 02, 2008, 02:46:50 AM

I don't suppose they were "boxed in" with hippies at all because they were hippies? And called themselves "Yippies"?

Ignorance ITT.

Do tell.

Hippies were, by and large, about peace and love - which the Yippies were certainly NOT.  "Steal This Book" by Abbie Hoffman has plans for several types of pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails.  And the term "Yippie" was coined by the press based on their actual name YIP, or the Youth International Party.  They would be considered terrorists in today's culture.

Quote from: BAWHEED on December 03, 2008, 02:31:06 AM

Quote from: Net on December 03, 2008, 12:47:57 AM

Quote from: BAWHEED on December 03, 2008, 12:23:57 AM

Quote from: Net on December 02, 2008, 02:46:50 AM

I don't suppose they were "boxed in" with hippies at all because they were hippies? And called themselves "Yippies"?

Ignorance ITT.

Do tell.

Hippies were, by and large, about peace and love - which the Yippies were certainly NOT.  "Steal This Book" by Abbie Hoffman has plans for several types of pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails.  And the term "Yippie" was coined by the press based on their actual name YIP, or the Youth International Party.  They would be considered terrorists in today's culture.

STEAL THIS MOVIE

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5858962939917432628&ei=9vM1SdRij977Ac_b7KIJ&q=steal+this+movie

the life of abbie hoffman. sweet movie.  sad too.

Quote from: BAWHEED on December 03, 2008, 02:31:06 AM

Quote from: Net on December 03, 2008, 12:47:57 AM

Quote from: BAWHEED on December 03, 2008, 12:23:57 AM

Quote from: Net on December 02, 2008, 02:46:50 AM

I don't suppose they were "boxed in" with hippies at all because they were hippies? And called themselves "Yippies"?

Ignorance ITT.

Do tell.

Hippies were, by and large, about peace and love - which the Yippies were certainly NOT.  "Steal This Book" by Abbie Hoffman has plans for several types of pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails.  And the term "Yippie" was coined by the press based on their actual name YIP, or the Youth International Party.  They would be considered terrorists in today's culture.

Correct. However, because most of their 'terrorism' was of the pranking sort... and because they had a concept of freedom similar to the hippy movement of the 60's, they were easily labeled, and forgotten. The problem here with the label... is that once labeled it can be dismissed. "Oh it's just those hippies again..." and the impact is nullified.

However, I also think that all of this is beside the point, now that I better understand Vex's position.

True.

Quote from: vexati0n on December 01, 2008, 08:14:30 PM
i'm terrible with examples, i guess. so sue me. i guess focus more on the "liberty is being devoured by fear" point. this isn't just your average bland altruism that i'm trying to talk about, it's that the character of our society is devolving to a point where nothing important matters at all. and it isn't just general, out-there stuff. if i live in a town where everyone is buckled down and repressed for fear of what might happen if they're not, that makes it more difficult for me to exercise my own inherent freedom, and that isn't okay with me.

i'm not really trying to save the human race, but it would be nice to foster an environment where real freedom isn't synonymous with danger, and where individual expression can be appreciated for what it is rather than abhorred for what people think it might be.

like it or not, we all have a personal stake in the larger society we live in. i don't think i can come to terms or accept the notion that Big Things just don't matter at all, because they effect me. and when the Big Things that are happening, happen because people are generally too unconscious to notice what's going on around them, and I do notice them, then what absolves me of a responsibility to draw their attention to it? It's like being on a bus when the driver has a heart attack and the rest of the passengers are asleep, then deciding it isn't my job to do something about it.

I don't give a fuck about saving the world, but god dammit, these apes are trying to take me down with them and I want to do what I can to stop them.

vexati0n I think you gave very good examples in the op.  & I really liked your 2nd reply too.  Thanks & respect.

1 of the variables in this thing we call ? is the effect the internet has on communication.  It is more possible now to get a global (bigger picture) perspective on things.  There's also a lot of stuff out there making it harder sometimes to get a handle on things.  I appreciate on this site how people from other countries can give their insights to things goin on in US.  It can provide much needed clarity.  It's hard to look at something when it's too close to your face or "in your face."

Having said that, & not wanting to veer off topic, I wanted to ask you about something?

Why so many murders in the good ole US of A?

Australia   < 100
Canada    < 200
France   < 200
Germany   < 400
Japan   < 100
UK   < 100
USA   > 10,000

Variables I have considered (please correct me or add to this list or whatever):

•   Gun ownership?  (Canadians, fr'instance own a comparable # of guns)
•   History of violence?  (many countries have comparable histories of violence)
•   Media/Propaganda?  (art, music, moving images & religions that encourage violence)
•   Marketing?  (does industry benefit/profit from encouraging &/or marketing FEAR?)
•   Laws?  (including gun ownership, punishment for crimes, etc.)
•   Government?  (does the type or form of government promote?)
•   Culture?  (a big category, not sure how to break it down)

Some facts seem to defy reason.  Fr'instance a decrease in crime in a community would seem to correlate with a decrease in gun ownership.  Not necessarily so. 

After September 11th, there was a surge in gun ownership & the purchase of home security systems with an increase in the building of gated communities.  These seem to be more *reasonable* but are, in fact, more likely to be an emotional reaction to the horrors rather than a valid & reasonable corrective measure or deterrent.

FEAR seems to be the most lucrative commodity in the last twenty years or so.  Marketing FEAR as a commodity?   Look back to the time before September 11th?   There were precursors to the disasters we face.  With the September 11th tragedy, the *powers that were* were able to draw away from the very real (& near) economic & other related tragedies of today.  These very real signs of trouble were perhaps put aside to concentrate on marketing FEAR?  Probably a very large factor in the American peoples choice to elect GBushII for his 2nd term of office.   

An honest question now?  Why so many murders in the good ole US of A?  Is it related to marketing fear?  & whudabout all the (more recent) restrictions on freedom?  Any thoughts on this?  (& sorry if this is off your original topic which I really appreciated)
 

There are lots of murders in the US because, as a society, we tend to be spoiled and selfish. Murder often appears to have one of these as a underlying cause, IMO.

I hate to be a picky data geek, but it is more helpful to look at murder rates.  Like X number of murders per 1000 people or something like that.  Raw numbers really aren't comparable considering the U.S is going to have a huge population compared to a country like Canada.  I'm not saying the US might not still be on top, but it is just better to use those kind of stats for comparison purposes. 

Toronto's murder rate, per capita, is comparable to any large American city.

There are web sites that list per capita.  I'll come back with them if you wish.  I was really more interested in the marketing fear angle.  Hoping to clarify my thought processes on this a bit.  My decision to focus on something measurable rested on my desire to delve further into the idea of "freedoms."  I watched Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" & admittedly the recent viewing left questions in my mind. 

There's a scene where Michael Moore is interviewing a youngish guy with a family.  I believe they are either in a gun store or at a gun rally.  Not sure which.  What left an impression in my mind was his answer to a question.  Michael Moore said something like, I understand you are buying a gun to protect your family and home (based on previous questions).  Then he was asked something like, who do you imagine is a likely person that your family needs to be protected from?  The guy pointed to Michael Moore & said "You."  Then he proceeded to point to literally everyone else in the immediate environment, "him" & "her" & "that guy over there" & "this guy" & "that person".  Quite disturbing.  This guy apparently felt anyone & everyone was a potential threat to either him &/or his family.  Now however true that may be, having that "mindset" would almost certainly curtail his freedom in simply walking out the door of his home!  & perceiving that everyone is "armed" can only make it kookier.  Of course this is only his perception of reality.  If he went to a psychologist or psychiatrist & expressed these views, he would probably be diagnosed as paranoid or at least delusional. 

American people have had many measurable restrictions on their freedoms in the last ten or more years.  We also have had instances in the past where freedoms were restricted.  (the internment of Japanese Americans citizens comes to mind.)

Quote"The Legalization of Racism"

Many have sought recently to excuse the internment as reasonable given the information available at the time. But this claim is belied by the fact that some observers denounced—during the War itself—the internment as militarily unnecessary. Yale Law Professor Eugene Rostow concluded in an article published in 1945 that the internment rested, not on military needs, but on "race prejudice." (Rostow) Dissenting from the Supreme Court's decision in Korematsu in 1944, Justice Murphy labeled the internment the "legalization of racism." (Korematsu opinion)

Case Excerpt
Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944)

Mr. Justice MURPHY, dissenting.

This exclusion of 'all persons of Japanese ancestry, both alien and non-alien,' from the Pacific Coast area on a plea of military necessity in the absence of martial law ought not to be approved. Such exclusion goes over 'the very brink of constitutional power' and falls into the ugly abyss of racism.

... [T]his forced exclusion was the result in good measure of this erroneous assumption of racial guilt rather than bona fide military necessity...

Justification for the exclusion is sought, instead, mainly upon questionable racial and sociological grounds not ordinarily within the realm of expert military judgment, supplemented by certain semimilitary conclusions drawn from an unwarranted use of circumstantial evidence. Individuals of Japanese ancestry are condemned because they are said to be 'a large, unassimilated, tightly knit racial group, bound to an enemy nation by strong ties of race, culture, custom and religion.' They are claimed to be given to 'emperor worshipping ceremonies' and to 'dual citizenship.' Japanese language schools and allegedly pro-Japanese organizations are cited as evidence of possible group disloyalty, together with facts as to certain persons being educated and residing at length in Japan...

[T]he retention by some persons of certain customs and religious practices of their ancestors is no criterion of their loyalty to the United States....

I dissent, therefore, from this legalization of racism... All residents of this nation are kin in some way by blood or culture to a foreign land. Yet they are primarily and necessarily a part of the new and distinct civilization of the United States. They must accordingly be treated at all times as the heirs of the American experiment and as entitled to all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

Legalized Racism: The Internment of Japanese Americans: by Anupam Chander

http://www.chander.com/docs/internment.pdf

& Albert Einstein once said something like, "Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them."

If thinking on the same ole same o status quo level provides solutions to problems, it may not be necessary to leap to another level of thinking.  It's when thinking on the same o same o level doesn't work is when people may think of giving another level a go.  For example, all peoples are concerned about the safety of their children, right?  Look at what this guy says about this & other security related problems.  Seems counter-intuitive maybe or intuitive when you think about the problem differently.

Quotehttp://www.schneier.com/news-021.html

Security Evangelist
Minnesota-based author Bruce Schneier challenges the conventional wisdom about what makes people, corporations and nations safer in the post-9/11 world.

By Leslie Brooks Suzukamo
Pioneer Press
November 19, 2006

Want to keep your kids safe? Teach them to talk to strangers, says Bruce Schneier, a Minneapolis author who happens to be one of the world's leading security experts.

The Brooklyn transplant made his reputation as a cryptographer — his work has been mentioned in "The Da Vinci Code" and on the TV show "24" — and as co-founder of the network security company Counterpane, which was recently acquired by BT, the former British Telecom.

A geek's geek who gets treated like a rock star at hacker conventions and mainstream security conferences alike, he continues as chief technology officer of BT Counterpane, a Silicon Valley-based company that manages the security of hundreds of corporations worldwide. But he's spent much of the past few years trying to change the way most of us think about security.

In books like "Secrets and Lies: Digital Security in a Networked World" and "Beyond Fear," he argues that well-intentioned public policies since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks have actually made us more vulnerable, not less. He wants to change public perceptions by giving ordinary folks the tools to think about security the way he does.

But there's a catch.

"A lot of what I do is (analyze) risk," he said. "And risk is math."

Consider, for example, the risk faced by a lost child. Schneier says the safest strategy is for the child to pick out the nearest nice-looking stranger and ask for help.

That's the math part. By making the kid choose the stranger, and not the other way around, Schneier says the odds are that the child will pick someone who will help him. If he waits for an adult to help him, he's increased the odds that the adult is a predator who has targeted him.

"When was the last time you talked to a stranger and got mugged by him?" he asked rhetorically. "People are basically good. If that were not true, society would have fallen apart a long time ago."

Besides, he says, kids have good people instincts.

Schneier says that most people have a pathology about risk that prevents them from dealing with security threats rationally. 

He's dealing with that, though. "Rather than bang my head against the wall, I think it's a lot smarter to try to figure out where people's understandings begin, where their proclivities and pathologies come from."

HE TRUSTS HIS MATH
...

Even in the quirky and murky world of security, Schneier stands out. Computer experts are often accused of spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt — they nicknamed it FUD — so they can promote technology, but Schneier is the odd-duck nerd who insists technology by itself isn't going to save us.

For example, Schneier believes security needs to be malleable, stretchable and pliable, so that when it breaks — and it will break — it breaks in a predictable way.

Predictable security buys you time for backup to arrive. A bank makes crooks hurdle layers of security — guards, a vault, an alarm system — to give the cops time to get to the bank.

By contrast, a hard but brittle system, once cracked, lays bare all its secrets like a broken piñata.

On the national security front, Schneier asks why we ban liquids from being carried on board airplanes instead of spending money to hire and train lots more guards to wander through airports and look for suspicious activity of all kinds. And he raises a larger issue: Is there a way to get ahead of the threats instead of reacting to each new one?

Though not yet a household name, Schneier's expertise is increasingly sought out after every well-publicized security lapse.

Take the case a few weeks ago of Christopher Soghoian, a 24-year-old Ph.D. candidate in the computer sciences from Bloomington, Ind. When he put a tool on his Web site that let anyone create forged boarding passes for Northwest Airlines flights, he said he was trying to highlight a flaw in the nation's airline security procedures that would allow someone to bypass the federal No-Fly list.

The FBI confiscated Soghoian's computers. When reporters called Schneier to comment, he told them that he had pointed out that particular vulnerability three years ago.

"I think we really need to ask why the government is shooting the messenger here, when it should be spending its time fixing this obvious loophole," Schneier told the Washington Post.
...

His security books are considered models of clarity and readability, even the first one, which bears the scary title, "Applied Cryptography."

"The first seven or eight chapters you can read without knowing any math at all," Walker said. "The second half of the book you can't export overseas — it's classified as munitions."

SEES LIBERTIES AT RISK
The American Civil Liberties Union lauds Schneier for opposing surveillance technologies and some anti-terrorism measures that he feels encroach upon civil liberties.

"Bruce knows we are heading toward a surveillance society," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU Technology and Liberty Project. "He knows the solution is not to smash the technology," he said. "It is to put some chains on the monster, and that means laws and rules."

Schneier himself expresses concerns about some measures, such as the new abilities of a president to hold detainees suspected of terrorism indefinitely without charges. The son of a New York state appeals court judge, Schneier considers the Constitution and the law as "security devices" for society that safeguard liberties. He said the new anti-terrorism laws weaken privacy rights and put everyone's security at risk.

The government disagrees. "To say we're less secure since 9/11 is a ridiculous statement, given all we've done since 9/11," said Joanna Gonzalez, spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The ban on taking liquids on airplanes, for instance, came in response to a specific threat, but the Transportation Security Administration is training officers to not only use technology like bag scanners but also to recognize suspicious behavior, she said.

"We're going to keep changing, and we're going to be a step ahead of them," she said.

Schneier's security peers sometimes think he overstates the threats.

"He tends to see Big Brother, and I tend to see it (the government) as too ineffective to worry about," said Marcus Ranum, the chief security officer of a rival company, Tenable Network Security. Ranum is better known for helping to develop and implement some of the first commercial firewalls in the early 1990s.

But Ranum and Schneier share a mutual respect, and have debated various security topics on their blogs.

Ranum compares Schneier to a brick maker who gradually started to see the big picture. Schneier learned how to build a house — the security system — once he realized that encryption alone — the brick — wasn't enough to safeguard secrets.

Fear seems to be more prevalent in US.  Why?

I know both Ranum and Schneier... I would never want to be between them in an argument about geek/tech/security. I mean, I may be big stuff at Limited Brands... but those bastards make me feel like "N00by N00b" the New Guy. I've heard both of their arguments on this a number of times and I think they're both right. We do seem to be moving toward a surveillance society, but thus far, the government does appear to be rather incompetent. Of course, I still entertain the argument that Bush Administration hasn't been intentionally evil the last 8 years, but possibly just completely inept and incompetent.

Then again, I do use PGP for almost all email communication and have a pretty healthy paranoia when it comes to the government. Just because they're incompetent doesn't mean you won't end up in GitMo...

i kinda lean toward saying culture
•   Culture?  (a big category, not sure how to break it down)

a partial break down - things i see being fairly contributory
-wealthy scociety
-a advertising driven "having stuff is the measure of success/happiness"culture
-lots of people don't have stuff and see it as the reason they are unhappy or see themselves as unsuccessfully
-a historic/cultural love affair with outlaws
-drug laws creating opportunity for quick acquisition of stuff and outlaw status

this is a far from comprehensive list of Americas contributory cultural problems.

edit to add - we love solutions that seem quick and easy a cultural love of get rich quick

Quote from: F.M.E on December 05, 2008, 06:34:10 PM
i kinda lean toward saying culture
•   Culture?  (a big category, not sure how to break it down)
-drug laws creating opportunity for quick acquisition of stuff and outlaw status

Could you please expound upon this one? 

the simple economics of illegal + risk + demand = profitable (can get more stuff)
add on the addiction/buyers come to you  (easy i didnt put the wanting easy solutions in my first post i will add it)
and the i am a banger got street cred outlaw status (we luv the outlaws?)
and the competition for the market (turf wars)
and of course the user needing money to feed the addiction (they need there stuff to be happy too) and crime to get it is a natural quick easy solution (also outlaws)
also if you are a drug dealing/using outlaw there is no real barrier at that point from upping your outlaw status and committing other crimes

So how would you change that? 

i have some ideas on how i would change drug laws in this country and some others on a consumer driven revolution to short circuit the madasn avenue grip on Americas cultural short and curlys, but i think i would need to write a book to explain them in a way that was sufficient, the quick explanation wold be pretty indefensible and full of holes..

you're no fun.   :x

Leagalize Meth!

Legalize Meth From Orbit! It's the Only Way to be Sure!


Seriously though, prohibition on shit like cannabis is ridiculous and causes widespread suffering (MERRY END OF {ALCOHOL} PROHIBITION DAY, LONG LIVE THE PROHIBITION!).

RWHN i think you are fishing for a

                                            legalize drugs dude cuz it's cool to be high
                                          /
                                  :hippie:




type answer (always funny to rip on)

but its not real world useful to help the problem

not that i don't agree with the libertarian view that it's your body and it's not my business if you fuck it up.
the problems and issues it would raise (and there are many) would need to be dealt with and its not easy to lay them all out in any kind of coherent manner
i am no fun  :wink:

Please, give me a little more credit than that.  Yes, I was prepared to debate your position had you laid it out, and I disagreed with it, but surely I didn't assume you would give a banal and cliched retort either.  I can deal with nuance.  

i kind of like the challenge of trying to Lay them out in a coherent manner and may take it on, but it will take me time

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 05, 2008, 08:41:30 PM
I can deal with nuance.  

\
(http://bp3.blogger.com/_FmQ7sFgB48g/RtjHM-_uTvI/AAAAAAAAA_c/eVDU9S08DXg/s400/punisher_says_smile.png)



just teasing

Fuck I hate the Punisher.  He's embarrassed of his own costume.

Quote from: Ratatosk on December 04, 2008, 03:09:46 PM
There are lots of murders in the US because, as a society, we tend to be spoiled and selfish. Murder often appears to have one of these as a underlying cause, IMO.

more spoiled and selfish than those other places? really?

Quote from: BAWHEED on December 03, 2008, 02:31:06 AM

Quote from: Net on December 03, 2008, 12:47:57 AM

Quote from: BAWHEED on December 03, 2008, 12:23:57 AM

Quote from: Net on December 02, 2008, 02:46:50 AM

I don't suppose they were "boxed in" with hippies at all because they were hippies? And called themselves "Yippies"?

Ignorance ITT.

Do tell.

Hippies were, by and large, about peace and love - which the Yippies were certainly NOT.  "Steal This Book" by Abbie Hoffman has plans for several types of pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails.  And the term "Yippie" was coined by the press based on their actual name YIP, or the Youth International Party.  They would be considered terrorists in today's culture.

Krassner, one of the founders of the YIP, claims he came up with the name yippie. Not "the press."

He said,

"We needed a name to signify the radicalization of hippies, and I came up with Yippie as a label for a phenomenon that already existed, an organic coalition of psychedelic hippies and political activists. In the process of cross-fertilization at antiwar demonstrations, we had come to share an awareness that there was a linear connection between putting kids in prison for smoking pot in this country and burning them to death with napalm on the other side of the planet." —Source (http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/28/entertainment/ca-yippies28)

I hadn't heard that before, it's something to chew on.  However, saying it much after the fact doesn't lend it a ton of credit for me... I still can't find a contemporary source for the name.  As cool as Krassner is (and was) he doesn't seem to feature large in a lot of the Yippie writings, hell, he wasn't even one of the Chicago Seven.

But, I can't rule it out, so thank you for finding that. 

Quote from: Triple Zero on December 08, 2008, 10:44:40 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on December 04, 2008, 03:09:46 PM
There are lots of murders in the US because, as a society, we tend to be spoiled and selfish. Murder often appears to have one of these as a underlying cause, IMO.

more spoiled and selfish than those other places? really?

No.  It just gets more coverage.  I really think this "The US is worser than everyone else" is pissing up a flagpole.  I'm not saying the US citizenry doesn't have its faults, it certainly does.  But it seems ridiculous to think all of the other tribes of monkeys somehow are more insulated from the same penchants to suck and fail. 

This data makes it look almost as though the countries with the highest per capita rates of homicide are also countries with fairly active criminal organzations... so maybe it's the countries that have the most "murder business" in them have the highest rates of murder... and not that the citizens are somehow less evolved than countries that have fewer murder business interests operating in their boundaries?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21670/Crime-Statistics-Murders

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 05, 2008, 07:12:40 PM
So how would you change that? 

Have you seen The American Drug War:  The Last White Hope in America (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1033467/), RWHN?  I think it's a great statement to how the decriminalization of drugs in America is something that's actively worked against by corporate America (and hence Big Gov).

Not picking on you, Dude, just making conversation and introducing the movie.  It has very few suggestions (other than legalize pot and make profit/taxes) besides the de-criminalization of using drugs.

Quote from: Jenne on December 09, 2008, 03:26:44 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 05, 2008, 07:12:40 PM
So how would you change that? 

Have you seen The American Drug War:  The Last White Hope in America (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1033467/), RWHN?  I think it's a great statement to how the decriminalization of drugs in America is something that's actively worked against by corporate America (and hence Big Gov).

Not picking on you, Dude, just making conversation and introducing the movie.  It has very few suggestions (other than legalize pot and make profit/taxes) besides the de-criminalization of using drugs.

Can't say that I have.  But, I will look into it, sounds interesting.  I have no doubts that there are corporate interests at play agains the decriminalization of drugs, particularily marijuana.  I'm sure there are pharmaceutical companies worried that it might supplant some of their products in terms of pain management.  The tobacco industry is also probably somewhat resistant, though I would think if marijuana were legal, they'd look to incorporate it into their products. 

My angle with substance use, of course, focuses primarily on adolescents.  If I could somehow magically be assured that legalizing pot for adults would not impact adolescents, I'd have no issues with it.  Adults should, in theory, be able to make adult decisions.  But, my experience gives me the tingling sensation that eliminating the legal barrier to marijuana, for adults, will make it even easier for kids to get.

I know, I know, it's already crazy easy for a kid to get pot if he/she wants it.  But the fact is, the legal barrier DOES keep some kids from trying pot.  So, I guess, in my mind, I'd like to protect those kids for as long as possible. 

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 09, 2008, 05:00:55 PM

Quote from: Jenne on December 09, 2008, 03:26:44 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 05, 2008, 07:12:40 PM
So how would you change that? 

Have you seen The American Drug War:  The Last White Hope in America (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1033467/), RWHN?  I think it's a great statement to how the decriminalization of drugs in America is something that's actively worked against by corporate America (and hence Big Gov).

Not picking on you, Dude, just making conversation and introducing the movie.  It has very few suggestions (other than legalize pot and make profit/taxes) besides the de-criminalization of using drugs.

Can't say that I have.  But, I will look into it, sounds interesting.  I have no doubts that there are corporate interests at play agains the decriminalization of drugs, particularily marijuana.  I'm sure there are pharmaceutical companies worried that it might supplant some of their products in terms of pain management.  The tobacco industry is also probably somewhat resistant, though I would think if marijuana were legal, they'd look to incorporate it into their products. 

My angle with substance use, of course, focuses primarily on adolescents.  If I could somehow magically be assured that legalizing pot for adults would not impact adolescents, I'd have no issues with it.  Adults should, in theory, be able to make adult decisions.  But, my experience gives me the tingling sensation that eliminating the legal barrier to marijuana, for adults, will make it even easier for kids to get.

I know, I know, it's already crazy easy for a kid to get pot if he/she wants it.  But the fact is, the legal barrier DOES keep some kids from trying pot.  So, I guess, in my mind, I'd like to protect those kids for as long as possible. 

I know how easily statistics can be manipulated, but I thought that a recent WHO study found that 20some% of teens in Amsterdam smoked while 40some% of teens in the US smoked.

How much credence do you give to the argument that most kids try it or abuse it because its illegal?

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 09, 2008, 05:00:55 PM

Quote from: Jenne on December 09, 2008, 03:26:44 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 05, 2008, 07:12:40 PM
So how would you change that? 

Have you seen The American Drug War:  The Last White Hope in America (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1033467/), RWHN?  I think it's a great statement to how the decriminalization of drugs in America is something that's actively worked against by corporate America (and hence Big Gov).

Not picking on you, Dude, just making conversation and introducing the movie.  It has very few suggestions (other than legalize pot and make profit/taxes) besides the de-criminalization of using drugs.

Can't say that I have.  But, I will look into it, sounds interesting.  I have no doubts that there are corporate interests at play agains the decriminalization of drugs, particularily marijuana.  I'm sure there are pharmaceutical companies worried that it might supplant some of their products in terms of pain management.  The tobacco industry is also probably somewhat resistant, though I would think if marijuana were legal, they'd look to incorporate it into their products. 

My angle with substance use, of course, focuses primarily on adolescents.  If I could somehow magically be assured that legalizing pot for adults would not impact adolescents, I'd have no issues with it.  Adults should, in theory, be able to make adult decisions.  But, my experience gives me the tingling sensation that eliminating the legal barrier to marijuana, for adults, will make it even easier for kids to get.

I know, I know, it's already crazy easy for a kid to get pot if he/she wants it.  But the fact is, the legal barrier DOES keep some kids from trying pot.  So, I guess, in my mind, I'd like to protect those kids for as long as possible. 

I tend to agree about the adolescent drug use, I'm wondering after seeing this documentary if de-criminalizing it would make the numbers go up or down.  Rata's assertion about Amsterdam teens is a valid one, but comparing us to the Dutch is a stretch when you take into account American hang ups with drug use in general.

One thing that struck me was how the Dutch treat ALL drugs--anyone who does ANYTHING to excess is a junkie--whether that be tobacco, alcohol OR drugs of any kind.  Very interesting take.

Anyway, it's worth a looksee, to see how manipulatable we are as a society, and how the population in general is controlled through PRIVATE prisons vis a vis illegal drug use.  It's very disgusting, really...where kids come into the mix is probably somewhere down the line from solving the domestic violence and poverty issue...

Quote from: Ratatosk on December 09, 2008, 05:13:23 PM
I know how easily statistics can be manipulated, but I thought that a recent WHO study found that 20some% of teens in Amsterdam smoked while 40some% of teens in the US smoked.

How much credence do you give to the argument that most kids try it or abuse it because its illegal?

What question was asked?  Typically, when we evaluate substance use we will ask if they have ever used, and if so how many times they have used.  And then we will ask if they'ev used in the past 30 days, past week.  That way you can "weed" out the experimenters from the regular users.  

As far as using it because it is illegal.  Of course some will experiment with it out of some form of rebellion.  Teens by their nature are risk-takers, of course.  However, I believe there is a firmer link between availability and use.  Just look at the recent trend in Rx drug abuse.  A lot of that comes from kids raiding Grandma's medicine cabinet, or sneaking a couple of pills out of their Mom's bottle of pain meds, or snagging a couple of pills from a friend at school.  It's because it's there.  

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 09, 2008, 05:33:39 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on December 09, 2008, 05:13:23 PM
I know how easily statistics can be manipulated, but I thought that a recent WHO study found that 20some% of teens in Amsterdam smoked while 40some% of teens in the US smoked.

How much credence do you give to the argument that most kids try it or abuse it because its illegal?

What question was asked?  Typically, when we evaluate substance use we will ask if they have ever used, and if so how many times they have used.  And then we will ask if they'ev used in the past 30 days, past week.  That way you can "weed" out the experimenters from the regular users.  

As far as using it because it is illegal.  Of course some will experiment with it out of some form of rebellion.  Teens by their nature are risk-takers, of course.  However, I believe there is a firmer link between availability and use.  Just look at the recent trend in Rx drug abuse.  A lot of that comes from kids raiding Grandma's medicine cabinet, or sneaking a couple of pills out of their Mom's bottle of pain meds, or snagging a couple of pills from a friend at school.  It's because it's there.  

What's the stats on poor kids in jail for drug use and richer kids, I'm wondering?  This documentary seemed to focus on the prevalence of minority kids stuck in the poverty/gang/drug rut and not the prescription drug route (which I have always seen typified as the white, suburban one).

Quote from: Jenne on December 09, 2008, 05:40:03 PM
What's the stats on poor kids in jail for drug use and richer kids, I'm wondering?  This documentary seemed to focus on the prevalence of minority kids stuck in the poverty/gang/drug rut and not the prescription drug route (which I have always seen typified as the white, suburban one).

It's hard to gauge here in Maine because we are mostly white (whitest state in the US) and mostly poor.  However, we do have a drug court system here in Maine, and a fairly strong and active one in the two most populated counties of the state.  Generally, if they aren't a violent offender, or have some other long rap sheet, the judges will work to find some alternative to jail time.  So, some poor kid caught with a joint or two isn't going to end up in jail.  He will be offered a chance to go through the drug court system.  Typically, what that entails is some community service and treatment.  And the great thing in our state is that we have a pot of money (for now) from which kids with no insurance can dip into to get treatment. 

Of course, a kid can always refuse that option, but the drug courts will really work hard to avoid that outcome.  I think this is a model that can actually work to improve the "War on Drugs".  I firmly believe the answer is using law enforcement and the justice system in a positive and constructive manner to get kids help and get them back on track. 

As for the rich kids, it's interesting.  I did a focus group with some people in one of the county jails.  I asked them about rich vs. poor, and basically the sentiment was, "Well the rich kids can afford the good stuff." 

I asked them about rich vs. poor, and basically the sentiment was, "Well the rich kids can afford the good stuff." 

TROOF, Nugget is almost 3x as expensive as middies these days... if you can even find it.

Stupid War on Drugs, propping up the drugdealer/industrial complex!

Yeah but that would exist if drugs were legal too.

It would be like MP3 players.

The rich kids can afford the IPODS, the poor kids are stuck with some Audiovox piece of shit. 

I also have to say, of all the schools I work with, the one that has one of the worst drug and alcohol problems right now, is also the one located in one of the richest towns of the state.  though, to be fair, one of the other schools with a big problem is in a dirt poor area where everyone is bused in from two towns over. 

I think kids and drugs are like kids and sex--education about consequences and letting them know someone out there gives a flying fuck about what they are doing to themselves and each other goes a long way to preventing dumb mistakes they  make at this age.  Be that as it may..."The War on Drugs" is a joke once you find out how much war actually brought drugs here, through the CIA, through the police channels.  The justice system is now beholden to these private jailing companies (like Wakenhut), so I don't trust it within an inch of my life.

But then once in a while you get a libertarian judge like the guy in Orange County, CA who believes that jailing drug offenders just creates more crime and doesn't solve anything but overcrowds our jails.

The War on Drugs is creating the unsafe and disgusting scenario that the CA jail and prison system is currently listing under.  It sways from side to side with its burden of millions that it simply cannot hold without people dying of sepsis.  The usual tactic is to farm the prisoners out to the private jails, who spend less money on them than the state and federal systems do, but no one complains because of the dividends.

Marijuana usage is the sad tragedy in this horrormirthy dilemma--as it's classified in a completely political manner and has no real evil attached to it other than the "gateway" bullshit--I call bullshit because really, the most dangerous gateway is whatever your parents are using.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 09, 2008, 07:08:08 PM
Yeah but that would exist if drugs were legal too.

It would be like MP3 players.

The rich kids can afford the IPODS, the poor kids are stuck with some Audiovox piece of shit. 

I also have to say, of all the schools I work with, the one that has one of the worst drug and alcohol problems right now, is also the one located in one of the richest towns of the state.  though, to be fair, one of the other schools with a big problem is in a dirt poor area where everyone is bused in from two towns over. 

Well, if it weren't illegal the poor kids could grow their own (the new LED panels make it cheap)
:lulz:

I'm not surprised that the rich kids and poor kids almost equally have issues, I'd be interested to see if there's a noted preference based on family income (pot vs E vs LSD vs Cocaine vs Meth etc). That is, are they hitting the same stuff, just differentiated in quality, or are they on completely different drugs?

I bet that depends on a lot of factors, Rata--like what's available in each environment (as in, in So Cal, we get a lot of Mexican Pot) and what the price ceiling would be due to socio-economic strata.

Quote from: BAWHEED on December 09, 2008, 01:16:46 PM
I hadn't heard that before, it's something to chew on.  However, saying it much after the fact doesn't lend it a ton of credit for me... I still can't find a contemporary source for the name.  As cool as Krassner is (and was) he doesn't seem to feature large in a lot of the Yippie writings, hell, he wasn't even one of the Chicago Seven.

But, I can't rule it out, so thank you for finding that. 

No problem.

I think you're right for the most part, that YIP was very different from hippie culture in important ways. But, if they all did agree to the "Yippie" name, as it does seem, then they shot themselves in the foot. The idea was probably to make themselves look less threatening and to benefit from the growing popularity of the hippies at the time.

Quite true.  Probably very few of them stopped to consider what the term "hippie" might represent 40 years later.

Well, and to be honest, even the Hippie movement wasn't just unwashed angsty teens that were stoned and having sex while fighting the man...
:lulz:

ok I couldn't say that with a straight face!


However, at the time, the Hippie movement had some real emotional content... it was a very suductive meme and one the YIP probably thought it could ride in on. However well it might have worked then, its got an opposite effect (based on the meme) today. Interesting.

I would think it was also a way of co-opting the media's idea of hippies with their own agenda... by using the name "Yippie" they sounds less threatening, and in some ways are (Pigasus), but in some ways are more threatening as well... at some points there weren't a lot of differences between what the Yippies were preaching from what the Weathermen were preaching.

Quote from: Ratatosk on December 09, 2008, 05:13:23 PMI know how easily statistics can be manipulated, but I thought that a recent WHO study found that 20some% of teens in Amsterdam smoked while 40some% of teens in the US smoked.

just for reference, i'd like to point out kids from age 16 are allowed to drink alcohol in NL (like beer, but no "strong" liquor >20% until they're 18).

buying cannabis in a coffeeshop is not allowed before 18.

(and they're not allowed to get their drivers license until they're 18--not that that's relevant, probably)

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 09, 2008, 05:33:39 PMAs far as using it because it is illegal.  Of course some will experiment with it out of some form of rebellion.  Teens by their nature are risk-takers, of course.  However, I believe there is a firmer link between availability and use.  Just look at the recent trend in Rx drug abuse.  A lot of that comes from kids raiding Grandma's medicine cabinet, or sneaking a couple of pills out of their Mom's bottle of pain meds, or snagging a couple of pills from a friend at school.  It's because it's there.

and, sorry that i don't have any reference for this, but I'm pretty sure Rx abuse is way less in the netherlands (merely judging from the crazy stories i hear from the US--getting high on cough medicine, seriously? i couldnt believe it when i heard it first).

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 09, 2008, 05:33:39 PM

As far as using it because it is illegal.  Of course some will experiment with it out of some form of rebellion.  Teens by their nature are risk-takers, of course.  However, I believe there is a firmer link between availability and use.  Just look at the recent trend in Rx drug abuse.  A lot of that comes from kids raiding Grandma's medicine cabinet, or sneaking a couple of pills out of their Mom's bottle of pain meds, or snagging a couple of pills from a friend at school.  It's because it's there.  

There's something to that, but that's not the whole story.

If my memory serves me, when Netherlands made cannabis legal there was a temporary increase in usage. But, it quickly came down—and stayed lower than per capita usage in the US.

It seems to suggest that if it's suddenly widely available, people will try it out of curiosity and those that enjoy it will continue using it. 

I can dig up that reference if you want it.

there are cultural reasons why drug use varies between countries, too. we can't just assume that the current policies enforced by the countries' respective governments are solely responsible for the levels of drug use seen in those countries.

also, i don't understand why marijuana is supposed to be terrible when its effects are different but no worse than alcohol, which is not only socially acceptable but expected behavior. this is completely ridiculous. i also think that addiction should be treated like a disease, not a crime.

Quote from: vexati0n on December 10, 2008, 01:30:37 AM
also, i don't understand why marijuana is supposed to be terrible when its effects are different but no worse than alcohol, which is not only socially acceptable but expected behavior. this is completely ridiculous. i also think that addiction should be treated like a disease, not a crime.

It was classified during the Nixon years, when War on Drugs became the the war Nixon thought he could win.

So it was classified with LSD, etc. due to lack of general knowledge of the folks doing the classification. In other words:  no one knew how much money could be made off of it at the time, nor how "harmless" it really was.

Quote from: vexati0n on December 10, 2008, 01:30:37 AM
also, i don't understand why marijuana is supposed to be terrible when its effects are different but no worse than alcohol, which is not only socially acceptable but expected behavior. this is completely ridiculous. i also think that addiction should be treated like a disease, not a crime.

Well, for my side of things, addiction is treated like a disease, not a crime.  But also, there are elements in law enforcement and the legal system that are trying to do the same.  I mentioned the drug court system earlier, where first time or non-violent offenders are diverted and put into a situation where they can get treatment to avoid jail time.  And I will admit, it is a very stiff challenge when it comes to marijuana.  Because it is true that it doesn't have the dangerous effects that drugs like cocaine, meth, or heroin have.  However, I've seen where it can have bad enough effects on adolescents, that if we can somehow keep it out of a few of their hands, I truly believe it is worth keeping it illegal.  I know I and my colleagues can't save all of them, but, I think we can save a few of them.   

Quote from: Net on December 10, 2008, 01:07:51 AM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 09, 2008, 05:33:39 PM

As far as using it because it is illegal.  Of course some will experiment with it out of some form of rebellion.  Teens by their nature are risk-takers, of course.  However, I believe there is a firmer link between availability and use.  Just look at the recent trend in Rx drug abuse.  A lot of that comes from kids raiding Grandma's medicine cabinet, or sneaking a couple of pills out of their Mom's bottle of pain meds, or snagging a couple of pills from a friend at school.  It's because it's there.  

There's something to that, but that's not the whole story.

If my memory serves me, when Netherlands made cannabis legal there was a temporary increase in usage. But, it quickly came down—and stayed lower than per capita usage in the US.

It seems to suggest that if it's suddenly widely available, people will try it out of curiosity and those that enjoy it will continue using it. 

I can dig up that reference if you want it.

Yes, but again, my charge is the prevention of substance abuse amongst adolescents, not adults.  It's the "those adolescents that enjoy it will continue using it" that I'm trying to prevent. 

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 10, 2008, 11:20:19 AM

Quote from: vexati0n on December 10, 2008, 01:30:37 AM
also, i don't understand why marijuana is supposed to be terrible when its effects are different but no worse than alcohol, which is not only socially acceptable but expected behavior. this is completely ridiculous. i also think that addiction should be treated like a disease, not a crime.

Well, for my side of things, addiction is treated like a disease, not a crime.  But also, there are elements in law enforcement and the legal system that are trying to do the same.  I mentioned the drug court system earlier, where first time or non-violent offenders are diverted and put into a situation where they can get treatment to avoid jail time.  And I will admit, it is a very stiff challenge when it comes to marijuana.  Because it is true that it doesn't have the dangerous effects that drugs like cocaine, meth, or heroin have.  However, I've seen where it can have bad enough effects on adolescents, that if we can somehow keep it out of a few of their hands, I truly believe it is worth keeping it illegal.  I know I and my colleagues can't save all of them, but, I think we can save a few of them.

so, according to that line of reasoning, the only reason why alcohol is not worth being made illegal is because it is currently legal, and i suppose too deeply engrained in our culture?

It would be a great waste of time and resources to make any kind of push to re-criminalize alcohol.  I know I certainly have no desire to do so.  Even if I wanted to (and I don't), there's no way THAT toothpaste is ever going back in the tube, whether it is right or wrong.  It's just not going to happen.  We are better served using that energy for prevention and treatment of addiction.  We spent a lot of time and energy for the last couple of years trying to get a tax on beer and liquor in my state to help fund a State-run insurance program.  Additionally, there is some research that suggests some consumption patterns are sensitive to price.  We've seen it with the hike in prices of cigarrettes.  The idea is that perhaps we could apply that model to alcohol.  In the end, the tax was passed but then this past election a referendum was put up to repeal that tax, and it passed.  So, all that time spent, for nothing. 

So, RWHN, what I'm reading from you here is that lives that have been disrupted and destroyed due to an overbearing government and its moral-crusader drug laws are somehow less valuable than the relatively few lives that have been disrupted and destroyed due to marijuana use.

I commend any sentiment that seeks to protect youth from the follies of addiction and chemical abuse. But I have to question the motives behind those who would rely on government intervention in private lives to try to solve problems. I have no doubt that you and the people you work with have the greater good in mind, and I appreciate everyone in my area who does the job that you do. But I still have to ask why drugs are such a high-profile problem. In my experience people will destroy themselves if they're going to, one way or another. Making something illegal doesn't even give them pause.

And if we were going to go around passing laws against everything that has resulted in damage to someone, we'd be pretty fucked. Why is it that more people are killed and maimed on the highway every year than in drug overdoses, but the transportation system isn't a "blight on society?"

Ultimately drug laws do nothing in the long-term to curb the appetite or demand for drugs. What they do very successfully however is to punish and harass people who don't fit in, and prohibit the use of something that is no different from anything else in that too much of it is a bad thing, while creating a wide-open foothold for the forces of totalitarianism into the private lives of anyone who might be a subversive element, whether they're addicts or not -- because I'm sure you've seen it the same as I have, people will assume that outcasts and non-joiners must be on something illegal to not want to fit in with the other homogenized zombies.

I have to agree with Vex. The current status of marijuana as a Class 1 substance has led to many, many lives being harmed. It may be that some kids would like to try marijuana, but don't due to its status as an illegal drug... However, it seems to me that the number is probably much smaller than the 872,721 people arrested for marijuana related charges in 2007 alone. Almost half of all drug arrests are now marijuana related... that's entirely insane and IMO its doing great harm to hundreds of thousands of people, and in some cases, their families as well.

I don't recommend that adolescents smoke pot. I think its a bad idea base don what I've seen happen to kids that smoke pot a lot... However, the current system in place seems far more focused on punishing everyone than helping kids.

Quote from: vexati0n on December 10, 2008, 04:13:22 PM
So, RWHN, what I'm reading from you here is that lives that have been disrupted and destroyed due to an overbearing government and its moral-crusader drug laws are somehow less valuable than the relatively few lives that have been disrupted and destroyed due to marijuana use.

No.  What I'm saying is that there needs to be reform in the law enforcement and legal system as relates to drugs.  Again I point to the Drug Court system which has been very successful in my state.  That model seeks to avoid just tossing someone in jail.  It seeks to help that person get help.  But, I am also saying, while pursuing that kind of reform, we don't want to lift barriers that are already in place.  

Let's say you have a dammed river that you want to reroute.  Would you blow up the dam before you dug out the new river bed?  

There are solutions to the problems, but decriminalizing drugs, in my experience, is not going to help at all.  

QuoteI commend any sentiment that seeks to protect youth from the follies of addiction and chemical abuse. But I have to question the motives behind those who would rely on government intervention in private lives to try to solve problems. I have no doubt that you and the people you work with have the greater good in mind, and I appreciate everyone in my area who does the job that you do. But I still have to ask why drugs are such a high-profile problem. In my experience people will destroy themselves if they're going to, one way or another. Making something illegal doesn't even give them pause.

But, they will destroy themselves much faster if there are fewer barriers.  Again, the goal isn't the eradication of drug abuse.  Nobody in my field, with their heads screwed on straight, is naive enough to think we can do that.  It's about doing what we can for who we can.  

QuoteAnd if we were going to go around passing laws against everything that has resulted in damage to someone, we'd be pretty fucked. Why is it that more people are killed and maimed on the highway every year than in drug overdoses, but the transportation system isn't a "blight on society?"

In my work, we aren't interested in labelling anyone as "blights on society".  Indeed, it would be more helpful to us if there was less stigma attached to addiction.  Because more people would be more willing to seek out treatment.  We don't see "bad" people.  We see people who need help.  

QuoteUltimately drug laws do nothing in the long-term to curb the appetite or demand for drugs. What they do very successfully however is to punish and harass people who don't fit in, and prohibit the use of something that is no different from anything else in that too much of it is a bad thing, while creating a wide-open foothold for the forces of totalitarianism into the private lives of anyone who might be a subversive element, whether they're addicts or not -- because I'm sure you've seen it the same as I have, people will assume that outcasts and non-joiners must be on something illegal to not want to fit in with the other homogenized zombies.

No, and that isn't law enforcements function.  The "War on Drugs" in my mind, is most useful solely focusing on the supply chain.  Obviously they can never eradicate drugs from America.  Will never happen.  The truth of the matter is, the law enforcement people I know and work with, aren't hell bent on throwing every person who's smoked a joint in jail.  They are stretched thin as it is and have other serious ailments in society to combat.  Many of them have the same goal as people like me have.  Get people who need help to help.  They don't want casual users and non-distributors clogging up the jails and judicial system any more than we do.  

Quote from: Ratatosk on December 10, 2008, 04:34:50 PM
I have to agree with Vex. The current status of marijuana as a Class 1 substance has led to many, many lives being harmed. It may be that some kids would like to try marijuana, but don't due to its status as an illegal drug... However, it seems to me that the number is probably much smaller than the 872,721 people arrested for marijuana related charges in 2007 alone. Almost half of all drug arrests are now marijuana related... that's entirely insane and IMO its doing great harm to hundreds of thousands of people, and in some cases, their families as well.

arrested =/= jail time

QuoteI don't recommend that adolescents smoke pot. I think its a bad idea base don what I've seen happen to kids that smoke pot a lot... However, the current system in place seems far more focused on punishing everyone than helping kids.

Parts of the system seem far more focused on punishing....

It's unfortunate that there are the stereotypes that Vex pointed out with certain kids, the assumption that they must be on something.  There, unfortunately, are also unhelpful stereotypes placed upon those involved in the effort to combat drugs and drug abuse.  That we are all killjoys hellbent on taking everyone's fun away.  That we are part of one massive Big Brother movement.  And it's completely false.  Yes, there are elements that go too far.  There are elements that focus too much on punishment.  But it is only one part of the movement and effort.  There are many, many of us, including many in law enforcement and the legal system, seeking constructive ways to help turn lives around that doesn't involve throwing someone in a prison cell and throwing away the key. 

QuoteNo.  What I'm saying is that there needs to be reform in the law enforcement and legal system as relates to drugs.  Again I point to the Drug Court system which has been very successful in my state.  That model seeks to avoid just tossing someone in jail.  It seeks to help that person get help.

Help? What sort of help? Why does a person arrested for marijuana possession NEED help? (teens yes, adults...?)

QuoteThere are solutions to the problems, but decriminalizing drugs, in my experience, is not going to help at all.  

Can you elaborate on that, which drugs have been decriminalized that you've had to deal with, how did it affect kids etc?

Quotethey will destroy themselves much faster if there are fewer barriers.

What do you base this claim on?

QuoteWe don't see "bad" people.  We see people who need help.  

Why? Maybe a kid that's run from reality and is hiding out in stonerville, needs some help, but most of the people affected by the marijuana laws aren't kids, they're adults that choose to smoke pot... why do they 'need help'?

The point is, if marijuana is illegal, then there will be punishment etc... cause that's what illegal means. If it werre legal and regulated, then you could deal with kids in the same manner we do with kids that drink alcohol. As long as its illegal, asshole cops (the random cop, not particularly one that's working specificually for the Drug War) can arrest someone for possession and seriously fuck up their lives. I have a friend, an adult who had (as a kid) serious drug problems (meth) and had dropped out of school, etc etc.

He got clean, got a job, got a car and was doing pretty well. A cop in the small town he lives in, pulled him over and found a little bag of middies and a glass bowl. My friend spent 90 days in prison. He DIDN'T NEED HELP... he didn't have a problem. He did, once he got out, need help and had a problem, because he didn't have a job, he wasn't allowed to drive a car and thus... he hung out with his friends that had no jobs... within two weeks of leaving prison, he was smoking meth, because he had nothing better to do.

So, NOW, he has a serious problem and has had to go get help. He'd been clean for three years, just smoked pot after work etc. As long as pot is illegal this sort of bullshit will continue.

Quote from: Ratatosk on December 10, 2008, 05:05:55 PM

Help? What sort of help? Why does a person arrested for marijuana possession NEED help? (teens yes, adults...?)

Depends.  If an adult is found with marijuana, in an amount that indicates it's for personal use, and it is a first offense, I would hope that appropriate action is taken.  I would think that, at most, a person should face a fine and send him or her home with some literature about marijuana.  If it is one in a string of offenses, depending on severity, it probably is time for an evaluation or screening.  If the evaluation indicates some kind of substance abuse problem, then yes, that person probably does NEED help.  And a good provider will tailor that help according to the severity of the problem. 

Quote

QuoteThere are solutions to the problems, but decriminalizing drugs, in my experience, is not going to help at all.  

Can you elaborate on that, which drugs have been decriminalized that you've had to deal with, how did it affect kids etc?

It's all about supply and access.  Decriminalizing will lead to more ease of access.  Yeah, I know, it's already very easy to get.  But it will be that much easier if it is legal.  Haven't I already explained this? 

Quote

Quotethey will destroy themselves much faster if there are fewer barriers.

What do you base this claim on?

First hand accounts from current and former drug users. 

Quote

QuoteWe don't see "bad" people.  We see people who need help.  

Why? Maybe a kid that's run from reality and is hiding out in stonerville, needs some help, but most of the people affected by the marijuana laws aren't kids, they're adults that choose to smoke pot... why do they 'need help'?

Not all do.  But a significant amount of them will. 

QuoteThe point is, if marijuana is illegal, then there will be punishment etc... cause that's what illegal means. If it werre legal and regulated, then you could deal with kids in the same manner we do with kids that drink alcohol. As long as its illegal, asshole cops (the random cop, not particularly one that's working specificually for the Drug War) can arrest someone for possession and seriously fuck up their lives. I have a friend, an adult who had (as a kid) serious drug problems (meth) and had dropped out of school, etc etc.

He got clean, got a job, got a car and was doing pretty well. A cop in the small town he lives in, pulled him over and found a little bag of middies and a glass bowl. My friend spent 90 days in prison. He DIDN'T NEED HELP... he didn't have a problem. He did, once he got out, need help and had a problem, because he didn't have a job, he wasn't allowed to drive a car and thus... he hung out with his friends that had no jobs... within two weeks of leaving prison, he was smoking meth, because he had nothing better to do.

So, NOW, he has a serious problem and has had to go get help. He'd been clean for three years, just smoked pot after work etc. As long as pot is illegal this sort of bullshit will continue.

I would argue, that as awful as that scenario is, it is an example of a need for law enforcement reform in that town, county, or state, depending on how pervasive that sort of tact is.  Law Enforcement is always susceptible of being an asshole about any law or regulation.  Just look at that example of the State Trooper in Mass that ticketed a husband driving in the breakdown lane because his wife was pregnant.  yeah, technically that is illegal, and for good reason.  But those in law enforcement still have discretion.  So I would argue the issue is with discretion, not the law. 

I think the problem is about 20% people who go to far with their drug use and 80% the ridiculous mindset that drugs, in general, are 'bad' and 'a problem that needs to be solved.' If you want to help individual addicts recover from their affliction, that's awesome, and it is a job that needs to be done. But it should have nothing to do with larger question of why exactly we feel like we need to forcefeed people this nonsensical idea that drugs are inherently a problem and that they can only result in sadness. Sure, they can result in sadness, but they also result in lots of other stuff, including some fairly large advances in even the mainstream understanding of the human mind, the human condition, communication, and other useful things, and that isn't even getting into the works of art that have been created under the influence of these allegedly "terrible" substances.

Drugs are a tool, like anything else. We don't go around prohibiting jackhammers every time some dunce smashes his foot with one, do we? Why are drugs any different? As I see it, it isn't because of the harm they do to individuals, it's because they appeal to and encourage those people who have no use for the "dominant paradigm" of society. Our cultural abhorrence of "illicit" drugs is solely a function of our collective disdain for anyone who doesn't think like us, and the "War on Drugs" is nothing but an overgrown, badly-managed, inconsiderate, tyrannical cultural translation of the Spanish Inquisition, seeking not to repair any damage done to society but to prevent the diversification of ideas because such diversification is dangerous to the Status Quo.

I'm not saying you are in on this, RWHN, but it seems like you have a vague alliance with the mindset that says "drugs are bad, mmkay?" just because people sometimes go too far with them. Mind-altering substances, in my own opinion, offer an too great an opportunity to explore meaningful avenues of thought, to simply write them off as inherently and universally "bad." Plus, they're a lot more affordable than a vacation.

Quote from: vexati0n on December 10, 2008, 06:07:52 PM
I think the problem is about 20% people who go to far with their drug use and 80% the ridiculous mindset that drugs, in general, are 'bad' and 'a problem that needs to be solved.' If you want to help individual addicts recover from their affliction, that's awesome, and it is a job that needs to be done. But it should have nothing to do with larger question of why exactly we feel like we need to forcefeed people this nonsensical idea that drugs are inherently a problem and that they can only result in sadness. Sure, they can result in sadness, but they also result in lots of other stuff, including some fairly large advances in even the mainstream understanding of the human mind, the human condition, communication, and other useful things, and that isn't even getting into the works of art that have been created under the influence of these allegedly "terrible" substances.

Drugs are a tool, like anything else. We don't go around prohibiting jackhammers every time some dunce smashes his foot with one, do we? Why are drugs any different? As I see it, it isn't because of the harm they do to individuals, it's because they appeal to and encourage those people who have no use for the "dominant paradigm" of society. Our cultural abhorrence of "illicit" drugs is solely a function of our collective disdain for anyone who doesn't think like us, and the "War on Drugs" is nothing but an overgrown, badly-managed, inconsiderate, tyrannical cultural translation of the Spanish Inquisition, seeking not to repair any damage done to society but to prevent the diversification of ideas because such diversification is dangerous to the Status Quo.

I'm not saying you are in on this, RWHN, but it seems like you have a vague alliance with the mindset that says "drugs are bad, mmkay?" just because people sometimes go too far with them. Mind-altering substances, in my own opinion, offer an too great an opportunity to explore meaningful avenues of thought, to simply write them off as inherently and universally "bad." Plus, they're a lot more affordable than a vacation.

I agree Vex, well said.

If a person needs help, help should be available... but an argument that the drug war is successfully preemptive seems false to me. Also, I think Vex may have a point on the "drugs are bad m'kay" mindset.

Quote from: vexati0n on December 10, 2008, 06:07:52 PM
I think the problem is about 20% people who go to far with their drug use and 80% the ridiculous mindset that drugs, in general, are 'bad' and 'a problem that needs to be solved.' If you want to help individual addicts recover from their affliction, that's awesome, and it is a job that needs to be done. But it should have nothing to do with larger question of why exactly we feel like we need to forcefeed people this nonsensical idea that drugs are inherently a problem and that they can only result in sadness. Sure, they can result in sadness, but they also result in lots of other stuff, including some fairly large advances in even the mainstream understanding of the human mind, the human condition, communication, and other useful things, and that isn't even getting into the works of art that have been created under the influence of these allegedly "terrible" substances.

Drug addiction IS inherently a problem and it does only result in sadness, until it is treated.  And many of those former drug addicts will get cleaned up and join the cause.  I work with many of them myself.  And, I would argue that far more has been learned about the brain and brain development in the name of trying to better understand and treat drug addiction as compared to any advancement in understanding the brain from being under the influence.  It's largely thanks to the research into drug addiction and other mental health related issues that we've discovered that the brain doesn't stop developing at 18, it indeed continues to develop into 25 and beyond. 

QuoteDrugs are a tool, like anything else. We don't go around prohibiting jackhammers every time some dunce smashes his foot with one, do we? Why are drugs any different? As I see it, it isn't because of the harm they do to individuals, it's because they appeal to and encourage those people who have no use for the "dominant paradigm" of society. Our cultural abhorrence of "illicit" drugs is solely a function of our collective disdain for anyone who doesn't think like us, and the "War on Drugs" is nothing but an overgrown, badly-managed, inconsiderate, tyrannical cultural translation of the Spanish Inquisition, seeking not to repair any damage done to society but to prevent the diversification of ideas because such diversification is dangerous to the Status Quo.

The reason for the abhorrence of illicit drugs is actually much more varied then you acknowledge.  Ask the parents of an adolescent or young adult who is hooked on drugs why they hate drugs.  I can assure you it has nothing to do with the statement you made.  It wasn't because it encouraged that person to be apart from the dominant paradigm.  It was because, it made them a totally different person who seemed to be tuning out everything but the drugs. 

Yes, the drugs themselves are not "bad".  Just like the jackhammer itself is not "bad".  Obviously.  But how many 15 year olds steal money from their Dads so they can go buy a jackhammer to play with? 

And yeah, maybe there are some in the "War on Drugs" who are in it because they have that "Hey kid, get off my lawn" mentality.  But it is a gross generalization to throw all of us working to prevent substance abuse into that category. 

QuoteI'm not saying you are in on this, RWHN, but it seems like you have a vague alliance with the mindset that says "drugs are bad, mmkay?" just because people sometimes go too far with them. Mind-altering substances, in my own opinion, offer an too great an opportunity to explore meaningful avenues of thought, to simply write them off as inherently and universally "bad." Plus, they're a lot more affordable than a vacation.

My personal opinion of drugs, as relates to the appeal of whether or not I would do them, is that they are what has been referred to on this board in the past as "False Slack".  I personally don't believe they offer me any gateways into thought that I can't access without them.  But, that is the opinion on drugs as relates to what RWHN does for RWHN. 

Professionally, the drugs themselves aren't "bad".  The drug addict is not "bad"  But, the drug addict is not a drug addict without the drugs. 

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 10, 2008, 06:41:04 PM

Quote from: vexati0n on December 10, 2008, 06:07:52 PM
I think the problem is about 20% people who go to far with their drug use and 80% the ridiculous mindset that drugs, in general, are 'bad' and 'a problem that needs to be solved.' If you want to help individual addicts recover from their affliction, that's awesome, and it is a job that needs to be done. But it should have nothing to do with larger question of why exactly we feel like we need to forcefeed people this nonsensical idea that drugs are inherently a problem and that they can only result in sadness. Sure, they can result in sadness, but they also result in lots of other stuff, including some fairly large advances in even the mainstream understanding of the human mind, the human condition, communication, and other useful things, and that isn't even getting into the works of art that have been created under the influence of these allegedly "terrible" substances.

Drug addiction IS inherently a problem and it does only result in sadness, until it is treated.  And many of those former drug addicts will get cleaned up and join the cause.  I work with many of them myself.  And, I would argue that far more has been learned about the brain and brain development in the name of trying to better understand and treat drug addiction as compared to any advancement in understanding the brain from being under the influence.  It's largely thanks to the research into drug addiction and other mental health related issues that we've discovered that the brain doesn't stop developing at 18, it indeed continues to develop into 25 and beyond. 

QuoteDrugs are a tool, like anything else. We don't go around prohibiting jackhammers every time some dunce smashes his foot with one, do we? Why are drugs any different? As I see it, it isn't because of the harm they do to individuals, it's because they appeal to and encourage those people who have no use for the "dominant paradigm" of society. Our cultural abhorrence of "illicit" drugs is solely a function of our collective disdain for anyone who doesn't think like us, and the "War on Drugs" is nothing but an overgrown, badly-managed, inconsiderate, tyrannical cultural translation of the Spanish Inquisition, seeking not to repair any damage done to society but to prevent the diversification of ideas because such diversification is dangerous to the Status Quo.

The reason for the abhorrence of illicit drugs is actually much more varied then you acknowledge.  Ask the parents of an adolescent or young adult who is hooked on drugs why they hate drugs.  I can assure you it has nothing to do with the statement you made.  It wasn't because it encouraged that person to be apart from the dominant paradigm.  It was because, it made them a totally different person who seemed to be tuning out everything but the drugs. 

Yes, the drugs themselves are not "bad".  Just like the jackhammer itself is not "bad".  Obviously.  But how many 15 year olds steal money from their Dads so they can go buy a jackhammer to play with? 

And yeah, maybe there are some in the "War on Drugs" who are in it because they have that "Hey kid, get off my lawn" mentality.  But it is a gross generalization to throw all of us working to prevent substance abuse into that category. 

QuoteI'm not saying you are in on this, RWHN, but it seems like you have a vague alliance with the mindset that says "drugs are bad, mmkay?" just because people sometimes go too far with them. Mind-altering substances, in my own opinion, offer an too great an opportunity to explore meaningful avenues of thought, to simply write them off as inherently and universally "bad." Plus, they're a lot more affordable than a vacation.

My personal opinion of drugs, as relates to the appeal of whether or not I would do them, is that they are what has been referred to on this board in the past as "False Slack".  I personally don't believe they offer me any gateways into thought that I can't access without them.  But, that is the opinion on drugs as relates to what RWHN does for RWHN. 

Professionally, the drugs themselves aren't "bad".  The drug addict is not "bad"  But, the drug addict is not a drug addict without the drugs. 

I would agree that drug addiction is a problem... but are you claiming that people are addicted to marijuana?

Yes. 

And, I know where you are going next with this, so can we just skip to the part where we agree to disagree on the physical vs psychological dependency debate. 

I think RWHN's job precludes him from being of the mindset of "drugs are ok for minors, mmkay"...he works in what I call the "trenches" of the War on Drugs, and even though that's not his own schtick, the people he works for are interested in seeing drugs off the streets and out of the hands of  minors.  And possibly all illicit drugs out of the country altogether.

RWHN, I think Maine is lucky state with its justice system--if they truly look at drug abuse as a disease and not a criminal behavior, then your state should be used as a model to ease the turning of the tide that is now in trasition vis a vis legalizing pot use.  I know states like Arizona and Texas are far from that change, but I think the work you do is important in getting states like that to "see reason" about decriminalization of the user (if not the substance).

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 10, 2008, 07:14:14 PM
Yes. 

And, I know where you are going next with this, so can we just skip to the part where we agree to disagree on the physical vs psychological dependency debate. 

Ok, that's fine. Let's agree to disagree.

What about food, many children have had their lives ruined because they were psychologically addicted to food, ruining their social life, their physical well being and their waistband in their sweatpants. People addicted to food can die from it! Should we pass laws to govern it?

Maybe we should outlaw World of Warcraft and Second Life as well... lots of people seem psychologically addicted to those, also harming their health and social life.

Absurd, perhaps, but the whole argument that we should outlaw things because some people can't act responsibly seems absurd to me.


(Also, I would echo Jenne's comments, as I have in the past about you and your job ;-) )

Rat.  Stop.  RWHN was being nice about it.

It takes a very selfless person to work with troubled kids...and the lives RWHN touches are really going to be helped in immeasurable ways.  RWHN is heroic--he's not out there winning one for the bank balance, he's out there making people feel better and make better choices about themselves.   He puts his motherfucking money where his mouth his.

Dunno--I've always looked up to people like that.

Quote from: Jenne on December 10, 2008, 07:18:55 PM
I think RWHN's job precludes him from being of the mindset of "drugs are ok for minors, mmkay"...he works in what I call the "trenches" of the War on Drugs, and even though that's not his own schtick, the people he works for are interested in seeing drugs off the streets and out of the hands of  minors.  And possibly all illicit drugs out of the country altogether.

RWHN, I think Maine is lucky state with its justice system--if they truly look at drug abuse as a disease and not a criminal behavior, then your state should be used as a model to ease the turning of the tide that is now in trasition vis a vis legalizing pot use.  I know states like Arizona and Texas are far from that change, but I think the work you do is important in getting states like that to "see reason" about decriminalization of the user (if not the substance).

I think we are a pretty good model for that.  (we certainly aren't a good model for tax burdens, but that's another story)  And I'm really, really hoping the Attorney General who's been leading the charge runs for Gov. when Smeagol, I mean, Baldacci finishes his term.  I'd be lying if I said there weren't some in the State who are hellbent on the punishment angle of law enforcement.  The rest of us kind of tune out and roll our eyes when they start ranting and raving.  But, I think those of us who take a more rational approach have the right connections with the right people and organizations to move forward.  It's just a matter of the money being there to help us continue.  

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 10, 2008, 07:29:46 PM

Quote from: Jenne on December 10, 2008, 07:18:55 PM
I think RWHN's job precludes him from being of the mindset of "drugs are ok for minors, mmkay"...he works in what I call the "trenches" of the War on Drugs, and even though that's not his own schtick, the people he works for are interested in seeing drugs off the streets and out of the hands of  minors.  And possibly all illicit drugs out of the country altogether.

RWHN, I think Maine is lucky state with its justice system--if they truly look at drug abuse as a disease and not a criminal behavior, then your state should be used as a model to ease the turning of the tide that is now in trasition vis a vis legalizing pot use.  I know states like Arizona and Texas are far from that change, but I think the work you do is important in getting states like that to "see reason" about decriminalization of the user (if not the substance).

I think we are a pretty good model for that.  (we certainly aren't a good model for tax burdens, but that's another story)  And I'm really, really hoping the Attorney General who's been leading the charge runs for Gov. when Smeagol, I mean, Baldacci finishes his term.  I'd be lying if I said there weren't some in the State who are hellbent on the punishment angle of law enforcement.  The rest of us kind of tune out and roll our eyes when they start ranting and raving.  But, I think those of us who take a more rational approach have the right connections with the right people and organizations to move forward.  It's just a matter of the money being there to help us continue.  

GRANTS!  GRANTS!  :D  /beating almost-dead-horse... ;)

Quote from: Ratatosk on December 10, 2008, 07:23:31 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 10, 2008, 07:14:14 PM
Yes. 

And, I know where you are going next with this, so can we just skip to the part where we agree to disagree on the physical vs psychological dependency debate. 

Ok, that's fine. Let's agree to disagree.

What about food, many children have had their lives ruined because they were psychologically addicted to food, ruining their social life, their physical well being and their waistband in their sweatpants. People addicted to food can die from it! Should we pass laws to govern it?

Maybe we should outlaw World of Warcraft and Second Life as well... lots of people seem psychologically addicted to those, also harming their health and social life.

Absurd, perhaps, but the whole argument that we should outlaw things because some people can't act responsibly seems absurd to me.


(Also, I would echo Jenne's comments, as I have in the past about you and your job ;-) )

Not absurd, arbitrary.  I am a monkey afterall.  

Quote from: Jenne on December 10, 2008, 07:32:05 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 10, 2008, 07:29:46 PM

Quote from: Jenne on December 10, 2008, 07:18:55 PM
I think RWHN's job precludes him from being of the mindset of "drugs are ok for minors, mmkay"...he works in what I call the "trenches" of the War on Drugs, and even though that's not his own schtick, the people he works for are interested in seeing drugs off the streets and out of the hands of  minors.  And possibly all illicit drugs out of the country altogether.

RWHN, I think Maine is lucky state with its justice system--if they truly look at drug abuse as a disease and not a criminal behavior, then your state should be used as a model to ease the turning of the tide that is now in trasition vis a vis legalizing pot use.  I know states like Arizona and Texas are far from that change, but I think the work you do is important in getting states like that to "see reason" about decriminalization of the user (if not the substance).

I think we are a pretty good model for that.  (we certainly aren't a good model for tax burdens, but that's another story)  And I'm really, really hoping the Attorney General who's been leading the charge runs for Gov. when Smeagol, I mean, Baldacci finishes his term.  I'd be lying if I said there weren't some in the State who are hellbent on the punishment angle of law enforcement.  The rest of us kind of tune out and roll our eyes when they start ranting and raving.  But, I think those of us who take a more rational approach have the right connections with the right people and organizations to move forward.  It's just a matter of the money being there to help us continue.  

GRANTS!  GRANTS!  :D  /beating almost-dead-horse... ;)

Actually, we just procured a little bit of funding for me to do some evaluation work for some programs being run in the big city.  It's chump change, but if we find some more chump change I'll still have a job. 

Quote from: Jenne on December 10, 2008, 07:29:46 PM
It takes a very selfless person to work with troubled kids...and the lives RWHN touches are really going to be helped in immeasurable ways.  RWHN is heroic--he's not out there winning one for the bank balance, he's out there making people feel better and make better choices about themselves.   He puts his motherfucking money where his mouth his.

Dunno--I've always looked up to people like that.

Okay, okay, not that I don't appreciate the kind words, I really do.  I'm not sure that I'm "heroic" though.  I'm just doing what I do and hope it does something.   

btw, apologies to Vex for my part in taking this thread to jack-land.  Perhaps the drug debate should be excised and placed elsewhere. 

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 10, 2008, 07:36:14 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on December 10, 2008, 07:23:31 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 10, 2008, 07:14:14 PM
Yes. 

And, I know where you are going next with this, so can we just skip to the part where we agree to disagree on the physical vs psychological dependency debate. 

Ok, that's fine. Let's agree to disagree.

What about food, many children have had their lives ruined because they were psychologically addicted to food, ruining their social life, their physical well being and their waistband in their sweatpants. People addicted to food can die from it! Should we pass laws to govern it?

Maybe we should outlaw World of Warcraft and Second Life as well... lots of people seem psychologically addicted to those, also harming their health and social life.

Absurd, perhaps, but the whole argument that we should outlaw things because some people can't act responsibly seems absurd to me.


(Also, I would echo Jenne's comments, as I have in the past about you and your job ;-) )

Not absurd, arbitrary.  I am a monkey afterall.  

:lulz:

Well, this went from an interesting discussion to something closer to jumping on RWHN's choice of careers... which I really have no desire to do, so I'm backing out of this particular line of discussion.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 10, 2008, 07:42:36 PM

Quote from: Jenne on December 10, 2008, 07:29:46 PM
It takes a very selfless person to work with troubled kids...and the lives RWHN touches are really going to be helped in immeasurable ways.  RWHN is heroic--he's not out there winning one for the bank balance, he's out there making people feel better and make better choices about themselves.   He puts his motherfucking money where his mouth his.

Dunno--I've always looked up to people like that.

Okay, okay, not that I don't appreciate the kind words, I really do.  I'm not sure that I'm "heroic" though.  I'm just doing what I do and hope it does something.   

K.  ;)

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 10, 2008, 07:51:42 PM
btw, apologies to Vex for my part in taking this thread to jack-land.  Perhaps the drug debate should be excised and placed elsewhere. 

Mine, too.  I are an instigator.

(http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/trying-to-build-a-personal-stargate-isnt-normanl-but-on-meth-it-is-375x500.jpg)






(http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/spider-man-doing-meth-isnt-normal-but-on-meth-it-is.jpg)

Sorry to be  :deadhorse:  but these statistics are flooring me!  Land o' the Free?  Home o' the friggin' brave? 

http://usgovinfo.about.com/lr/us_prison_population/30329/1/

1 Out Of 32 Americans Under Correctional Supervision
6.7 Million in prison, on parole or probation
By Robert Longley, About.com

"While 1 out of every 142 Americans is now actually in prison, 1 out of every 32 of us is either in prison or on parole from prison, according to yet another report on Americans behaving badly from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

This means that 6.7 million adult men and women -- about 3.1 percent of the total U.S. adult population -- are now very non-voluntary members of America's "correctional community."

Actually, they volunteered when they broke the law. 

I think it's an indicator that there are too many laws. Most people I know are guilty of breaking a few laws, and usually it's because a lot of laws are stupid. There's also the matter of unjust laws, which the people have no moral imperative to obey in the first place. Laws prohibiting activities that are either not especially dangerous or not especially costly to society have no useful purpose except to fill prisons, and there is no good reason to obey them.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 29, 2008, 02:18:41 PM
Actually, they volunteered when they broke the law. 

If a man or woman does not agree to live by a set of laws, how is breaking the law, volunteering for 'correctional' help? Seems to me, that its a question of the slave obeying the master, or getting beaten. We could say that the slave volunteered to get beaten when he said "Non Serviam", but it seems misleading to me....

Speed Limit is 55, I drive 80.  It is certain that if I get caught going 25 over the speed limit I'll be pulled over and given a ticket.  Sure, maybe I believe going 80 on that stretch of road is perfectly safe and should be allowed.  But the law is the law.  By speeding I have opened myself up to the consequences of that action.  Of course it is very likely to get through that commute without consequences as there aren't always police officers patrolling.  Nevertheless, I have still opened myself up to that opportunity by willingly engaging in an action that I know has an outcome with a penalty attached.  I have volunteered myself for that possible outcome.  Do I want that outcome?  Of course not.  But if I was going 55 it is certain I would be immune to it. 

Now, of course, there are laws that people disagree with.  That is another matter.  One writes to their representatives to suggest a change in a rule or a law.  Or they engage in other forms of activism and advocacy to effect change upon the laws.  The fact remains, however, until if and when those laws are changed, we are subject to them as citizens of that society.  So there can be an argument as to the rightness and wrongness of laws.  But one cannot argue the existence and penalties thereof.  One then has to question how necessary it is to knowingly violate the exiting laws and determine if the reward for doing so really exceeds the penalty of getting caught. 

Look, I'm not going to sit here and suggest that there aren't people who are incarcerated who should not be.  Obviously the justice system is a human construct and subject to human failures.  However, I'm loathe to look at stats and start breaking out violins for those who've been caught and convicted for violating the law.  It's easy to NOT do something.  I mean, I'm not having to employ THAT much willpower to not go crazy and start clubbing people at random. 

Thats about the most pathetic, strawmanish and spineless argument in favour of "obey the law or get punished" I have seen since I stopped reading the Daily Mail.  Congratulations. 

Charming. 

Care to elaborate? 

RWHN, there is a reason we have trial by jury in our judicial system, even though it is now "illegal" to tell jurors what they are there for. They are not only in the room to judge whether or not the accused broke a law, but to decide whether or not the law broken should apply in that case at all. A jury has the authority to effectively dismiss charges against the accused on the grounds that the law is unjust or ridiculous. In fact, I've thought about starting some kind of public education project to prepare people to do just that if they are selected for jury duty and they disagree with the law the State is trying to enforce, either generally or in the particular situation they are being asked to weigh.

Citizens have an inherent right to disobey unjust laws. The government's authority does not extend to tyranny, and tyranny is any situation in which the government's decrees must be followed whether the People agree to them or not. It doesn't matter who has the power to inflict punishment on who for what reason, and the threat of retribution is no reason to shy away from your rights.

Quote from: vexati0n on December 29, 2008, 04:59:07 PM
RWHN, there is a reason we have trial by jury in our judicial system, even though it is now "illegal" to tell jurors what they are there for. They are not only in the room to judge whether or not the accused broke a law, but to decide whether or not the law broken should apply in that case at all. A jury has the authority to effectively dismiss charges against the accused on the grounds that the law is unjust or ridiculous. In fact, I've thought about starting some kind of public education project to prepare people to do just that if they are selected for jury duty and they disagree with the law the State is trying to enforce, either generally or in the particular situation they are being asked to weigh.

Yes.  And those who end up in the correctional system go through that judicial system.  Obviously those for whom the jury thought were unjustly accussed, arrested, and indicted, their fate was not to become a part of the population.  And the public education you are talking about would be the advocacy and activism I was referring to. 

QuoteCitizens have an inherent right to disobey unjust laws. The government's authority does not extend to tyranny, and tyranny is any situation in which the government's decrees must be followed whether the People agree to them or not. It doesn't matter who has the power to inflict punishment on who for what reason, and the threat of retribution is no reason to shy away from your rights.

I agree with that philosophically.  Of course one person's tyranny may be another's public safety on a case by case basis.  And this is why I said in my previous post one has to weigh the costs when knowingly violating a law.  If one feels it is intrinsically important to violate a law for the good of liberty, so be it.  And that's a fine virtue to have if the law is deemed worth violating.  However, that doesn't make the fact go away that you'll still probably be subject to punishment anyway.  Especially if you are in a minority opposing it.  I'm not saying you shouldn't oppose and disobey.  But the likely realities will be there regardless. 

QuoteCA May Soon Spend More on Prisons than Colleges
Thursday May 24, 2007

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's state budget for 2007-2008 allocates $10 billion for prisons, compared to $12 billion for higher education. An analysis of spending growth projects that prison spending will exceed education spending in less than five years.

For an even starker comparison, consider that the proposed 2008 federal budget allocates only $6.7 billion for running the federal prison system. How many prisoners does California detain compared to the U.S. federal prison system? On May 16, 2007, California state prisons housed 171,608 inmates, compared to 198,108 inmates reported in the all of the nation's federal prisons on May 21.

California's proposed 2008 prison budget sets aside more than $7.4 billion to expand the state's prisons capacity by 40,000 new beds. The 2008 U.S. government budget spends only $169 million to expand the capacity of federal prisons.

Also See:
California to Ship Prisoners to Other States
U.S. Prison Population Tops 2 Million
Want to Live Longer? Try Prison
Supreme Court Backs Religious Rights of Prisoners

http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2007/05/24/ca-may-soon-spend-more-on-prisons-than-colleges.htm

When governments spend more on prisons than education, I think the time has come to ask Why?

Ok, so rather than volunteering, I'd say that they make the choice to do as they will and when their will bucks the States... State wins. That seems to be correct. It's nearly the antithesis of what the country started out as, but it does seem to be the reality of today.

Jury Nullification would help (can you imagine informing the Jury of their actual job...  :eek: ). In the end though, it should never be a question of "Well, the Man says its illegal and its not hard NOT to do it, so that's OK.

That... is Bullshit. (please note the "is" ness of this sentence)

Quote from: Ratatosk on December 30, 2008, 01:50:42 PM
Ok, so rather than volunteering, I'd say that they make the choice to do as they will and when their will bucks the States... State wins. That seems to be correct. It's nearly the antithesis of what the country started out as, but it does seem to be the reality of today.

Jury Nullification would help (can you imagine informing the Jury of their actual job...  :eek: ). In the end though, it should never be a question of "Well, the Man says its illegal and its not hard NOT to do it, so that's OK.

That... is Bullshit. (please note the "is" ness of this sentence)

First, thanks for giving me a civil response to what I posted. 

Second, I can understand where you are coming from, but I think it is going to vary from person to person.  From my perspective, as a Father, as much as I might disagree with a particular law, does it make sense for me to risk getting arrested and imprisoned for violating that law?  Is it worth it to my daughter and my wife to make that decision?  If I am violating a law in the name of protecting or defending them, yes, there can be an argument for some justification.  Like, if some guy broke into my house threatening my family, I'm not going to mull over the legality of shooting the guy in the face.  On the other hand, in terms of something like drugs.  Is it really worth it to my family to buck that policy?  Do I really need those drugs THAT badly that I will risk the stability of my family?  I guess that's what I'm getting at is that it sounds fine and dandy on paper to say "Screw the Man", but the reality is for some there are consequences that extend beyond their own person.  So it's an individual, case by case thing. 

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 30, 2008, 02:00:15 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on December 30, 2008, 01:50:42 PM
Ok, so rather than volunteering, I'd say that they make the choice to do as they will and when their will bucks the States... State wins. That seems to be correct. It's nearly the antithesis of what the country started out as, but it does seem to be the reality of today.

Jury Nullification would help (can you imagine informing the Jury of their actual job...  :eek: ). In the end though, it should never be a question of "Well, the Man says its illegal and its not hard NOT to do it, so that's OK.

That... is Bullshit. (please note the "is" ness of this sentence)

First, thanks for giving me a civil response to what I posted. 

Second, I can understand where you are coming from, but I think it is going to vary from person to person.  From my perspective, as a Father, as much as I might disagree with a particular law, does it make sense for me to risk getting arrested and imprisoned for violating that law?  Is it worth it to my daughter and my wife to make that decision?  If I am violating a law in the name of protecting or defending them, yes, there can be an argument for some justification.  Like, if some guy broke into my house threatening my family, I'm not going to mull over the legality of shooting the guy in the face.  On the other hand, in terms of something like drugs.  Is it really worth it to my family to buck that policy?  Do I really need those drugs THAT badly that I will risk the stability of my family?  I guess that's what I'm getting at is that it sounds fine and dandy on paper to say "Screw the Man", but the reality is for some there are consequences that extend beyond their own person.  So it's an individual, case by case thing. 

I think though that we're talking about two different things.

If someone takes on responsibilities, they will probably have to sacrifice some freedoms. No argument there...

However, the current judicial system is not simply flawed, its horrifically broken. In the 'war on drugs' there hasn't been either of the key controls used to ensure that the government isn't fucking us over. We didn't vote for Marijuana prohibition... some assholes made some noise and scared some people and ... no vote. So government oversteps.... However, we have a safety for this, Jury Nullification. The jury is supposed to judge not only the guilt of the individual, but also the fairness of the law they broke. Judges now deny lawyers the right to inform juries of this.

On at least three occasions (most recent being the Rosenthall case), jurors after the fact, said if they had known, they would have nullified the Federal law he was tried under.  That means,  if the American judicial system were being operated as designed marijuana would most likely, no longer be illegal, or at the very least, the prohibition laws would have been substantially revised.

I cannot agree though, that the "criminal" is at fault. The individual is being held to a set of laws that he did not agree to live by (the Constitution). Further, some of those laws weren't agreed to by anyone except some asses in Washington (like pot prohibition).

I personally don't like the idea that some spags in wigs could sign a piece of paper and somehow subjugate me to GWB. However, I coupld live with having the birth to death "contract" if all parties to the contract uphold all parts of the contract (including the right of a jury to say "No, Fed Spags, that's stupid").

So are those who break the law responsible for their actions? YES.
Does that make the current system "Ok"  or "acceptable"? I don't think so.

Breaking the law is an individual choice, and I respect anyone who makes that choice consciously (either way). However, we are all victims of a legal system thats broken... extremely broken.

But what can we expect from a government which does small things poorly, yet somehow does big things even more poorly? ;-)

Quote from: Ratatosk on December 30, 2008, 02:33:30 PM
So are those who break the law responsible for their actions? YES.
Does that make the current system "Ok"  or "acceptable"? I don't think so.

And THIS is what I was trying to get at initially.  That even if it is "unacceptable" you are still responsible for the results of your actions.

Okay, so the system is broken.  How do you spags propose to fix it?  Because I can tell you right now individual acts of civil disobedience are not going to do a damn thing.  Those in charge of enforcing the law have little to no sway in how the laws are actually written.  They are just doing their job.  Sure, some may be a bit more zealous than others, but by in large, they are just enforcing what is on the books.  So what are the solutions?  Solutions that would actually produce change and not material for the police blotter section in the newspapers. 

I think a public awareness program about Jury Nullification would do a lot of good.

Quote from: vexati0n on December 30, 2008, 03:17:35 PM
I think a public awareness program about Jury Nullification would do a lot of good.

Well, for the most part, Jury nullification means that the Jury can say "Not Guilty" even if they think the person to be guilty.. but think the 'crime' is not a crime. However, most judges now instruct the jury specifically instruct the jury that they MUST judge the case based on the facts and apply the law as stated, no matter what their personal opinion. Judges have also gagged lawyers and threated 'contempt' charges if they ask the jury to nullify the law.

In short, 'awareness' does no good if the guy in charge 'nullifies' your ability to nullify ;-)

Also, to be fair, Jury Nullification has been used for some pretty sick purposes in the past. All white southern juries used nullification to free white supremacists on trial for racial killings.

Double edged sword etc.

jury nullification is an indicator of the cultural validity of certain laws. even when it is used for sick shit as Rat said, it subjects the law to the will of the People. Personally I don't believe all laws (those prohibiting capital crimes, for example) should be subject to Jurry Nullification. But most laws should be.

Juries may be instructed by the Judge that they must enforce the law as it is written, but that doesn't matter if the members of that jury have previously been educated about the role of the jury. They don't have to specifically say, "not guilty on the grounds that the law is stupid." They can return a simple "Not Guilty" verdict and give no 'reason' for it at all. And a clear Not Guilty verdict cannot be questioned by any court or appeal.

Of course, a larger problem is the increasingly frequent use of statutory punishments that never involve a jury. Technically speaking, we have the right to a trial by jury -- there should be no such thing as even a traffic ticket that says you're not allowed to contest the charges in any court, but that is what they say now.

The judicial system is the chief safeguard against tyranny, because it is that system that allows individuals to be heard against the enormous machinery of the State. If we are going to "fix the system," it must include restoring the proper function and importance of the Judiciary in the process of government.

Quote from: vexati0n on December 30, 2008, 03:48:57 PM
jury nullification is an indicator of the cultural validity of certain laws. even when it is used for sick shit as Rat said, it subjects the law to the will of the People. Personally I don't believe all laws (those prohibiting capital crimes, for example) should be subject to Jurry Nullification. But most laws should be.

Juries may be instructed by the Judge that they must enforce the law as it is written, but that doesn't matter if the members of that jury have previously been educated about the role of the jury. They don't have to specifically say, "not guilty on the grounds that the law is stupid." They can return a simple "Not Guilty" verdict and give no 'reason' for it at all. And a clear Not Guilty verdict cannot be questioned by any court or appeal.

Of course, a larger problem is the increasingly frequent use of statutory punishments that never involve a jury. Technically speaking, we have the right to a trial by jury -- there should be no such thing as even a traffic ticket that says you're not allowed to contest the charges in any court, but that is what they say now.

The judicial system is the chief safeguard against tyranny, because it is that system that allows individuals to be heard against the enormous machinery of the State. If we are going to "fix the system," it must include restoring the proper function and importance of the Judiciary in the process of government.

Well said, and to RWHN's point... that will require activism and lobbying and ... well American politics. :(

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 29, 2008, 04:32:18 PM
Charming. 

Care to elaborate? 

I didn't have time to elaborate then.

I do now, fortunately.

Firstly, thats not how the law or the political system works and you and I and pretty much everyone else here knows it.  Power doesn't lie with consent, it lies with men with guns who can beat and kill you with impunity.  So to speak of going to prison as being any sort of choice is a gross mischaracterization. 

Secondly, your assumption is, everything else being equal, of the neutrality of the law.  Which is a complete farce.  Laws on paper don't match laws in the application.  We know laws get applied unequally, and factors like gender, race, age and occupation get factored in where there is little relevance.  Check out the usage rates for ethnic minorities and majorities when it comes to drugs, and then the imprisonment rates and sentence lengths.  Or as the French have discovered: "the legality of identity checks carried out "preventatively", whose multiplication has provoked more disturbances of public order than they prevent, should be brought into question".  Interestingly, they also note a discrepancy when it comes to ethnicities and violence, in that ID card laws lead to a lot more violent confrontations with the police when people of foreign extraction or appearance are present.  Laws will be used to target outgroups.  Its unfair, but its also a truism that if people are pushing to get you because of your skin colour, age or gender, then they will find a way to do it.

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3226,36-389586,0.html (in French, account required)

Thirdly we have the "no-harm" principle.  If your actions do not result in harm but are still 'illegal', then why bother punishing, unless you are some sort of automaton or punishment freak?  The British government are king of this, culminating in the ASBO, where magistrates, on the basis of hearsay evidence, can designate any action they wish illegal and punish that action with imprisonment and/or fines at their discretion.  This has, in the past, had people with Tourettes Syndrome under court-ordered house arrest, among other things.

Which neatly brings me onto point 4.  Governments are paper-churning machines who always want to be seen as "doing something".  Again, the British government has created 3,000 new misdemeanours and felonies in the period from 1997-2006, including the crime of detonating a nuclear weapon without permission and the crime of being in a particular area without agreeing with the Prime Minister, among other things.  Because governments pass so many laws, the chance of them negatively impacting on harmful action is very low, whereas the chance of them criminalizing some innocuous triviality, like wearing a band t-shirt near Parliament or handing out critical leaflets near Party conferences, is much higher.

Also, the chance of changing these laws is low.  In our first past the post system of government, the government in power need not be (and in fact is not) the one voted for by the majority.  Secondly, parties have way more powers than citizens over the placement of MPs and coercing their votes on key pieces of legislation, making taking them to account hard.  Equally, in the US, I would be willing to bet most Representatives and Senators are listening far more to what Lockheed and Martin want than what any piddling voter says.

I'm sure I had some other points, but I think those do.  You view works perfectly...in an abstract realm where government and law work as they are intended.  Reality, however...not so good.  Some laws tend to work out pretty well.  Ones which punish people for hitting others, for example.  Those which stop bad food from being sold to the public at large.  But not all laws are made equal (not even a majority, given the current prodigous output), and should not be treated as such.  Claims to "its the law" without taking into account the actual operations and effects of that law are short-sighted in the extreme.

Quote from: Cain on December 30, 2008, 04:52:14 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 29, 2008, 04:32:18 PM
Charming. 

Care to elaborate? 

I didn't have time to elaborate then.

I do now, fortunately.

Firstly, thats not how the law or the political system works and you and I and pretty much everyone else here knows it.  Power doesn't lie with consent, it lies with men with guns who can beat and kill you with impunity.  So to speak of going to prison as being any sort of choice is a gross mischaracterization. 

Secondly, your assumption is, everything else being equal, of the neutrality of the law.  Which is a complete farce.  Laws on paper don't match laws in the application.  We know laws get applied unequally, and factors like gender, race, age and occupation get factored in where there is little relevance.  Check out the usage rates for ethnic minorities and majorities when it comes to drugs, and then the imprisonment rates and sentence lengths.  Or as the French have discovered: "the legality of identity checks carried out "preventatively", whose multiplication has provoked more disturbances of public order than they prevent, should be brought into question".  Interestingly, they also note a discrepancy when it comes to ethnicities and violence, in that ID card laws lead to a lot more violent confrontations with the police when people of foreign extraction or appearance are present.  Laws will be used to target outgroups.  Its unfair, but its also a truism that if people are pushing to get you because of your skin colour, age or gender, then they will find a way to do it.

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3226,36-389586,0.html (in French, account required)

Thirdly we have the "no-harm" principle.  If your actions do not result in harm but are still 'illegal', then why bother punishing, unless you are some sort of automaton or punishment freak?  The British government are king of this, culminating in the ASBO, where magistrates, on the basis of hearsay evidence, can designate any action they wish illegal and punish that action with imprisonment and/or fines at their discretion.  This has, in the past, had people with Tourettes Syndrome under court-ordered house arrest, among other things.

Which neatly brings me onto point 4.  Governments are paper-churning machines who always want to be seen as "doing something".  Again, the British government has created 3,000 new misdemeanours and felonies in the period from 1997-2006, including the crime of detonating a nuclear weapon without permission and the crime of being in a particular area without agreeing with the Prime Minister, among other things.  Because governments pass so many laws, the chance of them negatively impacting on harmful action is very low, whereas the chance of them criminalizing some innocuous triviality, like wearing a band t-shirt near Parliament or handing out critical leaflets near Party conferences, is much higher.

Also, the chance of changing these laws is low.  In our first past the post system of government, the government in power need not be (and in fact is not) the one voted for by the majority.  Secondly, parties have way more powers than citizens over the placement of MPs and coercing their votes on key pieces of legislation, making taking them to account hard.  Equally, in the US, I would be willing to bet most Representatives and Senators are listening far more to what Lockheed and Martin want than what any piddling voter says.

I'm sure I had some other points, but I think those do.  You view works perfectly...in an abstract realm where government and law work as they are intended.  Reality, however...not so good.  Some laws tend to work out pretty well.  Ones which punish people for hitting others, for example.  Those which stop bad food from being sold to the public at large.  But not all laws are made equal (not even a majority, given the current prodigous output), and should not be treated as such.  Claims to "its the law" without taking into account the actual operations and effects of that law are short-sighted in the extreme.

Bravo. It's examples like these which made Jury Nullification useful to begin with.


Reminds me of Jerry Clower's famous story called "Guilty or not?" It was about some poor farmer that desperately needed a mule for some work at his farm... without a mule he would lose the whole farm. He tried to borrow one from a guy that had lots of mules, and the man turned him down. So he stole a mule and got the work done. When he went to trial, the jury came back with "Not Guilty, but he has to give back the mule". The Judge was outraged and said they had to go back and come up with a just decision...

They returned with "Not Guilty, and he can keep the mule".

Hah, indeed.

Sorry, but the idea of the law being, on the whole, pretty neutral, annoys the hell out of me.  I don't deny the usefulness of laws, but they have to be the right laws, and applied with a good deal of informed situational awareness.  The authorities like to play "gotcha" with certain groups of people far too much for me to put faith in an ostensibly decent law being applied in a fair and consistent manner, unless there are safeguards in place to make sure that actually happens.

Quote from: Cain on December 30, 2008, 05:04:55 PM
Hah, indeed.

Sorry, but the idea of the law being, on the whole, pretty neutral, annoys the hell out of me.  I don't deny the usefulness of laws, but they have to be the right laws, and applied with a good deal of informed situational awareness.  The authorities like to play "gotcha" with certain groups of people far too much for me to put faith in an ostensibly decent law being applied in a fair and consistent manner, unless there are safeguards in place to make sure that actually happens.

Yep, humans aren't very good being in charge of other humans.

Quote from: Cain on December 30, 2008, 04:52:14 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 29, 2008, 04:32:18 PM
Charming. 

Care to elaborate? 

I didn't have time to elaborate then.

I do now, fortunately.

Great.  Next time, how about easing up on the insults.  I'm all for disagreement but there is no need for shit like "spineless".  You may disagree with me but that doesn't mean that my position isn't without thought and consideration, and therefore, "spine".  I think I've earned at least that much respect in my time here.  I generally don't go out of my way to hurl such bullshit at others I disagree with. 

QuoteFirstly, thats not how the law or the political system works and you and I and pretty much everyone else here knows it.  Power doesn't lie with consent, it lies with men with guns who can beat and kill you with impunity.  So to speak of going to prison as being any sort of choice is a gross mischaracterization.

Going to prison isn't a choice, but a set of actions preceding that imprisonment is a choice.  Bullshit laws should be taken on by the people.  And I specifically mentioned that in my post when referring to activism and advocacy.  Simply disobeying a law you disagree with is going to do nothing to impact whether or not that law is changed.  Short of some mass demonstration of disobedience, it is not going to get any notice.   So, at that point, you do have a choice.  You go ahead and thwart the law you disagree with, get arrested, found guilty, and sent to prison, and yet, the law remains just as strong as it was before.  OR, you DON'T make the choice to thwart the law you disagree with, and instead, use that energy to constructively tackle the law in question.  You may not be making a choice to go to prison, but you are making a choice on the actions that precipitate the prison sentence, and that's where, obviously, individuals need to do their own individual cost/benefit analysis and determine if it is really in their best interest.  If it is, congratulations, say hello to Sully for me.   

QuoteSecondly, your assumption is, everything else being equal, of the neutrality of the law.

I believe I did make reference to the fact that laws aren't always going to be enforced equally.  However, in my experience with the law enforcement I've worked with, is they are more evenly enforced than is given credit in popular culture.  The other thing to keep in mind is that this will vary from region to region, state to state, country to country.  The Culture of Law Enforcement is not the same everywhere and will depend heavily on those at the top of the food chain.  Here in Maine, we have a great Attorney General, who I've worked with personally, and he is very proactive in finding solutions where appropriate that avoid putting people in jail.  If you are caught with a joint in Maine, you aren't going to jail.  Now, if you are caught with a trunk full of marijuana, that's going to be a different story. 

QuoteCheck out the usage rates for ethnic minorities and majorities when it comes to drugs, and then the imprisonment rates and sentence lengths.

You can't solely attribute that to how the law is enforced.  You aren't taking into consideration other confounding variables such as socio-economic measures which have very close ties to drug usage.  I did a focus group of inmates in a county jail who had histories of drug abuse.  They were all pretty much poor kids.  Only one or two miniorties in the bunch.  I'm not saying it isn't a variable, just not the sole variable. 

QuoteThirdly we have the "no-harm" principle.  If your actions do not result in harm but are still 'illegal', then why bother punishing, unless you are some sort of automaton or punishment freak?  The British government are king of this, culminating in the ASBO, where magistrates, on the basis of hearsay evidence, can designate any action they wish illegal and punish that action with imprisonment and/or fines at their discretion.  This has, in the past, had people with Tourettes Syndrome under court-ordered house arrest, among other things.

Well, my expereince with law enforcement is that they will use a variety of tools at their disposal where necessary to avoid harsh penalties where there is "no harm".  I mean, I was just pulled over a few weeks ago for going 25 mph over the speed limit.  But I have a sparkling driving record so I was given a warning and let go.  I agree there are some hard-asses in law enforcement, but I believe there is a stereotype that they are all militant, corporal robots just looking to nab people.  Maybe I live in shangra-la or something, but somehow I doubt it.  Problems should be addressed, but throwing them all under the bus doesn't do a damn thing to address the actual problems. 

QuoteWhich neatly brings me onto point 4.  Governments are paper-churning machines who always want to be seen as "doing something".  Again, the British government has created 3,000 new misdemeanours and felonies in the period from 1997-2006, including the crime of detonating a nuclear weapon without permission and the crime of being in a particular area without agreeing with the Prime Minister, among other things.  Because governments pass so many laws, the chance of them negatively impacting on harmful action is very low, whereas the chance of them criminalizing some innocuous triviality, like wearing a band t-shirt near Parliament or handing out critical leaflets near Party conferences, is much higher.

And in Maine, the State gov't worked to create the Drug Court system.  A system that allows non-violent drug offenders avoid jail time.  Yes, there is bad in Gov't, significant amounts of it in fact, but governments can do good as well.  But, generally speaking, working with them is much more productive than working against them.  At least, my experience with my government tells me so.  Does that mean problems are solved in any kind of quick fashion?  Nope.  It IS a lumbering beast that in fact will not turn on a dime.  But you have to work with what you have and use what access you can get. 

QuoteEqually, in the US, I would be willing to bet most Representatives and Senators are listening far more to what Lockheed and Martin want than what any piddling voter says.

They may not listen to individual voters but they will listen to a mass of voters.  That is where activism and advocacy come in.  Voices need to be built up before anyone will listen.  One sole grumpy voter or one sole person who engages in civil disobedience will accomplish nothing.  Grassroot efforts DO work.  I've been a part of them and I've seen them work on the State level.  It's more difficult on the Federal level to be sure, but again, you've gotta start somewhere. 

QuoteClaims to "its the law" without taking into account the actual operations and effects of that law are short-sighted in the extreme.

My "claim" was much more nuanced than that thank you very much. 

There are many issues here. For example, I would argue that even before we discuss if a man's actions lead to prison as choice or not... the validity of the argument which sends that  man to prison.

For me, philosophically, I hold that every man is free to do as he will... including the will to come together with other men and women to form some sort of society, government or social order. They are free to agree to rules and then subjugate themselves to those rules. If a man has the will to drive a vehicle on public roads, he agrees to be bound by the constraints placed upon those roads. If he voluntarily breaks those rules, then he has already voluntarily (by getting his license) agreed to be bound by the law and its punishments. Yet, we have a nation held to thousands of laws which most, if not all of us, never agreed to... nor were even asked. Indeed, our great-great-great grandfathers, apparently are considered to have had the right to subjugate us all, leaving us with no choice in the matter. A trillion dollar debt may be a bad thing to leave future generations... but slavery without choice, from birth to death seems a far worse cross-generational gift.

Thus, I personally feel that there are relatively few situations where the state has the right to punish the individual. They may have laws which claim such a right, but those laws are not ones the individual likely agreed to.

So I not only have a problem with the laws (such as prohibition of pot) which may unjustly send a person to prison. Laws, as I stated before that were not "Of the People, By the People or For the People", but of the bureaucracy, by the bureaucracy and for the bureaucracy. I have a further problem with the fact that the normal process which would redress the issue (Jury Nullification) has been censored and demonized by Judges... leaving uninformed juries to perform only half their duties and giving the citizen on trial, only half of the features of a 'trial by their peers'.

But above it all...  Lysander Spooner sighs as free men turn into chattel slaves and Crowley's words echo in my mind:

Man has the right to live by his own law-

    to live in the way that he wills to do:
    to work as he will:
    to play as he will:
    to rest as he will:
    to die when and how he will.

Man has the right to eat what he will:

    to drink what he will:
    to dwell where he will:
    to move as he will on the face of the earth.

Man has the right to think what he will:

    to speak what he will:
    to write what he will:
    to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will:
    to dress as he will.

4. Man has the right to love as he will.

5. Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.


It seems to me that if personal responsibility and free will exist, the system of government we live under is woefully inadequate if it hopes to call itself the "home of the free". For how can we be free, if we have no choice but to deny our will, or suffer punishment?

The slave can pick cotton, or he can take a nap... if he takes a nap, the master may beat him. Thus, if he gets beat, he deserves it because he made the conscious choice to nap.

I have yet to find a compelling argument to the contrary.

Quote from: Ratatosk on December 30, 2008, 08:38:50 PM
Yet, we have a nation held to thousands of laws which most, if not all of us, never agreed to... nor were even asked.

Can you give me some examples of these please. 

Every law passed before you were born or had the right to vote, maybe?

Okay, so until we develop a time machine how do you stop that from happening again? 

The Constitution for one... I didn't sign it, did you? Did anyone alive today? Did their parents or grandparents?

Did any American vote on the decision to make marijuana illegal? Did they vote to punish those that would transgress through penal codes? Or, more recently, did you vote on the USAPATRIOT ACT and the various acts it criminalizes? Did you agree to allow yourself to be held without trial for years?

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 30, 2008, 08:52:00 PM
Okay, so until we develop a time machine how do you stop that from happening again? 

Well, that's the absurdity of it all... at least some of the Founding Fathers assumed we would modify our constitution and laws generationaly, based upon the reality of the nation at the time. Lysander Spooner would argue that most laws, should probably require that every individual HELD to them would first agree to them. That if a man did not, beforehand, agree to a specific law... they could not be said to break that law. In his case, he took that as far as claiming that most of the South were not traitors, because those individuals had not agreed to be part of the Union... and thus could not be held to the union against their will.

I don't know that it can be fixed, without a system that A) requires public input, B) Has educated juries and C) has sunset rules for each law created. I think having a final public vote on anything passed by Congress would be useful as well....

Difficult to be workable, maybe... but this is philosophy. ;-)

Quote from: Ratatosk on December 30, 2008, 08:54:41 PM
The Constitution for one... I didn't sign it, did you? Did anyone alive today? Did their parents or grandparents?

Nope.  What about the Constitution is holding you personally back as a person?  What about the Constitution is restricting your freedom?  So what is the alternative?  What is the remedy for this?  

QuoteDid any American vote on the decision to make marijuana illegal? Did they vote to punish those that would transgress through penal codes? Or, more recently, did you vote on the USAPATRIOT ACT and the various acts it criminalizes? Did you agree to allow yourself to be held without trial for years?

Yeah, the Americans who are the legislators and the Americans who serve in executive capacities.  Does your state have citizen-initiavies that can be added to the ballots?  If so, take up your cause.  Get signatures and work to overturn what you disagree with.  Just ask the Prop 8 folks, it CAN work.  

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 30, 2008, 09:05:05 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on December 30, 2008, 08:54:41 PM
The Constitution for one... I didn't sign it, did you? Did anyone alive today? Did their parents or grandparents?

Nope.  What about the Constitution is holding you personally back as a person?  What about the Constitution is restricting your freedom?  So what is the alternative?  What is the remedy for this?  

You're missing the point. If you did not personally agree to the Cosntitution, then you live under an entire system of laws that you did not agree to... which was the point:

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 30, 2008, 08:45:19 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on December 30, 2008, 08:38:50 PM
Yet, we have a nation held to thousands of laws which most, if not all of us, never agreed to... nor were even asked.

Can you give me some examples of these please. 

QuoteDid any American vote on the decision to make marijuana illegal? Did they vote to punish those that would transgress through penal codes? Or, more recently, did you vote on the USAPATRIOT ACT and the various acts it criminalizes? Did you agree to allow yourself to be held without trial for years?

Yeah, the Americans who are the legislators and the Americans who serve in executive capacities.  Does your state have citizen-initiavies that can be added to the ballots?  If so, take up your cause.  Get signatures and work to overturn what you disagree with.  Just ask the Prop 8 folks, it CAN work.  
[/quote]

Ok... you're right... somewhere less than 600 Americans agreed to it. Those 600 then should be bound by it and not the rest of us.

And your still confusing an issue of rights with an issue of activism. I am a human being, thus, like all human beings I have the freedom to _____ as I will. There exists no reason why one should have to fight a system they didn't agree to, or laws they didn't sign on to in order to do as they will.

Let us say that we have a particularly enlightened Slave Owner and he says to his slaves, "If you have an issue with me, you can come to me to redress your grievance... and I may change my mind".

It says a lot for the attitude of the slave owner, but it doesn't change what the slave is. Your arguments seem to be "We've got a nice master that occasionally listens if you yell loud enough". I agree... but it still puts us in a position of trying to win back freedoms that we never voluntarily gave up. That can only be done from a position of slavery.

In theory I agree with Rat.

Of course, if a system composed of thousands of ridiculous laws is a clusterfuck, what would you call a system composed of 300+ million entirely separate and often incompatible systems of laws?

I gather Rat's ultimate goal here would be for society to admit that such a system is completely ridiculous, and therefore we should just go with a loose Anarchist system with certain binding rules like "don't kill people for no apparent reason." Right? Because you can't seriously think it's possible to actually apply laws only to people who agreed to them, can you?

Quote from: Bertrand Russell
One should respect public opinion insofar as is necessary to avoid starvation and keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny.

The sheer scale of human society presents the necessity to governance and law. Law is a structure which presents the opportunity of power, the power to hold dominion over your fellow humans.

Where there is power there is corruption and abuse. This rule is absolute.

Therefore: If we are to have laws and government then it will suck to some degree. (P3nT's first principle)

A popular tendency toward blind obedience will, more often than not, increase the degree of suction.

Therefore: Questioning the validity of the law and deciding thereon whether or not one will obey, affords the opportunity to lessen the degree of suction when applied to self. (P3nT's second principle)

In theory one should only bound by law if one is captured in the act of breaking said edict. The ingenuity of both government and criminality will ensure that this is not always the case.

Therefore: Innocence and guilt are not absolutes in the practical application of the law. (P3nT's third principle)

The risk of being captured and punished under the law, regardless of ones innocence or guilt is never zero and rarely, if ever, will reach absolute.

Therefore: Weigh up the risks, do whatever the fuck thou feelest like doing and, above all - don't get caught.

Quote from: Ratatosk on December 30, 2008, 09:15:41 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 30, 2008, 09:05:05 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on December 30, 2008, 08:54:41 PM
The Constitution for one... I didn't sign it, did you? Did anyone alive today? Did their parents or grandparents?

Nope.  What about the Constitution is holding you personally back as a person?  What about the Constitution is restricting your freedom?  So what is the alternative?  What is the remedy for this?  

You're missing the point. If you did not personally agree to the Cosntitution, then you live under an entire system of laws that you did not agree to... which was the point:

Yeah, but like I said earlier, until you invent time machines, that is never going to change.  There are children who will be born tormorrow who will have had no say in the laws that were passed today.  So how do you remedy that?  Abolish laws altogether and hope that people don't resort to their monkey tendencies?  What is the remedy? 

QuoteOk... you're right... somewhere less than 600 Americans agreed to it. Those 600 then should be bound by it and not the rest of us.

Except "us" put those 600 Americans in the position to agree to those laws.  If we don't like it, we should do something about it.  Don't send back the same idiots who got us into trouble in the first place.  Organize other dissenters to contact Reps and Sens en masse to voice displeasure. 

QuoteAnd your still confusing an issue of rights with an issue of activism. I am a human being, thus, like all human beings I have the freedom to _____ as I will. There exists no reason why one should have to fight a system they didn't agree to, or laws they didn't sign on to in order to do as they will.

That sounds nice, until your freedom to _____ as you will imposes upon my freedom to ______ as I will.  Then what?  Fight to the death?  Duel at sunrise?  How is that resolved? 

QuoteLet us say that we have a particularly enlightened Slave Owner and he says to his slaves, "If you have an issue with me, you can come to me to redress your grievance... and I may change my mind".

It says a lot for the attitude of the slave owner, but it doesn't change what the slave is. Your arguments seem to be "We've got a nice master that occasionally listens if you yell loud enough". I agree... but it still puts us in a position of trying to win back freedoms that we never voluntarily gave up. That can only be done from a position of slavery.

I don't really buy into the slave analogy.  I think that's going a bit far, personally.  If there is any slavery at work, it is being enslaved to inaction and ennui.  Living in a society of 400 million, there is a need for some semblence of rules and laws to prevent us from tearing each other apart and soiling each others lawns.  If you simply relied upon the public to decide the public good, you'd end up with a Tragedy of the Commons situation where no one has any incentive to do the right thing.  If we were a tribe of 20 or 30 people, I think you'd have a better case.  It is thanks, in part, to laws and policies like the Endangered Species act that the national bird of America actually still exists.  But, it is also thanks to the loosening of laws and regulations by the Bush administration that the Polar Bear is threatened now more than ever. 

There is good and bad in the law.  I'm just not convinced lawlessness would produce any better results.  The System certainly has places where it needs to be changed and tweaked and altered.  Breaking The System isn't going to happen.  And I'm not sure society would function all that well without it.  Perhaps the difference is in our outlook on the decency of individuals to act decent. 

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on December 31, 2008, 10:50:27 AM

Quote from: Bertrand Russell
One should respect public opinion insofar as is necessary to avoid starvation and keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny.

The sheer scale of human society presents the necessity to governance and law. Law is a structure which presents the opportunity of power, the power to hold dominion over your fellow humans.

Where there is power there is corruption and abuse. This rule is absolute.

Therefore: If we are to have laws and government then it will suck to some degree. (P3nT's first principle)

A popular tendency toward blind obedience will, more often than not, increase the degree of suction.

Therefore: Questioning the validity of the law and deciding thereon whether or not one will obey, affords the opportunity to lessen the degree of suction when applied to self. (P3nT's second principle)

In theory one should only bound by law if one is captured in the act of breaking said edict. The ingenuity of both government and criminality will ensure that this is not always the case.

Therefore: Innocence and guilt are not absolutes in the practical application of the law. (P3nT's third principle)

The risk of being captured and punished under the law, regardless of ones innocence or guilt is never zero and rarely, if ever, will reach absolute.

Therefore: Weigh up the risks, do whatever the fuck thou feelest like doing and, above all - don't get caught.

P3nt, I normally find most of your personal philosophies to be fucking retarded, and borderline psychotic.

However, I find myself agreeing with these three Principles almost completely.

Quote from: LMNO on December 31, 2008, 02:12:10 PM

P3nt, I normally find most of your personal philosophies to be fucking retarded, and borderline psychotic.

Add "funny" and that's usually what I'm shooting for. Occasionally I forget that I'm meant to be taking the piss and some troof slips in. Apologies - normal service will be resumed asap :oops:

Ratatosk's SuperPoliticalTheory of SuperPoliticalEverything (apologies to Gogol Bordello)

First, I will assume the following 5 points. (OMGZ!)

1. Each person has the right to live as they will. If the Will of one human is forced upon another human (superceding their own Will), that is called slavery for the one person and tyranny for the other.  Further it is equally slavery for 600 people to impose their will upon one person, or for 100,000 people to impose their will upon 100,000 others. That is tyranny of the many, placing the one in slavery or tyranny of 100,000 placing the other 100,000 into slavery.

2. Each human has the right to agree to give up some of their freedom, to create a better social situation for themselves and others. However, ONLY that human has the right to agree to give up  any part of their freedom.

3. It is difficult for ALL citizens of a given nation to agree upon something. Yet any dissenter forced to follow some abrogation of their personal freedom is enslaved to the majority that did agree. It is also difficult to determine who does and does not agree with any particular law. Thus, any governing body that manages the affairs of State for a free people... must necessarily be extremely limited in what they can pass as law. They certianly could not pass a law that threatens to remove the personal freedoms of any citizen.

4. No pure solution seems likely, thus we must seek the best utilitarian option.

5. Even the best utilitarian option is likely to be flawed, but we must press on and strive for a solution that gives the most personal freedom for all, while still maintaining some sort of workable social system.

-------------------------
Based on those 5 positions, I think a much better system could exist than we have at this time. I say this, because we once had a system in the United States that was MUCH CLOSER to the above than we have now. There were horrible flaws (like the social acceptance of chattel slavery), however, with our modern social awareness and the historical example, a better national system could be implemented.


First, any free government must recoginize that each person is free to do as they will, upon their person or within their personal life. The first responsibility of a free society, should be to protect all citizens from having their personal freedoms stepped upon. THIS is the only position that the State should enforce without agreement by all parties. Personal Freedom for all people within their boarders is simply a given. That is, we don't need to get agreement with everyone that we all have personal freedom, because my WILL does not extend to another person. My 'agreement' is no more necessary than agreement that water is wet or fire is hot. I don't have a right to say "No, I don't think everyone should be totally free in their person".

Issues of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation (all popular US arguments against a smaller federal system) fall under this first (and most important) aspect of the State. As long as the actions, words, art, beliefs, thoughts and behaviors of an individual do not impinge upon another person, then it is legal. Any action that does impinge upon the personal freedom of another person is illegal. This position not only guarantees that we are free from the tyranny of our fellows, it also guarantees that we are free of the tyranny of the State. That is, by guaranteeing the protection of our personal freedom, they could no longer pass laws which could abrogate our personal freedom. This reduces the number of laws and issues that we must seek agreement on (for example, the federal government could not make it illegal to smoke pot, because that is an act of personal freedom. They could not make it illegal for two men to voluntarily agree to enter into matrimony, that is their personal freedom... no other person has a right to inflict their Will upon these two men, or the hippie ). This removes many laws from consideration.

The second responsibility of a State that manages the affairs of a free society is to provide common services and those services, obviously must be paid for. However, to force all people to pay for something that only some want is again, tyranny. Thus, we must have agreement from each person on how the tax they will pay, will be used. This is not as difficult or tricky as it may seem. If you give money to United Way, they have a little form. On the back they list every charity, or group that they spread their money out to. The individual then has the choice of simply giving the money and checking a "Use it as you see fit" box, or they can specify that their money be split between some subset of the charities listed.

This seems like a reasonable and utilitarian way of balancing personal freedom and the necessity of taxes for a government to operate. It places new responsibility upon the elected officials... they can pass laws creating all the programs they want, but if those programs aren't funded by the citizens (if the citizens choose not to fund that initiative) then it dies on the vine. This stops a group of activists, or petition drivers or paid consultants from schmoozing politicians into spending our money on what they want. They would be able to protest/sign petitions/give senators free plane rides, in order to get their particular project passed and listed on tax forms... but if no other citizen agrees with their view, their project won't be funded. Rather than getting 10,000 signatures and a paid off senator... they would need to focus their time and effort on the citizens, convincing them that their cause is worth supporting.

I think it would even be reasonable for the Federal government to determine 'operating expenses' which would cover offices, paper, computers, salaries etc. This may extend to any area that they are required to manage for the common good (interstate commerce, national defense). These could be budgeted and made a required spend... say 30% of your taxes go to operating budget/defense etc.

This also reduces the need to go find everyone personally and get them to agree to protect the spotted owl. The State can create a bucket for the poor owl... but each citizen can choose to dump money in, or not as they will.

We already covered voluntary things awhile back, but let us discuss it again. If a free person wants to do something that interacts with other individuals, then they may need to choose to give up some freedoms for that social act. Driving a car on public roads, for example, is not a act of personal freedom, but a act of social interaction (driving your car on your private property or a private road made by you and 20 of your friends is a different matter). Thus, we can require a drivers license and agreement to follow the rules of the social agreement (don't cross the yellow line, go the posted speed limit etc). If you don't want to follow the rules, you don't use the service. If you wish to own and operate a business that employs people, or sells product to the public, you are again leaving the realm of personal freedom and entering a realm of social interaction. You may thus be held to the rules of that interaction (proper business conduct, managing your books etc) This, of course, covers a wide swath of laws as well that would not need to be personally negotiated. The social order is available for you to voluntarily choose to participate in, or not.

At this point, any law passed could be passed by the majority, because it would not impinge upon the personal freedom of any individual. If, somehow a law was passed which did impinge upon their personal freedom, it could be taken to the court systems under the primary responsibility of the State.

This system might require more education on the part of every individual, it might mean its harder to get federal money for your project. It may mean that the people who live next door have a lifestyle you don't like. However, none of that impinges upon your freedom and the extra effort required, would (IMO) be worth the guaranteed freedom of all.

We also have the issue of things like murder etc. which I have opinions on as well, but I think this post will already be tl;dr for some. We can get to 'punishment' once everyone is clear on my position thus far.

You think every social system is a form of slavery, but you consider the term "Black Iron Prison" to have a bleak outlook?
 


:lulz:

Quote from: LMNO on December 31, 2008, 05:24:27 PM
You think every social system is a form of slavery, but you consider the term "Black Iron Prison" to have a bleak outlook?
 


:lulz:

Not at all. A social system that allows a small minority to remove the personal freedoms of an individual that has no say is slavery. A social system that allows a large majority to remove the personal freedoms of an individual that has no say is slavery.

A social system that guarantees the personal freedom of the individual and does not hold them to something they have not agreed to, is not slavery.

It boils down to agreement. If I agree to give up some freedom, in order to gain something, that is acceptable. However, ONLY I can agree to give up my freedom. if someone else gives away my personal freedom, what else could it be, but slavery?

Quote from: LMNO on December 31, 2008, 05:24:27 PM
You think every social system is a form of slavery, but you consider the term "Black Iron Prison" to have a bleak outlook?
 


:lulz:

Also, I don't find the BiP to have a bleak outlook... only the BiP interpretation that claims you're stuck in a prison for life.

Quote from: Ratatosk on December 31, 2008, 05:38:16 PM


A social system that guarantees the personal freedom of the individual and does not hold them to something they have not agreed to, is not slavery.

This system only exists in fantasy, or small, isolated communes of no more than 20 people who have no contact with any other tribes.  Don't make me get the barstool.

Quote from: LMNO on December 31, 2008, 05:48:11 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on December 31, 2008, 05:38:16 PM


A social system that guarantees the personal freedom of the individual and does not hold them to something they have not agreed to, is not slavery.

This system only exists in fantasy, or small, isolated communes of no more than 20 people who have no contact with any other tribes.  Don't make me get the barstool.

Right, so rather than responding to what I wrote, where I lay out the possibility of such a system, you'd rather just say it doesn't exist? I mean if it was tl'dr for you that's fine... but its difficult to debate, if you're not gonna comment on what I actually said, rather than your interpretation of a single line, out of context.

I doubt such a system would be perfect, but I think it could be implemented in a way that provides much more personal freedom, and voluntary agreements.

Or you can just swing bar stools around if that makes you feel better. :wink:

Quote from: Ratatosk on December 31, 2008, 05:20:40 PM
We already covered voluntary things awhile back, but let us discuss it again. If a free person wants to do something that interacts with other individuals, then they may need to choose to give up some freedoms for that social act. Driving a car on public roads, for example, is not a act of personal freedom, but a act of social interaction (driving your car on your private property or a private road made by you and 20 of your friends is a different matter). Thus, we can require a drivers license and agreement to follow the rules of the social agreement (don't cross the yellow line, go the posted speed limit etc). If you don't want to follow the rules, you don't use the service. If you wish to own and operate a business that employs people, or sells product to the public, you are again leaving the realm of personal freedom and entering a realm of social interaction. You may thus be held to the rules of that interaction (proper business conduct, managing your books etc) This, of course, covers a wide swath of laws as well that would not need to be personally negotiated. The social order is available for you to voluntarily choose to participate in, or not.

Isn't living in a society in and of itself "social interaction"?  How do you avoid "social interaction" without being a shut in?  Also, I feel that your system is only creating MORE bureaucracy, not less.  The systems that would be required to manage this kind of system would dwarf what is already in place.  There will have to be some entity in charge of determining what is "social interaction" and that which is not.  And this entity will need to exist at the local, state, and federal levels.  Which basically means, the courts.  So in the end, what really changes in your system?  What laws are you trying to abolish with your system?   

QuoteThis system might require more education on the part of every individual, it might mean its harder to get federal money for your project. It may mean that the people who live next door have a lifestyle you don't like. However, none of that impinges upon your freedom and the extra effort required, would (IMO) be worth the guaranteed freedom of all.

Are you going to mandate this education?  If not, you've killed off work like mine that many people aren't educated on.  Who will address substance abuse and Mental health? 

I still think the best way would be to allow the State to have its little tyranny fantasies, and counter that with a strong Judiciary that is inherently weighted in favor of individual rights, maybe even to the point that you don't even need a hearing to overturn a law you're charged with breaking if the Government cannot meaningfully demonstrate why that activity should be prohibited in your case. Just fill out a "waiver of prosecution" form and you're free to go.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 31, 2008, 05:52:30 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on December 31, 2008, 05:20:40 PM
We already covered voluntary things awhile back, but let us discuss it again. If a free person wants to do something that interacts with other individuals, then they may need to choose to give up some freedoms for that social act. Driving a car on public roads, for example, is not a act of personal freedom, but a act of social interaction (driving your car on your private property or a private road made by you and 20 of your friends is a different matter). Thus, we can require a drivers license and agreement to follow the rules of the social agreement (don't cross the yellow line, go the posted speed limit etc). If you don't want to follow the rules, you don't use the service. If you wish to own and operate a business that employs people, or sells product to the public, you are again leaving the realm of personal freedom and entering a realm of social interaction. You may thus be held to the rules of that interaction (proper business conduct, managing your books etc) This, of course, covers a wide swath of laws as well that would not need to be personally negotiated. The social order is available for you to voluntarily choose to participate in, or not.

Isn't living in a society in and of itself "social interaction"?  How do you avoid "social interaction" without being a shut in?  Also, I feel that your system is only creating MORE bureaucracy, not less.  The systems that would be required to manage this kind of system would dwarf what is already in place.  There will have to be some entity in charge of determining what is "social interaction" and that which is not.  And this entity will need to exist at the local, state, and federal levels.  Which basically means, the courts.  So in the end, what really changes in your system?  What laws are you trying to abolish with your system?   

Hrmm, good point I should have clarified this initially.

Personal Freedom - The ability to make all decisions concerning your person. This extends to what you believe, what you take into your body, what you want to do in life, you choice in bed mates etc.

Social Interactions - Interactive processes where your actions affect others and go beyond your personal beliefs, body etc.

Smoking a cigarette in your house, is personal. If you would like to kill yourself, feel free. Smoking in a restaurant is a social interaction and you're abrogating the personal freedom of everyone else by making their dinner taste like ass. If you don't want to agree to the personal restriction of freedom... then don't fucking go eat at that restaurant, cook at home.  You get your personal freedom and so does everyone else.

The most important difference between this and the existing State is that it simply cannot create any laws reducing your personal freedom without your consent. If your actions do not place another person's freedom in jeopardy, then its outside the scope of what the government can mandate. In fact, if we threw out everything else I wrote and simply had that guarantee, we would be much closer to a free society, IMO.

Example:

Maybe society would determine that smoking pot in a restaurant is unacceptable for the same reason that smoking tobacco is. Fine, that's not an abrogation of the smokers personal freedom, because their act is affecting other people directly. However, it would be inappropriate for society to determine that eating a pot brownie in public is illegal, because that does not directly affect other people. It is not a "social interaction" because it does not go beyond your body.

Quote

QuoteThis system might require more education on the part of every individual, it might mean its harder to get federal money for your project. It may mean that the people who live next door have a lifestyle you don't like. However, none of that impinges upon your freedom and the extra effort required, would (IMO) be worth the guaranteed freedom of all.

Are you going to mandate this education?  If not, you've killed off work like mine that many people aren't educated on.  Who will address substance abuse and Mental health? 

Well, thats true... there are lots of useful programs that the government gives tax funds to which aren't understood or publicly known. If those programs believe that they provide a direct and useful service, then they should educate the public on that service.

That doesn't mean that they have to know about RWHN program specifically... there may be a national bucket called "Programs in Support of Substance Abuse Recovery" and a national coalition of groups like yours which promote why people should choose to support that series of programs. I would expect those groups to have websites with details of how many people they've helped, what programs they use and techniques they use to help people and their books (income, expenses etc).

Would that mean more effort required for some people, yes. Does that matter? No, because the topic is freedom, not convenience.

it seems unacceptable to me that tax money is being passed out to people that aren't reporting directly back to the public, or even necessarily on the radar for the public. As it stands now, tax money is fought over between useful purposes like yours and bridges to nowhere. If citizens, rather than senators had the say... do you think they would fund a bridge in Alaska, or the very successful Addiction rehab program that they saw profiled on CNN, heard about on their favorite talk radio show, etc? IMO, I think most Americans would probably support the program, rather than the bridge.

Quote from: vexati0n on December 31, 2008, 05:59:28 PM
I still think the best way would be to allow the State to have its little tyranny fantasies, and counter that with a strong Judiciary that is inherently weighted in favor of individual rights, maybe even to the point that you don't even need a hearing to overturn a law you're charged with breaking if the Government cannot meaningfully demonstrate why that activity should be prohibited in your case. Just fill out a "waiver of prosecution" form and you're free to go.

This also is a very good idea.

QuoteSmoking a cigarette in your house, is personal. If you would like to kill yourself, feel free. Smoking in a restaurant is a social interaction and you're abrogating the personal freedom of everyone else by making their dinner taste like ass. If you don't want to agree to the personal restriction of freedom... then don't fucking go eat at that restaurant, cook at home.  You get your personal freedom and so does everyone else.

how about owning a restaurant that caters to people that smoke? current law says a restaurant owner cant cater to a the smokers by offering a smoking OK restaurant. is it a restriction his personal freedom to do business as he sees fit or the public's right to stop him because cigarettes are harmful?

Quote from: Ratatosk on December 31, 2008, 06:29:11 PM
Smoking a cigarette in your house, is personal. If you would like to kill yourself, feel free. Smoking in a restaurant is a social interaction and you're abrogating the personal freedom of everyone else by making their dinner taste like ass. If you don't want to agree to the personal restriction of freedom... then don't fucking go eat at that restaurant, cook at home.  You get your personal freedom and so does everyone else.

That sounds nice but without a law or regulation against it, what stops this person from enacting his vision of personal freedom and going to the restaurant and smoking anyway?  Are you relying upon goodwill of individuals?  Because it would seem to me that the lack of goodwill on the part of individuals is the monster that made laws and regulations necessary in the first place.

QuoteThe most important difference between this and the existing State is that it simply cannot create any laws reducing your personal freedom without your consent.

Everyone's consent?  So what about the schmucks who can't be arsed to make their voice heard on a particular law or regulation?  So we want to pass a law that says it is illegal for a 40 year old to have sex with a 14 year old, but some of the 40 year olds don't vote one way or another.  Does that mean they should have free reign to enact their "personal freedom"?  They didn't give their consent after all. 

QuoteIf your actions do not place another person's freedom in jeopardy, then its outside the scope of what the government can mandate. In fact, if we threw out everything else I wrote and simply had that guarantee, we would be much closer to a free society, IMO.

And who defines what it means to "place another person's freedom in jeapardy"?  Who is in charge of determining what that means?   

QuoteExample:

Maybe society would determine that smoking pot in a restaurant is unacceptable for the same reason that smoking tobacco is. Fine, that's not an abrogation of the smokers personal freedom, because their act is affecting other people directly. However, it would be inappropriate for society to determine that eating a pot brownie in public is illegal, because that does not directly affect other people. It is not a "social interaction" because it does not go beyond your body.

It becomes a social interaction when the guy who's consumed a few too many pot brownies trips and lands on somebody's kid.   

Quote

Quote
Are you going to mandate this education?  If not, you've killed off work like mine that many people aren't educated on.  Who will address substance abuse and Mental health? 

Well, thats true... there are lots of useful programs that the government gives tax funds to which aren't understood or publicly known. If those programs believe that they provide a direct and useful service, then they should educate the public on that service.

Yeah, and that requires money to do.  LOTS of money.  Lots more money than we currently have.  Your system will make that virtually impossible.  There is a reason we are called non-profits.  We don't sell goods.  We can't use profits to promote ourselves.  We need funding to get the word out. 

QuoteThat doesn't mean that they have to know about RWHN program specifically... there may be a national bucket called "Programs in Support of Substance Abuse Recovery" and a national coalition of groups like yours which promote why people should choose to support that series of programs. I would expect those groups to have websites with details of how many people they've helped, what programs they use and techniques they use to help people and their books (income, expenses etc).

Would that mean more effort required for some people, yes. Does that matter? No, because the topic is freedom, not convenience.

I can assure, our issues with our efforts have nothing to do with a lack of effort.  They have everything to do with a lack of funding.  Meanwhile, we have copious amounts of peer-reviewed research to show that our programs DO work and DO have positive outcomes.  But that doesn't mean a lick if we don't have the money to run them, much less promote them.   

Quoteit seems unacceptable to me that tax money is being passed out to people that aren't reporting directly back to the public, or even necessarily on the radar for the public. As it stands now, tax money is fought over between useful purposes like yours and bridges to nowhere. If citizens, rather than senators had the say... do you think they would fund a bridge in Alaska, or the very successful Addiction rehab program that they saw profiled on CNN, heard about on their favorite talk radio show, etc? IMO, I think most Americans would probably support the program, rather than the bridge.

You are optimistic.  We've had informational programs we've done for parents on substance abuse in some of the local schools.  Guess how many parents show up to these things?  A good event is when 20 show up.  That's 20 parents in a school that houses 1000 kids.  But, when it comes to a hearing about whether or not to put in a new basketball court, 100s show up.  Helping kids addicted to meth isn't as sexy as a shiny parquet floor.  That's why we need help. 

Quote from: Fomenter on December 31, 2008, 06:41:27 PM

QuoteSmoking a cigarette in your house, is personal. If you would like to kill yourself, feel free. Smoking in a restaurant is a social interaction and you're abrogating the personal freedom of everyone else by making their dinner taste like ass. If you don't want to agree to the personal restriction of freedom... then don't fucking go eat at that restaurant, cook at home.  You get your personal freedom and so does everyone else.

how about owning a restaurant that caters to people that smoke? current law says a restaurant owner cant cater to a the smokers by offering a smoking OK restaurant. is it a restriction his personal freedom to do business as he sees fit or the public's right to stop him because cigarettes are harmful?

Hrmmm, well I don't know. Firstly owning a resturant (or any business) takes you out of "personal freedom" and places you smack in the middle of social interaction, thus I don't see it as an issue of personal freedom for the owner. Iif you were to run a business that catered to a specific group, like smokers... I would say that the personal freedom of the other patrons would not necessarily be abrogated, because they would have the free choice to enter or not as they Will. However, it is an situation where the majority could decide, because its still a social interaction, rather than personal freedom.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 31, 2008, 06:52:21 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on December 31, 2008, 06:29:11 PM
Smoking a cigarette in your house, is personal. If you would like to kill yourself, feel free. Smoking in a restaurant is a social interaction and you're abrogating the personal freedom of everyone else by making their dinner taste like ass. If you don't want to agree to the personal restriction of freedom... then don't fucking go eat at that restaurant, cook at home.  You get your personal freedom and so does everyone else.

That sounds nice but without a law or regulation against it, what stops this person from enacting his vision of personal freedom and going to the restaurant and smoking anyway?  Are you relying upon goodwill of individuals?  Because it would seem to me that the lack of goodwill on the part of individuals is the monster that made laws and regulations necessary in the first place.

Who says there is no law? It's a social interaction, therefore a law could be passed by the majority. It impacts the personal freedoms of others, therefore it could fall under the primary responsibility of the State. I'm not speaking of a no-laws anarchy, only no laws that restrict personal freedom.

Quote

QuoteThe most important difference between this and the existing State is that it simply cannot create any laws reducing your personal freedom without your consent.

Everyone's consent?  So what about the schmucks who can't be arsed to make their voice heard on a particular law or regulation?  So we want to pass a law that says it is illegal for a 40 year old to have sex with a 14 year old, but some of the 40 year olds don't vote one way or another.  Does that mean they should have free reign to enact their "personal freedom"?  They didn't give their consent after all. 

Again, this is not the personal freedom of a 40 year old man... its a social interaction between a 40 year old man and a 14 year old kid. If a 14 year old kid isn't considered mature enough to make decisions concerning their own personal freedoms (I'd guess 154 is a bit too young, IMO), then there can be no social agreement and no sex. Any act would be an act of the 40 year old man imposing his will on an entity that could not (at least according to the standards of western civilization) agree to such an imposition.

Quote

QuoteIf your actions do not place another person's freedom in jeopardy, then its outside the scope of what the government can mandate. In fact, if we threw out everything else I wrote and simply had that guarantee, we would be much closer to a free society, IMO.

And who defines what it means to "place another person's freedom in jeapardy"?  Who is in charge of determining what that means?  

The state, its their primary responsibility.

QuoteExample:

Maybe society would determine that smoking pot in a restaurant is unacceptable for the same reason that smoking tobacco is. Fine, that's not an abrogation of the smokers personal freedom, because their act is affecting other people directly. However, it would be inappropriate for society to determine that eating a pot brownie in public is illegal, because that does not directly affect other people. It is not a "social interaction" because it does not go beyond your body.

It becomes a social interaction when the guy who's consumed a few too many pot brownies trips and lands on somebody's kid.  

YES it does. Thus it is not 'eating a pot brownie' that could be made illegal, but the irresponsible actions of an individual that assults a kid. Thus, they would be under law. If they want to eat a whole dish of brownies and drink bhang with it... either they should be able to handle their THC, or they should do it at home. It's just like drinking in public... drinking isn't illegal... getting drunk then taking a piss on the table across from yours is.

Quote

Quote

Quote
Are you going to mandate this education?  If not, you've killed off work like mine that many people aren't educated on.  Who will address substance abuse and Mental health? 

Well, thats true... there are lots of useful programs that the government gives tax funds to which aren't understood or publicly known. If those programs believe that they provide a direct and useful service, then they should educate the public on that service.

Yeah, and that requires money to do.  LOTS of money.  Lots more money than we currently have.  Your system will make that virtually impossible.  There is a reason we are called non-profits.  We don't sell goods.  We can't use profits to promote ourselves.  We need funding to get the word out. 

Yep, it wouldn't be easy... but I don't really think that any group should have an easy time of getting access to tax money. IMO, I'm not even sure I think rehab is an appropriate use of federal funds. State funds, perhaps...

QuoteThat doesn't mean that they have to know about RWHN program specifically... there may be a national bucket called "Programs in Support of Substance Abuse Recovery" and a national coalition of groups like yours which promote why people should choose to support that series of programs. I would expect those groups to have websites with details of how many people they've helped, what programs they use and techniques they use to help people and their books (income, expenses etc).

Would that mean more effort required for some people, yes. Does that matter? No, because the topic is freedom, not convenience.

I can assure, our issues with our efforts have nothing to do with a lack of effort.  They have everything to do with a lack of funding.  Meanwhile, we have copious amounts of peer-reviewed research to show that our programs DO work and DO have positive outcomes.  But that doesn't mean a lick if we don't have the money to run them, much less promote them.  

Quoteit seems unacceptable to me that tax money is being passed out to people that aren't reporting directly back to the public, or even necessarily on the radar for the public. As it stands now, tax money is fought over between useful purposes like yours and bridges to nowhere. If citizens, rather than senators had the say... do you think they would fund a bridge in Alaska, or the very successful Addiction rehab program that they saw profiled on CNN, heard about on their favorite talk radio show, etc? IMO, I think most Americans would probably support the program, rather than the bridge.

You are optimistic.  We've had informational programs we've done for parents on substance abuse in some of the local schools.  Guess how many parents show up to these things?  A good event is when 20 show up.  That's 20 parents in a school that houses 1000 kids.  But, when it comes to a hearing about whether or not to put in a new basketball court, 100s show up.  Helping kids addicted to meth isn't as sexy as a shiny parquet floor.  That's why we need help. 
[/quote]

Well, then, it seems to me that your job isn't well supported by the public and thus  I am at a loss to see why it should continue to exist off of public funding. I fear we shall have to disagree on this tax issue.

However, the tax bit is sort of secondary to the main focus of personal freedom. I think that if a citizen knew he had to pay $10,000 in taxes each year, and they could choose how the money was spent... then they would either not care (check the "Use how You Wish" box) and you could get funding from there... or they would educate themselves somewhat (or at least be tuned into the media where they could get educated a bit) and I am optimistic that if its THEIR money, they will want it to go to things they see as beneficial. I would like to think that a rehab program would be considered more beneficial than a bridge in Alaska or other pork barrel project.

Or, they could say, "fuck those junkies," and no money would go to RWHN.

I'm confused.  At this point I'm finding it hard to understand the major difference between the Rat system and the current system.  I have to admit it suspiciously looks like a convoluted way of decriminalizing drugs.  And if that is your main aim, then I would forget about this system and just focus on decriminalizing drugs.  I think what would help this is if you could delineate exactly which troublesome laws you are trying to eliminate with this system.  Because so far your system continues to penalize sex offenders, drunken/intoxicated idiots who cause public disturbances, impacts upon society by businesses, etc.,  I'm having a hard time understanding what is really different other than you can do drugs in your house legally. 

Quote from: LMNO on December 31, 2008, 07:13:00 PM
Or, they could say, "fuck those junkies," and no money would go to RWHN.

Which means I go back to Retail Hell and you spags get even more puns.  So make sure you consider all of the unintended consequences before you embark on your new system Rat.  ;)

I think your punbombs would be considered a social interaction, RWHN. :P

Quote from: Ratatosk on December 31, 2008, 07:10:49 PM

Quote from: Fomenter on December 31, 2008, 06:41:27 PM

QuoteSmoking a cigarette in your house, is personal. If you would like to kill yourself, feel free. Smoking in a restaurant is a social interaction and you're abrogating the personal freedom of everyone else by making their dinner taste like ass. If you don't want to agree to the personal restriction of freedom... then don't fucking go eat at that restaurant, cook at home.  You get your personal freedom and so does everyone else.

how about owning a restaurant that caters to people that smoke? current law says a restaurant owner cant cater to a the smokers by offering a smoking OK restaurant. is it a restriction his personal freedom to do business as he sees fit or the public's right to stop him because cigarettes are harmful?

Hrmmm, well I don't know. Firstly owning a resturant (or any business) takes you out of "personal freedom" and places you smack in the middle of social interaction, thus I don't see it as an issue of personal freedom for the owner. Iif you were to run a business that catered to a specific group, like smokers... I would say that the personal freedom of the other patrons would not necessarily be abrogated, because they would have the free choice to enter or not as they Will. However, it is an situation where the majority could decide, because its still a social interaction, rather than personal freedom.

OK but if they "restaurant owners" qualify as a social interaction how about the store that sells the cigarettes or the drugs you want decriminalized, they would also be a social interaction and subject to the will of the politicians and the majority wouldn't they?

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 31, 2008, 07:17:48 PM
I'm confused.  At this point I'm finding it hard to understand the major difference between the Rat system and the current system.  I have to admit it suspiciously looks like a convoluted way of decriminalizing drugs.  And if that is your main aim, then I would forget about this system and just focus on decriminalizing drugs.  I think what would help this is if you could delineate exactly which troublesome laws you are trying to eliminate with this system.  Because so far your system continues to penalize sex offenders, drunken/intoxicated idiots who cause public disturbances, impacts upon society by businesses, etc.,  I'm having a hard time understanding what is really different other than you can do drugs in your house legally. 

The point is this:

Our current system states that the majority can restrict the personal freedoms of others without their consent.
Our current system states that the Congress can restrict the personal freedoms of others, without their consent.
Our current system allows the government to punish anyone who breaks these restrictions, even if they did not agree to be bound by them. This punishment may go as far as to completely detain them of their personal freedom in all its aspects.

If we replace "Congress" or "majority" with the name "slave owner" such statements would be horrific to our senses. Yet, since its more than one person in the position of the slave owner... we somehow find it acceptable.

The difference is as minor (and as major) as the difference between Opt-In and Opt-Out telemarketing. The system we have today places the burden upon the person affected by the law, to spend their time and money trying preserve their personal freedom. This is backwards. The individual HAS their personal freedom and they should not need to fight for it, it should simply be guaranteed. There is no reason to suffer under legislated limits to personal freedom (like Prop 8), there is no reason that we should have to fight against such legislation... such legislation is simply not possible if the State's first requirement is the guarantee of personal freedom.

I'm sure there are far better ways to implement this guarantee than what I've stated. I'm an amateur at this ;-)

I don't think it requires a huge change to the existing system, but I think a change is necessary if we are to be a truly free nation.

As much as I would hate to see you return to Retail hell... I would suffer through 23,500 puns if it meant that the US government would say to everyone:

#

Man has the right to live by his own law
to live in the way that he wills to do:
to work as he will:
to play as he will:
to rest as he will:
to die when and how he will.

Man has the right to eat what he will:
to drink what he will:
to dwell where he will:
to move as he will on the face of the earth.

Man has the right to think what he will:
to speak what he will:
to write what he will:
to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will.
to dress as he will.

Man has the right to love as he will

Any system which begins with the words "everyone has the right..." is nothing more than a pile of idealistic gobshite but don't take my word for it, I'll happily retract that statement if and when said system is implemented.

Rights are not given, they are earned. If they're not taken, through blood sweat and tears, then they're not rights, they're just some hippy bullshit that means a metric tad less than nothing.

Quote from: Fomenter on December 31, 2008, 07:33:31 PM
OK but if they "restaurant owners" qualify as a social interaction how about the store that sells the cigarettes or the drugs you want decriminalized, they would also be a social interaction and subject to the will of the politicians and the majority wouldn't they?

Businesses would all be social interactions and the government could place controls on what and how things were sold. There is no personal freedom to "Sell as He Will" or "Stock Shelves as He Will". I don't think it would be unreasonable for the government to have the same sort of age restrictions etc as they do today on some products.

However, if products are not illegal to consume, business owners would have the money and drive to be allowed to sell them.

Hell, I don't think there's a personal freedom that says one has the right to "Buy off the shelves, whatever they Will".

Let us say that such a government came to reality, and since we're talking about drugs in this example (though its not the main driver) lets look at a scenario:

Bob says "I wish to smoke pot". He has the right to do so. Finding the pot is his problem. Perhaps he decides that he will grow it himself. Perhaps he decides that he will go see a friend that grows it, Perhaps he will go to the store and see if they have "Green Man" brand nugget in a pouch. He has the right to do all of these things... but he has no guarantee that any of these things will result in him getting stoned. His crop may die, his friend may not have any pot and the store may not carry it. That has nothing to do with personal freedom, he should learn to garden better.  :wink:

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on December 31, 2008, 07:47:08 PM
Any system which begins with the words "everyone has the right..." is nothing more than a pile of idealistic gobshite but don't take my word for it, I'll happily retract that statement if and when said system is implemented.

Rights are not given, they are earned. If they're not taken, through blood sweat and tears, then they're not rights, they're just some hippy bullshit that means a metric tad less than nothing.

That may be the case. I hope not, but it may be. Such a view would likely condemn our race to self-destruction, perhaps it is the only real option. However, I'd prefer to consider more optimistic options. They may never come to pass, but 10 optimistic possibilities seems to me like a better way to see the world than a single pessimistic assumption.

"TO WORK AS HE WILL."

Why is that not the same as "to sell as he will"?

Quote from: LMNO on December 31, 2008, 07:55:45 PM
"TO WORK AS HE WILL."

Why is that not the same as "to sell as he will"?

I don't know. That's a good question. I had initially consider that to mean that man has the right to choose when and what sort of work he will do... but perhaps it would include selling what he will as well. Good point LMNO.

Quote from: Ratatosk on December 31, 2008, 07:42:10 PM
The point is this:

Our current system states that the majority can restrict the personal freedoms of others without their consent.
Our current system states that the Congress can restrict the personal freedoms of others, without their consent.
Our current system allows the government to punish anyone who breaks these restrictions, even if they did not agree to be bound by them. This punishment may go as far as to completely detain them of their personal freedom in all its aspects.

If we replace "Congress" or "majority" with the name "slave owner" such statements would be horrific to our senses. Yet, since its more than one person in the position of the slave owner... we somehow find it acceptable.

Okay, so who enacts the laws that you would accept?  The ones governing not smoking in a public restaurant.  The ones keeping adult men from committing statutory rape?  How do those laws get put in place?  How are they put in place in a manner that doesn't involve some sort of decision making process where there is a majority that agrees with the law and a minority that diasgrees with the law? 

Quote from: Ratatosk on December 31, 2008, 07:59:29 PM

Quote from: LMNO on December 31, 2008, 07:55:45 PM
"TO WORK AS HE WILL."

Why is that not the same as "to sell as he will"?

I don't know. That's a good question. I had initially consider that to mean that man has the right to choose when and what sort of work he will do... but perhaps it would include selling what he will as well. Good point LMNO.

So, if Fomenter's premise is accurate, that working in a public space is a social interaction, doesn't this lead to a direct conflict between the individual's freedom and the government's regulation of social interactions?

Quote from: Ratatosk on December 31, 2008, 07:51:44 PM

Quote from: Fomenter on December 31, 2008, 07:33:31 PM
OK but if they "restaurant owners" qualify as a social interaction how about the store that sells the cigarettes or the drugs you want decriminalized, they would also be a social interaction and subject to the will of the politicians and the majority wouldn't they?

Businesses would all be social interactions and the government could place controls on what and how things were sold. There is no personal freedom to "Sell as He Will" or "Stock Shelves as He Will". I don't think it would be unreasonable for the government to have the same sort of age restrictions etc as they do today on some products.

this is a reasonable solution, the majority can place restrictions on the age of patrons allowed in a smokers restaurant or in a business that deals in adult products such as drugs or porn or serving alcohol and it can restrict the locations of those businesses using local zoning. but it cant stop them from engaging in this form of commerce only limit and control it in ways that serve the needs of society.

to sell as he will so long as it does no harm beyond the harm the purchaser does to himself,   it sounds good but it smells of tricky territory
                                                                                 /
the purchaser assuming full responsibility for his own actions

 

Who decides what an "adult" is?

Okay, so in this system, what is the punishment/penalty for the adult who buys the meth for someone underage who then dies after ODing on said meth? 

Quote from: LMNO on December 31, 2008, 08:03:16 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on December 31, 2008, 07:59:29 PM

Quote from: LMNO on December 31, 2008, 07:55:45 PM
"TO WORK AS HE WILL."

Why is that not the same as "to sell as he will"?

I don't know. That's a good question. I had initially consider that to mean that man has the right to choose when and what sort of work he will do... but perhaps it would include selling what he will as well. Good point LMNO.

So, if Fomenter's premise is accurate, that working in a public space is a social interaction, doesn't this lead to a direct conflict between the individual's freedom and the government's regulation of social interactions?

Yes, it would seem so.

The act of selling something, though, is a voluntary act between two people. Perhaps, then the only restriction on buying and selling would simply be full disclosure. That is the seller could not sell a skinned cat as "Rabbit" because this would impact the customer's right to "buy What He Will" he willed to buy rabbit, and Fred the Grocer sold him cat (or lead painted toys).

Perhaps I need to refine this concept of social interaction into two subsets... Social Interactions where all parties agree (such as "I agree to sell this rabbit. I agree to buy this rabbit" ) and social interactions where someone may interfere with the personal freedoms of others ("I got stoned off my ass and accidentally hit your car when I was parking" or "I will blow smoke in your face while you eat"). The former would be an expression of personal freedom of two individuals and the latter examples of someones actions impinging upon the freedom of others.

So I would have to change my answer to FoMEnter... if the store owner wanted to offer tobacco for sale, I suppose it would be an expression of their personal freedom.

Perhaps it is not 'working in public' that would set the standard, but doing ANYTHING in public that would somehow infringe upon the rights of others. Offering something for sale or buying something that is for sale, doesn't affect the personal freedoms of the other shoppers...

Of course, this brings up situations where the goods were produced in a way that infringes on the freedom of others (blood diamonds, sweat shop clothing etc). Obviously such things would be illegal to produce in the US, as any infringement on some persons freedom would be covered under the first rule. Imports would have to be managed through the State anyway (tariffs etc) so perhaps a utilitarian solution would need to be found here. Tricky tricky...

Quote from: LMNO on December 31, 2008, 08:22:38 PM
Who decides what an "adult" is?

I don't know. It obviously falls under protecting personal freedoms and would therefore be the responsibility of the State... but 'age of adulthood' seems capricious and arbitrary no matter which way we decide. 16? 18? 21?

I suppose it could be left to the parents, but then parents are sometimes idiots. I could see abuse here, no matter who made the decision.

Quote from: LMNO on December 31, 2008, 08:22:38 PM
Who decides what an "adult" is?

the age of consent is a social interaction and determined by the majority/politicians?

to sell as he will so long as it does no harm beyond the harm the purchaser does to himself the purchaser assuming full responsibility for his own actions,   it sounds good but it smells of tricky territory

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 31, 2008, 08:28:07 PM
Okay, so in this system, what is the punishment/penalty for the adult who buys the meth for someone underage who then dies after ODing on said meth? 

this is the tricky territory
                                                         
it will still require government, enforcement,taxation, educated and informed people voting etc. i don't think it will work much better than what we have without a whole lot of educated and informed voters "then maybe"

Quote from: Fomenter on December 31, 2008, 08:33:28 PM

Quote from: LMNO on December 31, 2008, 08:22:38 PM
Who decides what an "adult" is?

the age of consent is a social interaction and determined by the majority/politicians?

to sell as he will so long as it does no harm beyond the harm the purchaser does to himself the purchaser assuming full responsibility for his own actions,   it sounds good but it smells of tricky territory

But hold up, I thought the point of this new system is that there isn't a majority or politicians imposing their will on the minority.  Or have we changed that now? 

Quote

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 31, 2008, 08:28:07 PM
Okay, so in this system, what is the punishment/penalty for the adult who buys the meth for someone underage who then dies after ODing on said meth? 

this is the tricky territory
                                                         
it will still require government, enforcement,taxation, educated and informed people voting etc. i don't think it will work much better than what we have without a whole lot of educated and informed voters "then maybe"

Call me crazy, but the more and more this is discussed, the closer and closer we get to the system that is already in place.  Am I imagining this? 

I got it!

We can have THREE branches of government, each with the ability to limit the behavior of the other two!

Quote from: LMNO on December 31, 2008, 08:38:51 PM
I got it!

We can have THREE branches of government, each with the ability to limit the behavior of the other two!

(http://judyonthenet.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/nowai.jpg)

Quote
Perhaps I need to refine this concept of social interaction into two subsets... Social Interactions where all parties agree (such as "I agree to sell this rabbit. I agree to buy this rabbit" ) and social interactions where someone may interfere with the personal freedoms of others ("I got stoned off my ass and accidentally hit your car when I was parking" or "I will blow smoke in your face while you eat"). The former would be an expression of personal freedom of two individuals and the latter examples of someones actions impinging upon the freedom of others.

Of course, this brings up situations where the goods were produced in a way that infringes on the freedom of others (blood diamonds, sweat shop clothing etc). Obviously such things would be illegal to produce in the US, as any infringement on some persons freedom would be covered under the first rule. Imports would have to be managed through the State anyway (tariffs etc) so perhaps a utilitarian solution would need to be found here. Tricky tricky...

more tricky territory the need for regulation and responsible enforcement doesn't go away or the need for an educated and informed consumer i don't want to buy slave labour goods but how will i know if they are?

Quote from: LMNO on December 31, 2008, 08:38:51 PM
I got it!

We can have THREE branches of government, each with the ability to limit the behavior of the other two!

this plus a much better informed ,educated voter/consumer

"Full Disclosure" only works if you know what questions to ask.


"Was this toy made in a sweat shop?" is much different than "Will this toy explode in a ball of fire if I use it on a Tuesday?"

Quote from: Fomenter on December 31, 2008, 08:44:32 PM

Quote from: LMNO on December 31, 2008, 08:38:51 PM
I got it!

We can have THREE branches of government, each with the ability to limit the behavior of the other two!

this plus a much better informed ,educated voter/consumer

I would also add "active".  Activists are activists because they enjoy being activists as much as they believe in their cause.  But so many more get mad but just sit their on their couch and take it.  I think if you could fix THAT situation somehow, you'd get better results.  And you may mobilize a substantial army of Americans who do believe marijuana should be legal.  Or that some of the other laws that you believe restrict individual freedom should be lifted.  This whole Bailout provided the most heat on Congressmen I've seen in quite some time.  But it needs to be moar and moar often. 

I'm pretty sure that when we started this discussion I stated:

QuoteI think a much better system could exist than we have at this time. I say this, because we once had a system in the United States that was MUCH CLOSER to the above than we have now. There were horrible flaws (like the social acceptance of chattel slavery), however, with our modern social awareness and the historical example, a better national system could be implemented.

The MAJOR difference between this and what we have now:

QuoteThe first responsibility of a free society, should be to protect all citizens from having their personal freedoms stepped upon

Yes, its tricky territory. Its not simple and clear cut... I'm not a tenured professor of politics and I don't have all the answers. I think you all have done a great job of pointing out issues with the examples and theories I've thrown up. I think this is the right direction; a government that guarantees personal freedom, but I don't think I've got the right implementation as you all have shown.. Much more work yet to be done.



Unfortunately, I'm heading out for the New Years night of drinking and Partying and can't continue further now. Perhaps tomorrow, depending on how much alcohol I consume ;-)

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 31, 2008, 08:54:51 PM

Quote from: Fomenter on December 31, 2008, 08:44:32 PM

Quote from: LMNO on December 31, 2008, 08:38:51 PM
I got it!

We can have THREE branches of government, each with the ability to limit the behavior of the other two!

this plus a much better informed ,educated voter/consumer

I would also add "active".  Activists are activists because they enjoy being activists as much as they believe in their cause.  But so many more get mad but just sit their on their couch and take it.  I think if you could fix THAT situation somehow, you'd get better results.  And you may mobilize a substantial army of Americans who do believe marijuana should be legal.  Or that some of the other laws that you believe restrict individual freedom should be lifted.  This whole Bailout provided the most heat on Congressmen I've seen in quite some time.  But it needs to be moar and moar often. 

A good point... but it still seems backwards. The government should not have the right to pass laws restricting freedom, then face the citizens if they happen to not be distracted by whatever Viacom is puking up on the television ;-)

I think perhaps Vexati0n's post was much closer to something implementable than mine, and it would cover both the government (free to pass what the Will) and the citizen:

Quote from: vexati0n on December 31, 2008, 05:59:28 PM
I still think the best way would be to allow the State to have its little tyranny fantasies, and counter that with a strong Judiciary that is inherently weighted in favor of individual rights, maybe even to the point that you don't even need a hearing to overturn a law you're charged with breaking if the Government cannot meaningfully demonstrate why that activity should be prohibited in your case. Just fill out a "waiver of prosecution" form and you're free to go.

Perhaps I need to reconsider my thoughts with this included...

Have fun.  I'm out until probably Monday or Tuesday, but I'll try to digest whatever happens between now and then and add wherever appropriate. 

here's the actual solution:

The power to enact the law is vested in a body of officials elected by convicted felons;

The power to enforce the law rests with an armed force of volunteers, is a part-time job that pays in the six-figure range, and lasts no more than three months (consecutive or cumulative) per person, ever, except for the Executive who receives no pay at all and whose term is never shorter than four years and never longer than ten, but always ends with a surprise assassination;

The power to interpret the law is given to old people who can prove they are reasonably good at Chess;

All criminal charges, regardless of how "insignificant," result in a jury trial, jurors are paid no less than five hundred dollars per day they are sequestered, and the jury has the power to overturn and nullify the law on a case-by-case basis. In jury trials, there is a judge, but his only function is to nod his head thoughtfully. In the event that the Defendant is found guilty and sentenced to execution, it is the Judge's duty to go-go dance naked in a cage for the criminal's amusement.

i am all in favor of a more thelmic interpretation of the system we have now. stupidity, lack of understanding of freedom and what it means, and of course the inevitable corruption of government are the biggest stumbling blocks to making it happen, the details  (there are many) could be worked out based on the laws we have already. the hard part is preventing its corruption (good functioning checks and balances) and getting an educated/Wise public.

if i was to suggest a first step in this direction it would probably be to get education out of the hands of government, if people who "learn to think" do better in this world and the education system was profitable to teachers based on success, the  successful schools would teach students to think and within a generation or two  these changes in favor of personal freedom would become far more likely

Nice dream but it's never going to happen I'm afraid. Too many extremely powerful fuckheads with a vested interest in the status quo.

Rights will continue to be afforded to those who seize them, in spite of, not because of any government or reforms thereof. All the rest of humanity can sit on their asses and wait or get all bolshy and campaign for change. In the meantime I'll be doing whatever the hell I please.

"I doubt such a system would be perfect, but I think it could be implemented in a way that provides much more personal freedom, and voluntary agreements."
seems almost like common sense...

"Would that mean more effort required for some people, yes. Does that matter?"
seems to allow status quo of the good boys club

"Well, that's true... there are lots of useful programs that the government gives tax funds to which aren't understood or publicly known. If those programs believe that they provide a direct and useful service, then they should educate the public on that service."
takes money to make money. could this instill a survival of the fitness for government resources?


"Alaska"
I dont know if they are a good example here, they like to behave like a state in of itself even going as far as some people having the state flag in the blue spot reserved for all 50 stars not just their dipper and north star. but wonders if states held the funding for themselfs instead of sending it up to dc for allocation how different would our taxes be?

"This also reduces the need to go find everyone personally and get them to agree to protect the spotted owl. The State can create a bucket for the poor owl... but each citizen can choose to dump money in, or not as they will. "

so basicly a general lotto and then donation bins to pick up the slack. whats to limit companies from donation to using their machine of operation from using their resources to basic keep doing what they are doing now>? what happens when city councils and mayors or other senate n executive branches butt heads? could funding vanish almost overnight due to aggressive PR campaigns?

what happens when groups run into each other in this system, peta bread vs hummer logs
what to stop public roads and other infrastruction from going into private hands and requiring things like a toll

Quote from: Knight of the Banana-shaped table on January 01, 2009, 10:02:33 PM
"I doubt such a system would be perfect, but I think it could be implemented in a way that provides much more personal freedom, and voluntary agreements."
seems almost like common sense...

"Would that mean more effort required for some people, yes. Does that matter?"
seems to allow status quo of the good boys club

"Well, that's true... there are lots of useful programs that the government gives tax funds to which aren't understood or publicly known. If those programs believe that they provide a direct and useful service, then they should educate the public on that service."
takes money to make money. could this instill a survival of the fitness for government resources?


"Alaska"
I dont know if they are a good example here, they like to behave like a state in of itself even going as far as some people having the state flag in the blue spot reserved for all 50 stars not just their dipper and north star. but wonders if states held the funding for themselfs instead of sending it up to dc for allocation how different would our taxes be?

"This also reduces the need to go find everyone personally and get them to agree to protect the spotted owl. The State can create a bucket for the poor owl... but each citizen can choose to dump money in, or not as they will. "

so basicly a general lotto and then donation bins to pick up the slack. whats to limit companies from donation to using their machine of operation from using their resources to basic keep doing what they are doing now>? what happens when city councils and mayors or other senate n executive branches butt heads? could funding vanish almost overnight due to aggressive PR campaigns?

what happens when groups run into each other in this system, peta bread vs hummer logs
what to stop public roads and other infrastruction from going into private hands and requiring things like a toll

lrn2quote.

Quote from: The Borderline Simpleton on January 01, 2009, 10:40:46 PM
lrn2quote.

gotta lrn2spell first
survival of the fitness  :lulz: fitest

Quote from: Knight of the Banana-shaped table on January 02, 2009, 02:50:11 AM

Quote from: The Borderline Simpleton on January 01, 2009, 10:40:46 PM
lrn2quote.

gotta lrn2spell first
survival of the fitness  :lulz: fitest

:x

If you guys just made me World Emperor, all of this would be moot.

Quote from: Knight of the Banana-shaped table on January 02, 2009, 02:50:11 AM

Quote from: The Borderline Simpleton on January 01, 2009, 10:40:46 PM
lrn2quote.

gotta lrn2spell first
survival of the fitness  :lulz: fitest

No.
Just no.

Got that?

Quote from: Nigel on January 02, 2009, 08:09:35 AM
If you guys just made me World Emperor, all of this would be moot.

What a lovely idea.
Let's do it. :)

Quote from: Nigel on January 02, 2009, 08:09:35 AM
If you guys just made me World Emperor, all of this would be moot.

You do realize that this means that PD.com becomes your cabal of advisers. This only makes it more wonderful, of course.

Excellent.  :lulz:

I understand where you are getting at (the first comment.) I don't really think of Dicordianism as a religion, more of a way to think about what is going on around your simple little minds. To be quite honest I think that what is going on right now a bunch of bullsh!t. I don't mind everyone complaining about how you don't say something right, or it is a cult you don't want to join that. I think for myself and I will argue my share then leave with my head still on my shoulders.

I don't care if I got off topic I know what I typed. Thank you. Go slip on a banana peel and fall on some nails...DULL RUSTY NAILS!

wut

Quote from: Dirtytime on February 18, 2009, 09:06:58 AM
wut

I was talking about the first thing on this topic.

wut

who?

Quote from: Seth_The_Fallen on February 18, 2009, 10:27:46 PM

Quote from: Dirtytime on February 18, 2009, 09:06:58 AM
wut

I was talking about the first thing on this topic.

:?

Quote from: Seth_the_fallen
I don't really think of Dicordianism as a religion, more of a way to think about what is going on around your simple little minds.

gee, that kinda shit doesn't look familiar at all.
if you wanna think for yourself you can start by not trying to sound like someone else.

that's all i've got to say to you.

why?

Quote from: Squid-diddle on February 23, 2009, 07:25:03 AM

Quote from: Seth_the_fallen
I don't really think of Dicordianism as a religion, more of a way to think about what is going on around your simple little minds.

gee, that kinda shit doesn't look familiar at all.
if you wanna think for yourself you can start by not trying to sound like someone else.

that's all i've got to say to you.

I don't think he meant that insultingly, more as an admission that until you start thinking about what is going on in your own head you may qualify as "simple-minded".

~shrug~

I haven't read any other topics besides this one and two others. One I started. I don't know what the FUCK your talking about me not thinking for myself. I try to think more for myself then most my age or most older then me. So if you have a problem with my thought process please take it up to to brain not me. thank you and go sleep in acid.

Quote from: Seth_The_Fallen on February 25, 2009, 09:56:37 PM
I haven't read any other topics besides this one and two others. One I started. I don't know what the FUCK your talking about me not thinking for myself. I try to think more for myself then most my age or most older then me. So if you have a problem with my thought process please take it up to to brain not me. thank you and go sleep in acid.

Such a chip on your little shoulder.

Quote from: Seth_The_Fallen on February 25, 2009, 09:56:37 PM
I haven't read any other topics besides this one and two others. One I started. I don't know what the FUCK your talking about me not thinking for myself.

Drive by flaming.

Quote from: Seth_The_Fallen on February 18, 2009, 03:55:53 AM
I understand where you are getting at (the first comment.) I don't really think of Dicordianism as a religion, more of a way to think about what is going on around your simple little minds. To be quite honest I think that what is going on right now a bunch of bullsh!t. I don't mind everyone complaining about how you don't say something right, or it is a cult you don't want to join that. I think for myself and I will argue my share then leave with my head still on my shoulders.

I don't care if I got off topic I know what I typed. Thank you. Go slip on a banana peel and fall on some nails...DULL RUSTY NAILS!

We're a cult, of course, but we're lazy.  We couldn't be arsed to spike the Koolaid for anything less than 1500 people.

Quote from: Seth_The_Fallen on February 25, 2009, 09:56:37 PM
I try to think more for myself then most my age or most older then me. So if you have a problem with my thought process please take it up to to brain not me. thank you and go sleep in acid.

Why think for yourself, if you know little?  It's easier than you think to control someone that forces himself into the "rebel" stereotype.

For those of you in the audience, the bolded portion demonstrates Cartesian duality.

i can achieve the underlined portion by recognizing that the carbon dioxide in the air becomes carbonic acid in water.  since a thing cannot be acid sometimes and not-acid at others, the carbon dioxide in the air must be acid.

Quote from: yhnmzw on February 26, 2009, 04:57:02 PM

Quote from: Seth_The_Fallen on February 25, 2009, 09:56:37 PM
I try to think more for myself then most my age or most older then me. So if you have a problem with my thought process please take it up to to brain not me. thank you and go sleep in acid.

Why think for yourself, if you know little?  It's easier than you think to control someone that forces himself into the "rebel" stereotype.

For those of you in the audience, the bolded portion demonstrates Cartesian duality.

i can achieve the underlined portion by recognizing that the carbon dioxide in the air becomes carbonic acid in water.  since a thing cannot be acid sometimes and not-acid at others, the carbon dioxide in the air must be acid.

If I don't think for myself then why should I live? Being your own person and thinking for ourselves is why we are the most intelligent forms of life in this world. Do you really think following someone's idiotic or dangerous advice can help you learn and grow to be you, not someone else?

I am going to stab your Cartesian Duality in the fucking personality and see if that detaches it from the body.

Quote from: Seth_The_Fallen on March 05, 2009, 04:47:22 AM

Quote from: yhnmzw on February 26, 2009, 04:57:02 PM

Quote from: Seth_The_Fallen on February 25, 2009, 09:56:37 PM
I try to think more for myself then most my age or most older then me. So if you have a problem with my thought process please take it up to to brain not me. thank you and go sleep in acid.

Why think for yourself, if you know little?  It's easier than you think to control someone that forces himself into the "rebel" stereotype.

For those of you in the audience, the bolded portion demonstrates Cartesian duality.

i can achieve the underlined portion by recognizing that the carbon dioxide in the air becomes carbonic acid in water.  since a thing cannot be acid sometimes and not-acid at others, the carbon dioxide in the air must be acid.

If I don't think for myself then why should I live? Being your own person and thinking for ourselves is why we are the most intelligent forms of life in this world. Do you really think following someone's idiotic or dangerous advice can help you learn and grow to be you, not someone else?

I was half asleep, and forgot to add my subtext:
"LEARN MORE, ALWAYS"

 :lulz:


i lost intere...

QuoteIf I don't think for myself then why should I live? Being your own person and thinking for ourselves is why we are the most intelligent forms of life in this world. Do you really think following someone's idiotic or dangerous advice can help you learn and grow to be you, not someone else?

Being ourselves is being a pack of angry monkeys.
Screw nature, I want to be a tire iron.

This is not getting us anywhere fast. Bitching to the nooby? Come on at least I have enough sense to stop arguing with myself.

Quote from: Seth_The_Fallen on March 10, 2009, 04:30:06 AM
This is not getting us anywhere fast. Bitching to the nooby? Come on at least I have enough sense to stop arguing with myself.

Noobs are one of the 5 basic food groups, here.

Pork shoulder, pork shoulder, pork shoulder, noobs, pork shoulder.

Quote from: Seth_The_Fallen on March 10, 2009, 04:30:06 AM
This is not getting us anywhere fast. Bitching to the nooby? Come on at least I have enough sense to stop arguing with myself.

Are you sure, or were you trying to justify speaking up in the first place?

only is I am dead I shall do such a thing!

Quote from: Seth_The_Fallen on March 10, 2009, 04:39:50 AM
only is I am dead I shall do such a thing!

Only is I am kill me now. 

Ok how blood do you wish it?

Quote from: Seth_The_Fallen on March 10, 2009, 04:44:43 AM
Ok how blood do you wish it?

Just a little take off the top. 

so you want it skimmed?

Um, I don't even want to know.

I bet you do. you are just not telling us.

BUMP because I have changed my mind.

There is such a thing as Discordianism, and not only is it religious, it costs $30. The only difference between this and the Church of the Subgenius is that that scam is a rip-off. This one is LEGIT, because your money just goes directly to me. And once you've paid, you don't have to do anything to push the boundaries of "Discordia," because your $30 is worth more to the cause than anything you could ever do as a singular person. You'll be resolved of all your iniquities, and you'll be virtually guaranteed* a place in the Discordian afterlife in return for your contribution.

No purchase necessary**!












*Void where prohibited or ridiculous.

**NO PURCHASE NECESSARY means you won't actually receive any physical thing in exchange for your $30. The payment itself is still compulsory, however.

 :lol:

[Just posting to thankee for the bump.  The OP answered some questions, and I never would have found this thread if you hadn't.]

On a more serious note, do you accept Canadian Tire money?