Silk Road forums
Discussion => Silk Road discussion => Topic started by: Dread Pirate Roberts on April 29, 2012, 06:59 am
-
I keep hearing this argument come up when people talk about drug prohibition: legalize, regulate and tax it. On the surface it sounds like a good idea. No more drug war, more tax revenue, government regulators can make sure it is safe. Makes sense, right?
I can't help but think something is wrong though. Feels like the bastards that have been screwing everyone over all this time still win in this scenario. Now all that money can go to the state and to their cronies, right?
Here's the rub: the drug war is an acute symptom of a deeper problem, and that problem is the state. If they “legalize, regulate and tax” it, it's just one more part of society under their thumb, another productive sector that they can leech off of.
If prohibition is lifted, most people here will go away. You'll go back to your lives and get your drugs from whatever state certified dispensaries are properly licensed to sell to you. Drug use will be as interesting as smoking and drinking.
Here's my point: Silk Road is about something much bigger than thumbing your nose at the man and getting your drugs anyway. It's about taking back our liberty and our dignity and demanding justice. If prohibition is lifted, and the drug industry is placed under the yoke of the state, then we won in a small way, but lost in a big way. Right now, drugs are ours. They aren't tainted by the government. We the people control their manufacture, distribution and consumption. We should be looking to expand that control, taking back our power, no giving what is ours to the very people that have been our enemies all along.
It's easy to justify though. Think of all the horrors the war on drugs has caused that will be gone, almost instantly. That pain could stop!
Don't be tempted by this short-term easy fix of “let the government handle it.” Their time is coming to an end. The future is OUR time. Let us take this opportunity they've given us to gain a foothold from which we can throw that yoke off completely. We are NOT beasts of burden to be taxed and controlled and regulated. WE are free spirits! We DEMAND respect! The future can be a time where the human spirit flourishes, unbridled, wild and free! Don't be so quick to put on that harness and pull for the parasites.
If prohibition is lifted, where will you be? Will you forget about all this revolution stuff? Will you go back to ignoring that itching feeling that something isn't right, that men in uniforms and behind desks have just a bit too much control over your life, and are taking more and more of your sovereignty every day? Will you go back to thinking that taxes are as inevitable as death and the best you can do is to pull as hard as you can for them until you mind, body and spirit are all used up? Or will you feel the loss, as one more wild west frontier comes under the dominion of the enemy, and redouble your efforts to stop it?
I know where I'll be. I won't rest until children are born into a world where oppression, institutional violence and control, world war, and all the other hallmarks of the state are as ancient history as pharaohs commanding armies of slaves. The drug war merely brings to light their nature and shows us who they really are. Legalizing it won't change that and will only make them stronger.
Hold on to what you DO have, and stand for the freedom you deserve!
-
If prohibition is lifted then I will no longer buy or use drugs, because the whole fun sticking the finger to all the squares vibe would be removed.
Joking aside I would probably not use as much to be honest, since I know I can get it at the store whenever and have a variety of what to do. Where as now if a sale or really high quality batch comes up I have to test it in case it happens to be something that I will never see again.
-
Ending alcohol prohibition basically ended Al Capone and similar mafia from running entire cities because they were making so much money. Drug legalization is basically the same idea: the cartels won't exist anymore and any mafia or gangs leftover go back to doing petty truckload ripoffs and extortion/rackets. Not a lot of money, not like billions per week the Mexican cartels are bringing in who can afford their own military and buy anybody in government they want.
As for the evil state, yes, in Canada they have bullshit liquor laws charging nearly 2x the amount booze costs in the states and mega corporations have cornered the market.
But the good outweighs any of the bad. You can argue about the bad later and come up with consensus, nothing you can do when epic violence is going on everywhere and out of control cartels are building empires or police are terrorizing the public.
TL;DR
VOTE PIRATE PARTY! p2p government ftw
-
of course not stopping revolution after prohibition, will be too busy trying to get the people who legislated and enforced it (and many who intentionally lobbied for it for profits) charged with crimes against humanity and lined up for the firing squad. We will not win the war when they leave us alone, but when they pay for what they have done against us.
-
If it was lifted I am sure we could still produce our own drugs, and I seriously doubt South American will stop making coke and heroin that will be transported into the states illegally without being taxed, so we would be able to buy bootleg drugs instead of pharmaceutical. I doubt the cartel's would just give up trying to make their money off drugs overnight when they make billions, so naturally they would have to devise some type of plan to profit something off what they have been doing for years, and probably expand their horizons into other criminal fields like cybercrime and up their human trafficking.
-
Great post, DPR. +1
-
Meh. I don't believe in anarchy and don't see anything good coming from removing government completely. Although I agree that in some places the government controls you is too big, there are many places where I'm happy government is in control.
-
Ill still be on the paving stones fighting facism in WHATEVER guise it takes !
-
If drugs are legalized, regulated, and taxed, there are many situations that could arise of this- some more favorable than others. But the anarchist undertones DPR suggests do not go hand in hand with the SR community. Creating a monolithic scapegoat "the State," serves no purpose in addressing real issues.
If drugs are legalized, they will be more in our hands than ever, because now you could open up that acid manufacturing operation you've always dreamed of, or a Kesey-esque drug sampling center, right in your own home town! All of this depends on what the regulations say of course, but progress towards civil liberty takes time and won't reach an acceptable level in a day.
At the very least, the regulation of a legal drug trade could offer benefits in quality control, geographical availability, price, proper drug education, and last but not least- full access to drugs for the eager scientific community who have been restricted over the last century.
-
heh I don't think crystal meth, coke, or heroin is ever going to be legal anywhere in a 'first world country', but man if I could buy some weed at the local 7-11 store some day with no medical license needed?
Legal weed would be pretty sweet ( sorry SR weed vendors out there).
Decriminalization of weed I guess might be easier done than the full blown legal status. And that way SR could possibly still sell it.
But the genie is out of the bottle in a way at least in the US with medical states, some day legal weed might go down.
Hell, its the one drug you can't overdose on, so its kind of hard to fight against compared to other harder drugs. Even an aspirin overdose could kill you.
People have to remember that back in the 70s when head shops were all around major cities, people thought weed would go legal back then too. But in comes a new conservative political change, out with the hippies and in with the yuppies. And all that legalizing weed ideas fell to the side. The same could happen soon again, just when you think the tide is turning, bam! its get these dirty drugs out of here, only prescription drugs sold here.
And DPR, you will still have plenty of other stuff on SR, if weed goes legal. You wouldn't have to look for a new line of work, heh.
Prohibition was not great for alcohol, was it?
Does anyone want alcohol prohibition back, besides those sober people that are in AA?
I guess it was cooler back then to get drunk in a speak easy than a plain old legal bar, but.... Maybe DPR wants those days back to sell alcohol too, lol.
-
Really great post, DPR. This is a perspective that a lot of us don't consider. A lot of people like the idea of being able to do the things they like without risk of punishment, and are willing the pay a bit extra money and freedom for it. But even Benjamin Franklin, statist that he was, agreed that "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
We are in a good position to take advantage of this world's failed drug policy, and create a market situation that will overshadow anything the state can attempt to do about it.
I also think putting work in to broadening the influence of the BitCoin (and possibly other worthy anonymous/secure currencies) might be worth some of our time. We are already doing that just by virtue of participating in SR, but it would be nice to try to expand on the "regular" goods and services that can be purchased with BTC. For instance, I would love to see good BTC replacements for both eBay and Craig's List. This would allow more people to keep more of their money in BTC instead of having to transfer it into cash. It might help stabilize the BTC while at the same time weakening state-run fiat currencies.
(Disclaimer: I'm no economist, so I'm really just guessing. I would love to be corrected/advised about this kind of thing, though.)
Ending alcohol prohibition basically ended Al Capone and similar mafia from running entire cities because they were making so much money. Drug legalization is basically the same idea: the cartels won't exist anymore and any mafia or gangs leftover...
But the good outweighs any of the bad... nothing you can do when epic violence is going on everywhere and out of control cartels are building empires or police are terrorizing the public.
Prohibition was only lucrative for the mafia because it was dangerous for anyone to produce liquor when it was considered contraband by the state. If there was no overruling government to decide that no one could drink, then everyone could drink and produce alcohol at their leisure, and the market would decide on the price. i.e. No one could "run" the alcohol market, because anyone could offer it for a lower price than their competitor, until it settles on a natural price that is a reasonable amount above what it costs to produce.
Anyway, the state is the biggest, worst mafia out there. Government is, by definition, a monopoly on violence: only they allow themselves to threaten force and coercion (jail time) to enforce rules that they choose are right. No one else is allowed by the state to initiate violence or force against another party (without prior permission from the state).
Imagine some guy you'd never met knocked on your door one day. You open the door, and he tells you, "Hello, SuperDerp. I'm here to collect the money you owe me," and you're like, "Sorry mate, what money? I don't even know you." And he says, "Your protection fee. You owe me a fee to make sure nobody fucks with you." So you say something like, "Nah dude, I never agreed to that, and I can take care of myself," and he replies, "No, you did agree. By virtue of just living in this area, you've already agreed to the terms. This is my zone, you know?" His hand moves to rest lightly on the gun holstered on his hip. "Anyway, if you don't pay the protection fee, I'm just going to take it by force, and if you resist, I'll probably lock you in a cage for a while. So it's easier if you just pay."
At this point you'd probably wish you could call the cops. Since he is a cop, you're not really sure who to call.
This is pretty much what taxes are.
I know some people will gut-react to that, "No fucking way, that's not anything like taxes." But think about it:
If you don't pay your taxes, you'll get some letters about it for a while, and if you ignore them, someone will eventually come to your house. If you tell them you're not going to pay, eventually some representative of the state with a gun (cop) will come and tell you it's time to come to the cage (jail). If you refuse, he and his cronies will force you into the cage. If you fight them, they will shoot you with their guns.
Even if you wanted to live unbothered without state benefits, you can't opt out of these rules, because you were claimed as a citizen when you were born. How? Because the state, this faceless, personless "entity," has claimed possession of the actual planet surface for many miles around you, and all of the people ever born on it. And just in case anyone's thinking like a stereotypical American redneck--"If you don't like 'Merica, you can GET OUT!"--wouldn't that be fantastic?! If only there was somewhere else to go...alas, to escape would only put you under jurisdiction of another government with similar rules.
the anarchist undertones DPR suggests do not go hand in hand with the SR community.
I think they're more anarchist OVERtones, since that's exactly what the post is about. And that's a really ridiculous thing to claim, since not only did DPR clearly create SR with anarchist intentions, but it is a fantastic example of how anarchy can function successfully and peacefully. This thing we have here is working example of an anarcho-capitalist society/marketplace, and you're a part of it! Be proud!
-
Regardless of what happens, there will ALWAYS be a blackmarket, SR will still serve its purpose only differently. Still I think prohibition is decades away...
-
A dealer I know once said to me "legalizing it would be the worst thing that could possibly happen."
Although DPR I think you are open to the criticism that you are saying this yet raking in a fuckload on comission. Now I can't complain because I won $500+ on 4/20 as did many others, and SR is truly an incredible service and you are putting your life/freedom on the line to keep this going so it is only fair that you make a little cash money out of it - but..... I think you should donate a small amount say 1-5% to charity.
Not only will you be helping good causes, but you will also have that going for you should the powers that be choose to really start gunning for you. It would be harder for them to pass off the "evil vicious criminal drug market" image when a portion of the profits are put into a charity fund. Personally I think this would be a great idea, and it's surely not going to hit your pocket too much.
-
^ I love this idea, only problem is figuring out how to give donations anonymously while still making sure people know they are coming from silkroad.
-
The drug war, like any war, is about domination and control. And this war in particular is between left and right wing politics. Left wing (liberals) want freedom whereas right wing (conservatives) want to dominate and control. Over the past century there has been a gradual political shift from the right to the left.
A lot of it has to do with the way parents raise their children. If a father uses physical discipline and trauma to dominate his offspring, these children will be submissive to authority figures and never question authority. Those are the conservatives. This is a good way to raise well-disciplined soldiers who follow orders, but unfortunately, studies have shown that physical trauma during the formative years in childhood can lower IQ greatly.
When parents create a more positive environment for their children and exert less control over them, these children may have an unrealistic expectation that all of their childhood freedom and liberty will carry over into adulthood. And oftentimes it does not; especially if they do not have easy access to a lot of money while living in a capitalist sharktank. But the upside to this type of childhood, is that these children have the freedom to discover the world and create their own opinions and beliefs with a minimal amount of imposing influence from adults, and so IQ levels are heightened.
Now, I know that kids can be greedy, selfish, violent little monkeys, so I'm not going to weigh in with an opinion on whether spanking is moral or not. All I'm saying is that 100 years ago people used to beat the shit out of their kids, whereas today even a minor spanking is frowned upon by some. And today we have computers, the internet, 3dtv, CERN and the Large Hadron Collider. And of course SILK Road ;o)
Um, what were we talking about? Oh yeah should marijuana be legalized and taxed? Well as long as every penny of those tax dollars goes towards paying the victims of the drug war, I don't see why not. Howabout $100,000 per year of prison and $10,000 per year of probation?
-
heh I don't think crystal meth, coke, or heroin is ever going to be legal anywhere in a 'first world country', but man if I could buy some weed at the local
Portugal isn't "first world"?
-
Or Czech Republic? What about Spain?
-
I and my mushrooms will submit to taxation, regulation and legalization when every cop who ever sent anyone to a cage for non-violent drug crimes is dead and in hell.
They may legalize marijuana but I will buy and sell the black market versions for preference to any weed which is taxed and regulated to fund wars, oppression and misery.
Everyone should internally commit to the following..
"Legalization means nothing except perhaps fewer SWAT teams. They declared this war.. they don't get to declare victory and control the peace. The Drug War ends when all the LEO drug warriors are dead, in hell, or tried for crimes against humanity."
Also... they won't legalize psychedelics.. weed may be decrimmed cause they can try and profit off it and it's therapeutic effects but psychedelics are a threat to the state, just like war is it's health.
-
They may legalize marijuana but I will buy and sell the black market versions for preference to any weed which is taxed and regulated to fund wars, oppression and misery.
+1 to this.
Also, I think the current pretense about weed being "legalized" in the future is just a smokescreen. They are keeping it in the gray area until the biotech companies can rape the plant's genetics, then they will clamp down hard on naturally-grown stuff, so they can control the med market.
-
If prohibition is lifted then the people I buy from would probably get a license to do it commercially and I would carry on doing what I do now anyway.
Also I'd set up shop properly offering corporate structuring/tax avoidance strategy/accounting/etc to drug dealers legally instead of just on here.
So basically nothing would change...apart from I'd get an office...with a sexy sign. Awesome. :P
-
heh I don't think crystal meth, coke, or heroin is ever going to be legal anywhere in a 'first world country', but man if I could buy some weed at the local
Portugal isn't "first world"?
crystal meth, coke and heroin is legal in Portugal? really???
Portugal isn't 3rd world that's for sure, but by 'first world' I mean a 'major' populated with 'major' modern technology at their disposal, hmm maybe portugal is more like 2nd world, ::shrugs:: I don't know shit about Portugal, so educate me if you must ( and I sure get the feeling you will LOL j/k)
-
From the wiki:
Portugal has arguably the most liberal laws concerning possession of illicit drugs in the Western world. In 2001 Portugal decriminalized possession of effectively all drugs that are still illegal in other developed nations including, but not limited to, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and LSD. While possession is legal, trafficking and possession of more than "10 days worth of personal use" are still punishable by jail time and fines. People caught with small amounts of any drug are given the choice to go to a rehab facility, and may refuse treatment without consequences. Despite criticism from other European nations, who stated Portugal's drug consumption would tremendously increase, overall drug use rose only slightly, whilst use among teenagers dropped, along with the number of HIV infection cases, which had dropped 50% by 2009.[30][31]
-
From the wiki:
Portugal has arguably the most liberal laws concerning possession of illicit drugs in the Western world. In 2001 Portugal decriminalized possession of effectively all drugs that are still illegal in other developed nations including, but not limited to, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and LSD. While possession is legal, trafficking and possession of more than "10 days worth of personal use" are still punishable by jail time and fines. People caught with small amounts of any drug are given the choice to go to a rehab facility, and may refuse treatment without consequences. Despite criticism from other European nations, who stated Portugal's drug consumption would tremendously increase, overall drug use rose only slightly, whilst use among teenagers dropped, along with the number of HIV infection cases, which had dropped 50% by 2009.[30][31]
well hell ,if its still punishable to traffic and possession, its not fully legal, is it then? I bet they don't like crystal meth, they don't mention that drug, heh.
-
Meth isn't big in the EU apart from maybe in Germany and Eastern Europe.
Portugal and Spain are all about the coke and hash.
-
As long as we're all aware you're protecting your investment! I agree with you DPR, however, it is still propaganda!!!
-
The drug war, like any war, is about domination and control. And this war in particular is between left and right wing politics. Left wing (liberals) want freedom whereas right wing (conservatives) want to dominate and control. Over the past century there has been a gradual political shift from the right to the left.
Rubbish. It's nowhere near as simple as that.
Take evolution theory. If you are a Democrat, then you are statistically more likely to agree that evolutionary competition and specialization produce the diversity and design of the animal and plant kingdoms.
On the other hand, if you are an Republican, then you are statistically more likely to disagree with evolution theory because of the implications which appear to conflict with your theology.
So far, so familiar to a reader of the New York Times. Now let's look at it from the other side.
--
Take capitalism. If you are a Republican, then you are statistically more likely to agree that competition and the division of labor (specialization) lead to the diversity and design of the economy.
On the other hand, if you are a Democrat, then you are statistically more likely to disagree with capitalism, because of the implications which appear to conflict with your world view *cough* theology *cough*.
So far, so familiar to a reader of the Wall Street Journal.
--
So who is right? Do competition and specialization work, or don't they? Do Republicans want to "dominate and control" because they tend to want to restrict your social choices? Or do Democrats want to "dominate and control" because they want to restrict your economic choices?
My view is that neither are right. And neither are wrong. It depends entirely on the environmental conditions.
A lot of it has to do with the way parents raise their children. If a father uses physical discipline and trauma to dominate his offspring, these children will be submissive to authority figures and never question authority. Those are the conservatives. This is a good way to raise well-disciplined soldiers who follow orders, but unfortunately, studies have shown that physical trauma during the formative years in childhood can lower IQ greatly.
Nor is this correct. I'm not debating the specific, but your interpretation of what it means. Tell me, why do the conservatives and liberals exist? Because they've existed, with different names, for pretty much since the inception of humankind's ability to communicate, even when political parties didn't exist in their present conception. Seems to me, if one way was more efficient than the other, then we'd have sooner or later evolved along that path and not the other. Instead, we have two opposites that appear to be evenly matched the majority of the time.
This is a matter of equilibrium between two powers, not right or wrong.
Finally, IQ is a metric commonly used, often inappropriately, for the speed of human computation, or association. Liberals make for good pattern detectors, which is why many of them are scientists. That does not mean that conservatives are stupid. It means they bring something else, something very necessary to the table. You might as well start a debate on how soldiers tend to be male rather than female, and therefore females are going to become obsolete in the coming century. Cool story brah. Also, I am more likely to vote Republican than Democrat, which according to you makes me dumber. Given that I've accumulated more Benjamins than all my liberal friends, and their friend's friends, and... ...put together, I'd say I'm pretty content to be this much of a numbskull. Excuse me whilst I tend to my peacocks, they are lunching on caviar and crystal this evening and I fear they may suffer from peacock gout if I don't watch out.
But seriously; this is more about centralization vs decentralization than left wing or right wing. I suggest giving politicalcompass.org a whirl for some interesting ideas.
btw: I would tend to agree with DPR. The "consequences of the peace", are not what people imagine today. In fact I believe, unfortunately, that this seemingly innocent concept could lead to either A Brave New World or Big Brother. Chemical dystopia would be the ultimate consequence of such 'freedom'.
-
DPR, while I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint, I worry that ultimate result of such views will simply be more drug war martyrs. Martyr after martyr into perpetuity, as governments jail and kill people involved on all sides of the market, buyers, sellers, producers. I would hope that someday society will take a more enlightened approach to personal liberty, but unfortunately we're pretty far from that.
In any event, I have a lot of respect for you. You are a brave soul, and you deserve every penny you make. I hope it's a fucking lot.
Far be it for me to give advice to you, but I can't help but think that the powers that be are going to want to make an example of you. They are going to want to persecute you, like they have Julian Assange, or worse, so just be careful and know when it's time to lay low, if you can.
-
DPR is talking about something else:
he's saying that there shouldn't be an issue of "legal/illegal" in the first place - that having this distinction, having the government tell the electors, having FUCKING BIG BROTHER tell us what we can and can't do is fucking ridiculous in the first place.
the government is supposed to be there to put our wishes into force. not to police us and dictate what we can and can't do. the fact that we ALLOW the government to establish what is legal and what isn't, despite popular opinion is A FUCKING TRAVESTY UPON THE RAPE OF DEMOCRATIC FREEDOM THAT WE ALREADY ALLOW.
the truth is the governments of the world have been assfucking their citizens for the last hundreds of years, and we've all been too stupid to do anything about it. the closest the people have come to anything like this, is the USSR and the communist revolution of 1917/18 or whatever.
and even that was half-assed. when everyone thought the war was won and a new world order was to become reality, the communist party became a farce and greatest hypocrisy that would taunt all the workers for years to come.
"you want to take over the capitalist government? sure, here you go, fuck up your country and starve your fellow citizens with your ineptitude, while the same fucking pricks still make the same money, bounty, and every other imaginable benefit they were before"...
the legalization issue, is A NON-ISSUE. the real issue is that we let obese mcdonalds-ceo's and pricks run our countries for us under the guise that they are following our wishes and that they are really sorry for not upholding the promises they make that gain our support and get them elected in the first place >:c
-
the government is supposed to be there to put our wishes into force. not to police us and dictate what we can and can't do. the fact that we ALLOW the government to establish what is legal and what isn't, despite popular opinion is A FUCKING TRAVESTY UPON THE RAPE OF DEMOCRATIC FREEDOM THAT WE ALREADY ALLOW.
jewfro, why do you think you have popular opinion on your side? Have you seen the polls? For now, we're in the minority.
-
the government is supposed to be there to put our wishes into force. not to police us and dictate what we can and can't do. the fact that we ALLOW the government to establish what is legal and what isn't, despite popular opinion is A FUCKING TRAVESTY UPON THE RAPE OF DEMOCRATIC FREEDOM THAT WE ALREADY ALLOW.
jewfro, why do you think you have popular opinion on your side? Have you seen the polls? For now, we're in the minority.
where did i imply that? i have my opinion, that until presented with a more plausible/acceptable one, i will adhere to. it may not be the drug issue, but i feel that most people would say that government and police overstep their responsibilities in governing countries and upholding the laws...
it's like "a categorical mistake" - we shouldnt be letting government dictate what is legal or illegal in the frist place, we should be telling them what we think and not the other way around.
we elect the government to further OUR interests, not so they can impose their own shit on us.
THAT'S the problem
-
DPR is talking about something else:
he's saying that there shouldn't be an issue of "legal/illegal" in the first place - that having this distinction, having the government tell the electors, having FUCKING BIG BROTHER tell us what we can and can't do is fucking ridiculous in the first place.
the government is supposed to be there to put our wishes into force. not to police us and dictate what we can and can't do. the fact that we ALLOW the government to establish what is legal and what isn't, despite popular opinion is A FUCKING TRAVESTY UPON THE RAPE OF DEMOCRATIC FREEDOM THAT WE ALREADY ALLOW.
the truth is the governments of the world have been assfucking their citizens for the last hundreds of years, and we've all been too stupid to do anything about it. the closest the people have come to anything like this, is the USSR and the communist revolution of 1917/18 or whatever.
and even that was half-assed. when everyone thought the war was won and a new world order was to become reality, the communist party became a farce and greatest hypocrisy that would taunt all the workers for years to come.
"you want to take over the capitalist government? sure, here you go, fuck up your country and starve your fellow citizens with your ineptitude, while the same fucking pricks still make the same money, bounty, and every other imaginable benefit they were before"...
the legalization issue, is A NON-ISSUE. the real issue is that we let obese mcdonalds-ceo's and pricks run our countries for us under the guise that they are following our wishes and that they are really sorry for not upholding the promises they make that gain our support and get them elected in the first place >:c
Wow, I never saw it that way before. Maybe legalization isn't all we should be striving for.
You guys never fail to get me fired up
+1
-
It's doubtful that prohibition will ever end anyway. People make too much money out of certain things being illegal.
For one, think about how many people it employs in the following:
All police/LE agencies around the world
Armies
Terrorists
Doctors
Nurses
GPs
Advisory groups
Chemical companies
Drug companies
Independent contract laboratories
Chemists
Lawyers
Solicitors
Judges
Politicians (it gives them voting capital)
The BitCoin Exchanges (You just need to be know how to play the game)
Every Corporate bank in the world bar none
Accountants
And my personal favourite Corporate structure specialists
And that list is me being lazy because it's 3.13 am where I am and I can't be bothered to think properly and watch James Bond at the same time.
Why would any government want to give up the power that all of the above give them? Oh yeah....they wouldn't....and they ain't gunna either lol.
-
the government is supposed to be there to put our wishes into force. not to police us and dictate what we can and can't do. the fact that we ALLOW the government to establish what is legal and what isn't, despite popular opinion is A FUCKING TRAVESTY UPON THE RAPE OF DEMOCRATIC FREEDOM THAT WE ALREADY ALLOW.
jewfro, why do you think you have popular opinion on your side? Have you seen the polls? For now, we're in the minority.
where did i imply that? i have my opinion, that until presented with a more plausible/acceptable one, i will adhere to. it may not be the drug issue, but i feel that most people would say that government and police overstep their responsibilities in governing countries and upholding the laws...
it's like "a categorical mistake" - we shouldnt be letting government dictate what is legal or illegal in the frist place, we should be telling them what we think and not the other way around.
we elect the government to further OUR interests, not so they can impose their own shit on us.
THAT'S the problem
jewfro, the problem is your neighbor, not your government. Think about it. It's your neighbor trying to control your actions and telling you what's legal and not legal. The problem is that we, the people, are trying to control each other, judge each other. For every one of us who thinks the government has no standing to tell us what we can put into our bodies, there are two of us who want the government to control our lives. Those two are your neighbors. They're the problem.
-
The current model simply employs too many people. But maybe if we have a full economic collapse then we can redo things.
-
It's not the "State" so much as it's the entire frikin system!
Any kind of system that is based on monetarism, will always move towards monopolies and cartels.
The state has both. Same as all states and all govs.
The lobbyists in USA and the politicians they pay off are all making too much frikin cash to ever support weed legalization. Big pharma has it too good.
When we truly embrace science and technology and use engineers and technologists for the real solving of our issues, not fucking poly tic drones then we might have something better. Killboy said it right, the whole fuckin thing needs to collapse before it really changes. It's a paradigm most can't yet conceive. Monetary-less-ism.
But those fully "get" the last paragraph there... y'all know what it's about right?!!
-
I worry that ultimate result of such views will simply be more drug war martyrs.
As long as the martyrs are wearing police uniforms I'd say this is an ideal outcome.
It's going to take that eventually you know. The only way the pigs will ever quit is if they are dead.
-
The drug war, like any war, is about domination and control. And this war in particular is between left and right wing politics. Left wing (liberals) want freedom whereas right wing (conservatives) want to dominate and control. Over the past century there has been a gradual political shift from the right to the left.
I agree about domination and control, and of course there are huge profits used to fund "intelligence" and war in general. Status quo (capitalism) must also be protected, a-la McKenna , the dominator drugs must be the only socially acceptable and legal substances.
However, the "wings" are just a smoke screen. Both sides of the same coin used to create the illusion of choice. Neither are interested in delivering freedom of choice.
As far as legalization goes, governments do tend to fuck things up, but so do corporations.
Drugs should be small business... Support your local Grower/Chemist/Shaman/Hustler!
-
This thread has been moving really fast, so TL;DR most of it. But I do have opinions on the legalization of drugs. I really only care about weed, so I don't really know or care that much about the others except to say they should probably be decriminalized, too.
Ending prohibition is a good thing. The social costs of this supposed "War On Drugs" has been and still is immense. People get fucked over by LE and it affects their whole lives just for wanting to have a good time now and again. This needs to stop. There are a lot of other things on SR than drugs, anyway, and people will move to whatever else they can sell pretty easily since there isn't any red tape to go through here. It's a small price to pay in exchange for ending one of the biggest injustices of the times.
-
I feel that following DPRs logic, which is spot on in terms of the direction in which things are headed, there are two routes that can be followed:
1) The Gov't takes control of recreational drugs, blends it further into the entertainment industry and in a way everyone wins but certain "freedoms" we believe we have will be lost. Such as being on 7 different drugs at once, walking around grabbing every chick in sight and starting fights with people. No one has made it so you can't do this in this scenario, only that you will be punished in a humane way for it.
2) We decentralize, corporations profit faster then the gov't and instigate their own local law upon cities and states thru "lobbying" until we are no longer viewed as the constituents. It is only a matter of time before either big gov't folds under corporate pressure and prowess, or big gov't continues doing what it has done all these years, attempt to do the will of the people while averting outrageous claims of this or that and creating a level playing field for all below the "line of gov't power".
Officials will always be bribed and currently it is legal to be bribed and will always be so no matter what type of gov't is involved. Now DPR considers a true anarchical society, this in theory is awesome. I can grow, eat and do whatever I please, but after 6000 years of human societal evolution we have grown to notice a few things of humans:
1) Someone always wants more, doesn't care for their health (only the thrill) and doesn't care for your health, this encroaches upon your liberty. With the level of technology this world possesses, it would crumble into a situation reminiscent of sci fi fan fiction. You pick your sci fi story, none will be right but they will properly display the bleakness of this situation.
2) People want to band together and live together. People of common interests will always see the need for rules and regulations towards their local areas. I personally believe all gov't should be local and the only time they should convene together or contact each other is in matters of business, land or times of need.
3) Someone will want it all. Not just a thrill, not just a high, someone will want it all. And without even a few centralized bodies that consist of elected officials that represent the local ideals for the people who elected them, the inevitable is crushing, soulless, violent fascism.
No one will pick anarchy, safety has grown on us. Sure a small percentage will desire ultimate freedom, a good 30-60% will desire a safe, calm environment for them to grow old in, and the rest will have a hod podge of ideals that may never be realized.
I ask you, what is better, everyone has a chance at potentially getting what they want or a handful of people can do what they want, no matter the circumstances.
My answer is that regulation is key but no one with more earning potential then the gov't should be calling the shots for us. I have made a few diagrams I will post once I learn to scrub meta data.
-
i am always troubled when people say "legalize, tax, regulate" as i'm not a fan of taxes or regulations. that being said: try telling one of the millions in jail right now that legalization isnt a goal we should be working towards. i'm all for smashing the state, but remember that there are thousands of real peoples lives being destroyed every day who could be helped by ending prohibition. are you willing to throw those lives away so you can feel more like part of a "pure" "underground" community? i hope not.
-
I think everyone who commented on legalization missed the point of DPR's post. Will you sell yourself to the government in exchange for free drugs ? Will you stop being a rebel because they'll put ATM weed machines on your corner ? Will you support their bullshit, their wars, their dumb decisions in exchange for "x" ? ...
And people for the 110th time, decriminalization is NOT legalization. Drugs are NOT legal in Portugal. They are seized if found and can't be manufactured without consequences.
-
wouldnt there still be another market of individuals instead of companies/corporations if legalization were to take effect? im thinkin that people will start growing their own cannabis instead of buying from shops/etc. And those who dont have the know-how will probably be gifted from friends and connections who do have the know-how, or sold at minimal prices compared to stores. that same process of production would expand to all drugs. i just think that there will be another market, even if drugs become legalized & taxed. i agree with what DPR is saying. i still think it's insane that water of all things has become a commodity (who would have thought?). but even if the state would capitalize off this in a scenario of the cessation of prohibition, i still think we would be better off, as we'd still have our own market, instead of supporting the state.
-
LOL you know if weed was fully legal in the US, the fast food and junk food industries and corporations would be right behind it ;D
Got to feed those munchies :D
The more people that toke, the more power(over the culture) weed gains, just keep that wave of green moving on. And SR is helping to fuel that wave, whether DPR wants it legal or not.
-
That's brilliant. I hate it when people say drugs should be regulated. I usually respond by saying cigarettes and liquor and food should all be unregulated in addition to the end of prohibition. But no matter what regulation exists, whether its outright prohibition or price gouging taxes, the market will always support the most economical source and if I could go to the drug store and get a speed pill for 3 dollars, but pay 22 dollars to the government, I would still order my speed pills off the silk road, because it is a superior service. So long as an artificial monopoly can be undercut by a black market the black market will flourish.
-
I can't help but think something is wrong though. Feels like the bastards that have been screwing everyone over all this time still win in this scenario. Now all that money can go to the state and to their cronies, right?
Here's the rub: the drug war is an acute symptom of a deeper problem, and that problem is the state. If they “legalize, regulate and tax” it, it's just one more part of society under their thumb, another productive sector that they can leech off of.
- i would imagine it would be virtually legal to produce or just like other laws become petty like jaywalking -its still a law of sorts but who
enforces it etc..
I would hope Silk Road would still be open for business why not...
Here's the rub: the drug war is an acute symptom of a deeper problem, and that problem is the state. If they “legalize, regulate and tax” it, it's just one more part of society under their thumb, another productive sector that they can leech off of.
If prohibition is lifted, most people here will go away. You'll go back to your lives and get your drugs from whatever state certified dispensaries are properly licensed to sell to you. Drug use will be as interesting as smoking and drinking.
- nope, would still get from the best source/quality,/value for money etc; in fact i've said in other posts somewhere i would avoid the
state-funded/run labs as they're likely not to care much about "quality" or they'll manu their version of it....
no tax would be paid on any if i didnt buy it from giv funded labs etc.
If prohibition is lifted, where will you be? Will you forget about all this revolution stuff? Will you go back to ignoring that itching feeling that something isn't right, that men in uniforms and behind desks have just a bit too much control over your life, and are taking more and more of your sovereignty every day? Will you go back to thinking that taxes are as inevitable as death and the best you can do is to pull as hard as you can for them until you mind, body and spirit are all used up? Or will you feel the loss, as one more wild west frontier comes under the dominion of the enemy, and redouble your efforts to stop it?
- fight the next war..whichever is the next most important thing to change or what i can change..
- i wouldnt want to put anyone out of business but would expect the current people to continue to synth subs, risk should be lower, less
stress with LE breathing down your neck; hopefully not everyone is in it just for the money afterall what are we fighting for whats the end
goal?! and would vendors pull out cos they think there's less cash to be made -i hope not!
surely you'd synth more product legally.....without the stress.....business as usual?!
-
Firstly, a big shout out to the SR community. I've only recently joined and I have to confess that when I first rendered the SR home page I felt like a little kid in a candy store. Not because I want to gobble up all the goodies and turn into a fulltime waste-oid, but because I felt this sense of "freedom". Freedom to explore and expand my horizons with the aid of fellow freedom fighters. So far my experiences have all been positive and I really hope that the SR will endure.
That said, I have to cast my vote for legalization. If you look at it from a pure legal perspective no other approach makes sense.
From what I can tell what we have (in the US at least) are 7 different legal categories of substances with the potential for abuse:
1) unscheduled over the counter (DXM, diphenhydramine, etc)
2) unscheduled plants / trees / herbs (kratom, kava, datura, salvia, etc)
3) unscheduled with restrictions (alcohol, nicotine, pseudoephedrine)
4) unscheduled "analogues" / RC's (2C-C, 4-FA, etc)
5) scheduled with medical use (opiates, benzos, amphetamines, marijuana(?), etc)
6) scheduled with "religious execptions" (Peyote, DMT, Ibogaine, etc)
7) scheduled with no medical use (MDMA, LSD, etc)
Going from most legal to least, I can say from experience just a few weekends ago that a heavy dose of DXM (#1) produces a much more instense, mind altering experience than a high dose of MDMA (#7). And everyone knows that alchohol & nicotine are much more harmful & addicting than most of the hallucingens classfied in #7.
The current laws are pure shite. There's some resemblance of the US tax code in there...lawmakers carving out loopholes and making exceptions for political gain.
I feel no guilt in breaking these bass ackwards laws. But what I do have is anger. Anger when I think of one of you fine sellers getting caught and being punished to the same degree as a *real* criminal. Anger when I think of me getting caught doing something I choose to do and the implications it would have on my family.
I see no other solution than to completely get rid of #6 and #7, thus making all drugs technically "legal". Let corporations take over the production of all chems, insure their purity, and indeminfy themselves with the 2 minute soft spoken disclaimer at the end of all of their TV advertisements (could you imagine that list for something like LSD??). Doctors (maybe a new Shamanalogist specialty would emerge?) provide the Rx, perform physicals, check for interactions, if need be.
Of course the black market would endure for people not wanting to go through the proper channels, use more than their prescribed, pay taxes, etc. Basically all the same reasons we see Rx drugs on SR today. But consider the good things we'd get from the corporations:
1) safety: official studies could be done to determine dangerous interactions, proper doses, and long term effects
2) purity
3) research/discovery of new chemicals: 2 of the most popular substances out there: LSD & MDMA were spawned from corporate pharmaceutical labs after all
I understand the hesitancy of handing over control to the goverment. But just because something's legal doesn't mean the power of it will change. Keep going back to prohibition, but it is probably the best way to convey my point here: was the alcohol any better during Prohibition than it was afterwards? Sure the big breweries dominate the supply again, but if you look at all these microbrews popping all over the place you can't say that its absolute control and that there aren't options.
"What about all the idiots that would go out and try every known drug they could get their hands on and end up killing themselves (or others)? Wouldn't they ruin everything for the responsible ones?"
I really don't think psychedlics are going to be that much of a problem. Most people are so tightly plugged into the Matrix and aren't ready to take the blue pill. After all, if they really were they could get a sneak peek by heading to the drug store for some 'tussin and do a little robo-tripping.
What would be the most troublesome are the instant gratification & addicting drugs; coke, meth, heroin, etc. I don't know all the details of the outcome of Portugal's decriminalization laws, but I think the right approach is to emphasize treatment - not punishment. I've done coke before, and because I have a rather addictive personality I can honestly say that if I had a ready supply I would be an addict. Pretty sure it would effect my health and my pocketbook sooner or later. But there are probably some folks out there that can live a normal life while on it. Not sure about heavy opiates / meth, but anything is possible. At the moment I have a pretty steady relationship with Kratom and am functioning normally, for the most part. Point is, if a problem develops its time for some intervention/therapy/rehab. Just like we do with alcohol.
Alright, enough already. I've been meaning to throw out my feelings on this subject since I started heading down the SR. Its a very interesting thread given the community...
Thanks
-
I think the pros of ending prohibition outweigh the cons.
Rather than thinking only of the SR community, think about society as a whole.
Rather than people now risking their own jail time selling and buying off of silk road, we would have a legal silkroad (perhaps)
anyways, just my opinion
-
"Anarchy" is not possible without the right tools to manage it
The self proclaimed Anarchists in this thread could live under such an "un-managed anarchy" today if they choose, by moving to Somalia
This kind of idealism without supporting conjunction is proverbially analogous to putting the cart before the horse I'm afraid.
My question is: How do you manage morality without a man who tells you how to do it? We've managed to remove this man from money, can we remove him from justice?
-
I just don't think it will happen. In the U.S., the only candidate who actually pushes for less government, in all areas--including this one--is Ron Paul. But even tho I always vote for him, I doubt he'll win. I've been a heroin addict since before I got out of military, and fought it and ran from it, and have been incarcerated because of it, and how often I've wished for this very thing.
I think DPR is right, if the gov't took over it would just be one more way of controlling us. But the prison guards and other unions with much power are opposed to legalization, for obvious reasons, and the U.S. is just too tainted always by it's puritanical beginnings. Anything that feels as good as drugs, by definition must be a sin, and therefor a crime. Same as any unorthodox sexual leanings were. The Western World, as it gets more secular, unfortunately also seems to get more legalistic. Statism and and laws go hand in hand.
Lately the tendency has been to see drug addiction as an illness. This actually gives the state *more* not less power, since your freedom is exchanged for lengthy probation combined with 'treatment' and other nonsense. So, IMO, liberal notions are just as repugnant to me as conservative ones. The libertarian way is the only way, and the founding fathers in the US saw that our real enemy was government itself, but nowadays this is seen as juvenile.
Long live Silk Road!
-
I think your post DPR Comes off as a bit biased.
It's better to legalize in the long run because innocent people taking their drug of choice will not be ending up in jail, having their lives ruined. THAT is the only thing that matters. I really dont care in the end if I'm getting my drugs from the Gov, or from random people. I'd like to do it without having to worry about the law, and get it locally if at all possible.
I think it's pretty greedy and petty to ask people to risk their livelyhood to get illegal goods (When they could be legal) just to keep some sort of revolutionary spirit going when it would be time to retire part of it (Legalization being the end goal). All things must come to an end, even the revolutionary spirit (When their are no more revolutions to be held).
-
Isn't this all kind of a moot point anyway because they drug policy in the U.S and U.K will never change anyway. It may do in a few E.U countries like Spain/Portugal MAYBE France, Italy and Germany but it wouldn't be fully legal. Just decriminalized. Wouldn't be like buying paracetamol from a shop.
If it were ever like that it would be some savage Brave New World shit, if that's the case I say we keep it illegal, then at least were still in the fight and not just chemical zombies getting our fixes from the overlords. If that ever happened I'd blow my fucking brains out all over a box of kittens.
-
Prohibition of psychedelic substances and practices is as old as patriarchy. I'd go as far as to say you can't have one without the other. Whether it was the replacement of the earth goddess with the sky god, the replacement of psychedelic plants with alcohol, or inquisitions/stonings of 'pagans' and 'witches', the drug war has been going on for thousands of years. To think that the modern state and its social myths could could survive if psilocybe mushrooms were freely available seems naive.
-
SR would be shit out of luck, therefore its probably the last thing OP wants.
I wont have to pay yo ass commission or have to deal with the scammers you harbor and protect..
-
I don't know entirely, I don't see the state as the enemy, but I don't think full legalisation is the answer.
While for things like weed, or ecstasy, it's probably quite beneficial, and in general quality would increase, I think decriminalisation would do the trick.
SR would become a grey market, and would be just left unchecked, really. Sure some drugs would benefit from legalisation, but you're right, we don't want everything state controlled.
However the whole issue of drug cartels and so forth is a problem, and I don't think decriminalisation really tackles that issue very well. The laws certainly need to change in terms of what constitutes illegal, because current drug laws are only anti-liberty, not based on any kind of morality. Though I have my own conspiracy theories on psychedelic illegality, hahah.
Just my two cents...but well, this is a thorny issue.
-
The idea that unfettered freedom is good (i.e. no government) is uninformed, in my opinion... first of all, "survival of the fittest" is wonderful - if you're one of the strong... what about the handicapped, the poor unable to afford health care and education, etc? I know that SR is a free-market drug site, but the idea of "fighting the state" brings up other issues, too - social services, education, defense... should we "privatize" those services and, if so, why?
-
The idea that unfettered freedom is good (i.e. no government) is uninformed, in my opinion... first of all, "survival of the fittest" is wonderful - if you're one of the strong... what about the handicapped, the poor unable to afford health care and education, etc? I know that SR is a free-market drug site, but the idea of "fighting the state" brings up other issues, too - social services, education, defense... should we "privatize" those services and, if so, why?
Social services provided by the state are pathetic and expensive, the health care system effectively mandates illness and prohibits health, public education turns the children who pass through it into feeble-minded, repressed serfs, and, at least in the US, the police are not legally obligated to protect you. Meanwhile millions of indigents or delinquents work as bureaucrats or politicians and coercively extract value from those few people who create it. Saying words that sound like they represent desirable things does not change the reality of how things are and have been for a long time.
-
The idea that unfettered freedom is good (i.e. no government) is uninformed, in my opinion... first of all, "survival of the fittest" is wonderful - if you're one of the strong... what about the handicapped, the poor unable to afford health care and education, etc? I know that SR is a free-market drug site, but the idea of "fighting the state" brings up other issues, too - social services, education, defense... should we "privatize" those services and, if so, why?
Social services provided by the state are pathetic and expensive, the health care system effectively mandates illness and prohibits health, public education turns the children who pass through it into feeble-minded, repressed serfs, and, at least in the US, the police are not legally obligated to protect you. Meanwhile millions of indigents or delinquents work as bureaucrats or politicians and coercively extract value from those few people who create it. Saying words that sound like they represent desirable things does not change the reality of how things are and have been for a long time.
These are not just words, there are numbers to back them up. It is not uninformed BKind, it is simply a synopsis a great many people, not pundits on radio or television stations either, would agree with the shape of.
We are not mad, the State has become mad. It is like a drunken old man suffering from Alzheimer's wildly wielding a rifle in the night. The tool used to restrain the darker side effects of market forces has ossified into a stranglehold over time. It's bigger than regulation, laws, taxation, policy and all those things traditionally referred to. Neither the Republicans or Democrats have a handle on what's going on.
You see, there is a War on Drugs, but it's part of a greater cycle. The populations of the West are like frogs slowly being cooked to death. They feel discomfiture occasionally, but don't see the general flow of events and their implications. As the Chinese say: too much water and fire. There is socialism in our corporations and capitalism in our government, no good comes of that, ever.
In the future, we are going to have the perfect storm of economic destruction.
-> higher taxation
-> higher inflation
-> higher unemployment
The national debt itself is merely a symptom of a much larger malaise. I also believe that Western Europe will be the first to fall to the above holy trinity of economic chaos, they are a little like the canaries in the coal mine, and that America will ultimately recover wounded but alive unless they start a series of misadventures in war as is their wont. For Western Europe however, the changes will almost certainly be irrevocable. Americans are familiar with problems such as the national debt even if they hold differing views on the subject. Western Europeans aren't even aware there is a problem.
On average, a Western European country has economic statistics which are many times worse than the United States, and I am not implying that the stats for the US are good. Indeed, there is compelling evidence that the governments are secretly concealing the genuine extent of the problem. I wish Western Europe was a stock so I could short it. As it is, I left the bonds of the developed world quite some time ago, and most institutional investors grit their teeth and wish they could do the same. The world's financial capitalists are hemmed in, like a legion of cats in a dead end alley trapped by a group of caterwauling petulant children. That instant that capital controls come into play, you bet your life those cats will dart left and right like greased lightening. I wish them god-speed.
Power you see, whether governmental or corporate is like holding a delicate crystal glass, if you hold it too loosely, it smashes to a million pieces on the floor. If you hold it too tightly, the stem of the glass snaps and is irreparable. We are in the latter situation today.
If I were to make a specific prediction, it would that within 2 years, perhaps sooner or a little later, you'll have widespread riots in Western Europe, they are going to have a warm winter this year and no mistake. I see no peaceful solution. Still, in the longer term, I am an optimist! Time heals all wounds. Eventually the wheel turns and things come right again. Imagine visualizing the world of 1941 to 1942 in 1900? Previously there had been no serious interstate wars for roughly half a century, it was the golden age of the West's first globalization. Then imagine visualizing the world of 2000 in 1941, when the Nazis controlled lion's share of Europe.
So much philosophy, perhaps it sounds useless to you. It isn't, it implies you should diversify your portfolio more extensively between non-corelated assets than most people would think to. Everybody has a portfolio, even my nephews and nieces have piggy banks, that is their minute portfolio, and they don't spend it all in one shop now.
Apart from portfolio restructuring, I believe SR or similar service is the ideal place to be situated in the future, esp. when industrial production of synthetics gets married up with it. Ready access to drugs, guns, papers and hard currency, that's the ticket. Always useful, but even more so when G-men turn into real assholes.
tldr; Get out of Dodge! Or stay there and profitably sell hard liquor and colt 45s to the natives.
-
tldr; Get out of Dodge! Or stay there and profitably sell hard liquor and colt 45s to the natives.
And S.R. and deepweb offers the Little Taco Girl option ("Why can't we have BOTH???").
As long as you got a Net connection and can venture to a post office.. you can GTFO of Dodge AND sell liquor and guns :D
And do it for a commodity that's going to very likely shake down as an important currency in the years after TEOTWAWKI.
-
The idea that unfettered freedom is good (i.e. no government) is uninformed, in my opinion... first of all, "survival of the fittest" is wonderful - if you're one of the strong... what about the handicapped, the poor unable to afford health care and education, etc? I know that SR is a free-market drug site, but the idea of "fighting the state" brings up other issues, too - social services, education, defense... should we "privatize" those services and, if so, why?
Assuming the state has to provide services like education and healthcare along with charitable services like welfare is lazy thinking, imo. The state tries to and mostly succeeds in monopolizing the most vital goods and services in a society (and as much of the others it can get away with). And we aren't talking about a natural monopoly here where one firm wins out by out-competing the rest. We're talking about a monopoly imposed at the point of a gun. In the USSR, the state had monopolized so much of the economy that when when it finally fell, people couldn't imagine private enterprises providing what was needed. When restructuring, even the most liberal leaders conceded at first that the state would have to provide, for example, the production and distribution of food. It made sense, how could such a vital thing be left up to private citizens? What if they screwed up? People would die! And this was coming from a nation where many were intentionally starved to death by their leaders!
Of course we wouldn't think twice about letting private enterprise handle the production and distribution of food. Look how well it does it! Can you imagine how badly government would screw that up if they took control? But that's an easy example, because we have real world evidence to support the claim that market participants competing for customers can do a much better job than bureaucrats taxing the populace and then using their "wisdom" to decide how the food should be produced and distributed.
To look at the hard examples, you have to abandon intellectual laziness and apply market principles to industries where the market has not been allowed to work because of government monopoly (education, transportation, utilities, security, justice, defense, charity etc). First of course, you need to understand economics and liberty (see signature). From there, I hope you will realize that a moral society is preferable for all but the elite who currently control the state apparatus. I'm talking about a society where no one is given the right to steal from another (taxation) or tell another what they can and can't do provided they aren't impinging on anther's same right (regulation), or kidnap and cage human beings for putting certain substance in their body ("criminal justice") or murder countless innocent men, women and children (war).
This isn't utopian bullshit either. It's the predictable outcome of using a voluntary market to organize. I hope you'll consider that there is a better way, even though it is untested. Read the books in my sig.
-
Private enterprise handles the production and distribution of food. But those markets are highly regulated. Would those markets be even better if they weren't?
Okay, will take a look at those books. But what happens in such a society when some person or some group unjustly impinges on the rights of some other person or group? What if the latter is the weaker? Are they just fucked?
-
Private enterprise handles the production and distribution of food. But those markets are highly regulated. Would those markets be even better if they weren't?
Okay, will take a look at those books. But what happens in such a society when some person or some group unjustly impinges on the rights of some other person or group? What if the latter is the weaker? Are they just fucked?
Your rights are infringed by the state. You are weaker than the state. You are fucked. Anarcho capitalism isn't magic, it can not end evil things from ever happening, but it does a damn well better job than statism does.
-
I don't know entirely, I don't see the state as the enemy, but I don't think full legalisation is the answer.
While for things like weed, or ecstasy, it's probably quite beneficial, and in general quality would increase, I think decriminalisation would do the trick.
SR would become a grey market, and would be just left unchecked, really. Sure some drugs would benefit from legalisation, but you're right, we don't want everything state controlled.
However the whole issue of drug cartels and so forth is a problem, and I don't think decriminalisation really tackles that issue very well. The laws certainly need to change in terms of what constitutes illegal, because current drug laws are only anti-liberty, not based on any kind of morality. Though I have my own conspiracy theories on psychedelic illegality, hahah.
Just my two cents...but well, this is a thorny issue.
The state wants to put you in prison. The state steals your money from you at implied gun point. The state wants to control every aspect of your life. If they state is not your enemy then I wonder what your enemies do to you, ass rape you ?
-
What if the state pays my salary, which I then in turn pay back some to Silk Road for drugs, then Silk Road is paid for(in part) by the state. So Silk Road is part of the state too? is it not?
But if DPR and the Silk Road fights the state, yet it is funded by the state(in part), doesn't it really fight itself?
I think you can color my personal state... confused ??? lol.
-
Private enterprise handles the production and distribution of food. But those markets are highly regulated. Would those markets be even better if they weren't?
Jimmy, there isn't a single occurrence of mass starvation in history that didn't have the hand of the state directly involved. You'll have serious trouble having a historian who'd disagree with this. Either by restrictions on labor flows, property rights, or commodities most commonly. Look at the Corn Laws in England or/and the Potato Famine in Ireland for some clear examples in the early 1800s.
Contrawise, there has never been a famine in a market where Land Reform has taken place. Every single one of Africa's famines is entirely man-made. Africa really really swallowed the '3rd way', socialist and communism kool-aid big time on economic matters. That is the single biggest reason for its lack of economic performance.
These truths are hard to see because the state is extremely vocal, and the hand of the market is silent. It is similar to insurance fraud in terms of visibility. If I commit insurance fraud then I get a pay off of several thousand dollars, seemingly from nowhere. It is impossible to tabulate all the millions of people I've stolen tiny amounts of money from.
Capitalism is a new invention. It has existed in a recognizable form for three centuries. It is an emergent behavior, very difficult to pin down in many respects, but we know and appreciate it's power. At least some of us anyway. We had 0.02% GDP growth for several thousand years. Then for 300 years we got (in some places) 2% real GDP growth. That's a 100 fold increase in productivity, each and every year for 300 years.
tldr; Well, I know what side I'm on. The winning one.
-
But what happens in such a society when some person or some group unjustly impinges on the rights of some other person or group? What if the latter is the weaker? Are they just fucked?
Okay, I think I partially answered my own question: dispute resolution organization
What about weapons of mass destruction, such as nukes? Surely society needs the state to (hopefully) minimize their use, no?
-
What if the state pays my salary, which I then in turn pay back some to Silk Road for drugs, then Silk Road is paid for(in part) by the state. So Silk Road is part of the state too? is it not?
But if DPR and the Silk Road fights the state, yet it is funded by the state(in part), doesn't it really fight itself?
I think you can color my personal state... confused ??? lol.
No. You've confusing the cup of milk for the cow, it's a common problem.
It's about who makes those decisions to distribute money/credit. Who is worthy to make them? To judge your value to society? I could believe my half hour of work is worth 1 million dollars, but it doesn't make it so, we need a benchmark for such things, and the benchmark of the capitalists is the market. It's like getting your SAT scores. Would it make sense for the top 10% of students to contribute their SAT scores to the bottom 10% of students? Yet that is what progressive taxation literally does (great propaganda --> 'progressive taxation'). Just as with the students, taking from those who made the value in society e.g. goods/services and giving to those who didn't doesn't make sense as a general rule because it's amoral. None of the welfare systems are truly about 'widows and orphans', who aren't a large % of the recipients and generally get bilked by such systems anyway.
It's actually very simple at the atomic level. A market based transaction is voluntary for both parties. Neither party would concede to making transactions unless it left them in a better position than they would have been if they had not made the transaction.
I'm not against the entire state apparatus. I view some specific parts of it as being absolutely pivotal to capitalism functioning. But my state is very small (and extremely powerful, which may seem paradoxical but it isn't really), it utilizes soft power to achieve it's ends rather than hard power. This state, (state run by president pine naturally) is like a F1 car, perfectly streamlined without any baggage. The essential job it does, is to enforce property rights. But this is not a static, never changing concept.
Of course, I *expect* there will be debate over what should or shouldn't be the state's responsibility. That's fine. But my State is like a RISC CPU. It is a special corporation with certain extra powers, enormous power relative to its size, but it itself is a tiny fraction of the economy in terms of expenditure.
The actual kernel of government that makes the most important decisions is tiny. People don't realize how large governments are today in the West. The typical western government is half the size of the entire economy as a % of GDP. What would you say if we called that government a 'corporation'. People would be outraged and worried about the consequences of monopolization due to the sheer scale of the thing. Yet you relabel it 'government' and it's all ok?
-
But what happens in such a society when some person or some group unjustly impinges on the rights of some other person or group? What if the latter is the weaker? Are they just fucked?
Okay, I think I partially answered my own question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organization
What about weapons of mass destruction, such as nukes? Surely society needs the state to (hopefully) minimize their use, no?
Private defense agencies will limit the ability of those they think would use nuclear weapons against their customers, to both obtain and use nuclear weapons. Every single thing the state does can be privatized. What about them do you find so magic that allows them to do things that other groups of people can not do?
-
But what happens in such a society when some person or some group unjustly impinges on the rights of some other person or group? What if the latter is the weaker? Are they just fucked?
Okay, I think I partially answered my own question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organization
What about weapons of mass destruction, such as nukes? Surely society needs the state to (hopefully) minimize their use, no?
We should all have nukes. Everybody would be polite.
But seriously, somebody else answer, my paws are tired and I've run out of the cherry jelly beans. Vote for president pine.
-
But what happens in such a society when some person or some group unjustly impinges on the rights of some other person or group? What if the latter is the weaker? Are they just fucked?
Okay, I think I partially answered my own question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organization
What about weapons of mass destruction, such as nukes? Surely society needs the state to (hopefully) minimize their use, no?
Private defense agencies will limit the ability of those they think would use nuclear weapons against their customers, to both obtain and use nuclear weapons. Every single thing the state does can be privatized. What about them do you find so magic that allows them to do things that other groups of people can not do?
It's not that I think there's any magic involved. But I do think one has to ask/think about what the world would look like if nuclear weapons were in control of one or more corporations, as you so nonchalantly are suggesting. I'm not sure I'm completely comfortable with the "they won't kill me because I'm their customer" theory.
-
i really would like to see a society based on complete privatization in my lifetime so its advocates could see how quickly that society would implode. it's idealistic, just like communism, and thats why it's incompatible with reality. statism is not bad, we just happen to have cruel, indifferent people ruling the state. u wanna live in an economy thats the closest thing to capitalism, go to mexico. canada has regulation where it matters, and it's a pretty decent country despite its drug laws. switzerland has a form of socialized healthcare. nazi germany proved to be a successful statist nation, for ethnic germans of course. the concept of the state is not bad, its just that our rulers are bad.
-
http://freedomainradio.com
If you've got the time, here's a great podcast about non-bomastic anarchist theories/sentiment. At times, it's presented in a highly logical fashion and at other's it's very emotional. It's a great mix. Listen from oldest to newest, NOT vice versa -- or it's your fault that you're lost. The host tends to coin acronyms and shit like that, so listen chronologically.
Peace,
tab
-
I'm not sure I'm completely comfortable with the "they won't kill me because I'm their customer" theory.
Alignment of self interest is how everything works in this world when you get right down to it. Look at the principal agent problem. Question is how to achieve it most practically.
Capitalists for example, you might be often told about how much money they have. But where is that money? It's not in the bank now is it? (not that would be a terrible thing thanks to FRB). It's out there in the world, making more money for its owners by creating work, jobs. So... who really has the power? The workers or the capitalist?
The 20th century wept blood over that question.
The bittersweet tang of the truth is that the chains of the proletarians, were their own. The workers and the capitalists are not discrete entities. I think Karl Marx understood that in some way, but his followers on a century later certainly did not.
The key question everybody should be asking is, how is a group of capitalists different from 1 government in the manner they utilize money. In the end, you're asking whether millions of tiny self directed agents are smarter than 1 giant agent, a hive mind. Is 1 person (the infamous benevolent dictatorship) more rational, more efficient than millions of people, or less so? What model of reality most closely corresponds to the real thing? Being right or wrong on these matters is a life and death matter.
Then it gets complicated, but the answers are more satisfying. It's like this when you're taking real intellectual risks. Now you're tackling the core problem, not fucking around with political soap opera bullshit that won't matter in ten minutes, we waste so much time on semantics.
And if you're wondering how capitalists don't compound their way to infinite money, well, it doesn't work that way. They get eaten by the other capitalists. It's a continual process of transformation, of recursive accumulation and distribution. It's just like a heart beating, I love it. Natural Selection: Evolution. Death: Change. That is why we die: this is why we are alive. Those jaundiced journalists and career politicians, I feel sorry for them, because they will never realize that the System is elegant.
-
But what happens in such a society when some person or some group unjustly impinges on the rights of some other person or group? What if the latter is the weaker? Are they just fucked?
Okay, I think I partially answered my own question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organization
What about weapons of mass destruction, such as nukes? Surely society needs the state to (hopefully) minimize their use, no?
Private defense agencies will limit the ability of those they think would use nuclear weapons against their customers, to both obtain and use nuclear weapons. Every single thing the state does can be privatized. What about them do you find so magic that allows them to do things that other groups of people can not do?
It's not that I think there's any magic involved. But I do think one has to ask/think about what the world would look like if nuclear weapons were in control of one or more corporations, as you so nonchalantly are suggesting. I'm not sure I'm completely comfortable with the "they won't kill me because I'm their customer" theory.
The government is a corporation that makes its money from extortion murder and enslavement, I would much rather a company that profits from defending customers has control over nuclear weapons.
-
Some medias is portraying a sense of idiocracy for the war on drugs. I was watching the history channel and they were pretty much making the DEA look like greedy theives... Which they are.
-
"Read the books in my sig" -
I will... I have to say, I am flattered by the response - that's not kiss-ass BS, your comments are intelligent.
-
Just what America needs; privatized police and security forces to go along with it's privatized prisons and miltary industrial complex.
-
If they ever lift the prohibition on the drugs we like to do then we will have to return to the true smuggler roots of tax evasion via the black market.
-
Just what America needs; privatized police and security forces to go along with it's privatized prisons and miltary industrial complex.
Prisons are privatized in a sense, but they collude with the government to get all of their customers.
-
i really would like to see a society based on complete privatization in my lifetime so its advocates could see how quickly that society would implode. it's idealistic, just like communism, and thats why it's incompatible with reality. statism is not bad, we just happen to have cruel, indifferent people ruling the state. u wanna live in an economy thats the closest thing to capitalism, go to mexico. canada has regulation where it matters, and it's a pretty decent country despite its drug laws. switzerland has a form of socialized healthcare. nazi germany proved to be a successful statist nation, for ethnic germans of course. the concept of the state is not bad, its just that our rulers are bad.
It's called Somalia and I hear the place sucks ass.
Of course DPR is making the argument against prohibition, he makes money on it.
-
DPR:
- read your post, you obviously know more about economics and politics than i do...
-
Here's my point: Silk Road is about something much bigger than thumbing your nose at the man and getting your drugs anyway. It's about taking back our liberty and our dignity and demanding justice. If prohibition is lifted, and the drug industry is placed under the yoke of the state, then we won in a small way, but lost in a big way. Right now, drugs are ours. They aren't tainted by the government. We the people control their manufacture, distribution and consumption. We should be looking to expand that control, taking back our power, no giving what is ours to the very people that have been our enemies all along.
the major logical flaw in this point is that the very foundation of Silk Road lies in the governments and infrastructures that the anarchists here despise so greatly: the mail system. In the USA we all use USPS because there is a law saying they need a warrant before opening packages. this is an example of how we are using the government to our advantage. no gov't = no mail = no silk road
I get pissed off at the gov't as much as the next guy, but to say drugs should stay illegal because you don't want them having control over drugs is asinine, short sighted, and selfish (considering you profit hugely off their illegality).
I'm not saying that legalizing drugs would make everything perfect, but it would sure as hell be better than the current situation of cartels, militias, and prisons. It would give us the people a slight bit more power because believe it or not, we citizens actually do have a slight bit of influence on the politicians....as opposed to career criminals who we have ZERO influence on.
-
Here's my point: Silk Road is about something much bigger than thumbing your nose at the man and getting your drugs anyway. It's about taking back our liberty and our dignity and demanding justice. If prohibition is lifted, and the drug industry is placed under the yoke of the state, then we won in a small way, but lost in a big way. Right now, drugs are ours. They aren't tainted by the government. We the people control their manufacture, distribution and consumption. We should be looking to expand that control, taking back our power, no giving what is ours to the very people that have been our enemies all along.
the major logical flaw in this point is that the very foundation of Silk Road lies in the governments and infrastructures that the anarchists here despise so greatly: the mail system. In the USA we all use USPS because there is a law saying they need a warrant before opening packages. this is an example of how we are using the government to our advantage. no gov't = no mail = no silk road
I get pissed off at the gov't as much as the next guy, but to say drugs should stay illegal because you don't want them having control over drugs is asinine, short sighted, and selfish (considering you profit hugely off their illegality).
I'm not saying that legalizing drugs would make everything perfect, but it would sure as hell be better than the current situation of cartels, militias, and prisons. It would give us the people a slight bit more power because believe it or not, we citizens actually do have a slight bit of influence on the politicians....as opposed to career criminals who we have ZERO influence on.
No mail without government? Have you never heard of UPS, Fedex, DHL? That is as asinine as saying that there would be no shoes without government, if the government created a pseudo-monopoly on shoe manufacture and funded it via taxation. People see the world through government colored glasses their entire lives and some of them lose the ability to even conceptualize of what the world would look like if they took them off, its a mixture of sad and pathetic. There is a difference between playing off your enemies and supporting them, using USPS makes the most sense for us from a security perspective for multiple reasons so that it what we use, if it were not for the government we could go down to the fucking corner store and pick up our drugs and they would be made in professional laboratories and there would be much higher quality controls.
Of course drugs should be legalized. I don't think SR is so much saying that drugs should remain illegal as he is saying that government should be absolutely abolished in its entirety. I have little doubt he would be in favor of the government mafia making profits off taxed legalized drugs over the government mafia making money off the modern day slave trade, but he is merely saying that we shouldn't be happy when we are allowed to be extorted for money by the same fuckers who are currently selling us into the prison industrial slave trade. Just because it is better to be allowed to pay extortion money to the mafia instead of murdered doesn't mean we should rejoice when they give us the option to pay them "protection money" to avoid being murdered.
-
the major logical flaw in this point is that the very foundation of Silk Road lies in the governments and infrastructures that the anarchists here despise so greatly: the mail system. In the USA we all use USPS because there is a law saying they need a warrant before opening packages. this is an example of how we are using the government to our advantage. no gov't = no mail = no silk road
... Look up Lysander Spooner, and his postal service.
-
...or does everyone want prohibition ....to keep SR open?!
-
They may legalize marijuana but I will buy and sell the black market versions for preference to any weed which is taxed and regulated to fund wars, oppression and misery.
+1 to this.
Also, I think the current pretense about weed being "legalized" in the future is just a smokescreen. They are keeping it in the gray area until the biotech companies can rape the plant's genetics, then they will clamp down hard on naturally-grown stuff, so they can control the med market.
Sadly UKGrower is probably right, it wouldn't be surprising to see pharmaceutical companies put the research into cannabinoids and then lobby Congress to re-establish prohibition on cannabis.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
@DPR If I may suggest: The state exercising undue power over it's citizens is indeed an egregious problem but it will take more than our relatively small user base to incite change. Those of us who have made it here to this community have already woken up to see the overbearing problems of the state, but it is the general population that we need to shake from their slumber if we intend to change the world. Now the question is how to sway the common man to fight for their freedom.
-
Here's my point: Silk Road is about something much bigger than thumbing your nose at the man and getting your drugs anyway. It's about taking back our liberty and our dignity and demanding justice. If prohibition is lifted, and the drug industry is placed under the yoke of the state, then we won in a small way, but lost in a big way. Right now, drugs are ours. They aren't tainted by the government. We the people control their manufacture, distribution and consumption. We should be looking to expand that control, taking back our power, no giving what is ours to the very people that have been our enemies all along.
Of course drugs should be legalized. I don't think SR is so much saying that drugs should remain illegal as he is saying that government should be absolutely abolished in its entirety. I have little doubt he would be in favor of the government mafia making profits off taxed legalized drugs over the government mafia making money off the modern day slave trade, but he is merely saying that we shouldn't be happy when we are allowed to be extorted for money by the same fuckers who are currently selling us into the prison industrial slave trade. Just because it is better to be allowed to pay extortion money to the mafia instead of murdered doesn't mean we should rejoice when they give us the option to pay them "protection money" to avoid being murdered.
- i don't understand agorism 100% nor can tell how they differ from socialism, + + ...or which are specific to either of the ideals..its a work in progress for me..
- as i understand it, the agorist goal/dream is create a totally open market...gov don't control it and the populace self regulate everything..?!
- at the end i imagine mafia and suppliers would no longer be labelled as such, there would be many sources of it.
no need for war anymore.
current suppiers would just continue plying their trade.
how you lot sort out boundaries and turf and how current gangsta's view business i really don't know how that fits in, in a agorist utopia!;
judging how big their egos are and how quick they are to take someone out in the name of drugs i don't know how this is to change, if
gov have been replaced by skeleton staff and the gen public are self regulating what stops a drug dealer from taking advantage of even
less LE and no regulation and perhaps the public who are unable to defend themselves?! -i don't teach agorism nor post paragraphs on
forum on how it all works, i'm just a spectator...
- i don't support current gov structure.
i wouldnt want to have to deal with any gov funded drug supply
some of us have principals, in a choice between buying from a bunch of gun slingers, a dedicated chemist who is in it for the "right" reasons,
another supplier is always ripping everyone off, your neighbour who has a family to support {and getting your stuff from him...that allows
him to put food on the table...}
= its pretty obvious to me who I would deal with and when and my motivations and reasons for doing so.
perhaps i would advise the gun slinging gangsta dealers to take what they sell themselves, learn to be human.. and chill the fuck out.
Peace
-
Of course drugs should be legalized. I don't think SR is so much saying that drugs should remain illegal as he is saying that government should be absolutely abolished in its entirety. I have little doubt he would be in favor of the government mafia making profits off taxed legalized drugs over the government mafia making money off the modern day slave trade, but he is merely saying that we shouldn't be happy when we are allowed to be extorted for money by the same fuckers who are currently selling us into the prison industrial slave trade. Just because it is better to be allowed to pay extortion money to the mafia instead of murdered doesn't mean we should rejoice when they give us the option to pay them "protection money" to avoid being murdered.
Thank you, couldn't have said it better!
-
i was reading this thread a day or two ago and thought about this lysander spooner man...
we know that to destroy the system, it has to be overhauled from within. we can't fight the war on drugs, so one way or another we need to have that come to an end.
legalization/decriminalization will lead to the government trying to fuck everyone with their bullshit agendas imparted onto drugs, but this is where it gets interesting.
once it is decriminalized, the only illegal area would be dealing around the goevernment sanctions, which is exactly what we would have to do, in order to fight the gross inflation as well as in protest of bullshit funding for wars and fat pricks' pockets and private schools for their children...
soooo, to win the war on drugs, we must change the game. because the populace cannot win the current one. unless there is a full-scale armed assault on governments across the world. starting wish capitol hill in washington, because they are the biggest and most influential disease-ridden cunts, by far.
and i couldav sworn my idea seemed so much better when i had it...
-
If this is a revolution, then DPR is our George Washington.
Imagine if Washington hadn't wanted to fight off the British because it would still leave us with a government.
We will always have government, we cannot not have it. There has never been a human condition without government, and there never will be.
If we want the government to give us drugs, then when that happens, the revolution is won and is over.
-
How many times have UPS or Fedex agents kicked down the door of someone who ordered drugs to send them off the prison? Do you think that Fedex is going to spend their time and money trying to intercept drug packages and arrest the people responsible for sending them and receiving them, if the government does not force them to do so? Of course not, they are a shipping company not a fucking drug enforcement company. Anyway mail through customs can be inspected without any warrant at all, that only applies to domestic first class letter mail. Government is not protecting us by not searching our mail without a warrant, they are the fucking aggressor we are forced to need protection from in the first place, not Fedex and not UPS. Private mailing companies will of course have contract that they need to follow with the customer, and anyway if Fedex decides it doesn't give a fuck about making profits and want to enforce a ban on shipping drugs you find a new shipping service. If Fedex decides it wants to get into the slave trade or into robbery business and target those with drugs, your private defense agency attacks them and defends you until the aggressor is defeated to the point that they leave you alone and repay for all damages. Nobody is promised to win be they right or wrong, and anarcho-capitalism can not magically protect you from evil people, but any other system ensures that you will lose to them. In USA you have two choices, you can be robbed by people who want to expand the state to insane degrees to the point they force you to buy healthcare "for your own good" and want to "help rehabilitate people" from drugs while funding the shitty near-brain-dead social science and prison industrial complex, or you can be robbed to a lesser degree by people who want to force you to follow the bizarre and completely illogical moral standards that were created two thousand years ago and largely based on a fairytale obviously no more real than any of the Greek or Roman or other myths from ages past. Most of Europe and almost all of the rest of the world are no better in their selections. Enjoy you Statist systems.
-
Interesting topic.
-
Portugal isn't "first world"?
No.
-
I'm an anarchist and even I disagree with this. Legalization, taxation, and regulation would be far better than the current system. Silk Road creates the only exception to this. An endless amount of lives would be saved. I'd obviously prefer to NOT have the regulation or taxation but if that's the only downside, it's still a major improvement.
-
How many times have UPS or Fedex agents kicked down the door of someone who ordered drugs to send them off the prison? Do you think that Fedex is going to spend their time and money trying to intercept drug packages and arrest the people responsible for sending them and receiving them, if the government does not force them to do so? Of course not, they are a shipping company not a fucking drug enforcement company. Anyway mail through customs can be inspected without any warrant at all, that only applies to domestic first class letter mail. Government is not protecting us by not searching our mail without a warrant, they are the fucking aggressor we are forced to need protection from in the first place, not Fedex and not UPS. Private mailing companies will of course have contract that they need to follow with the customer, and anyway if Fedex decides it doesn't give a fuck about making profits and want to enforce a ban on shipping drugs you find a new shipping service. If Fedex decides it wants to get into the slave trade or into robbery business and target those with drugs, your private defense agency attacks them and defends you until the aggressor is defeated to the point that they leave you alone and repay for all damages. Nobody is promised to win be they right or wrong, and anarcho-capitalism can not magically protect you from evil people, but any other system ensures that you will lose to them. In USA you have two choices, you can be robbed by people who want to expand the state to insane degrees to the point they force you to buy healthcare "for your own good" and want to "help rehabilitate people" from drugs while funding the shitty near-brain-dead social science and prison industrial complex, or you can be robbed to a lesser degree by people who want to force you to follow the bizarre and completely illogical moral standards that were created two thousand years ago and largely based on a fairytale obviously no more real than any of the Greek or Roman or other myths from ages past. Most of Europe and almost all of the rest of the world are no better in their selections. Enjoy you Statist systems.
Q.F.T.
-
How many times have UPS or Fedex agents kicked down the door of someone who ordered drugs to send them off the prison? Do you think that Fedex is going to spend their time and money trying to intercept drug packages and arrest the people responsible for sending them and receiving them, if the government does not force them to do so? Of course not, they are a shipping company not a fucking drug enforcement company.
what if the mafia controlled drug flow and didn't want people getting drugs from overseas? they could put pressure on private companies just like the gov't does now. or what if you had drug users working for the company who looked for drugs to steal? there would be no serious penalty for it. you could argue that this is unlikely, but its ridiculous to put any sort of faith or trust into a corporation.
or what if you lived in the bible belt and a local anti-fun militia started screening all incoming packages to the town/county/state? there would be no one there to keep them from doing it except you and a case of molotovs....
I'm just saying that its a little bit teenage to think that abolishing government completely would make the world a better place. without a global spiritual revolution it would just be more of the same, if not worse (IMO).
-
How many times have UPS or Fedex agents kicked down the door of someone who ordered drugs to send them off the prison? Do you think that Fedex is going to spend their time and money trying to intercept drug packages and arrest the people responsible for sending them and receiving them, if the government does not force them to do so? Of course not, they are a shipping company not a fucking drug enforcement company. Anyway mail through customs can be inspected without any warrant at all, that only applies to domestic first class letter mail. Government is not protecting us by not searching our mail without a warrant, they are the fucking aggressor we are forced to need protection from in the first place, not Fedex and not UPS. Private mailing companies will of course have contract that they need to follow with the customer, and anyway if Fedex decides it ...........
- only if dea/customs/LE etc are making the extra effort and have a little office within fedex or any non-gov mailing Co, otherwise you're probably right here -they're a profit motivated business unlike gov...
-
I won't rest until children are born into a world where oppression, institutional violence and control, world war, and all the other hallmarks of the state are as ancient history as pharaohs commanding armies of slaves.
The best sentence i have read in a very long time, Kudos Sir, to you; and your whole operation.The world is a better place with this community being established.
-
I keep hearing this argument come up when people talk about drug prohibition: legalize, regulate and tax it. On the surface it sounds like a good idea. No more drug war, more tax revenue, government regulators can make sure it is safe. Makes sense, right?
I can't help but think something is wrong though. Feels like the bastards that have been screwing everyone over all this time still win in this scenario. Now all that money can go to the state and to their cronies, right?
Here's the rub: the drug war is an acute symptom of a deeper problem, and that problem is the state. If they “legalize, regulate and tax” it, it's just one more part of society under their thumb, another productive sector that they can leech off of.
If prohibition is lifted, most people here will go away. You'll go back to your lives and get your drugs from whatever state certified dispensaries are properly licensed to sell to you. Drug use will be as interesting as smoking and drinking.
Here's my point: Silk Road is about something much bigger than thumbing your nose at the man and getting your drugs anyway. It's about taking back our liberty and our dignity and demanding justice. If prohibition is lifted, and the drug industry is placed under the yoke of the state, then we won in a small way, but lost in a big way. Right now, drugs are ours. They aren't tainted by the government. We the people control their manufacture, distribution and consumption. We should be looking to expand that control, taking back our power, no giving what is ours to the very people that have been our enemies all along.
It's easy to justify though. Think of all the horrors the war on drugs has caused that will be gone, almost instantly. That pain could stop!
Don't be tempted by this short-term easy fix of “let the government handle it.” Their time is coming to an end. The future is OUR time. Let us take this opportunity they've given us to gain a foothold from which we can throw that yoke off completely. We are NOT beasts of burden to be taxed and controlled and regulated. WE are free spirits! We DEMAND respect! The future can be a time where the human spirit flourishes, unbridled, wild and free! Don't be so quick to put on that harness and pull for the parasites.
If prohibition is lifted, where will you be? Will you forget about all this revolution stuff? Will you go back to ignoring that itching feeling that something isn't right, that men in uniforms and behind desks have just a bit too much control over your life, and are taking more and more of your sovereignty every day? Will you go back to thinking that taxes are as inevitable as death and the best you can do is to pull as hard as you can for them until you mind, body and spirit are all used up? Or will you feel the loss, as one more wild west frontier comes under the dominion of the enemy, and redouble your efforts to stop it?
I know where I'll be. I won't rest until children are born into a world where oppression, institutional violence and control, world war, and all the other hallmarks of the state are as ancient history as pharaohs commanding armies of slaves. The drug war merely brings to light their nature and shows us who they really are. Legalizing it won't change that and will only make them stronger.
Hold on to what you DO have, and stand for the freedom you deserve!
Damn , Fuck , I really hate to do this cos I'm a big fan of DPR and S/R but thats a pile of self serving cack :-(
-
The most depressing thing is that most of the antidepressants from pharmaceutical companies are as effective as placebos and more dangerous than many of the more effective illegal drugs. Life becomes more bearable when you learn to fully accept that you live in the twilight zone.
-
- cause and effect, the men in white coats are in denial, foolishly believing they can reinvent nature, cure a disease by some other unnatural /
untested method; they don't believe in cause and effect, believe in chemicals rather a living organism.
OR
continue to treat the effect there's more money to be made in that, "understanding causes effectively puts me out of work.." -current cancer
treatment methods are a good example of this backward mentality.
- "we can rip off nature or the naturally occuring plant, reduce it down to some "active" ingredients, discard the rest cos they don't
matter(?!)", and announce it as a new discovery and get rich off the sick.
- "if I think of humans as just a mix of chemicals i have less variables, less to consider, I might have a chance explaining why too much of one
chemical has caused this sickness, which i would not be able to explain nor deduce as I cannot see a "soul" nor all what influences a living
organism like humans / animals"
- the other side to this is we seek the quick fix to a problem, instead of preventative measures, eating correctly to prevent future problems
we turn to science for the quick fix = medicine.
-
Well keep in mind people that all good things must come to an end and that includes all the illegal activity that has been going on here. Look on the bright side no more ripoffs on SR.
-
I truly believe the legalization of drugs goes far beyond the scope of governments and control. Drug use has been around since the beginning of time and has been a part of evolution and culture for thousand's of years. The war on drugs is infant and failing, and I truly believe will eventually be given up on (hopefully!). Yes this means that many governments will want to get their greedy hands into the pie of our lives. Which brings up the true fight against government controls. If S/R goes away, if drugs become legal, the fight doesn't stop there. I say hell yes to legalization and stop throwing innocent people in jail. But I say don't stop fighting, their are a million injustices every day, and technologies and underground communities are giving us the power to stand up and fight back in new and exciting ways. I say Hell Yes to Anonymous and keep up the good fight, don't stop until humanity rains over bureaucratic supremacy.
-
- cause and effect, the men in white coats are in denial, foolishly believing they can reinvent nature, cure a disease by some other unnatural /
untested method; they don't believe in cause and effect, believe in chemicals rather a living organism.
OR
continue to treat the effect there's more money to be made in that, "understanding causes effectively puts me out of work.." -current cancer
treatment methods are a good example of this backward mentality.
- "we can rip off nature or the naturally occuring plant, reduce it down to some "active" ingredients, discard the rest cos they don't
matter(?!)", and announce it as a new discovery and get rich off the sick.
- "if I think of humans as just a mix of chemicals i have less variables, less to consider, I might have a chance explaining why too much of one
chemical has caused this sickness, which i would not be able to explain nor deduce as I cannot see a "soul" nor all what influences a living
organism like humans / animals"
- the other side to this is we seek the quick fix to a problem, instead of preventative measures, eating correctly to prevent future problems
we turn to science for the quick fix = medicine.
Real medicine works. Also good luck with your plant cures lol. Science = the win.
-
such a sorted topic :)
changing laws on possession, growing and consuming is the place to start.
all the waste of resources for criminalizing growing, possessing and ingesting is the real crime.
-
Reading this thread is actually causing me physical pain.
-
DPR, to me this just comes across as unrealistic and extremely hypocritical. The entire post seems to be about how you would never compromise with anything so evil as a government in any field, and you definitely wouldn't pay taxes on a product such as drugs. In reality though I would bet you everything I own that you live in a government controlled area, and if you don't pay taxes I'm sure you have purchased almost everything you own from businesses that do pay taxes, you can pretend that because you run this site you are some sort of hardcore revolutionary, but in reality you probably compromise with governments almost every day in some way or another. Using your agorist agenda to justify keeping millions of people in cages just because you supposedly aren't willing to compromise with the government is just silly imho.
In conclusion, the drug war is wrong, and the current state of political affairs is wrong. Ending one is good, ending both would be better, but ending one is still good regardless of whether they are both bad. In the end the two have little to do with each other except that we would be paying taxes on yet another product, that isn't enough to justify a I WILL NOT COMPROMISE type of attitude. Anyone who did have that attitude would probably be busy growing their own food etc. etc. I'm sure you get the point.
"Here's my point: Silk Road is about something much bigger than thumbing your nose at the man and getting your drugs anyway. It's about taking back our liberty and our dignity and demanding justice. If prohibition is lifted, and the drug industry is placed under the yoke of the state, then we won in a small way, but lost in a big way. Right now, drugs are ours. They aren't tainted by the government. We the people control their manufacture, distribution and consumption. We should be looking to expand that control, taking back our power, no giving what is ours to the very people that have been our enemies all along."
To me this is the unrealistic part, we control the drug industry? Millions of people are in cages and everyone involved in the drug industry could be put into cages by the government at any time, we aren't in control here. Personally I think prison sentences and lives ruined are a lot bigger deal than paying taxes.
edit: I don't want to come off as insulting or anything, I'm just stating what I think.
-
^^
So many strawman arguments.
In one sentence: DPR is not arguing that we should completely get rid of every last scrap of government, DPR is arguing that we should all take more individual responsibility for our actions instead of making them into some other person's problem.
--
Because in fact SR isn't even opposed to the government itself per se (if you drill down into the literature on various strands of free market thought you'll find most capitalists agree that some public/private 'governing mechanisms' should exist e.g. to protect private property rights, arbitrate judicial decisions etc, albeit certainly not in the form of a single extremely large centralized entity we see today), but all those ignoble civilians who constantly whine and transfer their problems to it, thus turning it into the conflicted inefficient hydra it is in today's world.
Take property rights for example. That's a big part of the State's reason for existence. In practical terms this boils down to two things:
1. The Land Registry
2. The Police.
With the aid of some cryptography, it is possible to create a new world in which the Land Registry is no longer run by the governments of the world, but is instead a distributed system to store/edit/create such contracts with much more resilience, redundancy and longevity than ever before possible (let's just say the State doesn't have the happiest record of storing/not fucking with records in many countries...).
The idea that the State needs to run the police force sounds compelling to citizens long used to the concept, but again, there are other clever solutions that the public has not considered. Why dismiss ideas before you've even heard of them?
The defeatism, lack of imagination and apathy in these responses is astounding. It is intellectual cowardice to imply us of all people are to blame for the millions imprisoned and then go campaign to supply funding to that same organization that did the jailing, because that's in effect what (some) of the pro-legalization campaigners are doing. But no, the person taking the risks to bring you the product you wanted is the bad guy! Of course! That makes sense doesn't it! It's also funny how so many 'liberal minded' people can actually be very conservative about the future.
Help me says the farmer! Foreign competitors are running me out of business! No problem says the State, here's corn subsidies for you to help you and yours in these difficult times.
10 years later.
Help me says the consumer! My children and I are becoming fat thanks to this damanable cheap corn syrup in soft drinks! No problem says the State, we will put tariffs and higher taxes on soft drinks to prevent our health system being plagued by hordes of fat people! It makes sense! It's so cost effective...
And so it goes... They create the problem, and then you go to them looking for the solution.
Things are going to be very different this century. Things do not continue being the same just because they were up to this point.
-
Governments do not want to end prohibition.
Politicians do not want to end prohibition.
Law enforcement does not want to end prohibition.
Drug dealers do not want to end prohibition.
Why? Drug trade is driven by capitalistic ideologies and people are more than willing to take the risk involved. Demand is much more than supply and prices, for the most part, can vary from anything. Users will always fill the demand and the only factor to be truly to utilize modern technology to fill their needs.
SR and the like is revolutionary in a sense that people are getting wise to reduce the risk involved, but overall not a revolution to change drug laws, not that is a mission statement or SR..
The only way to change laws is from the will of the people in a democratic society, yet as all of us know, even that comes at a price. Why would a dealer want to go legit, only to face the requirements of licensing, regulating, taxing, reporting, inspecting, enforcing yadda yadda yadda...
The black market makes it much more simple and effective, you give me money, I give you drugs and both of us hope that we don't get caught. Which leads me to my point. With today's tech that's available at our fingertips, it's almost as if tech has grown into an intricate subculture that greatly reduces the risk of apprehension. Greatly reduced, not eliminated.
It's this transition that is conducive to an already paranoid seller and buyer, if everyone is on top of their game, why not take advantage of a fantastic capitalistic market and not worry about becoming legit or legal?
I understand progression of eliminating prohibition, not having to worry about LE or prison just because you want to smoke a doob on the weekends grilling up some delicious steak, or for the seller being able to afford their mortgage and put food on the table, but has prohibition prevented these acts from occurring? No way.
When the system doesn't work in our favor, we create a system that does work and it appears that people here are well into a groove when buying or selling, the only factor that can 'piss in our Post Toasties' is getting busted, yet if used effectively, there are tools to circumvent it and reduce that risk.
The vast majority here have grown up with the internet, a medium that when used effectively, can be great success and failure. If you're cut out for it, good for you, keep at it and prosper. For people who can't hack it, sorry, leave it to the professionals and hopefully Walmart will sell you some dank on an EBT card...
As it stands, if prohibition is something that rustles your jimmies, talk to your congressman, stand up and let your voice heard, vote and make a valid argument. For everyone else, never FE.
-
DPR is right on this, it wouldn't mean more freedom but more shackles on us all.
-
Even the fucking bible says prohibition doesnt work,Genesis and the garden of eden where even god himself couldn't stop someone from tasting the forbidden fruit!. There were only two people around so not a loy of suspects, plus they were naked so they didn't even have somewhere to stash the goodies, but even then prohibition was a total abject failure
If god cant pull it off, isnt the state just wasting its time and our lives.
-
I won't rest until children are born into a world where oppression, institutional violence and control, world war, and all the other hallmarks of the state are as ancient history as pharaohs commanding armies of slaves.
Today's babies will be tomorrow's evil men in uniforms and moronic slaves. Most of them anyway. Too many apes on this fucking planet; you can't get away from fucking people anywhere. Real anarchists don't breed: http://www.vhemt.org/anobreed.htm
-
Even the fucking bible says prohibition doesnt work,Genesis and the garden of eden where even god himself couldn't stop someone from tasting the forbidden fruit!. There were only two people around so not a loy of suspects, plus they were naked so they didn't even have somewhere to stash the goodies, but even then prohibition was a total abject failure
If god cant pull it off, isnt the state just wasting its time and our lives.
We aren't the naive people living thousands of years ago, nor in adam & eve's time whatever year that was.
We've moved on..
have revolutionary ideas, thoughts of the universe and our role.
Looking back we are able to learn from others and see history repeating itself and we no longer feel the need to continue on this path.
TWM
-
I know where I'll be. I won't rest until children are born into a world where oppression, institutional violence and control, world war, and all the other hallmarks of the state are as ancient history as pharaohs commanding armies of slaves. The drug war merely brings to light their nature and shows us who they really are. Legalizing it won't change that and will only make them stronger.
Hold on to what you DO have, and stand for the freedom you deserve!
Count us in ! Well said DPR
-
EDIT: skimmed further though the thread and a lot of my points where made, feel free to skip this post.
I'm sorry if this has already been said but I've got orders to pack and have not read all the posts.
As one person earlier quoted:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
To give the gov control over drugs would give them control over one more aspect of our lives. I'd love to see a smaller gov but I still think there is a need for a gov in a healthy society. As tempting as anarchy sounds in many ways, it would mean a huge change to our ways of life and a change that in many ways I do not want. I DO want somethings handled for us. I want our roads paved, children educated, police keeping true violent criminals at bay. Sure most of what the gov does they do a crap job of it.
For instance private schools tend to be better than public in many ways but public schools are still a necessity for a healthy society. It is hard enough for poor people to get ahead as is but what happens when there is no public education and thsoe born into a poor family dont get the education they need to be productive members of society? They could resort to crime which would mean I'd have to hire security to keep me and my family safe since there is no public police force. I'd rather pay to have public schools and help lower crime rate in other ways than have to hire security.
I have no clue how other public things like roads, parks etc would be handled. There are many things govs handle in the background that would simply fall apart without them and I don't know how they could be maintained otherwise. If we broke down into small community driven societies again it would work but that would completely change our way of life and I think hinder societies progress.
Back to orders!!
-
I know where I'll be. I won't rest until children are born into a world where oppression, institutional violence and control, world war, and all the other hallmarks of the state are as ancient history as pharaohs commanding armies of slaves.
I hate to be a negative douchebag, but that's never going to happen.
There's always going to be a Big Brother in some form or another. The key is to balance power as much as possible which means you won't get everything you want. Ending the drug war will be a huge step towards gaining some personal freedoms back and maybe, just maybe, ending large scale discrimination towards drug users. I don't like the Feds as much as everyone else here. Our (US) government needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. We need to put in place measures that protect us from political extremes as I'm beginning to see things that eerily remind me of the Cold War era.
Anarchy isn't the solution to all the world's problems. It may work for a period of time, but eventually people will begin to form feudal and monarchy-like systems in order to support each other through times of crisis. Violence, war, and greed will never go away. It's built into the human condition. The best one can do is build a system that allows for competition without financial Godmodding (see the Federal Reserve) and make periodical changes to that system in order to accommodate changing societal beliefs.
tl;dr Government needs to remain small. Anarchy will just lead to the reformation of old systems that are profoundly flawed.
-
An interviewer once asked Howard Marks "What will you do when they finally legalise weed?"
Marks answered "Drop an E!"
-
I loved reading this thread, reading everyone's different/similar opinions, getting ideas out there and talking about change, and what that would bring, comparing them with my own views. I hope this subject can continue to be spread and talked about more in the mainstream, as I think discussing it at all between intelligent people will lead to progress.
-
Spoken like a true drug dealer, DPR!
I'm not an anarchist and I have no vested interests in seeing illegal drug vendors make more money (sorry, just being honest).
Nicotine and Alcohol may be boring - but as legal products they are of far higher quality than "chop chop" or "moonshine". I expect the quality for current recreational drugs would also increase to professional lab grade chemicals.
SR is just a vending machine with sweet sweet candy.
-
Even the fucking bible says prohibition doesnt work,Genesis and the garden of eden where even god himself couldn't stop someone from tasting the forbidden fruit!. There were only two people around so not a loy of suspects, plus they were naked so they didn't even have somewhere to stash the goodies, but even then prohibition was a total abject failure
If god cant pull it off, isnt the state just wasting its time and our lives.
We aren't the naive people living thousands of years ago, nor in adam & eve's time whatever year that was.
We've moved on..
have revolutionary ideas, thoughts of the universe and our role.
Looking back we are able to learn from others and see history repeating itself and we no longer feel the need to continue on this path.
TWM
eh...? i think you totally missed my point there................
-
More inane and utter nonsense from yours truly..... :P
At every level of nature we see governments. Cells have a nucleus. Our brains govern our bodies. Leaders govern the group. And governments govern the nation. Even atoms have a nucleus (although it's a bit of a stretch to call it a form of government).
In a group of 10 people let's say 8 are submissive and 2 are vying for the leader position. There usually is only one leader, so whoever rallies up the most submissives against his competitor will take the leader position, and in doing so he can then turn his competitor into the enemy. The leader can then use his enemy as a means of unifying his followers and strengthening his position, power and control.
There are two main types of leaders; social and intellectual. As long as we are social animals we will continue to have socially dominant leaders. The internet is definitely pulling humans away from our usual social behaviors though (one of the reasons for the large decrease in religious adherence). People are thinking for themselves much more and being subjected to less influence from the old creepy dude with the funny hat who enjoys dominating and exploiting the weak (insert image here of evil vampire Pope surrounded by gold and jewelry).
So they control the social part of our brains. They also control the reward and fear centers. Everything that brings us reward and fear costs money. Food costs money. Military, police, prisons. Owning a home costs money. Raising a family costs money. Staying healthy, staying dominant, staying powerful. Everything is attached to fiat currency and so whatever group of humans create that currency will control the reward and fear centers of the people who use that currency. And the entire planet uses fiat currency. We're at the point where the powers that be are literally creating wars and creating enemies in order to further their own agenda, which is to become all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful.
If only there were some form of decentralized currency that could free us. ;)
-
Good post Montell Williams!
-
Prohibition when it relates ta drugs has a million differing angles. The one that is most likely to be seen is marijuana decriminalization. We are very close to limited jurisdictions fully legalizing it now. The rest, well... they are all each differing stories at the end of the day :)
But first, just look at that good ole ganja. First of all, if they legalized it, the path to it is thru medical use. Which would mean those who grow it today, would most likely would not pass the crazy FDA rulings to grow it then (using the USA as the model alone). The very folks who develop the bestest of the rankest stuff out there would be denied from being able to grow it legally anyhow. Think of the rules that are applied to the manufacture of any drug in the US. And due to the psychoactive part of it, will have a whole stack of stupid forms that one must get past before getting a permit to grow the goodies.
This will always make an underground market for marijuana. Especially if folks who grow it, start working out a product with it. Stead of dehydrated buds and same ole extracts, apply the rules of fermentation of teas and tobaccos, along with the tempering rules of chocolate on the extracts, to develop new shelf stable and long lived THC products, but that's for another posting... We are at a cusp with the legalization of marijuana that allows market savvy folks to develop and prepare name brand products with a unique and patentable taste and satisfaction. And I believe that brand name market will be an open high dollar niche always, at least in our own life times. That means now is the time to start developing your own potent blend that's fermented just right that noone else knows how to replicate it, all they can do is love it... and stick your brand right on it, cause soon... very soon.. you will be able to trademark that shit with the gubermints of a world.
I am dropping all the rest of the drugs because I feel that is going to be one of the eventual concessions civilizations makes. To stiffen the penalties for somethings, and release the authority on others. I hate to predict that outcome, but I feel it is just part of the process. It will take many generations to evolve the rules for decriminalizing just marijuana, and lifetimes to bang out the social details for everything. And along the way, we will loose rights for so many other things, restricted rights to others, and at the end of the marijuana game, most likely see production closely controlled by federal, state, and local controls. The process is evolutionary, and will go thru lots of mistakes to find the wins.... it will take generations, and in our life times, will always be a fight for freedom... in other words... it will always be a fight for something :)
But I do feel marijuana has a very good chance, and in fact, in many areas it already has become a booming business. Just a step away from being REALLY legal :) And mostly just a secondary charge. They will leave you alone for greens if you just follow the rest of that areas social code of conduct. Yet still, this path will exist. The Silk Road will not just go away unless its cracked the the attacks... but another will come along to join it or replace it. Because it will be a long long fight. The easier it is to obtain in one place, the more important it is to distribute everyplace :)
So I think that prohibition will be lifted for marijuana, very unlikely for most anything else highly bartered for on the SR, but, that will not stop use of the SR for other regions where prohibition is still a reality. Due to the law boundaries of states and countries, prohibition transitions will happen over a very long period of time, and that makes an entity like SR even more prized and a tool to fight prohibition where it remains.
Enough babble on that topic I am sure... :)
Cheers
Anjin
-
Nobody answered my previous post directly, but I had some other thoughts on my mind...
Following up on my assertion that socioeconomic inequality is the biggest negative consequence of a minarchist world...
When DPR talks about the "violence of the state", the part he neglects to mention is that most of the governments of the world are disproportionately or completely controlled by a minority of wealthy people, and act in their interests. Most of the wars they wage are for the benefit of the rich assholes who rule them. "The government" is not some nebulous entity, it's composed of real people. And mostly, it's composed of rich people. So when you rail against "the state", you're really railing against them.
Just look at the lobbyist and corporate money flooding into Washington. Look at the influence of the RIAA and MPAA. Look at the fact that the US would not have invaded Iraq if an oil magnate had not been president at that time, taking cues from his rich neocon friends.
Libertarian / minarchist / anarchist politics would do nothing to stop that situation. So you get rid of the government, or make it small enough to drown in a bath tub, but the rich assholes still control everything. Except now their private police forces terrorize you rather than government thugs with guns.
Meet the new boss, literally exactly the same as the old boss.
I could get behind libertarian and minarchist / anarchist ideas if we got rid of property and wealth inequality, because that's the true source of oppression and exploitation in the world. Through the centuries, most of the wars and violence were promulgated in the names of kings, for their personal enrichment, and that continues today with wealthy elites and politically connected individuals. A socialist minarchist or small-c communist system might work, but otherwise you're just subjecting yourself to a new set of overlords.
You will never resolve wealth disparity. Someone will always have more than the other guy. Minarchism libertarianism actually do the best job of leveling the playing field. As we all know by know the U.S. is not a democracy nor is it the representative republic we are told it is, rather it is a corporatocracy a thugocracy a oligarchy of the super rich and the corporate entities that they control. Regulations are written to stifle growth and maintain the status-quot. The super rich loathe competition so they have killed capitalism and replaced it with corporatism. Progressive liberals tend to see the solution as more regulation more tax, but these actions merely make the super rich even richer as well as making it nearly impossible for you or I to eek out a living as a self employed type. Yeah I am an business owner / sole proprietor. I may make less then if I had a "job" but what I make I relish as I did it my damned self. Any way as I was trying to say the corporations own the government so bigger stronger more powerful government is the last thing one could want. The best solution to wealth disparity is create a system that lets anyone become wealthy if they want to rather than protecting the old boys club. Less regulation and a weaker smaller government creates an environment where anybody willing to work can earn as much as they want. Wealth redistribution tactics have consistently failed every time they have been tried and with disastrous results. The only thing that has not been tried is a minarchist libertarian system.
-
IPIL:
Silk Road could become THE drug one-stop-shop, place to socialise talk about past experiences.................coffee Shop in the sky
{without being arrested}
Peace
TWM
-
Great post, thumbs up!! :D
-
Here's the thing: Drugs weren't prohibited because people were getting high, but for who was getting high off them. Mexicans smoking some strange weed, Chinese smoking opium in back alley dens, Blacks doing cocaine and going on white women rape sprees, dirty long-haired teens taking some new bizarre chemical, Trailer park park residents using draino to make some concoction and smoke it......... poor people, minorities,non conformists and general riff-raff. Uncivilized drug gatherings and raves, might as well be pagan orgies from their eyes. Alcohol is the civilized man's drug , and it's ingrained with almost every social part of their culture.
The upper ruling class is abhorred and also terrified of every one of these genres, the poor, Hispanic, Asian, African American, hippies, and all the others who dont fit in or have been excluded otherwise- and the law is the means used to suppress these heathen. It really isnt the drug that has been banned , it's the user.
When The Drug War was fabricated, it was never with a victory in mind.Its even questionable if there is any objective other than BIG Federal bucks pouring through the Courts and a multitude of Law Enforcement divisions in a massive Industry of creating criminals. The law on illegal drugs , as idiotic as we know it is, will never be dissolved, at least in my lifetime I fear. There is far too much $$$ in it,