Silk Road forums
Discussion => Off topic => Topic started by: usernameshere on July 18, 2011, 04:55 am
-
Wondering what people think of this......
I am merely curious what people think of various strategies for speeding up the legalization process. One thing that I am especially curious about relates to the effectiveness of targeted violence against the agents/assets in support of drug criminalization. I believe such activity to be moral based on the following reasoning; it is not immoral to use or sell drugs, it is immoral to initiate force, it is not immoral to respond to force with equal force, being sentenced to multi decades of a prison sentence is the near equivalent of a death sentence in that your life will be completely ruined at no fault of your own. The logical conclusion is that it is not immoral to use violence against those who choose to further the prohibitionist ideology at the expense of our freedom. Although morality is certainly in our favor, the efficiency of such action comes into question. Although on an emotional level I would personally love for every drug enforcement agent to be lined up against a wall and shot, on an intellectual level my desire is to further the goal of drug legalization and the freeing of the slaves taken by the drug war slave masters. I would not allow my emotional desires to compromise my strategic mission. Historically, non violent resistance is ineffective. There are notable cases, primarily the civil rights movement in the USA and of course Gandhi and his movement. However, many correctly point out that lack of violence in these specific cases was not the determining fact of success, indeed many agree that had violent tactics been employed the oppressive forces would have relinquished sooner. There is also the fact that while we are beaten down our oppressors suffer no discomfort and expecting the pity of a highly indoctrinated society to lead to improvements for our situation is probably a naive if idealistic proposition. At best, the change will happen slowly while many of our fallen allies rot for decades in prison industrial slave labor camps, subjected to constant violence and systematic institutionalization. The current progress of the legalization movement is pathetic, despite some high profile instances where former political figures called for legalization, it is apparent that particularly in the United States the corporate interests are too closely tied to prohibition for the fascist politicians to honor our liberty over the profits of corporate share holders or the expanding budgets of the law enforcement complex. We should expect no relief from 'the people' who quite unfortunately are largely overly susceptible to the sophisticated programming of the corporate/religious/political complex to be swayed by objectivity. Trying to win over the minds of the people will fail, particularly while the covertly state controlled mainstream media has no real interest in reprogramming people away from the desires of the corporate/religious/political complex. If reason fails, it seems while our lives are put in severe danger, while we engage in no immoral activity, that a violent response is not only appropriate but perhaps is the only method possible for the hasty change in drug war policy. The supporters of prohibition with political, enforcement or strategic capability must be eliminated until the time comes that the cost to their lives is no longer worth the profit to the structures benefiting from our enslavement. The psychedelic movement of the 60's failed, and so will ours if we do not learn from their mistakes.
-
Violence only gives reason on their end to use more force. In the eyes of your standard American sheeple, violence against the state is never justified, and when it is used it is met with more state aggression. When the state uses aggression against violent people, the people cheer. The only way to bring the state down is to peacefully remove your support, and to not obey bad laws with other people as a support. This is why I like the Free State Project.
-
People don't seem to even realize that the United State's whole system of government was based on a distrust of government itself. Paradoxical and impossible, but they did their best. I think they overrated people. Most people want security and laws. What has really cursed drugs has been our underlying puritan morality: the presumption that certain activities are downright sinful and need to be criminalized.
The liberal tendency to brand us 'sick' rather than 'criminal' hasn't helped matters either. Just means you get to go to treatment and get a little supervised probation before they lock you up. And up until recently, the US was powerful enough to enforce it's standards of conduct on the rest of the world, and did so. Most people are too uneducated and frightened to accept this.
I'm not sick or criminal. I'm a human being whose right to pursue his own happiness has been taken away from him by a series of government actions, both left and right, neither giving me freedoms I demand. I use any means necessary to pursue those freedoms and treat people as I find them along the way. And have paid the price for this insistence upon liberty.
Targeted violence presumes a solidarity among us I've never seen. Unless you think the gov't is on the verge of collapsing--and I don't--then notions like this (Che Guevara thought that way) always end in failure.
-
Regardless of whether or not it's immoral, IMO it's not practical (you'll always be outgunned) and highly counter-productive.
-
durka durka
-
Violence only gives reason on their end to use more force.
More force than what? Than paramilitary troops busting down your door with ski masks on and guns drawn, to violently throw you to the ground and lock you in a box with vicious criminals for decades of your life? I think many would much rather die, taking out a few prohibitionist agents with them, than be locked up. The prohibitionists already use aggression to their full extent. The difference between a life sentence and death is fairly negligible.
In the eyes of your standard American sheeple, violence against the state is never justified, and when it is used it is met with more state aggression.
Again, I don't think the state is capable of being more aggressive. What will they do, kill instead of lock up for decades? Negligible difference. Who cares what the American people think? They are, on average, brainwashed beyond all hope. I stopped giving a fuck about them long ago. America is a land of unearned arrogance, hypocrisy and is ruled by christian religious extremist fascists. LSD and other spiritual drugs being illegal is clearly unconstitutional, no law shall be made respecting one religion. Native Americans can legally use Peyote. Catholics can legally drink alcohol under the age of 21. Some churches can legally use DMT. Yet other drugs with clear spiritual uses are outlawed. When the USA does not follow its constitution and the courts support this, what other options are left than violence? Not to mention I will personally cheer every time a prohibitionist scumbag is killed.
When the state uses aggression against violent people, the people cheer.
So let them cheer, who cares? I don't care about popularity contests. The will of the people means nothing to me because their will is merely an amplification of the will of the state, thanks to propaganda.
The only way to bring the state down is to peacefully remove your support, and to not obey bad laws with other people as a support. This is why I like the Free State Project.
And then when you do not obey the law, you go to prison for decades. When it comes between going to prison for decades for possession of illegal drugs, and prison for decades for the death of those who would put you in prison for decades for possession of illegal drugs, I think the second is perhaps the better option. After all, if enough people start to kill the prohibitionists, then eventually they will stop locking people up. While they risk nothing and have everything to gain, they will continue. When their lives are seriously at risk, it is no longer worth the pay of the job to them.
Targeted violence presumes a solidarity among us I've never seen. Unless you think the gov't is on the verge of collapsing--and I don't--then notions like this (Che Guevara thought that way) always end in failure.
Targeted violence need not be organized, and indeed it is better for it to not be. How many agents of prohibition do you think they will let die before they rethink their strategy? Currently it is extremely rare for them to die. People rarely target them. They are the aggressors, picking off fish in barrels for the most part.
Regardless of whether or not it's immoral, IMO it's not practical (you'll always be outgunned) and highly counter-productive.
Perhaps it is not practical, but there seems to be no other real option. We can not fight the propaganda, those who are susceptible will always be influenced by it. We can wait for decades for change, but we will wait while others rot in prisons for nothing. Even if it is not practical or effective, it would be so nice to bring that fear to the prohibitionists. Just as we must fear our doors being kicked down and dragged off to prisons for years, each and every one of them should fear being killed at all times. They should not sleep any more soundly than those who they hunt down. Asymmetric combat techniques assume that the smaller force is severely out gunned. After all, larger forces can not target geographically diverse and anonymous networks with traditional military force. In a symmetric battle, the larger force will win. Their targets are concentrated into geographic areas which can be targeted. Anonymous, non-organized combatants in geographically dispersed networks using asymmetric combat techniques take away much of the advantages from a larger traditional combatant force.