Silk Road forums

Discussion => Philosophy, Economics and Justice => Topic started by: kmfkewm on October 08, 2012, 01:47 pm

Title: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on October 08, 2012, 01:47 pm
Some people think that we will win the war on drugs when drugs are legalized. But this does not sit well with me. Why is it a win when we are free to do what we should have never been restricted from doing in the first place? In the meantime, there will be people who made fortunes off of our oppression continuing to live happily. We will have people on our side who have spent decades of their lives in prisons for bullshit, they will have a government pension after retiring from fucking us over. Clearly it seems that even if drugs are legalized, we will not be winners, we will be more free but we will have lost enormous amounts while they will have gained enormous amounts by enslaving us. I believe that it stands to reason that if we accept that there could be a world where drugs are legalized, that we must then ask ourselves what to do to the people who oppressed us when drugs were illegal? If I take an innocent person off the street and throw them into a basement for a year, I am a pretty bad criminal right? Well if drugs are legalized, then if I take a drug user and put them in a basement for a year I am a pretty bad criminal for doing this right? Well what about the people who behave in this way while drugs are wrongfully illegal? Some justice must be brought to them, and I wonder how we can best go about this in a libertarian society.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on October 08, 2012, 01:52 pm
I personally would suggest mass executions of everyone in the DEA, jail time and heavy fines to non-drug-focused law enforcement will vary somewhat though. It just isn't feasible to kill everyone who has done anything related to drug law enforcement, but the ringleaders should be taken care of harshly. I really don't know the best way to hold them accountable for what they have done, but clearly just letting them live unbothered is not just.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: Crooked on October 08, 2012, 02:36 pm
Reparations!
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: Looker on October 08, 2012, 04:43 pm
When has this logic ever applied to anything made legal in society?

Slavery? When this was made illegal the people who then complied with the new laws (abolishing slavery) that had previously participated, how were they punished?

Alcohol Prohibition? The people who were mistreated in various forms before this was lifted, what happened to them?

While I would like to see some loss on the 'other' side of the war on drugs thinking it will ever actually happen is exceptionally naive. Suggesting things like mass executions is akin to suggesting a holocaust for fighters of the war on drugs, how does that sit with you? Do you really think that sort of blanket murder (which is exactly what it would be) would even be reasonable or appropriate?

So instead of combating violence with the war on drugs (which is a much greater issue than the actual drugs for LE) you will insist on violence against them? Doesn't this strike you as somewhat foolish at best? Instead of killing and ruining lives for doing drugs, you are going to kill and ruin lives for stopping people from doing them, whats the difference?

More importantly this begs the question, have you ever actually had to take a life? Do you even comprehend what that does to ones psyche? I really very very seriously doubt it.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: wretched on October 08, 2012, 05:10 pm
I don't know why but when I read this thread, I thought of the movie inglorious basterds

something to the effect of

after the war when you go home, you plan on taking off that nice nazi uniform?....well I'm gonna give you something you can't take off...

just branding the word "PIG" on their forehead seems better than execution to me, because I don't believe in taking ANY life under any circumstances, but that's just me.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on October 08, 2012, 06:02 pm
When has this logic ever applied to anything made legal in society?

Slavery? When this was made illegal the people who then complied with the new laws (abolishing slavery) that had previously participated, how were they punished?

The logic applies very strongly because it is the only thing that makes sense. If today my act of trying to enslave a person is a serious crime, then it is an equal crime even if we go back into the past. Right and wrong do not change with time or numbers of supporters, so indeed I think that the slave owners and those who enforced alcohol prohibition should be punished.

Quote
While I would like to see some loss on the 'other' side of the war on drugs thinking it will ever actually happen is exceptionally naive. Suggesting things like mass executions is akin to suggesting a holocaust for fighters of the war on drugs, how does that sit with you? Do you really think that sort of blanket murder (which is exactly what it would be) would even be reasonable or appropriate?

Living in a libertarian society is essentially a fantasy at this point in time, however in a world with strong agorist defense agencies, drug police would be assassinated very frequently. Seriously if someone made a blind mix betting pool on the date that the next fed explodes, I bet a lot of people would play (and hopefully some will be winners!).

Secondly, I do support a holocaust against the DEA. I don't mean that they should be tortured , simply lined up and shot. They are a cancer on this world. They need to be the example so that in the future people can see that oppression is not something that works to the oppressors advantage. The DEA doesn't give a fuck about us. They think we are evil and sick criminals who both consume and push poison onto their kids. Do you even realize the type of fucked up shit these people do? They will pretend to be your friend and then bust your ass. They make it so that nobody can be trusted and everyone is fucking paranoid or stupid not paranoid and in jail. They serve no legitimate function. They are essentially highway robbers who kick in peoples doors, take all of their shit, kidnap them shove them in basements for forty years. They are the worst sort of criminal, and they deserve mass executions. They have committed crimes against humanity.

[/quote[
So instead of combating violence with the war on drugs (which is a much greater issue than the actual drugs for LE) you will insist on violence against them? Doesn't this strike you as somewhat foolish at best? Instead of killing and ruining lives for doing drugs, you are going to kill and ruin lives for stopping people from doing them, whats the difference?
[/quote]

The major and enormous difference is the initiation of force. They have viciously, relentlessly attacked us and oppressed us ,with absolutely no provocation. The consequences from their actions have been more far reaching and negative than many people will ever even recognize. 



Quote
More importantly this begs the question, have you ever actually had to take a life? Do you even comprehend what that does to ones psyche? I really very very seriously doubt it.

I have no doubt that if I had a gun and was in a magic room in which my actions could never be tied to me outside of it, that I would blow the fuckers brains out. I mean really what are they going to do beg for their lives? What about the lives of all the people they fucked. I have absolutely no empathy for them.
Title: <removed>
Post by: StExo on October 08, 2012, 06:51 pm
<removed>
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: grahamgreene on October 08, 2012, 07:05 pm
[SNIP]
Secondly, I do support a holocaust against the DEA. I don't mean that they should be tortured , simply lined up and shot. They are a cancer on this world. They need to be the example so that in the future people can see that oppression is not something that works to the oppressors advantage. The DEA doesn't give a fuck about us. They think we are evil and sick criminals who both consume and push poison onto their kids. Do you even realize the type of fucked up shit these people do? They will pretend to be your friend and then bust your ass. They make it so that nobody can be trusted and everyone is fucking paranoid or stupid not paranoid and in jail. They serve no legitimate function. They are essentially highway robbers who kick in peoples doors, take all of their shit, kidnap them shove them in basements for forty years. They are the worst sort of criminal, and they deserve mass executions. They have committed crimes against humanity.

I'm sorry kmfkewm but the method you are suggesting has no place in a libertarian society; "mass executions" of people who  previously wronged us - taking place after the event - makes us no better than them.
Similar things are happening in Libya today where former rebel groups are routinely killing members of other former rebel groups because they do not share the same ideologies. That is madness, and were it to be a method employed in a so-called 'libertarian' society, such a society would be libertarian by name, but not libertarian by nature. It would be a society that I, for one, would want absolutely no part in.

- grahamgreene
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on October 08, 2012, 07:21 pm
[SNIP]
Secondly, I do support a holocaust against the DEA. I don't mean that they should be tortured , simply lined up and shot. They are a cancer on this world. They need to be the example so that in the future people can see that oppression is not something that works to the oppressors advantage. The DEA doesn't give a fuck about us. They think we are evil and sick criminals who both consume and push poison onto their kids. Do you even realize the type of fucked up shit these people do? They will pretend to be your friend and then bust your ass. They make it so that nobody can be trusted and everyone is fucking paranoid or stupid not paranoid and in jail. They serve no legitimate function. They are essentially highway robbers who kick in peoples doors, take all of their shit, kidnap them shove them in basements for forty years. They are the worst sort of criminal, and they deserve mass executions. They have committed crimes against humanity.

I'm sorry kmfkewm but the method you are suggesting has no place in a libertarian society; "mass executions" of people who  previously wronged us - taking place after the event - makes us no better than them.
Similar things are happening in Libya today where former rebel groups are routinely killing members of other former rebel groups because they do not share the same ideologies. That is madness, and were it to be a method employed in a so-called 'libertarian' society, such a society would be libertarian by name, but not libertarian by nature. It would be a society that I, for one, would want absolutely no part in.

- grahamgreene

In a free society it is a crime to kidnap and falsely imprison, armed robbery is a crime, the DEA is a gang which routinely engages in these activities. A libertarian society would bring them to account for their crimes, it is not questionable, the only question is what should the penalty for their crimes be.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on October 08, 2012, 07:33 pm
Additionally, in a just society, the penalties they face would be equal to the penalties they would face if they engaged in these highly criminal activities without the benefit of being agents of the state. So the real question is, what should the sum penalty be for conspiracy, kidnapping and armed robbery? Obviously they must be held in cages for a very long amount of time if they are not to be killed, but who pays the bill for this imprisonment? I believe the cleanest solution is to simply execute them, certainly we should not be any more inconvenienced by them than we already have been?
Title: <removed>
Post by: StExo on October 08, 2012, 08:18 pm
<removed>
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: pine on October 08, 2012, 08:19 pm
There isn't really a way to fight back proportionately without involving collateral damage.

However if you shame them in the same way the Nazis were shamed after WWII, then you can return any discussion of a return to the Drug War a taboo subject. That's a kind of revenge.

Morality aside, your idea is completely impractical. You were advocating mailbombs once. It doesn't make sense because if you start a violent assault you have to take it all the way. That doesn't mean killing DEA agents. It means you'll also be forced to kill anybody who steps in to defend them, you'll have to adopt a preemptive strike ideology.

Put simply; the entire US government and a fair amount of the population would get dragged into such a mess if you began a violent campaign against the DEA. So it is Total War or nothing.

I think you are overestimating the advantages of hard power over soft power. Our biggest ally is soft power, is good PR, is cultural influence. If you turn into Rambo, you throw all that away and you'll lose with close to 100% certainty, since the other government agencies aren't exactly going to stand by while you proceed.

On the other hand, if you are personally threatened with violence, then you have to respond in kind or you'll die. But that's a different situation to the one you're talking about, you're talking about an ideological war.

For DEA agents to be shamed within their communities, to be castigated, to be despised until they die, that is enough. That is already beginning. Many conservative Christians hate what the DEA has turned into when they used to traditionally be stalwart supporters. At best many other parts of high society consider them a joke with bad taste. Otherwise we'll take an eye for an eye and leave the world blind.

I realize this may seem feeble when you're sitting comfortable in a chair while former associates/friends are behind bars, missing their families and civilian life. But I'm struggling to see a superior alternative. It seems better to me to put your energies into coming up with ways of spreading information that will enable the market to run rings around the DEA. To take it to the next level. There's dozens of useful projects, like PGP Club, like Jameslink's recent Pi idea, and so on, that productively can change things for the better. I mean they are fighting on our turf now, and they know it. It doesn't matter how many "elite teams" they dream up. They're completely outnumbered. This is a good place to fight the Drug War, even if you don't participate in taking any drugs yourself, many of SR's strongest supporters aren't necessarily even people who actively take illegal substances, but people who have simply had enough with this bullshit war and support the free choice of others.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: wackmanblu on October 08, 2012, 09:03 pm
Whoa, just hold on a minute. Values change all the time in society, I don't think you can hold people responsible for doing what what was widely believed to be the 'right' thing to do at that time and place.

In 1660 in New England there were witch hunts and innocents died.
Previous to the 1970's in North America homosexuality was illegal (most states or provinces)
Currently there are people in prison for drug related offenses, but secret police didn't put them there, we all know the risk we take when we cross the line.

Now-a-days Wicca is an acceptable belief/religion
People of the same sex can legally get married in many places
I believe it's only a matter of time until drug reform absolves those in prison

Because you and I believe we are are more enlightened than the current status quo doesn't mean we should reign down righteous hell-fire when values come around to our way of thinking. Simply accept that times have changed and be thankful.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: libertyseller on October 08, 2012, 09:43 pm
Nothing. We take no action against them - for revenge is best served by living well rather than being full of hatred and a desire for revenge.

If they want to make themselves hide in a veil of lies, let them, but if we're to be seen as correct, sometimes a calm approach is more powerful for it will demonstrate to the wider public we aren't violent and ruthless addicts, we just enjoy experimenting with our minds and bodies and to associate revenge with the drugs will fight against the cause. I'm not somebody who craves the moral high ground, I just feel it is counterproductive to live out the very dogma's surrounding drugs just because they are legalised.

Best response yet, ignore them- besides, some of the best info for circumnavigating the state comes from ex feds ;) everyone has a price, always
Title: <removed>
Post by: StExo on October 08, 2012, 11:13 pm
<removed>
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: libertyseller on October 08, 2012, 11:20 pm
True. I just feel in this situation trying to persuade our own people on this issue would be better done through understanding and co-operation rather than violence which will probably end up killing most of us as everybody has a knee-jerk reaction towards each other.

I could not agree more, and I live in the communist states of amerika, but than, I am a bit of an oddity.

Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: anonymarse on October 09, 2012, 03:48 am
I'm with StExo and libertyseller - don't do anything to them.

As a libertarian I would not oppose people seeking reparations, as long as it is only based on proven damage and individual liability. But personally, I would not pursue it, and I would urge forgiveness in others. After all, there's nothing worse we can do to them than what they would do to themselves. We will have won, beat 'em fair and square despite all their cheating. If they don't reform and join us in our newly created freedom, then they will punish themselves with resentment and bitterness.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: RutGroove on October 09, 2012, 05:12 am
So instead of combating violence with the war on drugs (which is a much greater issue than the actual drugs for LE) you will insist on violence against them? Doesn't this strike you as somewhat foolish at best? Instead of killing and ruining lives for doing drugs, you are going to kill and ruin lives for stopping people from doing them, whats the difference?

Torturing and/or killing those servants (police, agents, customs, guards) of the controlling powers (corporations (pharma, alcohol, tobacco, prisons, weapons, military), politicians, judges, wardens) might slowly turn the course.  Or it may just be a loosing battle.  Or tied.  I don't think even going after the big wigs would be effective.

IMHO, society, culture, media needs reforming from the bottom up.  It's happening for pot at a snails pace.  I don't know if Ron Paul will get cocaine legalized like he wants until the greatest depression happens when we run out of oil and fresh water while coke becomes trivial by comparison.

We need to define the roles of the police (and other authority figures) and then reprogram them.
Good:
- serve and protect
- deal with domestic disputes
- deal with violent crime
- deal with theft
- security
- tickets (speeding, parking, etc)
Bad:
- freedom infringement (drugs, etc)
- brutality squads (against civil protests, etc)
- corporate/political strong-arm terrorism (Wall Street's muscle should be cracking corrupt Wall Street heads)
- racial profiling
- enforcing globalizing for the WTO

More importantly this begs the question, have you ever actually had to take a life? Do you even comprehend what that does to ones psyche? I really very very seriously doubt it.

I tried to kill myself several years ago.  Unfortunately it didn't work.  (Drunk and didn't know how properly.)  Not a day goes by that I don't wish it did.  Fortunately I was not harmed in any way that would make existence any worse for me (like ending up in a wheelchair, etc.).  Next time will be the real deal.  I've learned a lot and won't make any mistakes.

I would happily wear an explosive vest and give George W Bush a hug, but that's not gonna happen.  I know it's a little late, but it sure would make a lot of people happy.

~ RutGroove - Dynomite!
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: ToleranceBreak on October 09, 2012, 09:29 am
Right and wrong are subjective. Right now, society at large believe that drugs are bad. DEA is acting because they were told to by the government. The representatives in government are voted in by citizens like yourself (I'm assuming here). So in the end, it's your responsibility to ensure that you educate people so as to vote in representatives that would accurately represent you.

Also, how is the idea of mass DEA killings make you any better than any of the other petty dictatorships of the past? They killed scores of people for being complicit in things they deemed horrible or acting against what they thought was right. Killing people will do nothing other than ferment the fires of conflict.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: libertyseller on October 09, 2012, 03:17 pm
Traffic tickets good?

Really?

Reprogram the thugs to be nicer thugs?

Really?

And from experience, domestic disputes never end well with those being involved - stopping children from being abused, fine- but good people dont need cops to do that for them.

Only sheep need cops pussies and bitches need cops soft bellied turncoats need cops rats need cops no one else needs cops no one.



Tolerance- you are correct why kill anyone? Unless your life is directly threatened by them, dont kill em. Though the pat response of (following orders) has never stood in court, I will agree murdering a bunch of pigs while satisfying would only serve to further oppression not relieve it.
Title: <removed>
Post by: StExo on October 09, 2012, 06:13 pm
<removed>
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: Limetless on October 10, 2012, 04:31 am
This whole thread just seems ridiculously deluded.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: Schmuckk on October 10, 2012, 06:33 am
In your "libertarian" society, you would have us prosecute former members of the DEA for carrying a different set of ideals than us, and fighting for that set of ideals. Although their actions may be misguided, I seriously doubt any of them actually think of what they are doing as oppressive. By doing something like that, not only would we be sinking to their level, we would take it further and torture/murder/publicly humiliate them.
Please understand that everyone has different concepts of right and wrong. What separates us from them is that we believe in non-aggression; as long as one's actions do not infringe upon the rights of others, they should be free to do whatever they want.

Resentment is understandable, but the "libertarian" society you are envisioning really isn't a libertarian society. It would actually be the same thing we have now, just much more violent and oppressive, and we would be the tyrants.
Keep in mind that we are not terrorists or barbarians, we are revolutionaries :)

-schmuck
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on October 10, 2012, 07:27 am
Quote
Organizations such as the DEA are there to enforce the law. They may be cunts, but they're doing their job in accordance to what we currently recognize as law

The Gestapo enforced the law. The people who ran concentration camps in Nazi Germany enforced the law. Following orders has never been recognized as a valid excuse for committing crimes. This holds true for the Nazis who were tried with war crimes and it holds true for DEA agents. Following orders does not absolve them of responsibility. They choose to have the job they have. Nobody has forced them. Additionally, I do not recognize the laws of the state. You think as a statist if you think that there is any we involved with recognizing the law. I recognize right and wrong, not the law. If you think that following the law is all that matters then you must have been against the Nazis being tried for war crimes right?

Quote
I assume you're not a lazy ass and you have a job, pay taxes etc. Shall we try you for sponsoring terrorism? Sure, working for the DEA is their choice and taxes are compulsory, but at the end of the day, you paid them and by your own logic are fully responsible for your own actions. For sponsoring terrorism, you're equally as guilty as those who commit it, so you should too be put to death.

Should someone who is extorted for money by the mafia be tried for sponsoring criminals? No, the mafia should be tried for extortion. The IRS should be tried for extorting me, I should not be tried for sponsoring terrorism.

Quote
On a final notes, let us remember almost all the DEA guys and citizens in our countries are brainwashed into seeing drugs as horrific trades which fund violence and murder when in almost all cases, it is not. You're aiming at the wrong people and worst of all, you aren't debating opinions, you're throwing down other opinions on the matter to promote your own agenda without even considering alternatives on an unbias platform.

Let us also remember that the Nazis were brainwashed into thinking that it was morally right to exterminate the Jews. Thinking that you are doing the right thing is not an excuse for your actions. People who commit crimes while thinking they are doing the right thing should not be excused of their crimes!

Quote
Whoa, just hold on a minute. Values change all the time in society, I don't think you can hold people responsible for doing what what was widely believed to be the 'right' thing to do at that time and place.

So you wish that the Nazi war criminals were not tried for their crimes? The German society hated the Jews and their extermination was completely lawful. What about all of the other armies that have committed war crimes that were acceptable in the eyes of their societies? The list is enormous. Following your logic, people should not be held accountable for genocide if enough of their people supported the mass murder of innocents. You believe in moral relativism, I believe in moral absolutism. Morality does not change with the times. Following your logic it was not bad for people to own slaves because hey it was socially acceptable at that point in time.

Quote
In 1660 in New England there were witch hunts and innocents died.
Previous to the 1970's in North America homosexuality was illegal (most states or provinces)
Currently there are people in prison for drug related offenses, but secret police didn't put them there, we all know the risk we take when we cross the line.

The people responsible for innocents being burned at the stake deserved to be burned at the stake themselves. It is so insane to think that the majority of a society at a point in time determines what is right and what is wrong. It is a form of defeatism to accept things the way they are merely because the majority of society accepts things the way they are. There will never be positive change if everyone thinks this way! Yes, secret police have put hundreds of thousands of people in jail for drug crimes. What do you think undercover agents are? What makes the snitch networks of today different from the Stasi snitch networks of Eastern Germany? Absolutely nothing. To think that there is a difference is an artifact of your social conditioning.

Quote
Now-a-days Wicca is an acceptable belief/religion
People of the same sex can legally get married in many places
I believe it's only a matter of time until drug reform absolves those in prison

Indeed, and those who put them in prison must be punished. Following your logic it is acceptable to punish them if the majority of society agrees that it is!

Quote
Because you and I believe we are are more enlightened than the current status quo doesn't mean we should reign down righteous hell-fire when values come around to our way of thinking. Simply accept that times have changed and be thankful.

Should the Jews have just been thankful that they were done being exterminated? Or should the Nazis have been punished for crimes against humanity?

Quote
There isn't really a way to fight back proportionately without involving collateral damage.

And the collateral damage is on the hands of those who began the aggression. Although we should take efforts to minimize it, we can not let the possibility of innocents being hurt get in the way of bringing justice to criminals.

Quote
However if you shame them in the same way the Nazis were shamed after WWII, then you can return any discussion of a return to the Drug War a taboo subject. That's a kind of revenge.

On the off chance that you were not aware, several Nazis were executed after WWII and even to this day Mossad agents hunt them down and assassinate them.

Quote
Morality aside, your idea is completely impractical. You were advocating mailbombs once. It doesn't make sense because if you start a violent assault you have to take it all the way. That doesn't mean killing DEA agents. It means you'll also be forced to kill anybody who steps in to defend them, you'll have to adopt a preemptive strike ideology.

Anyone who steps in to defend them has become an agent on their behalf and if they die it is nobodies fault but their own.

Quote
Put simply; the entire US government and a fair amount of the population would get dragged into such a mess if you began a violent campaign against the DEA. So it is Total War or nothing.

Targeted assassinations seem to have worked pretty well for Mossad in their bringing justice to Nazi war criminals...

Quote
I think you are overestimating the advantages of hard power over soft power. Our biggest ally is soft power, is good PR, is cultural influence. If you turn into Rambo, you throw all that away and you'll lose with close to 100% certainty, since the other government agencies aren't exactly going to stand by while you proceed.

And do you think that government agencies stand by idly while Silkroad is in operation? No of course they try to bring it down. You seem to see the government as some all powerful being. Well, in a war between an all powerful being that (paradoxically) is not all knowing, and an all knowing being that is not all powerful, I think that it is anyones fight. Who will win, an ultra powerful government or a bunch of anonymous attackers? If we take to the streets with guns and march as an army against them we will be wiped out. If they mysteriously are killed off one by one it is a different story. 


Quote
On the other hand, if you are personally threatened with violence, then you have to respond in kind or you'll die. But that's a different situation to the one you're talking about, you're talking about an ideological war.

No, we are threatened with violence. We are threatened with our doors being kicked down by paramilitary troops with automatic weapons, having our property stolen from us and being imprisoned for decades. If that is not violence I do not know what you consider violence to be. They have initiated force against us and it is our duty to bring them to justice for their crimes.


Quote

As a libertarian I would not oppose people seeking reparations, as long as it is only based on proven damage and individual liability. But personally, I would not pursue it, and I would urge forgiveness in others. After all, there's nothing worse we can do to them than what they would do to themselves. We will have won, beat 'em fair and square despite all their cheating. If they don't reform and join us in our newly created freedom, then they will punish themselves with resentment and bitterness.

We will have won when we are free todo what we never should have been restricted from doing?We will have won when we have people released from prisons decades later? We will have won when they are retiring and getting a monthly government paycheck and we will have people with wasted lives? No , we have lost. Even if drugs are legalized entirely today and all of the prisoners are freed, we will have lost. It is not possible for us to win. The best we can hope to do is make sure that we have not lost alone. The only way to win the drug war is to never have played it, they decided to play it and now it is up to us to make sure that we both lose. No matter what we already have lost.

Quote
Right and wrong are subjective. Right now, society at large believe that drugs are bad. DEA is acting because they were told to by the government. The representatives in government are voted in by citizens like yourself (I'm assuming here). So in the end, it's your responsibility to ensure that you educate people so as to vote in representatives that would accurately represent you.

So it was right for the Nazis to exterminate the Jews? It was right for blacks to be enslaved? According to your logic it will be right to kill the DEA agents as soon as I have convinced enough people. Moral subjectivism is absolutely fucking disgusting.

Quote
In your "libertarian" society, you would have us prosecute former members of the DEA for carrying a different set of ideals than us, and fighting for that set of ideals. Although their actions may be misguided, I seriously doubt any of them actually think of what they are doing as oppressive. By doing something like that, not only would we be sinking to their level, we would take it further and torture/murder/publicly humiliate them.

Indeed the Nazis did not think they were bad. By your logic nobody who acts thinking their actions are good deserves to be punished. Are you really so fucking dumb as to believe this?
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on October 10, 2012, 07:31 am
Seriously anyone who thinks that the DEA and other drug law enforcement agents don't deserve punishment is not really an anarchist or libertarian. You are not anarchists because you believe that acting as an agent of the state makes someone immune to being tried for state sanctioned crimes, and you are not a libertarian because you think that we do not have a right to punish people who have committed serious crimes against us simply because you see our own actions as criminal due to the state saying they are.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: RutGroove on October 10, 2012, 03:37 pm
Right now, society at large believe that drugs are bad. DEA is acting because they were told to by the government. The representatives in government are voted in by citizens like yourself (I'm assuming here). So in the end, it's your responsibility to ensure that you educate people so as to vote in representatives that would accurately represent you.

Not.

The powers that be manipulate the laws of the mob.  Pot was not made illegal until the corporate interests made it so.  Prohibition was so unpopular it was repealed.  Eventually the sheeple get brainwashed and go along it and do what they're told so they can be good productive citizens generating power for the elite.

Getting real representation would be a start.  Instead of the extreme right wing business party and the slightly left of right wing business party, how about the USA gets some other parties for the people, for labour, for health, education, universal rights, the environment - instead of being all about the business interests.  There's more to life than the GDP.  What about GNH?  Gross National Happiness?  ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNH )

Also, how is the idea of mass DEA killings make you any better than any of the other petty dictatorships of the past? They killed scores of people for being complicit in things they deemed horrible or acting against what they thought was right. Killing people will do nothing other than ferment the fires of conflict.

Wrong.  Killing people will get attention.  It may be futile and wasteful, it may get the wrong results - or it may not.

I'm not saying force is always the best or only option, but if you think no one died when Ghandi was leading India to independence you are sadly mistaken.  Also, other more violent Indian resistance leaders were gaining momentum so peaceful puppet Ghandi was chosen by the empirical powers because he allowed them to retain their control hierarchy and corporate dominance.

Traffic tickets good?
Really?

No.  That was actually a joke.

I think they should raise taxes rather than claim it's a source of funding.  Though, if you're going to pay taxes and "contribute to society", I do believe in sin taxes.  If you want to sin - pay a tax.  Speeding, prostitution, drugs, alcohol... tax to make them legally controlled (safer) and pay for rehab or to scrape up your body.  I would rather take my chances with no speed limits and blind grandmas racing around cause I don't have kids so I don't care.

Reprogram the thugs to be nicer thugs?

No, redefine their job description.  No thuggery.  Thugs will exist regardless, policemen or not, so we should throw violent offenders in jail, and or hope that a pacifying solution becomes available soon to those who would like it via anti-testosterone, genetically engineered virus, nano-tech, custom chem, designer drugs, legalized substances, or however.

Punishment is an act of justice to server as a negative reinforcement for breaking the law and by that definition many of us here deserve to be punished. However, sometimes we need to break the law so we can fix it. To punish those who are enforcing the law are no better than those who stand by and let it happen so for every time an arrest is made for drugs possession, supply or manufacture, is it correct to punish everyone who didn't protest it? No.

How about retaliation?  Direct or indirect?

A legal peaceful demonstration being pepper-sprayed ceases to be non-violent.  Should we fight back when they use their terrorist torture tactic endorsed by the corpo-state.  Why is it fair for the corporate powers and all their lawyers to use excessive force and not be slapped back, whether slapping the masters (executives) or the masters servants (police bullies)?  Where and when should your civil disobedience become violent?  I think the ELF were heroes that fucked up corporate targets without harming people (some mistaken targets admittedly, but cops, laws, and corporations aren't perfect either).  Only property was destroyed.  They were noticed.  Very much.  ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Liberation_Front )  If I was an Iraqi or Afghan citizen where the corporatist hegemonic US Empire steals their resources and innocent blood - I'd fucking fight back and aim to kill.  Might makes right and if you lie down you'll get run over with no rights.  Fight for your right to party.  (With the Green Party!)

I'm not saying violent resistance is the solution.  I'm just saying that it's an option that should be on the table.  Fair is fair.  Resisting arrest unjustly applied should not be a crime.  Resist and fight against an unbalanced system enforced by brute domination.  If your morals limit you, then do what you can within them.  I suspect Noam Chomsky would agree.

Let's gather some intelligence. Politicians were killed in some countries. It's interesting to know how that was done. What preparations were made and did anyone get prosecuted. I'd like to see a different topic with such stories.

Accountability is rarely applied to the powerful.  They're immune to the stuff.  (Diplomatic immunity.)  :P

Show that the real goal of the government is money and nothing else.

Correction.  It's not just the government or money.  It's the elite and their power game.  Money is a virtual power symbol (you can't eat it).  They want to control us and enslave us.  If we are busy working and making them money 6 days a week just to pay their overpriced bills, that's better than us working 3 or 4 days a week paying bills for a fair existence with time to politically organize, spend time with friends and family, or go to some psychedelic realm.

This whole thread just seems ridiculously deluded.

Yay!

What separates us from them is that we believe in non-aggression; as long as one's actions do not infringe upon the rights of others, they should be free to do whatever they want.

Pussy!  Does a moral high ground make eating their shit taste better?  If so keep eating.  But at least remove your brainwash-blindfold to see them perched on a pyramid of "legitimized authority" and hawkish, without blinking an Illuminati eye, they'll beat down upon you, so high on drugs and your moral high ground.  I'm not saying you should provoke them with violence, but know that they will never spare you harm, so I advocate defense and resistance.

Resentment is understandable, but the "libertarian" society you are envisioning really isn't a libertarian society. It would actually be the same thing we have now, just much more violent and oppressive, and we would be the tyrants.
Keep in mind that we are not terrorists or barbarians, we are revolutionaries :)

Maybe.  Maybe not.

It's far more complex than we can possibly imagine.  A different society would have different checks and balances and systems that would organically evolve as the culture does.  It's impossible to know how it would turn out until you try.  You can't just start a new society with all new rules without any mistakes or corrections along the way.

This holds true for the Nazis who were tried with war crimes and it holds true for DEA agents. Following orders does not absolve them of responsibility. They choose to have the job they have. Nobody has forced them. Additionally, I do not recognize the laws of the state.

I agree.

I'd also like to point out that because the Allies won the war, they defined the war crimes for the trial.  Both sides broke the rules.  One side lost and they were tried as a spectacle, but only for the crimes we didn't commit.  Not that I'm defending the Nazis, let alone killing Jews.  But we had our own concentration camps.  Just saying.

Let us also remember that the Nazis were brainwashed into thinking that it was morally right to exterminate the Jews.  Thinking that you are doing the right thing is not an excuse for your actions.  People who commit crimes while thinking they are doing the right thing should not be excused of their crimes!

Existence is a crime.  Whether it's the T-shirt I wear that's made by slave wages in Bangladesh, or this computer built by children, or the unfairly traded coffee you drink...  Western culture is a sin waged upon the less fortunate.  No one is innocent.  Ignorance is no excuse but ignorance is bliss.  I say, follow your bliss.  Do what you think is right for you and your conscience and if they try to penalize you then fight back.

Following your logic, people should not be held accountable for genocide if enough of their people supported the mass murder of innocents. You believe in moral relativism, I believe in moral absolutism. Morality does not change with the times. Following your logic it was not bad for people to own slaves because hey it was socially acceptable at that point in time.

Morality totally changes with the times.

Was it moral to laugh at black-faced minstrels a hundred years ago?  No one laughs at Mickey Rooney's Mr. Yunioshi (Asian "Chink" character) in "Breakfast At Tiffany's" any more, but they sure did in 1961.  Will & Grace has gay jokes that will probably be stale in 30 years too.  Fat jokes aren't as popular either now that everyone over-consumes.  Now Israel is absofuckinglutely decimating Palestinians.  Where did their Jewish morality go?  They just perpetually spin it in victim's justification.  George W Bush claimed 9/11, then weapons of mass destruction, then democracy building, all while he raped Iraq with his country's consensus.  Now people think different.  Thomas Jefferson may have been a nice man who owned slaves, new it to be morally wrong, and still didn't free them in his dieing will.

We are all slaves of the elite globalized hierarchical matrix of powers that be.  Call them Illuminati if you want.  It's not as fancy as a conspiracy theory.  It's a fact that they control the flows of most of the world's resources.  There are a few exceptions, like Bitcoin, which I'm sure they might have influential claws in - but they don't own it.  With the Patriot Act there are so many fucking ways they can call someone a "terrorist" and torture them in Gitmo.  All is fair in love and war.  What are you gonna do about it?

And do you think that government agencies stand by idly while Silkroad is in operation? No of course they try to bring it down. You seem to see the government as some all powerful being. Well, in a war between an all powerful being that (paradoxically) is not all knowing, and an all knowing being that is not all powerful, I think that it is anyones fight. Who will win, an ultra powerful government or a bunch of anonymous attackers? If we take to the streets with guns and march as an army against them we will be wiped out. If they mysteriously are killed off one by one it is a different story.

It's not anyone's fight.  It is Anonymous' fight.  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_events_associated_with_Anonymous )

Quote
On the other hand, if you are personally threatened with violence, then you have to respond in kind or you'll die. But that's a different situation to the one you're talking about, you're talking about an ideological war.
No, we are threatened with violence. We are threatened with our doors being kicked down by paramilitary troops with automatic weapons, having our property stolen from us and being imprisoned for decades. If that is not violence I do not know what you consider violence to be. They have initiated force against us and it is our duty to bring them to justice for their crimes.

I concur!  Too bad I'm to tired to do anything about it.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: WiggleRoom on October 10, 2012, 04:38 pm
death; destruction; murder of relatives.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: libertyseller on October 10, 2012, 06:46 pm
If someone violently offends against me... :o

Me and mine dont need or care for pigs and their sheep handlers
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: WiggleRoom on October 10, 2012, 11:18 pm
put a noose around they neck; hang them by a tree. paint they faces black; and leave a sign on they chest: pokey.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: ihuntwhales on October 10, 2012, 11:51 pm
Make them watch an Adam Sandler movie...

Some will say it's sadistic. Some will call me an animal. I call it justice.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: pine on October 11, 2012, 12:16 am
Make them watch an Adam Sandler movie...

Some will say it's sadistic. Some will call me an animal. I call it justice.

Good grief man! There are limits you know! :o
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: RutGroove on October 11, 2012, 01:29 am
Make them watch an Adam Sandler movie...
Some will say it's sadistic. Some will call me an animal. I call it justice.

You made me LOL.
I'm not supposed to LOL if I'm going to pull off this mopey suicidal attitude.  I hate you.
I also hate this big stinkin world and kittens.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: WiggleRoom on October 11, 2012, 01:31 am
cheers to suicidal empathy. U know they aint you. U just need someone worthy and a low cost to living place to live. far from their wars.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: WiggleRoom on October 11, 2012, 01:32 am
simply execute them, certainly we should not be any more inconvenienced by them than we already have been?
well said.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: Schmuckk on October 12, 2012, 09:26 pm
Quote
Indeed the Nazis did not think they were bad. By your logic nobody who acts thinking their actions are good deserves to be punished. Are you really so fucking dumb as to believe this?

Now that we're talking about jews and nazis, the jews did not think they were bad either, but despite this, they were exterminated en masse. The Nazis believed that they had the moral authority to exterminate them, they honestly believed they were creating a better world.
Law Enforcement does not think they are bad, but now you want to exterminate them en masse. You believe that you have the moral authority to exterminate them, you honestly believe that by doing so, you will create a better world.
See any parallels?

The only thing that comes from a person or group of people thinking that they have absolute moral authority is genocide and oppression.
Such people are completely closed minded, and are unwilling to accept any truths besides their own.
What makes you think you are any different than them?

Again, as misguided as they are, I would rather live under the current (US) government than anything that you had any part in creating.

-schmuck


Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: mrguymann on October 12, 2012, 11:23 pm
i would be content just to have the bill of rights restored to how it stood pre-Reagan era,and the funding be re routed into education and healthcare.
Maybe with a new amendment stating the government can never again declare "war" upon it's own citizens.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: jay92 on October 13, 2012, 12:12 am
OP is right, these sick fucks need to be reprimanded for their crooked, sick, fucked up actions.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: Theaides on October 13, 2012, 02:04 am
No, because at least 50% of the "drug war" has legitimate grounds in stopping criminal activity unrelated to drugs.  Street violence, gang activity, etc. all just happen to be related to drugs, but this is mostly because drugs are illegal. 

Did we bring to justice everyone who participated in enslaving african americans?  Or segregating other minorities from society?  Or for inhibiting women's rights?  We'll have our time in the sun soon, and we'll look back on this as another stupid ideal the government set forth in the name of...well...something.  History is full of stupid things that authority wrought upon the world.  This is hardly the first.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on October 13, 2012, 08:30 am
Quote
Indeed the Nazis did not think they were bad. By your logic nobody who acts thinking their actions are good deserves to be punished. Are you really so fucking dumb as to believe this?

Now that we're talking about jews and nazis, the jews did not think they were bad either, but despite this, they were exterminated en masse. The Nazis believed that they had the moral authority to exterminate them, they honestly believed they were creating a better world.
Law Enforcement does not think they are bad, but now you want to exterminate them en masse. You believe that you have the moral authority to exterminate them, you honestly believe that by doing so, you will create a better world.
See any parallels?

The only thing that comes from a person or group of people thinking that they have absolute moral authority is genocide and oppression.
Such people are completely closed minded, and are unwilling to accept any truths besides their own.
What makes you think you are any different than them?

Again, as misguided as they are, I would rather live under the current (US) government than anything that you had any part in creating.

-schmuck

Child molesters do not think they are bad. Believing that you have the moral authority to lock up or even execute child molesters makes you a Nazi.

Hm, that logic seems to be pretty retarded.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: pinkapples88 on October 13, 2012, 11:57 am
Some people think that we will win the war on drugs when drugs are legalized. But this does not sit well with me. Why is it a win when we are free to do what we should have never been restricted from doing in the first place? In the meantime, there will be people who made fortunes off of our oppression continuing to live happily. We will have people on our side who have spent decades of their lives in prisons for bullshit, they will have a government pension after retiring from fucking us over. Clearly it seems that even if drugs are legalized, we will not be winners, we will be more free but we will have lost enormous amounts while they will have gained enormous amounts by enslaving us. I believe that it stands to reason that if we accept that there could be a world where drugs are legalized, that we must then ask ourselves what to do to the people who oppressed us when drugs were illegal? If I take an innocent person off the street and throw them into a basement for a year, I am a pretty bad criminal right? Well if drugs are legalized, then if I take a drug user and put them in a basement for a year I am a pretty bad criminal for doing this right? Well what about the people who behave in this way while drugs are wrongfully illegal? Some justice must be brought to them, and I wonder how we can best go about this in a libertarian society.

Violent uprisings and rebellions.A real revolution.No more pussy shit no more trying to get along no more forgive and forget no more peaceful protests no more trying to do shit the way we have tried and FAILED for years! I would and very honestly probably will die fighting for this.Not only the drugs but all of the government bullshit 90% of the shit they do is wrong in so many ways.Im just waiting for the right times.I don't understand how all of these people can be so spineless and be such pusses and just bend over and let the fucking government take turns getting some ass...Fucking bitches.If you really would like to call these views nazi like or say theyre wrong then your whole fucking country is wrong in the first place because several of our founding fathers did the same god damn thing you fucking dumb assholes! We fucking killed british because they were assholes and because they were tyrannical and because they were to controlling and now look we are in the same exact situation.Remember how it worked last time? The american revolution? Any of that sound familiar? There is a reason that we are aloud to have "peaceful protests" and thats because you arent accomplishing a damn thing.Do you think tyrants would honestly allow you to take action against the fucked up shit they do? Im not saying massacres and senseless slaughters who the hell said anything about that....The government is the ones with the guns the fucking LE is trained in tactics and shit they are much more qualified and have a greater advantage over us so how can you depict the citizens protecting their rights to nazi mass murdering unarmed helpless victims.Fuck you guys youre dumb ass fuck youre ignorant youre cowards you have no back bone and you need to grow a pair fuck off.Youre all gay in a literal sense.You enjoy being raped by the government yet youre to much of a pussy to do it back or to even think that its ok to do it back.DEFEND YOURSELF YOU FUCKING IDIOT.And another thing Im sick of hearing is how good our government is compared to others.Sure we have some freedoms that others have but we have rights as humans and we should FIGHT for those rights and make the government more than ok! We shouldnt have to compromise our rights.Like ok they let us say what we want (like all humans should be able to) but they take away our rights to make a choice to do drugs (again everyone should be able to have the freedom to choose for themselves) yeah the government lets us peacefully protest (like everyone should be) but if you slip and make a wrong move they will not hesitate to pull you to the ground and bash your fucking skull in and kill you.Fuck that dude this shit makes me sick some of you people are disgraces to humanity and I dont give a shit if you call me nazi or psychopath you deserve to die because youre nothing but a coward and you will never be anything more than a cock sucking pussy that is to afraid to think.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: spegrodomous on October 13, 2012, 12:15 pm
How about we line them all up for a thumbprint or 2, each  ;D

---
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: HOUSE on October 13, 2012, 01:02 pm
"Crimes against natural law are committed by men, not abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provision of natural law be enforced."

The DEA should be declared as a criminal organisation and all its members tried accordingly. All other high-ranking officials such as politicians who instigated and supported the war should also be tried.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: Schmuckk on October 13, 2012, 07:37 pm
Quote
Indeed the Nazis did not think they were bad. By your logic nobody who acts thinking their actions are good deserves to be punished. Are you really so fucking dumb as to believe this?

Now that we're talking about jews and nazis, the jews did not think they were bad either, but despite this, they were exterminated en masse. The Nazis believed that they had the moral authority to exterminate them, they honestly believed they were creating a better world.
Law Enforcement does not think they are bad, but now you want to exterminate them en masse. You believe that you have the moral authority to exterminate them, you honestly believe that by doing so, you will create a better world.
See any parallels?

The only thing that comes from a person or group of people thinking that they have absolute moral authority is genocide and oppression.
Such people are completely closed minded, and are unwilling to accept any truths besides their own.
What makes you think you are any different than them?

Again, as misguided as they are, I would rather live under the current (US) government than anything that you had any part in creating.

-schmuck

Child molesters do not think they are bad. Believing that you have the moral authority to lock up or even execute child molesters makes you a Nazi.

Hm, that logic seems to be pretty retarded.

No, it wouldn't. The difference is that the act of molesting a child infringes on other human's rights. Same thing as genocide, same thing as prosecuting drug users, and the same thing as exterminating anyone who has ever been a part of any law enforcement agency.

I agree with you, the actions of the DEA are repugnant (to me), and their actions in a free society would be unacceptable. However, by wiping them out for their sins afterwards, you are judging a very large group of people, and you don't necessarily have the right to. If you were to do so, you would be setting a very dangerous precedent. Why don't we go wipe out all the muslims because of the 9/11 attacks? How about the entire African American population because they make up something like 40% of all welfare recipients?
It's the same reason why they don't have the  right to judge drug users, and prosecute them based on their own beliefs.

Honestly, the holocaust you are envisioning would be perfectly acceptable by history's standards. Revolutions are almost always followed by brutality against the oppressors, by the oppressed. But really, I don't see any progress in that, just years and years of pent up resentment being released.
Better to just let them go as a courtesy, a gesture of good faith. If the crimes are repeated, then go ahead and punish them as you will. I, for one will not object :)

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: PoohBear on October 14, 2012, 03:49 am
Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, or equity. It is also the act of being just and/or fair.

Revenge is a harmful action against a person or group in response to a grievance, be it real or perceived.


both are from Wikipedia.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: wackmanblu on October 14, 2012, 04:33 am
Quote
Indeed the Nazis did not think they were bad. By your logic nobody who acts thinking their actions are good deserves to be punished. Are you really so fucking dumb as to believe this?

Now that we're talking about jews and nazis, the jews did not think they were bad either, but despite this, they were exterminated en masse. The Nazis believed that they had the moral authority to exterminate them, they honestly believed they were creating a better world.
Law Enforcement does not think they are bad, but now you want to exterminate them en masse. You believe that you have the moral authority to exterminate them, you honestly believe that by doing so, you will create a better world.
See any parallels?

The only thing that comes from a person or group of people thinking that they have absolute moral authority is genocide and oppression.
Such people are completely closed minded, and are unwilling to accept any truths besides their own.
What makes you think you are any different than them?

Again, as misguided as they are, I would rather live under the current (US) government than anything that you had any part in creating.

-schmuck

Child molesters do not think they are bad. Believing that you have the moral authority to lock up or even execute child molesters makes you a Nazi.

Hm, that logic seems to be pretty retarded.

I respect members like kmfkewm only because they are open and honest about their motivations, however stupid they may be.

Kmfkewm - you cannot be seriously suggesting  that locking up child molesters is fascist.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on October 14, 2012, 12:29 pm
Quote
Indeed the Nazis did not think they were bad. By your logic nobody who acts thinking their actions are good deserves to be punished. Are you really so fucking dumb as to believe this?

Now that we're talking about jews and nazis, the jews did not think they were bad either, but despite this, they were exterminated en masse. The Nazis believed that they had the moral authority to exterminate them, they honestly believed they were creating a better world.
Law Enforcement does not think they are bad, but now you want to exterminate them en masse. You believe that you have the moral authority to exterminate them, you honestly believe that by doing so, you will create a better world.
See any parallels?

The only thing that comes from a person or group of people thinking that they have absolute moral authority is genocide and oppression.
Such people are completely closed minded, and are unwilling to accept any truths besides their own.
What makes you think you are any different than them?

Again, as misguided as they are, I would rather live under the current (US) government than anything that you had any part in creating.

-schmuck

Child molesters do not think they are bad. Believing that you have the moral authority to lock up or even execute child molesters makes you a Nazi.

Hm, that logic seems to be pretty retarded.

I respect members like kmfkewm only because they are open and honest about their motivations, however stupid they may be.

Kmfkewm - you cannot be seriously suggesting  that locking up child molesters is fascist.

Of course I am not suggesting this. I am using reduction to absurdity to show why the cookie cutter template from the previous poster is illogical.

He attempted to compare me to fascists by saying the following:

"
Now that we're talking about jews and nazis, the jews did not think they were bad either, but despite this, they were exterminated en masse. The Nazis believed that they had the moral authority to exterminate them, they honestly believed they were creating a better world.
Law Enforcement does not think they are bad, but now you want to exterminate them en masse. You believe that you have the moral authority to exterminate them, you honestly believe that by doing so, you will create a better world.
See any parallels?
"

I show that he can not truly believe that this is a logically sound statement, if he disagrees with the following implication that punishing child molesters is equivalent to fascism:

"

Now that we're talking about jews and nazis, the jews did not think they were bad either, but despite this, they were exterminated en masse. The Nazis believed that they had the moral authority to exterminate them, they honestly believed they were creating a better world.

Child Molesters do not think they are bad, but now you want to [punish/execute] them en masse. You believe that you have the moral authority to [punish/execute] them, you honestly believe that by doing so, you will create a better world.
See any parallels?
"


Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: MixM8 on October 14, 2012, 02:13 pm
The issue is that however unjust, the DEA works within the confines of the law. One could say go and re-elect better politicians, change the laws, however a moral person would respect freedom of choice enough to refuse joining drug enforcement in the first place. I would like to see jail/prison time and loss of pension for drug warriors, giving them a taste of what they so readily wish on innocent people. With non-violent offenders not clogging up the correctional system there would be surplus money available for the returning of drug forfeitures to victims.
Returning to my first sentence though, it is more realistic that drug warriors would be simply be ostracized by their communities. By the time drugs, or at least pot are legal, so many people will have been victimized by the law that as they sit on their porch smoking a spliff and their ex-DEA neighbor drives by, they'll be thinking "How could you have done that for a living?!"
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: libertyseller on October 14, 2012, 04:40 pm
For myself it is easy,

1. Are the actions taken done with malice
2. Are the actions taken to support the current "law" and what many people believe to be right
3. Do the actions taken cause direct harm to another human
4. Do the actions taken have follow the non aggression principle


By using this very simple approach, child molesters are evil pricks and were I to catch one in the act I would execute them on the spot. It also means that if I witnessed a group of pigs or their federal hog buddies beating someone to death in front of me I would be morally obligated to act to defend that person. And before anyone gets on their high and mighty horse, I have acted in the past, and will again in the future if necessary.

Those calling for the deaths of DEA officers, are individuals without any real experience in this. Killing is not easy, even if you could, why would you, other than that they wore a badge, what reason have you. Would you contract it to others? And if this is the case, than you are no better than they. A contracted murder is the same as what they do, contracted enforcement of laws we disagree with.

Morality is more than emotional feelings. Use your heads if you have any ability to left.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on October 14, 2012, 05:01 pm
The issue is that however unjust, the DEA works within the confines of the law.

Indeed as did the Nazis. The law you speak of is a construct of the state, used to justify atrocities. It has already been well established by several war crimes courts that following orders and acting within the laws of the state is not an excuse for crimes.


Quote
1. Are the actions taken done with malice
2. Are the actions taken to support the current "law" and what many people believe to be right
3. Do the actions taken cause direct harm to another human
4. Do the actions taken have follow the non aggression principle

Do we excuse child molesters if their actions are not taken with malice? There is an argument that can be made for malice being used to increase a criminals punishment, but the lack of malice is not an excuse for crime. Many people think that child molestation is right. Does that excuse those who commit the crime? Of course not. It doesn't matter how many people think something is right. Additionally, see my above reply for my thoughts on the law. As for three and four (the only points I agree with in regards to the assessment of criminality), drug enforcement agents are guilty of actions which fall under both (causing direct harm to innocents, not following the non-aggression principle).



Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: ZenAndTheArt on October 14, 2012, 05:13 pm
Make them watch an Adam Sandler movie...

Some will say it's sadistic. Some will call me an animal. I call it justice.

Good grief man! There are limits you know! :o

I couldn't live with myself if I put another human being through that...
Your sick! ;)
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: Schmuckk on October 14, 2012, 07:08 pm
Quote
Indeed the Nazis did not think they were bad. By your logic nobody who acts thinking their actions are good deserves to be punished. Are you really so fucking dumb as to believe this?

Now that we're talking about jews and nazis, the jews did not think they were bad either, but despite this, they were exterminated en masse. The Nazis believed that they had the moral authority to exterminate them, they honestly believed they were creating a better world.
Law Enforcement does not think they are bad, but now you want to exterminate them en masse. You believe that you have the moral authority to exterminate them, you honestly believe that by doing so, you will create a better world.
See any parallels?

The only thing that comes from a person or group of people thinking that they have absolute moral authority is genocide and oppression.
Such people are completely closed minded, and are unwilling to accept any truths besides their own.
What makes you think you are any different than them?

Again, as misguided as they are, I would rather live under the current (US) government than anything that you had any part in creating.

-schmuck

Child molesters do not think they are bad. Believing that you have the moral authority to lock up or even execute child molesters makes you a Nazi.

Hm, that logic seems to be pretty retarded.

No, it wouldn't. The difference is that the act of molesting a child infringes on other human's rights. Same thing as genocide, same thing as prosecuting drug users, and the same thing as exterminating anyone who has ever been a part of any law enforcement agency.

I agree with you, the actions of the DEA are repugnant (to me), and their actions in a free society would be unacceptable. However, by wiping them out for their sins afterwards, you are judging a very large group of people, and you don't necessarily have the right to. If you were to do so, you would be setting a very dangerous precedent. Why don't we go wipe out all the muslims because of the 9/11 attacks? How about the entire African American population because they make up something like 40% of all welfare recipients?
It's the same reason why they don't have the  right to judge drug users, and prosecute them based on their own beliefs.

Honestly, the holocaust you are envisioning would be perfectly acceptable by history's standards. Revolutions are almost always followed by brutality against the oppressors, by the oppressed. But really, I don't see any progress in that, just years and years of pent up resentment being released.
Better to just let them go as a courtesy, a gesture of good faith. If the crimes are repeated, then go ahead and punish them as you will. I, for one will not object :)

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"


I'm just leaving this here for reference because it seems like parts of my post were selectively modified or omitted....

In the following post I use subjective terms such as "evil" or "immoral." The use of these words is through my own sense of morality I have personally developed. I do not expect anyone to share these beliefs, and if they don't, I will not thing any less of them, much less prosecute/wipe them out for it.

Maybe my argument has been unclear, but it is my belief that the evils of the DEA are not the evils of the individual. These people were not born violent, oppressive agents with the sole intent of prosecuting anyone who chose a different lifestyle choice than their own. Their actions and attitude have been the result of years of mental conditioning through fearmongering, anti-drug campaigns and sentiments, and constant exposure to propaganda. They themselves are not inherently immoral like the child molester you often like to compare everything to. The child molester makes a calm, often premeditated decision to violate a person's rights to their own body, fed by their own desire for gratification and control. And you are wrong about them thinking they are "bad." I would be very surprised to find any child molester who believed that society was perfectly okay with what he was doing. That is what separates the DEA agent from the child molester. Morality is relative. Without the reinforcement or discouragement of those around us, there would be no such thing as a "moral standard." The DEA agent, with all the lies that have been spoon-fed to him over the years, has no choice other than to believe that you (the drug user) are a genuine threat to society, and that you must be stopped.  The real evil is the falsified, bigoted view society at large has on the drug using community. When this changes, I can guarantee you the only violent criminals left related to drug use will be you running around with your like minded mob, butchering former DEA agents. Or you could just not, under this society, the DEA and all related agencies would dissolve overnight, and anyone who continued their crimes after that would be prosecuted just like the common murderer, the common thief, or, like you said, the common child molester.

By wiping them out, you are assuming the moral authority to judge a large group of people, something I don't feel like arguing again, as I already posted something on this in another thread:

"To the prophets spreading their truths to the rest of us,
Your perceptions are distorted by hatred and fanaticism.
You reject your government for it's intolerance and arbitrary judgement, yet your arguments are driven by the same sentiments.
Your mindset has been responsible for an extraordinary amount death and suffering over the course of history.
Not only do you refuse to accept any truths besides your own, you attempt to force these truths down the throats of a resisting population.
What is the source of your newly acquired divinity? Did your god come down to earth and speak with you? Did he appear in front of you in a vision and show you the way? Or have you been receiving otherworldly messages in your sleep?
Seriously, just leave everyone else the fuck alone.
Until people stop assuming the right to play god, there will be no real end to the violence and oppression.

That goes for both kinds of zealots; LE and the self appointed crusaders for humanity who want to wipe them out."


History has told us that before you introduce violence and force, your problems seem to solve them in a much more simple, more elegant fashion.

-schmuck
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: philter3 on October 14, 2012, 07:16 pm
EXCELLENT Initial Post.

I would like to posit a theory. There has been talk about "legalization not being a full solution". I would like to suggest that the ONLY way legalization will happen is if direct action (use of overwhelming force) is used against the drug warriors.

Face it, these are people who are specialists in force initiation. You can't reason with enemy soldiers.. you have to stop them however you can when they attack. I think instead of mass executions *after* legalization, what is much more likely is that "trip-wire assassinations" will become popular (i.e. they do a raid/home-invasion and the whole place blows up on them etc.).
 When the cost of fighting the war becomes too expensive in money and lives then they will scale back their most violent efforts, or possibly suspend them. That is when direct action against them in their homes, offices etc. becomes viable.

 Eventually the ideal would be to have a gentleman's agreement that any narc-LE who committed suicide would have their home, estate and family untouched by further actions. Any who continued to live would then be open season. 

 There are far more of us than there are of them. Unfortunately they are far more violent than we are. Drug users are mostly cowards and non-actors anyway. That needs to change.. drug users need to HTFU and get evil on the pigs, consistently, on a daily basis. It is the only way to stop them.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: wackmanblu on October 14, 2012, 07:53 pm
EXCELLENT Initial Post.

I would like to posit a theory. There has been talk about "legalization not being a full solution". I would like to suggest that the ONLY way legalization will happen is if direct action (use of overwhelming force) is used against the drug warriors.

Face it, these are people who are specialists in force initiation. You can't reason with enemy soldiers.. you have to stop them however you can when they attack. I think instead of mass executions *after* legalization, what is much more likely is that "trip-wire assassinations" will become popular (i.e. they do a raid/home-invasion and the whole place blows up on them etc.).
 When the cost of fighting the war becomes too expensive in money and lives then they will scale back their most violent efforts, or possibly suspend them. That is when direct action against them in their homes, offices etc. becomes viable.

 Eventually the ideal would be to have a gentleman's agreement that any narc-LE who committed suicide would have their home, estate and family untouched by further actions. Any who continued to live would then be open season. 

 There are far more of us than there are of them. Unfortunately they are far more violent than we are. Drug users are mostly cowards and non-actors anyway. That needs to change.. drug users need to HTFU and get evil on the pigs, consistently, on a daily basis. It is the only way to stop them.

  ::) Alright, commander - what's your plan? Shall we just start shootin' "enemy soldiers" - cops?

Or shall we study books about justice and retribution first? Hey wait a minute, did your God tell you to reign down death and destruction on some other guys who are not you?
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: anonymarse on October 14, 2012, 08:09 pm
I'm gonna stick with my theory that all the "kill the pig" jihadists are agents provocateur.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: philter3 on October 14, 2012, 09:29 pm

  ::) Alright, commander - what's your plan? Shall we just start shootin' "enemy soldiers" - cops?

Or shall we study books about justice and retribution first? Hey wait a minute, did your God tell you to reign down death and destruction on some other guys who are not you?

Being flippant is a pointless exercise dude. Simply put.. if someone comes through the door prepared to start shooting unless you unconditionally submit (and maybe if they just feel like killing you that day.. protected by the blue code of covering up) then they have initiated the force, in that instant, and retribution on the spot can proceed ethically and morally just like any other home invasion.

When cops learn that entering private property to serve a drug warrant can be lethal as often as not.. they will start respecting people's natural rights.

Until their force is met with force.. ... they are going to keep murdering, beating and kidnapping people, splitting up families and taking people's homes away.

 If you don't think these acts are worth stopping, at least in principle, using force when needed, I gotta question your sanity.

 These are not the "good people". They live off the misery of your kind. Grow a pair. Act directly to harass and frustrate them, if you lack the courage and moral fiber to hurt them physically.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: wackmanblu on October 14, 2012, 10:09 pm
Being flippant is a pointless exercise dude. Simply put.. if someone comes through the door prepared to start shooting unless you unconditionally submit (and maybe if they just feel like killing you that day.. protected by the blue code of covering up) then they have initiated the force, in that instant, and retribution on the spot can proceed ethically and morally just like any other home invasion.

When cops learn that entering private property to serve a drug warrant can be lethal as often as not.. they will start respecting people's natural rights.

Until their force is met with force.. ... they are going to keep murdering, beating and kidnapping people, splitting up families and taking people's homes away.

 If you don't think these acts are worth stopping, at least in principle, using force when needed, I gotta question your sanity.

 These are not the "good people". They live off the misery of your kind. Grow a pair. Act directly to harass and frustrate them, if you lack the courage and moral fiber to hurt them physically.

Dude, you're coming across as paranoid. When you talk about "them" living off the misery of "us" you've essentially dehumanized LE to the point where death is an acceptable outcome. There are other ways to initiate change rather than simply pick up a gun and start shooting. This is what happens in the most backwards places of the world.

If everyone believed that it was "us against them" and condoned violence to achieve their goals, then what's to stop every dissatisfied wing-nut from going on a killing rampage. One of the things about living in a healthy democracy is that you can't always get your way BUT if you see a clear injustice you can always speak out against it, organize politically and fight for change. Although this takes effort and conviction, you have the opportunity and ability to do this without risking your life or others. Your welcome.  We've seen this peaceful method work over and over again and again.

I'm not saying all is well with the current status quo, but I am saying that I don't know of a better system that allows average citizens to fight for what they believe in. I know this isn't as exciting as shouting "Hang 'em high" but get some perspective brother.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: philter3 on October 15, 2012, 03:31 am
We have been dealing with escalations in the violence against us for almost a half century. It has only gotten worse. I'll be damned if I will submit to evil willingly.

I may not be, practically speaking, capable of offing cops and getting away with it just yet, but you can bet your ass I know where the right lies and where my head should be at.

How much is another half century or century of oppression worth? That's what it's going to be you know.. It won't stop unless
the people ACT.. and until we make an example, consistently, of the murderous bastards when they play Gestapo/SWAT and come through the door with their smoke grenades, battering rams and carbines.

Parents will die, will be thrown in cages for years or decades, children will be sent to be abused at the hands of strangers, good people will struggle under the lash of financial punishments called court costs and lawyers fees, people will lose their jobs, or be unable to find more work. And that's assuming they don't just get shot or beaten to death.

Where is your sympathy for the VICTIMS? Why do you seem to care more about the KILLERS than their victims?

Lack of courage is the reason they have been oppressing us for a half century. Cowards and non-actors like I said.

Principles are the prerogative of the *strong*, and the strong are willing to fight for what they believe in.

You can't talk down people aiming guns at you. You escape ASAP, then return and kill the fuckers. That's reality.

Don't confuse moral cowardice with moral superiority.

Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: Chapman on October 15, 2012, 04:18 am
"Justice" doesn't exist; it's revenge in a nice dress. No matter how deserved, if they are no longer a threat to others, you have no right to do anything but make them social outcasts. Which, I would most definitely do, for the same reasons I refuse to befriend or do business with any past or present public employee or receiver of redistribution benefits.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: wackmanblu on October 15, 2012, 12:37 pm
We have been dealing with escalations in the violence against us for almost a half century. It has only gotten worse. I'll be damned if I will submit to evil willingly.

I may not be, practically speaking, capable of offing cops and getting away with it just yet, but you can bet your ass I know where the right lies and where my head should be at.

How much is another half century or century of oppression worth? That's what it's going to be you know.. It won't stop unless
the people ACT.. and until we make an example, consistently, of the murderous bastards when they play Gestapo/SWAT and come through the door with their smoke grenades, battering rams and carbines.

Parents will die, will be thrown in cages for years or decades, children will be sent to be abused at the hands of strangers, good people will struggle under the lash of financial punishments called court costs and lawyers fees, people will lose their jobs, or be unable to find more work. And that's assuming they don't just get shot or beaten to death.

Where is your sympathy for the VICTIMS? Why do you seem to care more about the KILLERS than their victims?

Lack of courage is the reason they have been oppressing us for a half century. Cowards and non-actors like I said.

Principles are the prerogative of the *strong*, and the strong are willing to fight for what they believe in.

You can't talk down people aiming guns at you. You escape ASAP, then return and kill the fuckers. That's reality.

Don't confuse moral cowardice with moral superiority.

I'm not really sure where you're coming from brother. LE is a simple-minded blunt instrument. We control them, they do what we tell them to do. They don't  need to be killed, anymore than the vacuum cleaner doesn't need to be shot to turn it off. You simply flip a switch. Yes, it's really that easy.  Like I've mentioned there are many ways to gain influence and persuade your government to flip this switch.

What I find astounding is how quick you (among others) are to Rambo up. You pull numbers and 'facts' out of your ass and simply expect to be agreed with. In the end you sound like an emotionally disturbed mental patient suffering from some kind of disassociation syndrome. I don't say this to be mean, I say it because it needs to be called out.

If you don't like LE what or who do you propose take over the job of keeping order? Even if you're an anarchist we still need order to keep things moving - electricity flowing, roads clear, fair trails for the accused ...  I believe that answer doesn't lie in revolution but in taming the beast.

I do have sympathy for the victims, but your simpleness to the problem seems to imply that if I don't stock up an ammo and guns and blindly agree with your 'facts'  that I'm a  dirty LE lovin' sumofabitch.

I agree with in that strong should be willing to fight for what they believe in, but only half-baked idiots will resort to violence when there so many other avenues to take first. A real man with conviction and courage would use the political system first.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: sausage and mash on October 15, 2012, 01:20 pm
I think your getting ahead of yourself, i think we need to concentrate on ending the war before we decide what to do with the other side.
Given the current stance from the governments in the western world this goal is a long way off and realistically has no end, like other bullshit wars being fought there really will be no winner, just arms dealers with big fat sky rockets thinking up more and more ingenious ways to kill as many people as possible with minimum effort, for them there's no profit in peace.


Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on October 15, 2012, 11:43 pm
Quote
I agree with in that strong should be willing to fight for what they believe in, but only half-baked idiots will resort to violence when there so many other avenues to take first. A real man with conviction and courage would use the political system first.

soap box, ballot box, ammo box

we will be lucky to get weed legal for medical use in the USA. Ballot box has failed. Look at how easy it was for them to start the war on drugs, and then how hard it is for us to get even to smoke weed? Where was the vote for drug criminalization? When did society decide to make drugs illegal? More like when did the state decide to push out propaganda and brainwash everyone. Fuck them and their system. I hope they die painfully , they should have never even been born. You will never convince me otherwise.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: wackmanblu on October 16, 2012, 01:42 am
soap box, ballot box, ammo box

we will be lucky to get weed legal for medical use in the USA. Ballot box has failed. Look at how easy it was for them to start the war on drugs, and then how hard it is for us to get even to smoke weed? Where was the vote for drug criminalization? When did society decide to make drugs illegal? More like when did the state decide to push out propaganda and brainwash everyone. Fuck them and their system. I hope they die painfully , they should have never even been born. You will never convince me otherwise.

Bro, weed has already been legalized for medical use. Not in all the states, but a lot of them. Look to see if there's dispensary near you. My country followed your country's lead! Nobody voted for this to happen, but social attitudes change over time and governments of western democracies usually recognize this.

In British Columbia possession of weed for personal use is not a criminal offense for anyone, regardless of a person's medical condition. I think you may get a ticket. Not sure.
In my own city there are clubs you can go where, if you bring your own stuff, you can put it in a vaporizer and watch stand-up comedy (The VaporRoom Anybody?? - talk about fun, laughed so hard my cheeks hurt) LE could care less.

I suppose if went up to a cop and blew my weed smoke in his face he may arrest me for public disorder (along the same lines as 'drunk and disorderly') But I wouldn't do any real jail time.

The point is in the past drugs frightened people and we all know fear is a good motivator to persecute. These days I don't know anyone who hasn't smoked a spliff at least once at some time. We're better educated about the facts. The last 3 President of the US all admit to having tried various drugs (although I think one of them said he didn't inhale  ;D)

This is just the start brother. I work in agriculture and a lot of growers of "legitimate" crops have contingency plans for experimental marijuana cultivation if/when it becomes possible to grow and sell on an open market. These aren't shady GrowOps, but legitimate businessmen who don't view it as a 'sin'. South American governments are openly talking legalizing even harder drugs like cocaine and opiates because they know it's an un-winnable battle.

I see the war on drugs ending or grinding down with no help from revolutionaries who take up violence. If anything, we users should now step up to the plate and show that we can be decent dependable citizens, not half-cocked Rambos looking for punishment and death. 
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: doublemint on October 17, 2012, 03:41 am
Some people think that we will win the war on drugs when drugs are legalized. But this does not sit well with me. Why is it a win when we are free to do what we should have never been restricted from doing in the first place? In the meantime, there will be people who made fortunes off of our oppression continuing to live happily. We will have people on our side who have spent decades of their lives in prisons for bullshit, they will have a government pension after retiring from fucking us over. Clearly it seems that even if drugs are legalized, we will not be winners, we will be more free but we will have lost enormous amounts while they will have gained enormous amounts by enslaving us. I believe that it stands to reason that if we accept that there could be a world where drugs are legalized, that we must then ask ourselves what to do to the people who oppressed us when drugs were illegal? If I take an innocent person off the street and throw them into a basement for a year, I am a pretty bad criminal right? Well if drugs are legalized, then if I take a drug user and put them in a basement for a year I am a pretty bad criminal for doing this right? Well what about the people who behave in this way while drugs are wrongfully illegal? Some justice must be brought to them, and I wonder how we can best go about this in a libertarian society.

Not happening. Help should be provided instead of prosecution. That's the closest we'll ever get.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: ZenAndTheArt on October 17, 2012, 04:56 pm
Well said Wackmanblu +1
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: wackmanblu on October 17, 2012, 10:53 pm
+ 1 to Stoned Emo for actually doing some research before posting, even though your quote was only partial - I'll include the rest the best parts in CAPS:


" ... A particularly contentious aspect of the bill was the proposed enhancement of powers given to government authorities to monitor online communications, BUT THIS PROPOSAL WAS ABANDONED AFTER AN ONLINE PETITION OPPOSING THOSE MEASURES GARNERED OVER 70,000 SIGNATURES
 
The bill is causing much controversy. While the Canadian Police Association said the bill would work towards keeping communities more safe, it added it was concerned about the cost.[5] THE QUEBEC GOVERNMENT SAID IT WOULD REFUSE TO PAY FOR THE BILL, CALLING IT A SHORT-TERM BAND-AID SOLUTION. THE ONTARIO GOVERNMENT WOULD ALSO REFUSE TOP PAY.  Texan conservatives Judge John Creuzot, Republican Representative Jerry Madden, and Marc Levin also spoke out against the bill; according to Madden, "It's a very expensive thing to build new prisons and, if you build them, I guarantee you they will come. They'll be filled, OK? Because people will send them there."[7]


- 1 to Stoned Emo for attributing my quote to Mr. Nicolson.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: wackmanblu on October 18, 2012, 01:09 am
NewsThump.com is a spoof site. Kind of along the lines of The onion - go ahead google it.

That article that StonedEmo sited is actually really funny, check this quote:

"... She said, “You only have to watch the opening credits of Grange Hill to see the kind of terrifying hallucinations that some drugs can induce,” she claimed.
“One second they are sat having what they think is a great time, they next they are being attacked by a flying sausage.”
“It may start off with marijuana, but all the evidence that I’ve made up suggests it will inevitably lead to other things like sniffing crack.”..."

...  flying sausage attack and "sniffing crack" WTF ?! ?
Grange Hill was a TV show in the UK.  Don't worry Emo - I don't think the people of the UK would take any of that shite seriously (unlike you, and you call ME retarded!). Unless they smoked a joint and actually were attacked by a flying sausage. Not sure how often that happens in the UK though so ..   

The other huffingtonpost post article refers to Romney's opposition to pot. Gee I'm shocked - A republican nominee who has to court his socially conservative support base.  ::) .

I'll go on record here and say that in the next few years (5- 10) you'll probably see a lot of loosening up on soft drug laws all over the world.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: wackmanblu on October 18, 2012, 02:16 am
Russia Introduces Life Sentence for Drug Dealers

I'm glad I don't live in Russia, that bastion of a forward thinking western democracy that it is.  ::)

Id send you to christwire or other spoof sites if I were talking to you. But there's other people who can read.

Wha ?? StonedEmo, are you stoned?
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: Red Flag on October 18, 2012, 02:40 am
We must forgive!
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: libertyseller on October 23, 2012, 07:32 pm
Funny comments from people who support Obama

Idiots

Who do you think gives the dea/cops their walking orders when it comes to drugs?
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: wackmanblu on October 24, 2012, 12:32 am
Ahh, I love this thread, if only because it lets me see into the minds of people I don't agree with.

I gotta ask some of you though, how did you get so jaded and violence oriented? I guess I could understand if you did time in a penitentiary based on bogus drug charges, or have family that has. Although I'm not American, I understand that there are a disproportionate number of US citizens in jail for drug related offenses. That would piss me off too, but to wish death on people ...

I just don't understand why death sentences would be acceptable as punishment. I've lived in places where life is cheap, I've known people to be put to death because they were on the wrong side of a political argument. Believe me when I say that these are not places you want to live. You have to be a simple-minded person without an opinion of any kind to live there, otherwise your life may be at some kind of risk, whether it's legally sanctioned or not.

I dunno, it just seems like when people start talking about justice and death, they have no real idea about the words that they speak, there doesn't seem to be a true understanding of any lessons learned in our collective human experience. Either that or it just sounds cool and glamorous to get stoned and shout out about death. I honestly don't know what the difference is in some peoples minds.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: LetGoOfYourEgo on October 24, 2012, 12:39 am
Make them all do 100mg's of 4-ACO-DMT.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: libertyseller on October 24, 2012, 01:14 am
Wack - people who desire others deaths fall in three categories...



Idiots who have never really witnessed violence outside of a fistfight

Voters who prefer having others do the dirty work for them

Psychopaths who simply crave violence



That being said, the psychopaths are the most intelligent and wouldnt frequent this forum so...
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: johnwholesome on October 24, 2012, 03:34 am
Wack - people who desire others deaths fall in three categories...



Idiots who have never really witnessed violence outside of a fistfight

Voters who prefer having others do the dirty work for them

Psychopaths who simply crave violence



That being said, the psychopaths are the most intelligent and wouldnt frequent this forum so...

+1

Other than that, not even touching this topic anymore...
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on October 24, 2012, 08:15 pm
Do you enlightened pacifists think that a man who rapes and murders a three year old should be given a death sentence? Or does your same outlook of pacifism and forgiveness also apply to him? Do you think he deserves any punishment at all, perhaps a life sentence if not death? The reason I can feel fine in calling for death of DEA agents is because I recognize that they are violent career criminals. They are guilty of millions of kidnappings, many thousand homicides, millions of armed robberies, home invasions, terrorism and more. Such people must be brought to justice , just as a man who rapes and murders a child must be. Death is a fitting punishment for their crimes, but even if we are so pacifistic as to think no man is worthy of being killed, we must at least keep these wild beasts in cages until the day they die of natural causes. To think otherwise means one of two things; either you would not wish justice upon anyone who commits murder, kidnapping, armed robbery, home invasion and terrorism OR you excuse the behavior or those who commit these crimes so long as they are acting in the name of the state. I imagine that the second option holds true for you, and thus you are statists and indeed are enemies to Anarchy. I wonder why would a statist come and obtain the services of an anarchist enterprise? Why don't you go run to your state for your recreational drug needs?
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: libertyseller on October 24, 2012, 08:43 pm
Do you enlightened pacifists think that a man who rapes and murders a three year old should be given a death sentence? Or does your same outlook of pacifism and forgiveness also apply to him? Do you think he deserves any punishment at all, perhaps a life sentence if not death? The reason I can feel fine in calling for death of DEA agents is because I recognize that they are violent career criminals. They are guilty of millions of kidnappings, many thousand homicides, millions of armed robberies, home invasions, terrorism and more. Such people must be brought to justice , just as a man who rapes and murders a child must be. Death is a fitting punishment for their crimes, but even if we are so pacifistic as to think no man is worthy of being killed, we must at least keep these wild beasts in cages until the day they die of natural causes.

I dont disagree with the sentiment, merely the implementation. ;) Besides, who is going to do this, you?

To think otherwise means one of two things; either you would not wish justice upon anyone who commits murder, kidnapping, armed robbery, home invasion and terrorism OR you excuse the behavior or those who commit these crimes so long as they are acting in the name of the state. I imagine that the second option holds true for you, and thus you are statists and indeed are enemies to Anarchy. I wonder why would a statist come and obtain the services of an anarchist enterprise? Why don't you go run to your state for your recreational drug needs?

I am anarchy personified, and I still believe that if I an avoid hostility I will. This does not in any way suggest I would bend over personally, simply that I will not jump on a bandwagon of aimless hatred.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: wackmanblu on October 24, 2012, 10:59 pm
kmfkewm (BTW - what does that stand for? Just curious) That's a lot of labels to throw around.
I don't really consider myself a pacifist simply because I don't agree with the death penalty. I don't know what a statist is (but if you want to offer a definition I might just be), and I'm certainly not an anarchist as I do believe in some kind state structure.

Personally I kind of flip-flop on the death penalty. Those rapists of 3 yr olds you talk about - yeah, if anyone is a candidate for the ultimate punishment it's those guys, but only because there really is no cure for that kind of sexual deviancy. Those guys are just born evil. I don't see how you can seriously compare a child rapist to a DEA agent though. It seems a bit of a stretch and quite extreme.

Your point about statists (I assume statists are non-anarchists?? ) coming here to SR for drugs is interesting. Your right, I couldn't go to a government sponsored drug emporium and pick my poison (although state sanctioned marijuana dispensaries do exist for medical reasons, sadly I don't qualify  :'( ) But here's the thing - I don't completely agree with everything that any one person, government or idea has to say. There is no such thing as perfection. I would go through life hating almost everything for it's faults if I believed that somewhere, just around the next corner maybe, was a perfect system that I could 100% agree with. The idea of "Government" is at best just a means to help us organize for the betterment of all - roads, schools, hospitals and infrastructure. At worst it's a method of suppressive control by a few people over many and I can understand your anger at big government organization that seems to know no bounds.

Simply put, no one owns me. I participate in the system not because I blindly agree with everything my government does, but because if I don't they will get away with whatever they can take. It's far from perfect (very very far) and you can poke a zillion holes in it, but I just don't know of any other method of order that allows for the voice of 'Joe Average' to be heard. Do you?
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: libertyseller on October 25, 2012, 12:54 am
If your voice was heard, would marijuana be illegal?
Would wars exist?
would the murder of millions for the goals of the state and its subsidies occur?

I am really interested, how is your voice heard?

Or is your voice saying, please TAKE my money, (taxes) PLEASE make all my decisions for me, (bullshit law-90%+ of it) please send pigs and soldiers to ensure I follow everyone else, (every voter since man began this horrendous tradition)  oh yeah, and remember - GOVERNMENT ISNT NATURAL-

only the individual is natural!

A statist is someone who firmly believes that government is necessary, thereby ensuring he is worth no more then the worse of whichever society he is apart of. Oh and they vote, despicable tradition of violence rendered by a group against another group. The end result of voting is ALWAYS the same, and always has been throughout history regardless type of state provided. Massive violence, war, increased crime (always),  and no real freedom (ever).

Freedom cannot exist partially, it either is or it is not.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: maczekasia on October 25, 2012, 01:47 am
Pretty interesting and actually scary vision of revolution. First we get DEA and other goverment 'opressors' then who? Anyone who disagrees with us doing drugs? Your parents, priests?
As Nietzsche wrote: 'He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.'

History is full of examples how revolutions like that end, how oppressed become oppressors.
Yet there were couple of notable examples which tried not to allow for it. Like english 1495 treason act, which was made to protect people who fought on the loosing side but according to the law(in short and not really true). Or Chinese revolutions 1911 and later where emperor wasn't killed but allowed to live with common folk(both didn't end well) where one of the revolutionists said to Europeans 'not every revolution has to be bathed in blood'. And we should rather look up to these people than to Robespierre.
And as far as I know in most western countries you can't punish someone after the law changes for something that he did according to the earlier law(unless it is genocide or homicide).

I'm from post communistic country, where more than half of population belonged to a party, worked as secret police or worked with secret police. Most of them did so just to get along without problems or fear, some of them because they actually believed in the system. And here comes 90s when communism goes down the shitter and we have to do something with all these people who helped to oppress others. There were couple of ways to do it(Germany and Czech Republic did it pretty well) my country chose the worst way(mostly due to heads of opposition being secret service themselves) so now the people who were in power are still in power and in the end not even people who gave orders to shoot at protestors were held responsible. Yet the question was/is who, how and why should we punish for oppression when more than half of the people in the country were responsible for it.
I'd think to get the heads of it and the most vicious of their pawns giving the rest opportunity to redeem themselves instead of going on a killing spree.

Anyways funny thing is that someone here claims that SR is being anarchist, with escrow, moderation, ratings etc. it is far from being an anarchy. Most organized crime(as in going against the law not morally/philosophically crime) is far from being an anarchy.

Quote
only the individual is natural!
Actually humans are social animals, and are prone to create groups, so individuals are not natural.
I'd even go to the extremes and say that individualism is responsible for crimes against humanity, because an individual doesn't feel connection with other humans thus he can easily manipulate them, kill them etc. without guilt.


Quote
Freedom cannot exist partially, it either is or it is not.
Your freedom ends where my freedom begins. Law and regulations come from this simple thought.
And the only real freedom is in death. When you are alive you still can't break the laws of physics.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on October 25, 2012, 02:00 am
Pretty interesting and actually scary vision of revolution. First we get DEA and other goverment 'opressors' then who? Anyone who disagrees with us doing drugs? Your parents, priests?

People are free to their opinions. Disapprove of drug use all your like, preach against it even. You should  be free to do this, anyone who prevents you from doing these things is no friend of mine. However, as soon as you start to ATTACK drug users, murder them or send them to prisons to die, then you are the enemy and you deserve nothing except a hollow point bullet through your brain. First we get the guilty law enforcement agents and other government oppressors and then we are free and there is nobody else to get!

Quote
And as far as I know in most western countries you can't punish someone after the law changes for something that he did according to the earlier law(unless it is genocide or homicide).

So you are saying first we change the law to allow the killing of the corrupted law enforcement and politicians? Sounds fine to me!

Quote
I'm from post communistic country, where more than half of population belonged to a party, worked as secret police or worked with secret police. Most of them did so just to get along without problems or fear, some of them because they actually believed in the system. And here comes 90s when communism goes down the shitter and we have to do something with all these people who helped to oppress others. There were couple of ways to do it(Germany and Czech Republic did it pretty well) my country chose the worst way(mostly due to heads of opposition being secret service themselves) so now the people who were in power are still in power and in the end not even people who gave orders to shoot at protestors were held responsible. Yet the question was/is who, how and why should we punish for oppression when more than half of the people in the country were responsible for it.

If 80% of people steal they are still wrong and are worthy of being punished by the 20% who they steal from.

Quote
Anyways funny thing is that someone here claims that SR is being anarchist, with escrow, moderation, ratings etc. it is far from being an anarchy. Most organized crime(as in going against the law not morally/philosophically crime) is far from being an anarchy.

You have a misunderstanding of what Anarchy is. Anarchy does not mean the lack of organization, it means the lack of a state.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: maczekasia on October 25, 2012, 02:18 am
People are free to their opinions. Disapprove of drug use all your like, preach against it even. You should  be free to do this, anyone who prevents you from doing these things is no friend of mine. However, as soon as you start to ATTACK drug users, murder them or send them to prisons to die, then you are the enemy and you deserve nothing except a hollow point bullet through your brain. First we get the guilty law enforcement agents and other government oppressors and then we are free and there is nobody else to get!
Nobody else, but families and friends who would want revenge? An unbreakable circle of violence we get there.

Quote
So you are saying first we change the law to allow the killing of the corrupted law enforcement and politicians? Sounds fine to me!
So does the law that puts drug users in jail sounds fine to other people. Should they change it to a bullet into a brain for every caught drug user?

Quote
If 80% of people steal they are still wrong and are worthy of being punished by the 20% who they steal from.
Does hungry kid who steals a loaf of bread from wealthy producer who would dump this bread after end of the day so nobody gets it should be punished by him?
Should every single french revolutionist(about 95% of french people then) be punished for killing and stealing from higher class?

Quote
You have a misunderstanding of what Anarchy is. Anarchy does not mean the lack of organization, it means the lack of a state.
Isn't any form of organization made by people for people with laws(written or unwritten) that they agree on a state?
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: wackmanblu on October 25, 2012, 02:34 am
If your voice was heard, would marijuana be illegal?
Would wars exist?
would the murder of millions for the goals of the state and its subsidies occur?

I am really interested, how is your voice heard?

Or is your voice saying, please TAKE my money, (taxes) PLEASE make all my decisions for me, (bullshit law-90%+ of it) please send pigs and soldiers to ensure I follow everyone else, (every voter since man began this horrendous tradition)  oh yeah, and remember - GOVERNMENT ISNT NATURAL-

only the individual is natural!

A statist is someone who firmly believes that government is necessary, thereby ensuring he is worth no more then the worse of whichever society he is apart of. Oh and they vote, despicable tradition of violence rendered by a group against another group. The end result of voting is ALWAYS the same, and always has been throughout history regardless type of state provided. Massive violence, war, increased crime (always),  and no real freedom (ever).

Freedom cannot exist partially, it either is or it is not.

Hey Libertyseller, always interesting to hear what goes on in others heads.

Going by that definition of statist, then yes I guess I am a statist as I believe that anarchy would cause many more problems than it would solve.

So, if I'm reading you right your saying that if my voice was truly heard then pot would be legal, wars wouldn't happen and taxes would go away?
I don't think anyone or any government could make the last 2 happen just because of what I wanted. All we can ask for from any form of government is that our voices are HEARD, not agreed with and obeyed unequivocally. I don't think any healthy society should give all the decision-making over to one guy or even one group of guys.

More to your 4th question though - How is my voice heard - First I talk to my local political reps and let them know what's important to me. I can also organize my own special interest group and lobby city hall, or any level of gov. for my requests. I can start my own publications and distribute them wherever, and to whomever wants to read them. Ultimately I could run for office if I was so motivated (yes, I become a politician but it's better than simply killing guys you don't like lest they decide they don't like you and then we all kill each other). All of these avenues are open to anyone.

Taxes are a bitch, but how else are roads gonna get built?

I disagree with your last statement about freedom being an "all or nothing" thing. As Spiderman knows - with freedom comes responsibility. If my neighbor decides he wants to drive his car on the opposite side of the road, he might cause a lot of damage. We have to tell him that he is not free to do this and that he must submit to laws requiring cars to operate in unison.

So, there's me defending some semblance of government.
What's your idea of a better societal system?
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: libertyseller on October 26, 2012, 03:41 pm
Who will build the roads, (buy a shovel)

I have no problem contributing to a community effort if necessary, my problem is that humans have been programmed over several thousand years to believe they need another human to run their lives. (government)

Any honest business person will quickly see that government is both wasteful and unnecessary when it comes to benefit versus cost. (take a step back and look at true cost/ wars/taxes waste vs. benefit / none really exists- even hard socialists cannot tell me that government actually benefits them outside of what they FEEL is free...but in reality is not)

The individual IS the only natural entity. Government is a CREATED entity, society and social structures ARE NOT defaulted to government. ;)  Community is NOT government, the tribe is NOT the state. (The difference is, use of force to enforce arbitrary laws/regulations/taxes versus use of force for DEFENSE only)



My idea of perfection is what exists HERE on SR, strangers working together anonymously with a very small number of assholes, (modern criminology gives statistics for ACTUAL criminals (against a person-outside of state crime) as being around 3-4% of the ENTIRE population of the world. ) As business people, both buying and selling the averages I am seeing here and in several other venues I work through are around 5% which I can accept as a cost of business, I DONT LIKE IT and always blacklist- but, I accept it.

You see I would rather live in a world where I write off 5% or defend against 5% then a world where I must defend against 95% (the voting masses who would see vendors like me castigated and imprisoned) make sense? ;) ;)


Btw, I do love venues like this, and truly enjoy the interactions thank you!


Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: maczekasia on October 26, 2012, 10:55 pm
I have no problem contributing to a community effort if necessary, my problem is that humans have been programmed over several thousand years to believe they need another human to run their lives. (government)
It is natural for animals that form groups to have a leader. Be it wolves, birds or humans. It is not some kind of magical programming it is the nature. And even when given pure democracy equality etc. in a small group there will be a leader, simply the one whose opinion is the most appealing to the others.

Quote
Any honest business person will quickly see that government is both wasteful and unnecessary when it comes to benefit versus cost. (take a step back and look at true cost/ wars/taxes waste vs. benefit / none really exists- even hard socialists cannot tell me that government actually benefits them outside of what they FEEL is free...but in reality is not)
You can't be honest and do business. Honest business person would tell you not to buy his stuff because you don't really need it or because someone has it cheaper. You can't earn money with attitude like that and earning money is all the business is about.
As for government, even with them in control monopolies can easily destroy their competition(i.e. Microsoft killing Netscape by illegal use of monopoly). Without them we would have corporationism which would be even worse than it is now.
And tax benefits? Firefighters, law enforcement(they are actually useful when it comes to robberies or homicides), public schools and healthcare(not in US). I doubt socialists, who are aware of their ideology, believe that anything is free and actually know that it comes from tax money.

Quote
The individual IS the only natural entity. Government is a CREATED entity, society and social structures ARE NOT defaulted to government. ;)  Community is NOT government, the tribe is NOT the state. (The difference is, use of force to enforce arbitrary laws/regulations/taxes versus use of force for DEFENSE only)
Every 'NOT' and 'IS' in your opinion is actually down to the semantics.
If someone goes by 'using force only for defense' he has defined a law/regulation/rule and is acting according to it we could say an individual with his own moral code acts as an individual state with himself being the head of government, law enforcement and judge.

Quote
My idea of perfection is what exists HERE on SR, strangers working together anonymously with a very small number of assholes, (modern criminology gives statistics for ACTUAL criminals (against a person-outside of state crime) as being around 3-4% of the ENTIRE population of the world. ) As business people, both buying and selling the averages I am seeing here and in several other venues I work through are around 5% which I can accept as a cost of business, I DONT LIKE IT and always blacklist- but, I accept it.
It can only work in small groups of people. But small groups of people won't make any progress science wise and will probably fight with other groups on regular basis. That's why Europeans easily conquered North America, which was full of small savage groups, while Europeans came there with effort and insight of many.
Then the 5% in groups consisting of millions of people become pretty large numbers.

Quote
You see I would rather live in a world where I write off 5% or defend against 5% then a world where I must defend against 95% (the voting masses who would see vendors like me castigated and imprisoned) make sense? ;) ;)
I bet everyone would like to live in a world where everything is going fine for them.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: wackmanblu on October 26, 2012, 11:19 pm
Liberty,

I see your point about *government* just becoming the default 'response' for everyone as in  "I dunno, the government should just take care of it ... ".   I get it; nothing should have that much power over everyone, lest we all become so reliant on it that we can't imagine life without it. I get it bro. That kind of logic is sound.

BUT - in the meantime, who's gonna build a practical transportation system of roads and infrastructure? Who will setup reliable schools nationwide? For God's sake man - who will subsidize my electrical bill ??!!
A series of loose knit entrepreneurs who believe in nothing other than making a profit - OR - some kind or elected representative from my neighborhood ( HINT - you get a say in what happens with one of those choices.)

Now don't get me wrong - I'm not for everything being government run, in my mind the ONLY things government should be involved in are roads, education, hospitals, a judiciary and a BASIC welfare safely net so that those of us who don't succeed will not starve.
In other words - only things that work for the clear benefit of us all, everything else should be left to private industry to sort out.

In my world, we're not afraid of our government because we control it; we keep it in check constantly by participating in the communities where we live, making sure that our opinions are expressed by the freedoms we are guaranteed, and we really are guaranteed them! Publish any opinion you want in any media outlet and you will never get arrested for it (as long as your not preaching hate, death and destruction Duhh !!) 
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on October 27, 2012, 01:11 am
Liberty,

I see your point about *government* just becoming the default 'response' for everyone as in  "I dunno, the government should just take care of it ... ".   I get it; nothing should have that much power over everyone, lest we all become so reliant on it that we can't imagine life without it. I get it bro. That kind of logic is sound.

BUT - in the meantime, who's gonna build a practical transportation system of roads and infrastructure? Who will setup reliable schools nationwide? For God's sake man - who will subsidize my electrical bill ??!!
A series of loose knit entrepreneurs who believe in nothing other than making a profit - OR - some kind or elected representative from my neighborhood ( HINT - you get a say in what happens with one of those choices.)

Now don't get me wrong - I'm not for everything being government run, in my mind the ONLY things government should be involved in are roads, education, hospitals, a judiciary and a BASIC welfare safely net so that those of us who don't succeed will not starve.
In other words - only things that work for the clear benefit of us all, everything else should be left to private industry to sort out.

In my world, we're not afraid of our government because we control it; we keep it in check constantly by participating in the communities where we live, making sure that our opinions are expressed by the freedoms we are guaranteed, and we really are guaranteed them! Publish any opinion you want in any media outlet and you will never get arrested for it (as long as your not preaching hate, death and destruction Duhh !!)

Publish a picture of a flashing 16 year old and text saying that it should be legal to do so and tell me how that works out for you.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: wackmanblu on October 27, 2012, 01:21 am
Publish a picture of a flashing 16 year old and text saying that it should be legal to do so and tell me how that works out for you.

LMFAO!! Ya know I really do love you kmfkewm (IF that is your REAL name!)  8)

This is so true! I would get 'busted' if I did this  BUT I wouldn't be put to death either. However I don't know why I would ever publish a nude 16 yr old photo anyway. I was talking about serious opinions. 
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: libertyseller on October 27, 2012, 02:38 pm
Liberty,

I see your point about *government* just becoming the default 'response' for everyone as in  "I dunno, the government should just take care of it ... ".   I get it; nothing should have that much power over everyone, lest we all become so reliant on it that we can't imagine life without it. I get it bro. That kind of logic is sound.

BUT - in the meantime, who's gonna build a practical transportation system of roads and infrastructure? Who will setup reliable schools nationwide? For God's sake man - who will subsidize my electrical bill ??!!
A series of loose knit entrepreneurs who believe in nothing other than making a profit - OR - some kind or elected representative from my neighborhood ( HINT - you get a say in what happens with one of those choices.)

Now don't get me wrong - I'm not for everything being government run, in my mind the ONLY things government should be involved in are roads, education, hospitals, a judiciary and a BASIC welfare safely net so that those of us who don't succeed will not starve.
In other words - only things that work for the clear benefit of us all, everything else should be left to private industry to sort out.

In my world, we're not afraid of our government because we control it; we keep it in check constantly by participating in the communities where we live, making sure that our opinions are expressed by the freedoms we are guaranteed, and we really are guaranteed them! Publish any opinion you want in any media outlet and you will never get arrested for it (as long as your not preaching hate, death and destruction Duhh !!)

Community involvement is good- federal government is bad. In the usa private contractors build the roads paid by public funds that have been greatly inflated/ this means that they take an average of 20,000 from each working adult in the usa annually (more or less including all types of taxation)

if a small community wanted a road or three or four and paid 20,000 apiece (size of community has 12,000 working adults) that seems a bit much- get the point?

Besides in the usa the infrastructure is collapsing, shit we have worse communications than iraq does after 8 years of war.

Who will build the roads, get a damn shovel . Go back to trains (they worked well) ;)
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: 16384 on October 29, 2012, 01:48 am
Well we could just fire them since we don't need them anymore.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: wackmanblu on October 29, 2012, 02:52 am
Well we could just fire them since we don't need them anymore.

Exactly my point. Some site members (kmfkewm im speakin' to you bro) believe that these LE agents shouldn't just be fired - they should be tried and executed as criminals themselves. But the thing is that what they are doing is totally legal within the definitions we allow ourselves right now. We could split hairs on how a constitution is interpreted but whatever the outcome of that debate, a case could be made for justifying what is happening.

It's up to us, people on the vanguard of social enlightenment to convince the rest of society that drug usage is NOT criminal and should not be interpreted as a punishable offense. We can do this inside of the current system, there is room for flexibility regardless of what you think of Obama or Romney (a side show of epic proportions). Politicians are our puppets. Just promise them a million votes and they will do and say whatever you what them to. The trick is getting that million votes. If you are under the age of 30 politicians don't give a shit about you. You know why - because you don't vote. If you're over 65 politicians will cater to your every concern and fear because you ALL vote. Don't even think of touching medicare or social security. If politicians saw the value in voters under the age of 30 you can bet your sweet ass we'd be smokin' pot in designated clubs and dispensaries would open up to the public.

My point is that our politicians are a reflection of us, more specifically, of who vote and demand to be heard.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on October 29, 2012, 07:33 am
Exactly my point. Some site members (kmfkewm im speakin' to you bro) believe that these LE agents shouldn't just be fired - they should be tried and executed as criminals themselves. But the thing is that what they are doing is totally legal within the definitions we allow ourselves right now. We could split hairs on how a constitution is interpreted but whatever the outcome of that debate, a case could be made for justifying what is happening.

How about this system. We have a vote for legalizing the killing of all remaining drug enforcement agents. As it approaches the magical 50.0000001 percent margin of passing, drug enforcement officials will quickly start to retire and we can solve the drug war problem with less than 50% of the vote! Hell even at 10% I think DEA agents will start to just think twice. Then when we have officially legalized killing drug law enforcement officials , those remaining will die. Perfectly legal!

it doesn't seem very just to me though. We cannot just excuse the crimes committed by those who abandoned their cause when they saw it would fail. They still ruined real peoples lives and for this they must be held accountable. How about in our new legal framework we pass a law saying that people who oppress others will not be protected by the law? Since being lawful or not seems to matter to you so much. What if a society exists where it is lawful to rape babies? I imagine you will be the first one defending the rapists and preaching the merits of law and order over justice and peace. 

Quote
My point is that our politicians are a reflection of us, more specifically, of who vote and demand to be heard.

You are blinded by an idealistic image. What happened first, did the average man dislike drug use or did the government create propaganda demonizing drug use? Our politicians are no reflection of us, we are a clay sculpture molded into whatever they want us to be.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: Voluntaryist on October 29, 2012, 08:00 am
I agree with the OP i take a bit of konklins work and expand it into the grey market hell look at meph and bk-mdma they are now so caught up trying to find the china leads they focus less on black market, i believe the grey market and explaining that to a fellow i met today who does all black market with clandestine chemist in the country irl and i explained to him how even selling or consuming black market compounds somewhere down the line is going to indirectly hurt someone down the line by letting them be hurt by the state

now with grey market compoudns (25x mxe, 6-apd) their legal to possess (for research of course) so by using more grey market and expanding the black market with it it makes LEO give up on the war on drugs completly by differentiating the line between whats illegal and legal will make the whole drug war a failure



/end rant

(if i spoke incoherinetly i have been up for the last few days at a festival eating real lucy and freshly synthed sas)
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: wackmanblu on October 29, 2012, 09:10 am

How about this system. We have a vote for legalizing the killing of all remaining drug enforcement agents. As it approaches the magical 50.0000001 percent margin of passing, drug enforcement officials will quickly start to retire and we can solve the drug war problem with less than 50% of the vote! Hell even at 10% I think DEA agents will start to just think twice. Then when we have officially legalized killing drug law enforcement officials , those remaining will die. Perfectly legal!

it doesn't seem very just to me though. We cannot just excuse the crimes committed by those who abandoned their cause when they saw it would fail. They still ruined real peoples lives and for this they must be held accountable. How about in our new legal framework we pass a law saying that people who oppress others will not be protected by the law? Since being lawful or not seems to matter to you so much. What if a society exists where it is lawful to rape babies? I imagine you will be the first one defending the rapists and preaching the merits of law and order over justice and peace. 

You are blinded by an idealistic image. What happened first, did the average man dislike drug use or did the government create propaganda demonizing drug use? Our politicians are no reflection of us, we are a clay sculpture molded into whatever they want us to be.

We don't need a referendum on the killing of anyone ( a vote put directly to the people is called a referendum) as it's unnecessary. it doesn't solve anything. But i suppose if you make a society in your image you could put it to the people. My guess is that it would be outright rejected as collectively we're not bloodthirsty barbarians hell bent on vengeance. We're just people trying to make it through the day.

... raping babies ... really ?  I don't even know what to ...

And I'm not blinded by an ideal image of politics or any system. My eyes are wide open and I recognize that there is no such thing as perfect system, which is what you seem to be holding out for.

The easiest thing in the world to do is criticize the current state of affairs because it is so imperfect. 
I'm throwing down a challenge for you kmfkewm - what is your system of choice? Who decides the rules and who enforces them? Who builds the roads? Does it have a standing army ? How do you avoid the oppression of any one group of people by another?

Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: Voluntaryist on October 29, 2012, 09:47 am
no offense but any black market drug dealer contributes to the drug war.

in some form down the line u are contributing the the caging of innocent people
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on October 29, 2012, 10:30 am
no offense but any black market drug dealer contributes to the drug war.

in some form down the line u are contributing the the caging of innocent people

And by having children we create all of tomorrows victims. 

Quote
The easiest thing in the world to do is criticize the current state of affairs because it is so imperfect.
I'm throwing down a challenge for you kmfkewm - what is your system of choice? Who decides the rules and who enforces them? Who builds the roads? Does it have a standing army ? How do you avoid the oppression of any one group of people by another?

Agorism is my system of choice. People in the business of building roads can build the roads, they can be funded by people who want to use roads. But it must be done on an individualistic basis, not this bullshit "you are part of society and we need roads, so our armed thugs take your money and give it to our friends to build roads, of course leaving us a nice cut !" .  If you want a fucking road built go put funding into building one or get to work. The rule is simple, do not initiate force against others. When others initiate force against you, meet them with escalating force. Private defense agencies will offer their services to protect you. SR is somewhat of a private defense agency. In return for a percentage of the profit , he maintains a server that uses security technology in an attempt to protect YOU from YOUR GOVERNMENT. They want you to go into a fucking cage , no joke. The police want to find you and they want to take everything away from you and leave you to die in a fucking cage. That is pretty large initiation of force, and thus the correct response is to reply with escalated force and unfortunately for them that means that they die. Nobody made them take the job they took, they know the laws that they will have to enforce. They made their own beds and I wont even hear anymore of a fucking drug user defending them in the slightest , it reminds me too much of Uncle Tom.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on October 29, 2012, 10:40 am
Quote
My guess is that it would be outright rejected as collectively we're not bloodthirsty barbarians hell bent on vengeance

How about this for a vote, everybody who has done prison time for drug charges or even violent crime directly related to drugs (ie: killing police) and a bunch of snitches and DEA agents all in put into a room, except the snitches and LE wear one color shirt and the others another. Then we can give each of the drug offenders a gun and have enough bullets so that each one of the LE and snitches can get shot. I bet that I would win that vote :).
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: wackmanblu on October 29, 2012, 06:14 pm
Agorism is my system of choice. People in the business of building roads can build the roads, they can be funded by people who want to use roads. But it must be done on an individualistic basis, not this bullshit "you are part of society and we need roads, so our armed thugs take your money and give it to our friends to build roads, of course leaving us a nice cut !" .  If you want a fucking road built go put funding into building one or get to work. The rule is simple, do not initiate force against others. When others initiate force against you, meet them with escalating force. Private defense agencies will offer their services to protect you. SR is somewhat of a private defense agency. In return for a percentage of the profit , he maintains a server that uses security technology in an attempt to protect YOU from YOUR GOVERNMENT. They want you to go into a fucking cage , no joke. The police want to find you and they want to take everything away from you and leave you to die in a fucking cage. That is pretty large initiation of force, and thus the correct response is to reply with escalated force and unfortunately for them that means that they die. Nobody made them take the job they took, they know the laws that they will have to enforce. They made their own beds and I wont even hear anymore of a fucking drug user defending them in the slightest , it reminds me too much of Uncle Tom.

So does this Agorist system have a central government? If so who decides who they are? If not who decides on what is "law" or is there just complete lawlessness?
Is there a standing army? If so who do they answer to? If not how do we stop foreigners from coming onto our lands and taking what they want?

Can I initiate force against someone if I feel threatened? Or do I have to wait until they shoot me first and hope that they miss.
If someones breaks these proposed rules who will arrest and try them?
What if I don't have any money, how will I hire a private defense agency to protect me?

This society sounds like hell for the average Joe. You know who it would really work for - the ultra-rich. They could just buy their way into. and out of, pretty much anything.

I'm looking forward to your answers.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: owenk on October 30, 2012, 12:46 am
How about this system. We have a vote for legalizing the killing of all remaining drug enforcement agents.

How about no.  Saying this sort of thing doesn't help our cause AT ALL.  If you want, cage them up for their crime, but murder is too far.  We are fighting for what we want, law enforcement is fighting for what they want.  The edge goes back and forth and if the losers always died there wouldn't be very many people left.  Won't you want a shred of mercy when it's you?
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: libertyseller on October 30, 2012, 02:58 am
I love it when people who hate what the state does embrace the violence that is the state, (lets vote to kill...)

Who will squeeze the trigger, you who dont leave your living rooms? Please, stop calling for their deaths, I hate the bastards- but murder is still wrong...
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: owenk on October 30, 2012, 04:55 am
I guarantee this community would vote AGAINST the murder of government agents if it were put to a vote.  Anybody who condones it is swept up in emotion (hatred, revenge, etc.) and quite clearly should not be in a position to be making those decisions in the first place.

What Silk Road is proving for the first time in human history is that no amount of physical force is more effective than calm, organized intelligence, protected by strong, cutting-edge technology.  Finally, things that don't deserve to be illegal might actually demonstrate themselves as such, but only if we conduct ourselves as mature, peaceful professionals.

Read this next sentence carefully--go over it several times, in several different frames of mind:  How we act when we have the power to act however we want will go a long way toward proving the legitimacy of our position, and the notion that we are not the enemy.  NOW is that time.

In other words, as long as we hold the ethical keys, I believe we also hold the advantage.  But if we devolve and regress to killing as a community, we can and SHOULD be shut down.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: libertyseller on October 30, 2012, 02:53 pm
Read this next sentence carefully--go over it several times, in several different frames of mind:  How we act when we have the power to act however we want will go a long way toward proving the legitimacy of our position, and the notion that we are not the enemy.  NOW is that time.

Very well said, very well said!

Unfortunately there are the youth who tend to believe they are owed something, love their game stations and have never experienced life. If I needed an army, the first place I would go is the colleges, and I would use rhetorical bullshit propaganda, philosophy and drugs to gather it.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: wackmanblu on October 30, 2012, 11:16 pm
...  If I needed an army, the first place I would go is the colleges, and I would use rhetorical bullshit propaganda, philosophy and drugs to gather it.

Ha! Liberty and I actually agree on something !!

I think that discussing political ideas is a good thing, which happens a lot in universities but as soon as someone crosses the line into radicalism, the discussion part goes out the window (which also happens a lot in colleges).
Now that person will never listen to opposing ideas, they will only preach their own. Rational, moderate discussion is gone. That person will never be convinced of anything, they may only be converted to another idea, but remain absolute and unquestioning as to it's principles.

... still haven't heard back from kmfkewm. I wonder what's a brewing?
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: wackmanblu on October 30, 2012, 11:17 pm
..  How we act when we have the power to act however we want will go a long way toward proving the legitimacy of our position, and the notion that we are not the enemy.  NOW is that time.

In other words, as long as we hold the ethical keys, I believe we also hold the advantage.  But if we devolve and regress to killing as a community, we can and SHOULD be shut down.

Couldn't agree more with you owenk.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: thedopestjunkie on October 31, 2012, 01:48 am
I also agree. I used to be someone who was so angry I thought about something similar. Here's the thing. Not only are you outgunned, but you are no doubt on their radar now. They have Billions of dollars at their disposal and you have probably very little. Also, you would only be stooping to their level by demanding that you are right in murdering said people. They are wrong to abuse us addicts, as such they do from time to time. But rounding them up and killing them is not the answer. For one, they are people too, and people make mistakes. And for another thing, that is no sort of solution. The whole reason we are angry at the agency, those of us who are, is because they are responsible for so much death with their failed policies and abuse of power. More death is never the answer.
                                           I like other people's responses. I think it is especially important that we stay organized and educated, and dont stoop to their level. We are people, not goons, and dont let the mistreatment kill you. Just wait twenty years until they are no longer in existence, hopefully, or get organized and do something to put a stop to their behavior. That is your best option. A holocaust is foolish and you no doubt have not thought that through. -Thedopestjunkie
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on October 31, 2012, 12:10 pm
Lots of statists in this thread. "It is okay to punish kidnappers, armed robbers and murderers, but if they have acted in the name of the state it is wrong to punish them and our duty to convince them that we are good people and do not deserve to be kidnapped, robbed and murdered. In the mean time we must allow them to abuse us because they are just people looking to provide for their families!"

you all make me sick to my stomach and it is glaringly obvious that none of you law enforcement apologists have actually felt the consequences of the war on drugs in any more than an abstract sense. Maybe when you have friends doing life sentences over drugs, or have done some hard years in prison yourself, you will stop looking for every opportunity to suck off a cop that you can find. They are the ones who have treated human life as something that is worthless, they are the ones who must now experience the repercussions of that. Having a badge is not an excuse for violent crime. Period. There is not an excuse for what they do. It is injustice to not punish them. Really to think otherwise is just proof of your statist indoctrination.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: FartBomber on October 31, 2012, 02:40 pm
Please forgive me for just skimming trough the thread, here is my opinion:

Lining the whole DEA up and blow their brains out doesnt seem like a good idea to me, even though emotionally I would love to just as much as you kmfkewm.

Studies have show that showing forgiveness instead of endless punishment works out better in the long term. This has been show by all the repayment Germany had to make after WW1 which led to WW2. Now we have Greece which has its citizens extorted to pay for the debts of previous governments there which will lead to WW3 most likely.

If we will punish all of those now involved in the war of drugs to paying reparations, jail or death, no matter how much they deserve it, we will never stop fighting with them. Ayways, the question was of how we should bring them to justice, and I only have said (typed) just now how we shouldnt do it. In my opinion we should do only something symbolic. Thumbprint the head of the DEA live on TV by force, not allow him/her to buy alcohol/smokes for a month and then ask how it feels etc.

How the fuck would we accomplish this though? I think that to make the war on drugs stop we first need to focus on taking the religious aspect out of governments in order to enable them to have a more pragmatic view of things instead of doing things because some rich lobbyist group who have a imaginary friend wants them to do it.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: jpinkman on October 31, 2012, 02:46 pm
So does this Agorist system have a central government? If so who decides who they are? If not who decides on what is "law" or is there just complete lawlessness?
Is there a standing army? If so who do they answer to? If not how do we stop foreigners from coming onto our lands and taking what they want?

Can I initiate force against someone if I feel threatened? Or do I have to wait until they shoot me first and hope that they miss.
If someones breaks these proposed rules who will arrest and try them?
What if I don't have any money, how will I hire a private defense agency to protect me?

This society sounds like hell for the average Joe. You know who it would really work for - the ultra-rich. They could just buy their way into. and out of, pretty much anything.

I'm looking forward to your answers.

@wackmanblu: I too would love to hear the answers on how this libertarian utopia would function in practice. I also can't help but note the irony of you earlier being told that you are "blinded by your idealism".
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: thedopestjunkie on October 31, 2012, 09:03 pm
Lots of statists in this thread. "It is okay to punish kidnappers, armed robbers and murderers, but if they have acted in the name of the state it is wrong to punish them and our duty to convince them that we are good people and do not deserve to be kidnapped, robbed and murdered. In the mean time we must allow them to abuse us because they are just people looking to provide for their families!"

you all make me sick to my stomach and it is glaringly obvious that none of you law enforcement apologists have actually felt the consequences of the war on drugs in any more than an abstract sense. Maybe when you have friends doing life sentences over drugs, or have done some hard years in prison yourself, you will stop looking for every opportunity to suck off a cop that you can find. They are the ones who have treated human life as something that is worthless, they are the ones who must now experience the repercussions of that. Having a badge is not an excuse for violent crime. Period. There is not an excuse for what they do. It is injustice to not punish them. Really to think otherwise is just proof of your statist indoctrination.

#1 I am no fucking apologist
#2 I was abused by a bunch of hotheaded cops over a fucking marijuana charge. The extent of which I will not go into for two reasons. A.) Dont wanna reveal anything about myself B) you are clearly not listening to anyone on this thread. So I'll only say this once more, you are acting just like the GOONS themselves who abuse us addicts. Is that what you want to be? Like them? You say lets kill an entire agency...cant we try them like criminals? I implore you to rethink this man, not because Im an apologist but because there are more rational avenues to pursue. I would start with calling for the abolition of the entire agency. I hate the police as much as the next person but calling for a holocaust is just crazy. In spirit of the thread I would like to hear what other people think we should do. -thedopestjunkie
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: owenk on October 31, 2012, 10:40 pm
you all make me sick to my stomach and it is glaringly obvious that none of you law enforcement apologists have actually felt the consequences of the war on drugs in any more than an abstract sense. Maybe when you have friends doing life sentences over drugs, or have done some hard years in prison yourself, you will stop looking for every opportunity to suck off a cop that you can find. They are the ones who have treated human life as something that is worthless, they are the ones who must now experience the repercussions of that. Having a badge is not an excuse for violent crime. Period. There is not an excuse for what they do. It is injustice to not punish them. Really to think otherwise is just proof of your statist indoctrination.
You speak from the heart.  Anybody who used their badge as an excuse to commit a violent crime should pay for it.  That's justice.  I don't know what rules you have on your side of the fantasy but on mine it must be proven that a person had guilty intent while using the badge before the majority of the people would agree your approach was sustainable, if not condoned.

I think your approach freaks us "apologists" out precisely because we don't understand the anger. How can such passion be trusted to judge decisions on life with a nicety?  You're saying it can be?
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: wackmanblu on November 01, 2012, 01:59 am
Lots of statists in this thread. "It is okay to punish kidnappers, armed robbers and murderers, but if they have acted in the name of the state it is wrong to punish them and our duty to convince them that we are good people and do not deserve to be kidnapped, robbed and murdered. In the mean time we must allow them to abuse us because they are just people looking to provide for their families!"

you all make me sick to my stomach and it is glaringly obvious that none of you law enforcement apologists have actually felt the consequences of the war on drugs in any more than an abstract sense. Maybe when you have friends doing life sentences over drugs, or have done some hard years in prison yourself, you will stop looking for every opportunity to suck off a cop that you can find. They are the ones who have treated human life as something that is worthless, they are the ones who must now experience the repercussions of that. Having a badge is not an excuse for violent crime. Period. There is not an excuse for what they do. It is injustice to not punish them. Really to think otherwise is just proof of your statist indoctrination.

kwfkewm - this is all just a deflection from my earlier question.

As mentioned, it's very easy to sit back and talk about how corrupt the world is and point out all the problem because, gosh-darn-it, it's true - there are many injustices in the world at large. But you're not offering anything of real value when you say that government is 'bad' and LE should die.

If you can't answer real questions about your alternate Agorist system (which I'm totally open to hear about) in which you would put people to death, then you only come across as a silly first year college kid whose been reading to much radical literature.

So, care to answer even one of questions?
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on November 02, 2012, 02:41 am
I already answered your questions. Everything will be privatized. The court that tries the DEA agents and the agency that enforces the sentences against them will be privately funded and volunteered by people who they have wronged. The roads will be managed by private companies. Everything will be private, including the defense agencies. There would not even be a drug war if it were not for government. Do you think that the average person will voluntarily donate money towards fighting the war on drugs? Of course not, because it really doesn't matter to Joe Blow if his neighbor smokes pot or sniffs coke, so long as his neighbor does not hurt him. He will care more about funding people to protect him from theft than he will care to fund an agency that hunts down people and confiscates their drugs and locks them up. The only way the drug enforcement agencies can exist is via one stealing profits from drug dealers and two being funded by tax dollars. Cut off the tax dollars and then they are private agencies that need to sustain themselves on stealing valuables from drug dealers. Thus they are an organized gang that specializes in armed robbery, kidnappings and similar. To protect from this band of criminals us drug users will need to fund private defense agencies. As I already pointed out, silk road is an example of such a defense agency. It uses a purely defensive methodology in order to enable us in obtaining drugs whilst avoiding the armed criminal gangs. In the future, I hope for there to be more sophisticated agencies that not only protect us as SR does but also brings the armed criminal gang members to justice on an individual level. Break into someones home and arrest them for a drug charge? Wow, hopefully you avoid the Drug User Protection Agency which is paid to hunt you down and put a bullet between your eyes. Perhaps you will only get some prison time, but the point is you become a target for acting as a criminal. If I go to prison for a drug crime, I will be happy when the drug user protection agency executes those directly responsible as well as busts me out of prison :). I will not be saying "Dear police you really goofed up and should let me out because I love you and know you are just confused about things, because really I am a nice person and good citizen I swear!".
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: wackmanblu on November 02, 2012, 12:08 pm
I already answered your questions. Everything will be privatized. The court that tries the DEA agents and the agency that enforces the sentences against them will be privately funded and volunteered by people who they have wronged. ..

I don't think you can have a privately funded judicial system as whoever has the most money will simply get the outcomes they want. For certain you couldn't have fair trials for the accused held by those they have wronged. This is just a kangaroo court with a per-determined outcome. May as well just go straight to sentencing. 

...  The roads will be managed by private companies. Everything will be private, including the defense agencies. There would not even be a drug war if it were not for government. Do you think that the average person will voluntarily donate money towards fighting the war on drugs? Of course not, because it really doesn't matter to Joe Blow if his neighbor smokes pot or sniffs coke, so long as his neighbor does not hurt him. He will care more about funding people to protect him from theft than he will care to fund an agency that hunts down people and confiscates their drugs and locks them up. The only way the drug enforcement agencies can exist is via one stealing profits from drug dealers and two being funded by tax dollars. Cut off the tax dollars and then they are private agencies that need to sustain themselves on stealing valuables from drug dealers. Thus they are an organized gang that specializes in armed robbery, kidnappings and similar. To protect from this band of criminals us drug users will need to fund private defense agencies. As I already pointed out, silk road is an example of such a defense agency. It uses a purely defensive methodology in order to enable us in obtaining drugs whilst avoiding the armed criminal gangs. In the future, I hope for there to be more sophisticated agencies that not only protect us as SR does but also brings the armed criminal gang members to justice on an individual level. Break into someones home and arrest them for a drug charge? Wow, hopefully you avoid the Drug User Protection Agency which is paid to hunt you down and put a bullet between your eyes. Perhaps you will only get some prison time, but the point is you become a target for acting as a criminal. If I go to prison for a drug crime, I will be happy when the drug user protection agency executes those directly responsible as well as busts me out of prison :). I will not be saying "Dear police you really goofed up and should let me out because I love you and know you are just confused about things, because really I am a nice person and good citizen I swear!".

What you're describing is tribal warfare. It would come down to whoever has the most resources wins. My guys shooting at your guys. Guess what - everybody dies. It sounds like a post apocalyptic every-man-for-themselves scramble. The only way to survive this scenario for the average Joe is to create or join a gang and arm themselves.   
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on November 03, 2012, 02:02 am
Who is going to attack to average Joe? Average people will organize together to protect themselves. Why would you not protect your neighbor in return for him protecting  you? Why would you not both pool your money towards a shared neighborhood defense fund and hire a security agency to protect you? There already is tribe warfare, don't you know about the crips and the bloods and the CIA and the FSB and the police and the Zetas? There is tribe warfare going on already, and for the most part the average citizen is left out of it. Where they are not left out is in their forced funding of some organizations such as the DEA and local police. They have no choice but to pay these extortionists. Of course the Mafia in particular and many other tribes will also participate in protection rackets, but not to the extent done by the government gangs. The government already has people indoctrinated into thinking they should give them money, and they have a huge and sophisticated collections agency. So in your world there is tribe warfare, and the majority of people pick the rules of operation for the well established police tribes, in return for funding them (which is actually EXTORTED from them). Make that funding voluntary and you will find the DEA has a big gaping hole in funding where peoples extorted tax dollars used to be. Most people just do not give a shit  enough about drugs that they would voluntarily fund the DEA, even if they are against drugs they are not going to be so eager to separate with their money if they are not forced to. The DEA will then fund itself by robbing drug dealers, as they already do but it will become even more important if people are not forced to fund them via taxes. But these drug dealers are making money selling drugs as well, and it is in their best interests to hire a protection agency. This protection agency is NOT concerned with what the average person does, but it is concerned with treating DEA agents as kidnappers and robbers. A war between these tribes must happen, and already it is happening but you take the perspective of the government agencies NOT being warring tribes but rather enforcers of laws and that is where you are making your mistake. You also put far too much confidence in the concept of democracy, democracy does not work in a world where large majorities of people are susceptible to brainwashing in various degrees.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on November 03, 2012, 02:07 am
We must treat the drug enforcement of today as we will treat the kidnappers of drug users in the years when drugs are legalized, to do otherwise is to claim that following orders and enforcing unjust laws is excusable and that law and orders trumps what is morally right. Law will never dictate morality, and people should be held to account for what is just not what is legal or illegal. Saying that following the law excuses DEA agents of kidnapping is analogous to saying that the Nazi war criminals should have been excused on account of just following orders. War crimes courts have already established that this is not a legitimate excuse, and it is rather scary that some people seem to want to imply that it is.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: valtrex on November 03, 2012, 06:19 am
Every time LE is caught abusing their power a sniper should be dispatched at a nearby scene to pick off a random cop.
For every innocent person that gets thrown in a cage, there will be one less random cop.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: Voluntaryist on November 03, 2012, 07:47 am
So does this Agorist system have a central government? If so who decides who they are? If not who decides on what is "law" or is there just complete lawlessness?
Is there a standing army? If so who do they answer to? If not how do we stop foreigners from coming onto our lands and taking what they want?

Can I initiate force against someone if I feel threatened? Or do I have to wait until they shoot me first and hope that they miss.
If someones breaks these proposed rules who will arrest and try them?
What if I don't have any money, how will I hire a private defense agency to protect me?

This society sounds like hell for the average Joe. You know who it would really work for - the ultra-rich. They could just buy their way into. and out of, pretty much anything.

I'm looking forward to your answers.

@wackmanblu: I too would love to hear the answers on how this libertarian utopia would function in practice. I also can't help but note the irony of you earlier being told that you are "blinded by your idealism".

learn about the non aggresion principle and voluntaryism agorism is a way to achieve voluntary local contracts for communities

also to the radical anarchist stop putting all police in the same position collectivism makes u a hypocrite in the way they put all drug users as criminals to an extent


coming from someone who writes for a subsidisary of copblock.org that type of thinking is wrong

violent revolution leads to more violence

opt the fuck out thank u silk road as this is a true anarcho society

go look at the not so wild west  (google it from the misses insititute)


towns will have different contracts but both parties will be consenting why this society is immoral or any government for that matter

voluntaryism is a huge tent u can have a town with a bunch of communist and another town who believes in pirvate propety it just depends on the contract u want or where u want to live


Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: Voluntaryist on November 03, 2012, 08:00 am
i am also blinded by idealism of the world. i do want though in 100 years the word government to be as bad as the word slavery is today.

i want people truely free call be a neo-abolishinst

Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: jpinkman on November 03, 2012, 05:47 pm
Who is going to attack to average Joe? Average people will organize together to protect themselves. Why would you not protect your neighbor in return for him protecting  you? Why would you not both pool your money towards a shared neighborhood defense fund and hire a security agency to protect you?

Sounds really retro, harking back to primitive tribalism with Mad Max overtones. Maybe that's the society you hope and yearn for, as I can see how being responsible for your own defense and forming neighborhood watch groups in an anarchic world has a really rugged individualist romantic quality to it that a certain ilk of fanatical libertarian anarchists would find intoxicating. But you can't expect most people would find such a society appealing or desirable. Just like you can't expect everyone in your neighborhood to want to, or even be good at, participating in your neighborhood's defense.

Sounds like the significant portion of your income you save in taxes would now go towards paying these "security agencies" to defend your neighborhood.

And there would be nothing preventing the private security agency you hire from being abusive, corrupt, or incompetent on levels much more intolerable than your current government. What's preventing all the private security agencies from not being mafia rackets and colluding themselves while raising your "protection fees" through the roof? Nothing.

In fact, in a world without government why even bother using a euphemism like "CEO" for those that own and lead these "security agencies"? They'd be nothing more than warlords wrecking havoc with their private militias for fun and profit. Might as well call a spade a spade.

What's most puzzling about the libertarian utopia that I've yet to learn from a libertarian anarchist is how and why corporate tyranny would be so much better than government tyranny. Maybe you can be the first to offer a coherent explanation.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on November 04, 2012, 05:29 am
Quote
But you can't expect most people would find such a society appealing or desirable. Just like you can't expect everyone in your neighborhood to want to, or even be good at, participating in your neighborhood's defense.

The only difference between my proposed society and the society of today is that in my society you have choice in the agency that defends you, and how they go about doing it. If you want defense from being robbed it will be in your best interests to purchase this service from a private company that can offer it. If you do not want "defense" from drug users smoking marijuana, then you will not pay for this from the security agency or obtain services from such a security agency. In the society of today, you must get security from a selection of approved agencies. They protect you in a uniform fashion, and you fund all of this. If you don't support the war in the Middle East it doesn't matter you are still going to fund it (ie: you are funding the agencies that are fighting a war there). This is the exact opposite of voluntaryism and it is the exact opposite of a free market. Of course we have atrocities like the war on drugs, we are forced to fund it! That money goes somewhere, it goes into the paychecks of the DEA agents and it makes the private owners of prisons very rich. There doesn't need to be a reason for the war on drugs other than the fact that it makes them rich, and the propaganda makes it seem like what they do is okay and for a good cause so they will take that paycheck. In a free world you would not be forced to pay for your own oppression and you are free to pay for your own defense from what you see as oppression. How could anyone not want that?

Quote
Sounds like the significant portion of your income you save in taxes would now go towards paying these "security agencies" to defend your neighborhood.

Yes some amount of the money you save from not being forced to pay a wide variety of government security and "security" agencies would need to be spent on private security agencies to replace them, provided you want to have the same level of security. Of course when you stop funding agencies that bust drug users and agencies that forcibly extort money from you, the total cost of defense will automatically be cheaper. Additionally private services are very frequently proven as being more efficient and effective than government provided services, just look at the difference in education provided by a privates schools versus public schools. And private schools would be more affordable for people if they were not forced into funding a public school system. And for people who still couldn't afford private schooling, there will be plenty of public school opportunities offered by various religious charities and especially internet classrooms. Likewise, private defense agencies will be more efficient and more effective than government run defense agencies. So in addition to saving money, you can put the money you saved towards more effectively and efficiently protecting yourself at a lower price! 

Quote
And there would be nothing preventing the private security agency you hire from being abusive, corrupt, or incompetent on levels much more intolerable than your current government. What's preventing all the private security agencies from not being mafia rackets and colluding themselves while raising your "protection fees" through the roof? Nothing.

The private security agency works for you. In order for them to keep getting your business, it will be in their best interest to treat you as courteously as possible. If they work against you, for example by stealing your money or arresting you for drug possession, then they are no longer private defense agencies but rather they are armed criminals and oppressors. At this point you will be where we are now, and hopefully alternative market sources of defense and law will be made available to us, and we can fund them to the point that they overthrow our new oppressors. The worst case scenario you predict is exactly what we have right now, you are forced to provide funding to colluding government agencies via their mafiaesque defense rackets.  Very little stops them from raising your already enormous protection fees even higher.

Quote
In fact, in a world without government why even bother using a euphemism like "CEO" for those that own and lead these "security agencies"? They'd be nothing more than warlords wrecking havoc with their private militias for fun and profit. Might as well call a spade a spade.

Why do you not call the people using their public militias to wreack havoc warlords? Instead they are Generals? Why not call the head of the D.E.A. such, or the other paramilitary government police agencies? The D.E.A. is essentially a band of gun waving armed robbers and kidnappers who target drug dealers. You have been totally conditioned to the point that you see the governments behavior through a distortion, but when you remove the title government you see any organized defense as necessarily being what the government already is and without the distortion!

Quote
What's most puzzling about the libertarian utopia that I've yet to learn from a libertarian anarchist is how and why corporate tyranny would be so much better than government tyranny. Maybe you can be the first to offer a coherent explanation.

Anarchist Libertarianism does not envision corporate tyranny, it envisions a free market where you are empowered to select your own products and services instead of having them selected for you by the state. It also views far more things as products and services than most people generally do, for example the roads and indeed even what the laws are and who enforces them.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: jpinkman on November 07, 2012, 02:01 pm
The only difference between my proposed society and the society of today is that in my society you have choice in the agency that defends you, and how they go about doing it. If you want defense from being robbed it will be in your best interests to purchase this service from a private company that can offer it.

Actually that's not true. You have a choice right now as to who defends you. If you find the agencies of the US government too overbearing you have the option of immigrating to the country with the protection agencies, freedoms,  foreign policies, and tax policies you find most appealing. There are 195 others to choose from. If you don't find any of them uniquely suited for you guess what? That's the free market. There aren't an infinite set of items to choose from in the free market and never were.

Quote
If you don't support the war in the Middle East it doesn't matter you are still going to fund it (ie: you are funding the agencies that are fighting a war there). This is the exact opposite of voluntaryism and it is the exact opposite of a free market. Of course we have atrocities like the war on drugs, we are forced to fund it! In a free world you would not be forced to pay for your own oppression and you are free to pay for your own defense from what you see as oppression. How could anyone not want that?

You’re not going to get any argument from me nor probably anyone else in these forums about the futility of the war on drugs. But I recognize that there are trade offs in a representative democracy since not everyone is going to agree with me hence my tax dollars aren’t always going to be spent on things I agree with. You don’t seem to recognize that in your “free world” you’re going to inevitably run into the same issues. There would still exist a state, be it on a much smaller scale like your neighborhood. There would still be public goods in your neighborhood-state, like common defense, where you’ll disagree with your neighbor on how much needs to be spent and what it should be spent on. If he doesn’t agree with your budget idea and “opts out” on principle of voluntaryism what are you going to do? Force him to pay for something he doesn’t want, but will get as a residual benefit anyway because the rest of you will? But then you’d be doing precisely what you decry the government is doing.

Within the system, I have no reason not to believe that once a critical mass of the populace comes to recognize the futility of the WoD that the laws will change ... as they did for prohibition. And again, saying your belief you’re being forced to pay for it in contravention of a free market is just not true. You can move to a country that doesn’t spend tax dollars on wars in the Middle East or has decriminalized drug use. That’s the free market.

Quote
Additionally private services are very frequently proven as being more efficient and effective than government provided services, just look at the difference in education provided by a privates schools versus public schools.

No one’s disputing the merits of the efficiencies of the private sector in many areas of industry. What makes you look naive is your anarcho-libertarian infatuation that private enterprise is somehow superior and preferable in ALL instances. Private enterprise on its own has never proven effective in providing for public goods. I’m also surprised to see your use of private vs public education as proof of private sector superiority when that canard was debunked six years ago in a landmark study that found no appreciable differences. While raw scores from private schools were higher they proved a mirage after factoring in socio-economic factors like race, gender, and the wealth and education of the parents.

Quote
And for people who still couldn't afford private schooling, there will be plenty of public school opportunities offered by various religious charities and especially internet classrooms.
So those that can’t afford private schooling must be subject to religious indoctrination at a religious school subsidized by religious charities for the sole purpose of indoctrinating kids into their religion who can’t afford an education otherwise? What a fucked up idea.

Well I guess it’s a great idea unless you or your kid had to go to one. Or until religious institutions empowered by  swelling ranks from the impoverished masses decide to overtake your neighborhood-state and force you to go to one.

Quote
Likewise, private defense agencies will be more efficient and more effective than government run defense agencies. So in addition to saving money, you can put the money you saved towards more effectively and efficiently protecting yourself at a lower price!  The private security agency works for you. In order for them to keep getting your business, it will be in their best interest to treat you as courteously as possible. If they work against you, for example by stealing your money or arresting you for drug possession, then they are no longer private defense agencies but rather they are armed criminals and oppressors. At this point you will be where we are now, and hopefully alternative market sources of defense and law will be made available to us, and we can fund them to the point that they overthrow our new oppressors.
And this is where I get to say, with good justification, that you are “blinded by your idealistic image”.  Just hoping won’t make these alternatives appear out of thin air when there’s far more incentive for them not to.  Just look at history to see how that shit doesn’t work. The history of private states (monarchies,feudalism,despotism,oligarchies) and private law (slavery,mafias,warlordism,fiefdoms) shows you what your “free market” would look like in the absence a jointly owned, strong, and centralized state. No reason for private security agencies to compete for your business when they can just collude with the others on where to divide up their territorial monopolies, and then FORCE you to use their business. If they can’t agree they’ll go to war over who gets to enslave you. But to think they’re going to get into a nice and orderly “free market” price war to compete for the chance to sell you their protection services? Pfffft ... dude.

That only happens now because there’s a government backed legal framework that deters them from forcing their services on you.

Quote
The worst case scenario you predict is exactly what we have right now, you are forced to provide funding to colluding government agencies via their mafiaesque defense rackets. Very little stops them from raising your already enormous protection fees even higher.

Worst case? Hardly. I find your idealistic blind faith here so over the top for a minute there I thought you were clowning me. In several thousand years of recorded history there has never once been an even temporarily successful libertarian anarchy.  Yet here you are not only saying it’s possible in spite of a total lack of evidence,  but that only in the “worst case scenario” or IOW, the libertarian anarchic dystopian nightmare, things would look no different than what we have now. Seriously dude? I kind of hope you were high when you said.

What we have now is not mob rule and to suggest that it is is just ludicrous. The essence of mob rule is arbitrary and unchecked force in complete disregard of individual rights. Our form of government, however imperfect, was designed to protect individual liberty from mob rule. We have access to levers of government to demand accountability as a check on abuses of power. Wackmanblu has already covered a lot of how to do this but you speak like we live in a totalitarian state when we don’t. So when you say there’s “very little” that prevents government from arbitrarily raising taxes I’m sorry but that’s just ignorant. There are a confluence of democratic forces that prevent a tax hike that starts with WE THE PUBLIC DON’T WANT TO BE FUCKING TAXED MORE. It’s why the highest income tax rates have dropped from a peak of 92% in 1953 (which sounds a lot closer to your “worst case scenario” of “enormous protection fees”) to the 35% it is right now. Politicians know that tax hikes are anathema to getting and staying elected and raising them comes at great political cost and is not a decision made lightly. There’s also got to be consensus passed among a majority of our elected reps in two houses of congress where it’s debated there and the public sphere before it can even be signed into law by the prez so to say that “very little” stops them from raising taxes is just ignorant to how our democratic system of government works. Laws were made hard to pass for a reason and that’s to protect against mob rule.

Quote
Why do you not call the people using their public militias to wreack havoc warlords? Instead they are Generals? Why not call the head of the D.E.A. such, or the other paramilitary government police agencies? The D.E.A. is essentially a band of gun waving armed robbers and kidnappers who target drug dealers.

Because a militia is not a military just like a warlord is not a general. There’s a difference between private and public remember? But with no legal framework backed by the force of government the CEO of a private security agency might as well be a warlord because there are no commercial laws to govern him. The DEA is not a band of gun waving robbers. They are an agency of government that is controlled by we the people. It continues to exist because the majority condones and sees value in its existence even if you or I do not ... and their ability to coerce is still regulated by our laws. A band of home invading robbers and kidnappers are not controlled by anyone but are instead laws onto themselves.

Quote
You have been totally conditioned to the point that you see the governments behavior through a distortion, but when you remove the title government you see any organized defense as necessarily being what the government already is and without the distortion!

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what our government is and how it works. If we lived in a totalitarian state governed essentially by mob rule I could see your point, that a law enforcement agency that kicks in your door and takes your drugs and throws you in jail are nothing more than paramilitary thugs and thieves.  But we don’t. We live in a representative democracy of a constitutional republic and are therefore responsible for governing ourselves. Government behavior (guided by the laws on the books) is a reflection of our values as a society. They might be a distortion because as our societal attitudes evolve it takes a while for the laws to catch up. It’s in this respect that I believe the DEA an antiquated agency and it’s just a matter of time before the majority recognizes its uselessness since we come armed with the facts and empirical evidence on our side.
But for you to advocate that when that day does come that DEA should just be lined up and shot is just insane. You sound like a wild eyed Marxist guerilla during the time of Pol Pot who went on to massacre 2.5 million bourgeois because they just HAD to know they were exploiting the landless proletariat through wage slavery and if they didn’t, well they needed to be made an example of anyway so future generations would know that ignorance was no excuse. So explain to me the difference between you and Pol Pot again?
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on November 08, 2012, 02:45 am
Quote
Actually that's not true. You have a choice right now as to who defends you. If you find the agencies of the US government too overbearing you have the option of immigrating to the country with the protection agencies, freedoms,  foreign policies, and tax policies you find most appealing. There are 195 others to choose from. If you don't find any of them uniquely suited for you guess what? That's the free market. There aren't an infinite set of items to choose from in the free market and never were.

First of all, it is not so simple to just pack up and move to a new country. I would love to be in the Czech Republic as they have much laxer laws than the USA does, but that would entail me learning to speak their language and lots of other things. It is not trivial to change your citizenship. In a free libertarian society you do not need to pick any protection agency! Your comparison of this situation to a free market is incorrect, if it were a free market I would opt out of funding the DEA immediately. I would opt out of funding any agency that enforces drug laws! No nations protection agencies have a package that I would spend money on. I am forced to select one thus I am not in a free market where I could select none. And within the nations there is not a free market or even the option to select from various agencies, there is a single monopoly protected by the federal government, and all of us are forced to fund these agencies and receive even "protections" that we do not desire. Your claim that this is equivalent to a free market shows that you haven't the slightest clue what a free market actually is.

Quote
You’re not going to get any argument from me nor probably anyone else in these forums about the futility of the war on drugs. But I recognize that there are trade offs in a representative democracy since not everyone is going to agree with me hence my tax dollars aren’t always going to be spent on things I agree with.

Indeed, and wouldn't you rather spend your money only on the things that you agree with? Why would you desire to be forced into funding things that you disagree with? Are you incapable of making choices on your own? The trade off is your freedom for slavery to the collective! When your money is forcibly taken from you and spent on things you disagree with, even on your own oppression, you are not a free person anymore.

Quote
You don’t seem to recognize that in your “free world” you’re going to inevitably run into the same issues. There would still exist a state, be it on a much smaller scale like your neighborhood. There would still be public goods in your neighborhood-state, like common defense, where you’ll disagree with your neighbor on how much needs to be spent and what it should be spent on. If he doesn’t agree with your budget idea and “opts out” on principle of voluntaryism what are you going to do? Force him to pay for something he doesn’t want, but will get as a residual benefit anyway because the rest of you will? But then you’d be doing precisely what you decry the government is doing.

My neighbor can spend what he wants to spend and I will spend what I want to spend. I don't care about neighborhood defense, I care about defense of my own life and property. If other neighbors would like to pool resources so that we can afford more comprehensive neighborhood security, than those who pool money will obtain the services paid for. I will not force my neighbor to pay for defense and I will not pay for his.

Quote
Within the system, I have no reason not to believe that once a critical mass of the populace comes to recognize the futility of the WoD that the laws will change ... as they did for prohibition. And again, saying your belief you’re being forced to pay for it in contravention of a free market is just not true. You can move to a country that doesn’t spend tax dollars on wars in the Middle East or has decriminalized drug use. That’s the free market.

Indeed and Jews could have moved from Nazi Germany prior to the holocaust so their extermination is to be blamed only on them. They were free! You understanding of what a free market is is extremely incorrect. Guess what, a critical mass of the population didn't give two shits about drug use until the United States federal government pushed out a bunch of propaganda and conditioned them into accepting that the war on drugs was a good thing and drugs were bad. Look at things like reefer madness ,  do you think the people who made that propaganda thought that it was honest truth? No, people who make propaganda at the highest levels understand that it is false and lies. The government lied to the people to justify imprisoning and enslaving millions of its own citizens for the profit of private interests. They have literally sold us into prison industrial slavery, and no our neighbors did not decide to do this on their own, they were conditioned into it by a group of powerful elites who would profit from our slavery. Democracy is a flawed system, the masses are too easily manipulated for it to be meaningful in the slightest. We will what end the war on drugs when people wake up from decades or centuries of propaganda and lies? And this is your victory of democracy?! So then they can move on to the next behavior that will be demonized and prosecuted, and the new masses will be conditioned by the new generation of propaganda and lies?! Slaves are too valuable for them to simply free us all. Government and democracy ensures an endless cycle of slavery with only details of the slaves backgrounds changing.

Quote
No one’s disputing the merits of the efficiencies of the private sector in many areas of industry. What makes you look naive is your anarcho-libertarian infatuation that private enterprise is somehow superior and preferable in ALL instances. Private enterprise on its own has never proven effective in providing for public goods. I’m also surprised to see your use of private vs public education as proof of private sector superiority when that canard was debunked six years ago in a landmark study that found no appreciable differences. While raw scores from private schools were higher they proved a mirage after factoring in socio-economic factors like race, gender, and the wealth and education of the parents.

You will need to clarify for me what exactly public good are in your opinion. In my vision all goods are private, so there is no need to provide public goods and thus your dubious claim that private industry can not provide them is entirely irrelevant. I have attended private and public schools in a similar socioeconomic setting, I can say that in my opinion private education is superior. According to this time article they still found that children who attended Catholic private schools performed better, even when those variables were controlled for: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1670063,00.html

additionally that study looks dubious and political at first glance, although I have not read it.

Quote
So those that can’t afford private schooling must be subject to religious indoctrination at a religious school subsidized by religious charities for the sole purpose of indoctrinating kids into their religion who can’t afford an education otherwise? What a fucked up idea.

So those that can't afford private schooling must be subject to statist indoctrination at a public school entirely funded by gun toting IRS agents extorting money from people, for the sole purpose of indoctrinating kids who can't afford an education otherwise into statism and exposing them early to government propaganda (D.A.R.E immediately comes to mind!) ? That sounds like an awful idea!

Quote
Well I guess it’s a great idea unless you or your kid had to go to one. Or until religious institutions empowered by  swelling ranks from the impoverished masses decide to overtake your neighborhood-state and force you to go to one.

Religious people already force me to fund the neighborhood public school, so once again in your nightmare 'free market' society nothing has changed except the name Government and the people in charge.

Quote
And this is where I get to say, with good justification, that you are “blinded by your idealistic image”.  Just hoping won’t make these alternatives appear out of thin air when there’s far more incentive for them not to.  Just look at history to see how that shit doesn’t work.

Look where you are typing this!! You are telling me this on a privately owned forum that is dedicated to drug traffickers who participate in the privately owned for profit drug trading market named silk road! This is illegal in every nation state on earth and yet we are still here. Look no further than here to see that even when there are overwhelmingly powerful oppressors, the free market will stand and private providers of security and defense will successfully stand up to them! We have our private security agency right here, and indeed we are successfully protected by it from the unjust laws of society. And now I say that we must also have private law, and the law must be that those who have oppressed us will be brought to justice for their crimes against us.

Quote
No reason for private security agencies to compete for your business when they can just collude with the others on where to divide up their territorial monopolies, and then FORCE you to use their business. If they can’t agree they’ll go to war over who gets to enslave you. But to think they’re going to get into a nice and orderly “free market” price war to compete for the chance to sell you their protection services? Pfffft ... dude.

And you describe the situation as it is today. Your biggest criticism of libertarian anarchy is that you are afraid it will become what you have today! And yet you cling to what we have today like a frightened child afraid to leave the perceived safety of his mothers embrace.

Quote
That only happens now because there’s a government backed legal framework that deters them from forcing their services on you.

There is only a government backed legal framework preventing other criminals from forcing their services onto us because the government is a criminal organization forcing their services onto us and they do not want any competition to their monopoly!

Quote
Worst case? Hardly. I find your idealistic blind faith here so over the top for a minute there I thought you were clowning me. In several thousand years of recorded history there has never once been an even temporarily successful libertarian anarchy.  Yet here you are not only saying it’s possible in spite of a total lack of evidence,  but that only in the “worst case scenario” or IOW, the libertarian anarchic dystopian nightmare, things would look no different than what we have now. Seriously dude? I kind of hope you were high when you said.

In the nightmare scenario that you proposed there is no difference to the scenario of today. Your view of the downfall of anarchy is that it decomposes into the government of today, and you see the government of today as good yet what anarchy will in your opinion turn into as bad. You suffer from cognitive dissonance.

Quote
What we have now is not mob rule and to suggest that it is is just ludicrous. The essence of mob rule is arbitrary and unchecked force in complete disregard of individual rights. Our form of government, however imperfect, was designed to protect individual liberty from mob rule.

Non-constitutional democracy is synonymous with mob rule and the constitution of the United States and any government will be interpreted away by the government. We do live in a totalitarian state. I am forced to fund government programs. I am forced to fund the government program that has the purpose of locating and arresting me for having caused harm to nobody. This is oppression! I will be sent to a prison, possibly exploited for labor but certainly will fund the paycheck of prison guards and similar slave holders, thus this is SLAVERY. I am EXTORTED to pay for my own OPPRESSION and I am ENSLAVED by my government and thus my government is a totalitarian state. Ostensibly my government is controlled by the mob, and indeed democracy is mob rule, however there are groups of elites who have mastered the art of manipulating the masses. They can influence the mob to such a high degree that the mob is only a proxy for their own control of the state, it masks the true power holders and tames the people who actually believe they have power over their own lives. These elites are the ones who gain the most from our slavery, they are the reason we are enslaved.

Quote
So when you say there’s “very little” that prevents government from arbitrarily raising taxes I’m sorry but that’s just ignorant. There are a confluence of democratic forces that prevent a tax hike that starts with WE THE PUBLIC DON’T WANT TO BE FUCKING TAXED MORE. It’s why the highest income tax rates have dropped from a peak of 92% in 1953 (which sounds a lot closer to your “worst case scenario” of “enormous protection fees”) to the 35% it is right now.

35% a financial slave is still a slave. There are degrees of slavery but freedom is only total.


Quote
Because a militia is not a military just like a warlord is not a general. There’s a difference between private and public remember?

The only difference you seem to believe exists between private and public is that public things cannot be bad and private things often are.

Quote
But with no legal framework backed by the force of government the CEO of a private security agency might as well be a warlord because there are no commercial laws to govern him.

There are other security agencies to govern him. If he violates the rights of other people who are offered security services through other private services, he will find himself dead.

Quote
The DEA is not a band of gun waving robbers. They are an agency of government that is controlled by we the people. It continues to exist because the majority condones and sees value in its existence even if you or I do not ... and their ability to coerce is still regulated by our laws. A band of home invading robbers and kidnappers are not controlled by anyone but are instead laws onto themselves.

The DEA is indeed a band of gun waving robbers, kidnappers, murderers and slave traders. They are protected by a criminal government that is controlled by a group of elite slave traders. It exists in the first place because this elite group of slave traders created propaganda and lies for the purposes of convinced the masses to allow for the slavery of certain minority groups. It continues to exist today because total indoctrination takes huge amounts of time to overcome. The DEA is part of the government and in practice the government is a law unto itself, only in your imagination does your idealistic statist utopia actually exist.

Quote
You have been totally conditioned to the point that you see the governments behavior through a distortion, but when you remove the title government you see any organized defense as necessarily being what the government already is and without the distortion!

Quote
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what our government is and how it works

What a coincidence I think the same exact thing about you!

Quote
If we lived in a totalitarian state governed essentially by mob rule I could see your point

We live in a totalitarian state ostensibly governed by mod rule but actually governed by small elite groups who have mastered the art of controlling large mobs.

Quote
that a law enforcement agency that kicks in your door and takes your drugs and throws you in jail are nothing more than paramilitary thugs and thieves.

No intellectually honest person can differentiate in any meaningful way between two different people who kick in a door and take drugs and prisoners. If you can differentiate between two such people, something is very wrong with your thought process.

Quote
But we don’t. We live in a representative democracy of a constitutional republic and are therefore responsible for governing ourselves. Government behavior (guided by the laws on the books) is a reflection of our values as a society.

Our values as a society are a reflection of government and religious propaganda.

Quote
They might be a distortion because as our societal attitudes evolve it takes a while for the laws to catch up. It’s in this respect that I believe the DEA an antiquated agency and it’s just a matter of time before the majority recognizes its uselessness since we come armed with the facts and empirical evidence on our side.
But for you to advocate that when that day does come that DEA should just be lined up and shot is just insane. You sound like a wild eyed Marxist guerilla during the time of Pol Pot who went on to massacre 2.5 million bourgeois because they just HAD to know they were exploiting the landless proletariat through wage slavery and if they didn’t, well they needed to be made an example of anyway so future generations would know that ignorance was no excuse. So explain to me the difference between you and Pol Pot again?

The DEA agents should be treated as any other robbers and kidnappers would be. To think differently is to say that crimes committed in the name of a state are excusable. So explain to me how you are different from a Nazi war criminal?
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: ZenAndTheArt on November 08, 2012, 11:35 pm
Kmfkewm I can see from your very first posts on this forum that you just love to argue with people, and promote your libertarian anarchy and your distorted view of the world.

But, at the end of the day it's all hot air.

Your libertarian anarchy will never come to fruition, because as you must have gathered, your vastly out numbered by the more rational people of this world (the one's you argue with on this forum for example).

 :)
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on November 09, 2012, 10:38 am
That would mean something to me if you didn't say it on a forum that is dedicated to drug trafficking. The ostensible majority do not wish for silk road to exist,  and it is illegal in every nation on earth, and yet you say to me over this channel that libertarian anarchy will not come to be because it is against the wishes of the majority. The free market provides this service to drug users despite the best efforts of the federal law enforcement agencies of the world. It seems to me like the people full of hot air are the statists, because they are powerless to stop the free market. Never forget that a thousand who are known can be overcome by one who is not. SR and the online drug scene are enough to show that the many who wish to oppress the few will not always succeed in doing so. Of course this implies that the many actually rationally wish to oppress the (many subsections of...) few and have not just brainwashed.  Personally, I think  that they (the masses) are just brainwashed though. It's just that I find it hard to imagine that so many people could be so evil, but so easy to imagine that most people are just easily frightened and stupid. I don't really blame the majority for the war on drugs, honestly I would forgive them, but I will never forgive the architects of the war on drugs, those who enforced the drug laws, or those who gained the most from our oppression, and indeed I hope that they are made to suffer for the needless suffering they have caused to so many, at least when they suffer some justice will have been done. 
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: maczekasia on November 10, 2012, 02:32 am
It is funny how every post of kmfkewm(and apparently some other people posting here too) can be summarized as "I want to do drugs so bad I'd kill anyone trying to stop me". Pretty good advertisement of all us doing drugs who aren't psychopaths.

Anyway what are you internet anarchists still doing here? I saw today real anarchists - punks - who fuck the system, live their lives, are homeless, squatting in some abandoned places drinking booze and not giving a fuck. And none of them had laptop, smartphone or anything that looked like technology that would be able to connect to the internet(invented by the government for the government btw), so I bet you weren't one of them. How come? Where is the revolution? Even Lenin said "scientists are doing research on 4th dimension and it's fine, but tzar can be abolished only in 3 dimensions" - so why are you arguing on the internet? Arguing nonetheless with the people who would actually support some of your ideas, but instead of making them your allies you make them your enemies. What's the point?

The imbeciles, there are plenty of them. People of many words and few actions. Suffering for millions while sitting in comfy chairs drinking warm milk and surfing the internet.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: ChineseGeneral on November 10, 2012, 05:45 am
Turn them over to the ChineseGeneral!
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: UltimateSolution on November 10, 2012, 02:26 pm
Why not focus on compensating the victims rather than punishing people just doing their jobs?
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: PoohBear on November 10, 2012, 03:02 pm
I seriously believe OP is just a puppet trying to instigate shit. No one could be so immature, and naive. 
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: sinnfein1488 on November 10, 2012, 03:10 pm
How about a work-release type program with forced labor at a MMJ farm in colorado or washington? You know let 'em make hash and bag up orders until they have repaid their debt. Why not?
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: The ILF on November 10, 2012, 09:29 pm
one member of the ILF here, these views do not necessarily reflect those of all the ILF ... but ...

this thread is fascinating.  it's bringing up much more than actually is being stated, most importantly, it seems to me, the topic of whether or not killing falls under moral absolutism.  if it is absolutely wrong, then it is wrong all the time, even when the person you are killing is a murderer/kidnapper/thief.  but if we agree it is not wrong, then we can get into when it should or should not be done.  it's also bringing up the morality of prisons.  in the libertarian society that OP speaks of, prisons are still being used.  i personally disagree with using prisons at all; i may actually be more of an absolutist on prison than i am on killing!  it's bringing up the idea of what we *need* in a society.  for example, what's the use of roads if you're always around the people you want to be around?  the libertarians seem to be saying that roads may not be useful for everybody, so why should they have to pay for them?  absolutely.  on the topic of what kind of society we want, i was especially appalled by someone's comment a few pages back about North America being populated by "savages," saying that if technological "progress" is to happen, it demands large groups of people.  but a more important thing than people's not having Best Buys is their apparent lack of use for them.

it seems to me that if we are fighting for freedom, if we as libertarians or anarchists or drug-users or whatever believe in freedom above all, then we cannot take away someone else's.  so, i guess, no murder, no prison.  the truest "punishment" for people who act terribly is ostracization, not by force, but by the committed focus of all the rest of the tribe who is also convinced of their terribleness.  it's not excusing it.  it's just not matching it.       



 
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: wackmanblu on November 10, 2012, 10:21 pm
I've been away for awhile but it's fun to come back to this thread. Just reading the last few pages, it's apparent that there isn't really a discussion here anymore, it's just devolved into personal attacks from Stoned Emo and radical rhetoric from kmfkewm.

I'd love to discuss how an Agorist or Libertarian system would work in real life.
Specifically how these new constructs would work cause I just don't see nations without police or military or something resembling government. I mean maybe if we all lived in small tribes AND we all had the same thoughts and objectives in each tribe AND we all agreed to leave other tribes alone to their own constructs. I guess then maybe something like it could work .... but what happens when one tribe runs out of food or water or something and their neighboring tribe won't give it (or sell it) to them? If history shows us anything, the answer is that the 2 tribes will go to war. What then? Whoever has the best army wins I suppose. Better hope your tribe believed in funding a military.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kooper271 on November 11, 2012, 02:06 am
I think this entire thread is irrational. You are bringing yourself down to the level of terrorists and narrow minded thinkers.

We all have a right to believe what we think is right and wrong, correct?
The people in the DEA, along with the majority of people in the world, believe drugs are wrong and harmful. Should we punish them for doing what they think is right? I don't think so. Whether or not drugs are right or wrong, I haven't entirely made my mind up.

You would kill them for doing what you think is wrong. They think drugs are wrong, so if they had your mindset, they could/should kill you.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: wackmanblu on November 11, 2012, 03:26 am
Im making a new topic for the stuffed retard wackmanblu, who was personally attacked in anus, has lost his wife playing toys online and is about to lose his children getting overdosed with marijuana. Keep it going, dad.

Stoned Emo - harsh man!
You've made a lot of horrible assumptions about my anus, my family and my parenting. Jezzus, did I date you at some point? Honestly though you're hatred seems really misplaced as I've never met you and we simply disagree on politics. 
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on November 11, 2012, 04:47 am
It is funny how every post of kmfkewm(and apparently some other people posting here too) can be summarized as "I want to do drugs so bad I'd kill anyone trying to stop me". Pretty good advertisement of all us doing drugs who aren't psychopaths.

"I want to be free so badly that anyone who wishes to enslave me should be killed" is a more accurate way of summarizing my beliefs. Your beliefs on the other hand are best summarized with the following quote: "I have been told that government is good for so long, and I am so afraid of living my own life, that I will let them enslave me rather than be free or make choices".

Quote
Anyway what are you internet anarchists still doing here? I saw today real anarchists - punks - who fuck the system, live their lives, are homeless, squatting in some abandoned places drinking booze and not giving a fuck. And none of them had laptop, smartphone or anything that looked like technology that would be able to connect to the internet(invented by the government for the government btw), so I bet you weren't one of them. How come?

Most anarchists I know are fairly well to do and fixated on cryptography and anonymity, both of which generally involve computers and the internet. So unsurprisingly you understanding of what makes an anarchist is incorrect. Also I bet that the homeless drunk squatting anarchists are not accomplishing nearly as much in regards to fucking the system as the internet anarchists are. I mean, when you look at just Wikileaks and Silk Road there are two internet based anarchist endeavors that have likely done far more for the cause of anarchy than your drunken homeless anarchist examples have. I also have a strong suspicion that your example anarchists are 'socialist anarchists' and not 'libertarian anarchists'.

Quote
Where is the revolution? Even Lenin said "scientists are doing research on 4th dimension and it's fine, but tzar can be abolished only in 3 dimensions" - so why are you arguing on the internet? Arguing nonetheless with the people who would actually support some of your ideas, but instead of making them your allies you make them your enemies. What's the point?

Well Wikileaks and Silkroad are both two examples of cryptoanarchy , they seem to have the state pretty upset (ie: leaking their classified documents, selling drugs while flipping off the DEA) and also the state seems pretty powerless to stop them. Oh yeah also Bitcoin in itself is a cryptoanarchist venture and the state probably doesn't appreciate that very much. So we are out there getting shit done , have no doubt about that.

Quote
The imbeciles, there are plenty of them. People of many words and few actions. Suffering for millions while sitting in comfy chairs drinking warm milk and surfing the internet.

I have done more than my fair share for the cause, undoubtedly more than you have.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on November 11, 2012, 05:01 am
I think this entire thread is irrational. You are bringing yourself down to the level of terrorists and narrow minded thinkers.

We all have a right to believe what we think is right and wrong, correct?
The people in the DEA, along with the majority of people in the world, believe drugs are wrong and harmful. Should we punish them for doing what they think is right? I don't think so. Whether or not drugs are right or wrong, I haven't entirely made my mind up.

You would kill them for doing what you think is wrong. They think drugs are wrong, so if they had your mindset, they could/should kill you.

People should be free to think whatever they want, but the DEA does not just think drugs are wrong, they lock up and attack drug users. It is not thinking something that is wrong, it is the actions that those thoughts may lead you to do that can be wrong. Let them think that drugs are wrong, as soon as they do something to harm a drug user they should be punished. Many pedophiles think that having sex with young children is not wrong, and I do not think that they should be punished for their thoughts, however when they molest children we lock them up. They are not locked up for their thoughts (well, in some cases) but rather for their actions.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on November 11, 2012, 05:04 am
Why not focus on compensating the victims rather than punishing people just doing their jobs?

Should humanity have focused on compensating the living Jews rather than punishing the Nazi war criminals who were just doing their jobs? A job is not an excuse for any crime! How brainwashed you must be to think any other way! If I give a person the job of killing DEA agents, will you support him as much as you support the DEA agents? They are both only doing their jobs. Clearly just doing a job is not the real excuse you have for them, I ask you to give some thought to the real reason you have for excusing the crimes of this terrorist organization.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: Purple_Hue000 on November 11, 2012, 05:08 am
FUCK THE DEA (Dick Eating Assholes) and the FBI ( fucking bunch of Idiots!) Fuck them all!!!!!!!
I'm ready to go down for what I believe in!!!!! Fuck our government! Suck my dick, kiss my ass!!!!!!!!!!!! Fuck you Alphabet boys!!!
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: UltimateSolution on November 11, 2012, 11:06 am
Why not focus on compensating the victims rather than punishing people just doing their jobs?

Should humanity have focused on compensating the living Jews rather than punishing the Nazi war criminals who were just doing their jobs? A job is not an excuse for any crime! How brainwashed you must be to think any other way! If I give a person the job of killing DEA agents, will you support him as much as you support the DEA agents? They are both only doing their jobs. Clearly just doing a job is not the real excuse you have for them, I ask you to give some thought to the real reason you have for excusing the crimes of this terrorist organization.
They genuinely believe that what they are doing is right. Nobody should be punished, ever. It's counterproductive. If we all keep trying to punish each other the cycle will never stop. Seriously, you remind me of the US government: "We are going to travel half way across the world to another country and invade them, it's for their own good, it's for their own freedom" If everyone involved in war just refused to fight, there would never be another war, ever. It's simpler than you think.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: Caitu on November 11, 2012, 01:31 pm
Why not focus on compensating the victims rather than punishing people just doing their jobs?

Should humanity have focused on compensating the living Jews rather than punishing the Nazi war criminals who were just doing their jobs? A job is not an excuse for any crime! How brainwashed you must be to think any other way! If I give a person the job of killing DEA agents, will you support him as much as you support the DEA agents? They are both only doing their jobs. Clearly just doing a job is not the real excuse you have for them, I ask you to give some thought to the real reason you have for excusing the crimes of this terrorist organization.

The problem is that since drug selling/using/importing IS a crime they are "justified" in using force to stop us. The problem in my opinion is with the laws on drugs nor the police who are enforcing them.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kooper271 on November 12, 2012, 03:47 am

The problem is that since drug selling/using/importing IS a crime they are "justified" in using force to stop us. The problem in my opinion is with the laws on drugs nor the police who are enforcing them.

Precisely. We (the people) have the power to change any law in the US we want. It is the majority of the US population that believes drugs are wrong. We make the laws, and we expect people to enforce them. The DEA is working for the people, do enforce their laws. You want to change the laws? Get 50.000000000001% of the US to agree with you, and no one can stop you.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on November 12, 2012, 10:27 am
I hope you guys realize that it was legal for the Nazis to exterminate the Jews and that complacent people like you are the reason that atrocities take place. Complacent people like you are responsible for the death and suffering of hundreds of millions of people through out history, and it is kind of funny in a sad way that you see yourselves as the civil and rational ones. The majority of people do not determine what is right or wrong, right and wrong exist independently of any society. Someday justice will come to those who oppress , I only hope that we both live long enough to see your precious system of slavery and oppression crumble before your eyes. You have nothing to lose but your chains and yet you find some sort of comfort in your prison.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on November 12, 2012, 10:35 am

The problem is that since drug selling/using/importing IS a crime they are "justified" in using force to stop us. The problem in my opinion is with the laws on drugs nor the police who are enforcing them.

Precisely. We (the people) have the power to change any law in the US we want. It is the majority of the US population that believes drugs are wrong. We make the laws, and we expect people to enforce them. The DEA is working for the people, do enforce their laws. You want to change the laws? Get 50.000000000001% of the US to agree with you, and no one can stop you.

Hey kooper, when did 50+% of the country decide to make drugs illegal? You need to seriously look past your statist indoctrination and to the FACTS. The US government started making propaganda demonizing drug use PRIOR to any majority of citizens wanting to make drugs illegal. Only after being BOMBARDED with LIES and PROPAGANDA through the mainstream media, from politicians, etc, did people become AFRAID of drugs and drug users. That is the fucking honest truth! An elite group of RULERS created the drug war, it had NOTHING TO DO with the average citizen except they were used as fucking scared puppets. So fuck off with your talk about democracy and how THE PEOPLE have power, because if THE PEOPLE had power then THE PEOPLE would have made drugs illegal not a select group of government and corporate ELITISTS. They didn't make any change to the constitution even ! SO FUCK THE NOTION that they can AT A WHIM brainwash EVERYONE and then we are free because after DECADES when their PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS start to wear off we can slowly start to undo the DAMAGE TO US THAT THEY HAVE CAUSED. That is not fucking freedom, that is not democracy that is motherfucking PSYOP controlled totalitarianism. SO please let me know when you HEAL YOUR BROKEN MIND from the CONDITIONING THAT HAS BEEN INGRAINED INTO IT and see the fucking TRUTH OF THE MATTER. The truth that WE THE PEOPLE had no fucking say in the war on drugs, we were given nothing but lies and propaganda from the VERY FUCKING BEGINNING.   
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: mode on November 12, 2012, 10:36 am
Nothing. We take no action against them - for revenge is best served by living well rather than being full of hatred and a desire for revenge.

This x infinity
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on November 12, 2012, 12:58 pm
Why not focus on compensating the victims rather than punishing people just doing their jobs?

Should humanity have focused on compensating the living Jews rather than punishing the Nazi war criminals who were just doing their jobs? A job is not an excuse for any crime! How brainwashed you must be to think any other way! If I give a person the job of killing DEA agents, will you support him as much as you support the DEA agents? They are both only doing their jobs. Clearly just doing a job is not the real excuse you have for them, I ask you to give some thought to the real reason you have for excusing the crimes of this terrorist organization.
They genuinely believe that what they are doing is right. Nobody should be punished, ever. It's counterproductive. If we all keep trying to punish each other the cycle will never stop. Seriously, you remind me of the US government: "We are going to travel half way across the world to another country and invade them, it's for their own good, it's for their own freedom" If everyone involved in war just refused to fight, there would never be another war, ever. It's simpler than you think.

When one side of a war doesn't fight they will be eternally victimized. That is the reality of the world, not your peace and love idealism.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on November 12, 2012, 01:00 pm
And just so you know the NAZIS THOUGHT THAT EXTERMINATING THE JEWS WAS RIGHT! Are you really so fucking dense that you cannot get that through your head? Doing what you think is right, even with the TOTAL SUPPORT OF YOUR COUNTRY is NOT A FUCKING EXCUSE! You are no better than a motherfucking Nazi apologist!
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: wackmanblu on November 13, 2012, 12:33 am
And just so you know the NAZIS THOUGHT THAT EXTERMINATING THE JEWS WAS RIGHT! Are you really so fucking dense that you cannot get that through your head? Doing what you think is right, even with the TOTAL SUPPORT OF YOUR COUNTRY is NOT A FUCKING EXCUSE! You are no better than a motherfucking Nazi apologist!

No, the Nazi's knew what they were doing was wrong. That's why they kept it secret from their own population. Killing people is fundamentally wrong, we all know that.
That's what makes Nazi's killing Jews absolutely incomparable to the DEA's war on drugs. I feel I have to add moderation to your radical views:

The Nazi's pretty much did whatever they wanted. There weren't any checks and balances to their tyranny, they ruled through fear and their decisions were absolute.
The DEA has to answer to a government overlord that is comprised of elected people. As societal values change, laws will change (a shout out to anyone living in Washington or Colorado - You guys go man!)

The Nazi's made laws to suit themselves
The DEA must adhere to laws not made by themselves

When Nazi's killed people it was systematic, organized, efficient and secret
When the DEA kills people (and I'm not denying that that has happened), it is open to investigation, an open court system and a free press. The fact that you even know about botched DEA raids where innocent people have died is testament to an open society

Finally, no one person or organization could rein in the Nazi's. It took all of the western world along with the Soviet Union and every fuckin tank, airplane and soldier they had to stop those guys
The DEA can be disbanded by an act of congress.

If there is only one thing I could pass onto you it's that extremism and radicalization will NEVER solve any societal problem. It will only transfer your anger, fear and hate to people you oppose, and they will respond in kind.
Please don't compare Nazi's to any functioning system of authority in your country today as it is simply out of context and (dare I say) shows that you live in a very insular, privileged world that is out of touch with the real meaning of evil and wrongdoing.

Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: bincofone on November 13, 2012, 11:37 am
Lol at obsessing with Nazis. They really weren't that bad. Yes they locked up Jews in camps, but they didn't mass exterminate them (the only "death" camps were those liberated by Soviets, and the physical evidence of extermination taking place is non existant. Nothing of what was said at the Nuremburg trials regarding the use of Zyklon B to gas Jews was accurate - the testimonies and physical evidence tell two completely different stories. Not to mention that Zyklon B would've been really shit at mass extermination, and the Germans had access to far better chemicals for that purpose.) Go learn some history about the holocaust independently. Fascinating subject. But again, it's funny how people obsess over the Nazi's but neglect to mention the Jewish Bolsheviks that ran the Soviet Union killed over ten million. Funny how that works  8)

Back on topic, we should be seeking restitution from those who have perpetrated the drug war, not punishment. The drug war has cost society and individuals dearly, we should work on repairing that damage instead of spilling blood/paying shitloads of money to keep this scum in a cage.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: breastimus2 on November 13, 2012, 11:56 am
Some people think that we will win the war on drugs when drugs are legalized. But this does not sit well with me. Why is it a win when we are free to do what we should have never been restricted from doing in the first place? In the meantime, there will be people who made fortunes off of our oppression continuing to live happily. We will have people on our side who have spent decades of their lives in prisons for bullshit, they will have a government pension after retiring from fucking us over. Clearly it seems that even if drugs are legalized, we will not be winners, we will be more free but we will have lost enormous amounts while they will have gained enormous amounts by enslaving us. I believe that it stands to reason that if we accept that there could be a world where drugs are legalized, that we must then ask ourselves what to do to the people who oppressed us when drugs were illegal? If I take an innocent person off the street and throw them into a basement for a year, I am a pretty bad criminal right? Well if drugs are legalized, then if I take a drug user and put them in a basement for a year I am a pretty bad criminal for doing this right? Well what about the people who behave in this way while drugs are wrongfully illegal? Some justice must be brought to them, and I wonder how we can best go about this in a libertarian society.

Didn't read the whole thread.  So what like throw DEA agents into prison camps? Like detainees of war? Am I understanding this correctly? I think SR's role in the war on drugs is a little more abstract. Perhaps I'm wrong. I mean, it's not like any one of us are going to go down the DEA central office (whatever it is) and lock them up for fighting in the war on drugs. Maybe I'm confused on what this is about...
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on November 14, 2012, 05:02 am
Quote
No, the Nazi's knew what they were doing was wrong. That's why they kept it secret from their own population. Killing people is fundamentally wrong, we all know that.

So it was fundamentally wrong for the USA to kill Nazis in order to free the Jews from concentration camps? See, the fact that your logic boils down to "It was wrong to go to war with the Nazis" is what makes me equate you with a Nazi apologist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_Holocaust

Quote
Debate also continues on how much average Germans knew about the Holocaust. Recent historical work suggests that the majority of Germans knew that Jews were being indiscriminately killed and persecuted but they did not know about the Final Solution and the specifics of the death camps. Robert Gellately, a historian at Oxford University, conducted a widely respected survey of the German media before and during the war, concluding that there was "substantial consent and active participation of large numbers of ordinary Germans" in aspects of the Holocaust, and documenting that the sight of columns of slave laborers were common, and that the basics of the concentration camps, if not the extermination camps, were widely known.[8] The German scholar, Peter Longerich, in a study looking at what Germans knew about the mass murders concluded that: "General information concerning the mass murder of Jews was widespread in the German population."[9]

Second of all, it is a lie to claim that the German population was not aware of the Holocaust and indeed it is a disgraceful thing to claim. It shows your ignorance quite nicely though. Do you think that the German population was not aware of Kristallnacht? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht

Do you think that the average Germans did not realize that Jewish people were disappearing? What do you think they thought happened to them?! Cities near extermination camps were filled with the stench of burning and decaying human flesh for fucks sake, it was obvious the people going to work camps were being exterminated.

Third of all the Nazis DID NOT think that what they were doing was wrong. Why the fuck would they even do it if they thought it was wrong? People do not freely carry out actions that they believe to be wrong. The Nazis did not even consider the Jewish population to be humans, they literally thought that Jews had evolved from cockroaches! They thought that the Jews were evil and polluting their race and culture and that the extermination of the Jews was not only righteous but was required for the continued existence of the Aryans. They most certainly , beyond any doubt at all, thought that they were doing the morally correct thing by exterminating the Jews. A large percentage of the German population supported Hitler, he got 30.1% of the democratic vote, in the second period of voting he obtained 36.8 percent of the vote losing to Hindenburg and his 49.6 percent of the vote. http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0403a.asp
Hitler was legally made a dictator under German law. He was appointed chancellor by the democratically elected leader of Germany, he had the support of well over a quarter of the population of Germany.   

Furthermore, The German citizens were aware of abuses against the Jews, they were aware that the Jews were being taken to work camps, and they could smell the burning and decaying human flesh from the work camps! You are just entirely and totally wrong and you show the above quote from you shows your total ignorance.

Quote
That's what makes Nazi's killing Jews absolutely incomparable to the DEA's war on drugs. I feel I have to add moderation to your radical views:
The Nazi's pretty much did whatever they wanted. There weren't any checks and balances to their tyranny, they ruled through fear and their decisions were absolute.

The Nazis came to power through democratic and legal means, although Hitler came in second place with only 30.1% of the population voting for him he was made chancellor by the democratically elected leader of Germany and had significant support from German society.

The current government rules through fear as well. Have you never heard of refeer madness? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reefer_Madness . This is merely one example of propaganda, and today the propaganda STILL EXISTS it has only morphed with the times as the old propaganda is now entirely obvious to the current generation of people. Now we get lies like "Even though refeer madness was bullshit (implied, never said), the marijuana of today is over twice as potent as the marijuana of old times, so now it is really actually totally bad!!!" (this study of course compared marijuana that had been confiscated and put into storage DECADES ago with freshly produced marijuana, and it also ignores any possibility that consumption habits have changed as well!). What about their blatantly made up propaganda showing brainwaves of a user under the influence of marijuana going flat, oh yeah that was proven to be completely made up and the monitor was not even real! What about their studies of MDMA on the brain when they 'accidentally' used meth at large doses instead of MDMA? The list goes on and on and on! Do you think that refeer madness was intended as a joke?! No, this was the information that was made available to the people! It was presented as truth! How is it not ruling by fear, to use your power to lie to the people and convince them that marijuana leads to insanity and the rape of white females? Do you think that any of their other misinformation campaigns actually intend to deliver the truth to the people, so that the people can make informed decisions?! No, they lie to and manipulate the people and their foolish and naive inherent trust of government. There is no democracy without an informed population, and there is not an informed population when the ELITIST RULERS first BRAINWASH the population with LIES AND PROPAGANDA that STRONGLY INFLUENCE the population towards doing things that support the ELITIST AGENDA. This is RULING WITH FEAR just as much as having Nazi storm troopers walking around beating opponents is ruling through fear! The details of the implementation are the only things which have changed!

Quote
The DEA has to answer to a government overlord that is comprised of elected people. As societal values change, laws will change (a shout out to anyone living in Washington or Colorado - You guys go man!)

Go to the base of the problem. You are stuck at "The government is comprised of elected people". You cannot go lower, to the fact that the elected people are put into power by BRAINWASHED PEOPLE. These people have been BRAINWASHED BY THE GOVERNMENT. You are stuck looking at a facade as if it is real, I encourage you to look deeper and see the truth. Societal values are extraordinarily largely influenced by government and religious propaganda! There is no separation of these things, it is entirely dishonest for you to claim that the governments actions reflect the will of the people, the will of the people reflects the propaganda and demonstrable lies of the government! Laws and propaganda came PRIOR to drugs being made illegal, look at fucking history for proof that what I am saying is correct.

Quote
The Nazi's made laws to suit themselves
The DEA must adhere to laws not made by themselves

For starters, the DEA has the ability to arbitrarily make substances illegal, and indeed they regularly use this power. Second of all, there are never votes on making drugs illegal.

Quote
When Nazi's killed people it was systematic, organized, efficient and secret
When the DEA kills people (and I'm not denying that that has happened), it is open to investigation, an open court system and a free press. The fact that you even know about botched DEA raids where innocent people have died is testament to an open society

The DEA systematically imprisons people, systematically robs people and occasionally murders people. Investigation against law enforcement is a fucking joke, are you trying to be funny? Also, the holocaust was openly known about to the German population, as I showed before, so this point is nullified.

Quote
Finally, no one person or organization could rein in the Nazi's. It took all of the western world along with the Soviet Union and every fuckin tank, airplane and soldier they had to stop those guys
The DEA can be disbanded by an act of congress.

The DEA and congress are good friends, the people are brainwashed by both into thinking that they need both. As I said before, the details of the implementation of totalitarianism have changed, not the facts.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on November 14, 2012, 05:06 am
Although I will indeed say that a more fair comparison of the DEA is to the East German Stasi than to the German Nazis. I do not believe I directly compared the DEA to Nazis, I merely compared the logic of some of the people in this thread with Nazi sympathizers, and used the Nazis as an example of how 'thinking you are doing the right thing' is not an excuse for crimes. You are taking what I say out of context by arguing with me as if I have said the Nazis and the DEA are equals, however I will forgive you of this as clearly they are both evil fascist organizations.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: bincofone on November 14, 2012, 05:44 am
If you're saying it was right to go to war with Germany, why not the Soviets? They massacred far more than even the heavily inflated figures for holocaust deaths. You are suffering from holocaust hysteria.

I suggest you read Mein Kampf to see what Hitler was about. I don't exactly agree with him but he had his reasons for disliking the Jews (mainly because of Bolsheviks fucking up Germany). Remember, history is always written by the victors. The losers of war will always be painted as horrific, the winners as glorious. You gotta dig deeper and get both sides of the story if you want to get an accurate picture.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: wackmanblu on November 15, 2012, 03:39 am
Quote
No, the Nazi's knew what they were doing was wrong. That's why they kept it secret from their own population. Killing people is fundamentally wrong, we all know that.

So it was fundamentally wrong for the USA to kill Nazis in order to free the Jews from concentration camps? See, the fact that your logic boils down to "It was wrong to go to war with the Nazis" is what makes me equate you with a Nazi apologist.

Dude, you're taking quite a lot of liberties with my logic and that is because you are seemingly incapable of understanding "moderation".
Because I stated that killing people is wrong - a statement I think most people would agree with - you warped my words into " because killing people is wrong ... It was wrong to go to war with the Nazi's", and then called me an Nazi apologist. That is fucked up.

If you took things like, oh say context and moderation into account, you would understand that there is quite a difference between the state committing genocide against an unarmed civilian population and nations sending their soldiers to war. Neither is "good" but I'm gonna have to say that the first example is really really wrong. If you don't understand why and can't differentiate the context between the two, then you may as well be some machine that is incapable of critical thinking. If you take any statement to it's logical extreme it will not make sense.
You do a that a lot. Just sayin'. 

You claim the German people knew about the genocide as it happened - we'll just have to agree to disagree on this as I know otherwise but it's useless trying debate it when you've got the backing of some all-knowing wikipedia link  ::)  (The Night of Broken Glass is hardly systematic genocide, but I suppose in your radical mindset it's the same thing). I still stand by my statement that the Nazi's knew they were doing the wrong thing - you talk like people would never knowingly do the wrong thing but they do all the time - ever heard of "necessary evil"? It's a common term used when people try to justify wrongdoing. The Nazi's used necessary evil to try and eradicate the Jews. They even called it exactly that and never made it public. Sure, some people may have known about it but the vast majority of German's did not. And no, the Nazi's did not literally believe that the Jews evolved from cockroaches, they were intelligent people if not somewhat evil. Nuff said on that.

Your next claim is that the current government maintains power through fear. (assume you mean US gov.)  I somewhat agree, but only using the mildest definition of "fear" - as in "if you don't vote for us you could be fucked" No one is storm-trooping the man in the street.  You mention the movie Reefer Madness as propaganda and motivator of fear - I watched it a while back for entertainment. I don't believe anybody in the last 30 years really gives it any serious weight. The fact that you would site this as propaganda is a joke.

Then you claim that the government actually controls the people through fear, lies and brainwashing and that because of this the people are too confused to and uniformed to create their own righteous rulers. One word bro - Paranoia. People can be stupid for sure, but to claim that all people everywhere are poor little brainwashed victims is just ...stupid
Funny that you straight face compare it to Nazi stormtroopers beating opponents - there goes your extremist thing again.

Finally you rant about the DEA arbitrarily making drugs illegal, imprisoning people and "being good friends" with Congress. No No and who knows. The DEA does not decide what drugs are illegal, government does, the DEA does not imprison anyone, the judicial system does. I don't know any DEA or Congress people but I suppose it's not impossible for one or two of them to personally know and be friends with each other. But who cares, the will of the people just made weed legal in 2 states. Suck on that DEA and Congress.


Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on November 15, 2012, 08:19 am
1. The DEA has the power to emergency schedule any substance for up to 1.5 years, so yes they can arbitrarily make drugs illegal

2. The analog act can be interpreted to make essentially any drug illegal, although at least that needs to be proven in a court

3. DEA judges are the ones who determine what schedule a drug will be after it is permanently scheduled. Although sometimes they are overruled, for example a DEA judge originally said that MDMA had medical value but was overruled as it was made schedule one regardless of his recommendation and regardless of massive support from the medical community.

4. You are the one who made the claim that killing people is always wrong, perhaps you should articulate yourself clearly if you don't want to be called on your shitty logic. If killing people is wrong it is wrong to kill Nazis, if it is not wrong to kill Nazis then killing people is not always wrong. Sorry, I am a very literal person and I will take what you say as you have said it, if you want to not be misunderstood I highly suggest that you learn to clearly and precisely articulate your thoughts. It is not my problem that you do not know how to clearly communicate your thoughts.

5. Some of the Nazis did literally believe that Jews evolved from cockroaches, and they were not particularly intelligent people; indeed they were quite delusional.

http://www.toughissues.org/handoutsnew/Nazi%20Antisemitism.htm
Quote

            “Whereas [Ed.: to the Nazis] the Slavs were subhuman [Ed.: German: Untermenschen], the Jews were nonhuman. Hitler saw the Jews as a kind of anti-race, a nomadic mongrel group. Because contact with Jews would [Ed.: according to the Nazis] corrupt German blood and culture, Jews would be segregated, a segregation that led to the possibility of annihilation. In segregating the Jews, the Nazis followed the traditional Christian policy that viewed the Jew, the ‘Other’, as essentially different and somehow inherently dangerous, a danger to be avoided. In elaborating their concept of the Jews as nonhuman, the Nazis described them as parasites, viruses, or loathsome creatures from the animal and insect world (rats, cockroaches). As a parasitic force [Ed.: according to the Nazis], the Jews corroded, and would ultimately destroy, the cultures of their host nations.

            To the Nazis the ‘Jewish problem’ was a problem of cosmic importance. Human survival itself depended on the fate of the 17 million Jews inhabiting the globe. Should the Jews be successful in their quest for world domination, the Nazis said, they would deny existence to all others. Human survival depended, therefore, on the victory of the forces of light (Aryans) over the forces of darkness (Jews).

            …The Nazis, then, accused the Jews of wanting to do what they, the Nazis, were out to do themselves: control the world and annihilate their enemies. In this inverted picture of themselves, they [Ed.: i.e., the Nazis] described the Jews as the demonic force of evil that Nazism itself was.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Themes_in_Nazi_propaganda
Quote
The American historian Gerhard Weinberg observed that for many Germans in the Weimar Republic, Poland was an abomination, whose people were seen as "an East European species of cockroach".[138]

6. I guess we will just need to agree to disagree on if the German people knew about the mass extermination of the Jews, I guess I can take comfort in knowing that historians agree with me.

7. The Nazis most certainly did not think that it was in the slightest bit immoral or wrong to exterminate the Jews, and you sound fucking retarded to claim this.

8. Refeer madness was indeed made for propaganda purposes, and at the time of its release it was widely believed by the masses. Today it is blatantly obvious propaganda, but just because today we have gotten past their brainwashing enough that we can see examples of it from decades ago, is not by any means a reason to pretend that decades ago they did not succeed in brainwashing people. I cite it as an example of propaganda specifically because of the fact that today it is so plain to see it as such. Want examples of more modern propaganda and government sponsored lies?

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/mjfaq1.htm
https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_media1.shtml#final
https://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_info14.shtml
https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_neurotoxicity3.shtml


https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_faq.shtml
Quote
Third, in a paper published in 2002 in the prestigous journal Science, one of the key ecstasy brain damage researchers, George Ricaurte, reported that "a single dose of ecstasy" could cause Parkinson's. This 'fact' was trumpeted by virtually every news outlet in the U.S. and was big news. Unfortunately for Dr. Ricaurte, it was soon discovered that he had accidentally given the monkeys methamphetamine instead of MDMA and methamphetamine is a known dopamine neurotoxin. It is important to note, however, that methamphetamine has NOT been found to cause Parkinson's disease, further damaging Ricaurte's credibility. For more information about this, see Major Error in Ecstasy Research, by Erowid.

http://www.tripzine.com/listing.php?id=myths

Propaganda sure has evolved, from things like refeer madness to fake science, falsified statistics, etc. That is the thing about propaganda, it is only good at fooling people for so long. Refeer madness scared people decades ago, today we can see that it is obviously bullshit so they need to adapt to the times with new lies and propaganda. You act like refeer madness was made as a joke, and that is entirely dishonest. It was made as propaganda, it worked as propaganda, it wore off as all propaganda does and so they evolved their lies and propaganda to what we have today. LSD chromosome damage? Marijuana and impotency?! Videos of people smoking marijuana and having their brainwaves flatten (oh but those are not real brainwave reading devices it is all props!). The list of lies is so enormous that I can't even begin to start. And guess what THE PEOPLE, who you think are so powerful , were LIED TO prior to them forming their opinions on drugs. They are taught in the government schools LIES about drugs as if the lies are true facts, they are bombarded through the media with government sponsored and endorsed LIES, and it is plain as day to see that this is happening and it is plain as day to see that this has been happening for DECADES. So really it is a fucking joke for you to say that THE PEOPLE have the power and THE PEOPLE want drugs illegal and the government is a reflection of THE PEOPLE. THE PEOPLE are heavily indoctrinated to the point that the wishes of the people are a reflection of the governments propaganda, so saying the government is a reflection of the people is not at all the full story, the people are a reflection of the government lies and propaganda. They are not informed, they are intentionally misinformed by the government. That is what democracy turns into, it is not the will of the people it is the will of those who control the people. That is the honest truth and if you cannot see the truth that is your problem but it doesn't change reality at all.

People are surrounded with lies and indoctrination, in schools, through the media, I SEE THESE THINGS. I am a witness to what is taking place, there is no paranoia on my part there is nothing more than observation and having an intelligent and rational mind that is capable of seeing things for what they are. There is no conspiracy in my mind other than the conspiracy my mind clearly and correctly perceives taking place in the world!
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on November 15, 2012, 08:40 am
Here is a thought experiment for you. I would like you to tell me which of two groups (group A or group B) is more free. The two groups each consist of thirty people. They live in separate remote regions of the earth and are to determine the legality of the chemical substance DHMO.

Group A is told by armed men that if they do not vote to make DHMO a controlled substance, they will be killed. Some of them are beaten severely prior to the voting taking place, as a testament to the serious nature of the anti DHMO force. They are then allowed to vote on the status of DHMO, although the anti DHMO thugs stand guard at the polling stations and they wave pistols at those going to vote telling them that they had better make the correct choice.

Group B is not threatened physically, however leading up to the vote they are given the following pamphlets that I will quote for you soon. These pamphlets are distributed to them through their community schools, and their local television and radio stations are keen to discuss some of the mentioned points in a dramatic fashion. Some of their elected leaders, who they have always thought to trust, have also expressed their support of the ban on DHMO for the reasons given in the pamphlet. Even their religious leaders have expressed their dislike of DHMO. They are not threatened in the slightest and are free to vote as they please. Here is the pamphlet:

Quote
Should I be concerned about Dihydrogen Monoxide?
Yes, you should be concerned about DHMO! Although the U.S. Government and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) do not classify Dihydrogen Monoxide as a toxic or carcinogenic substance (as it does with better known chemicals such as hydrochloric acid and benzene), DHMO is a constituent of many known toxic substances, diseases and disease-causing agents, environmental hazards and can even be lethal to humans in quantities as small as a thimbleful.    

   Research conducted by award-winning U.S. scientist Nathan Zohner concluded that roughly 86 percent of the population supports a ban on dihydrogen monoxide. Although his results are preliminary, Zohner believes people need to pay closer attention to the information presented to them regarding Dihydrogen Monoxide. He adds that if more people knew the truth about DHMO then studies like the one he conducted would not be necessary.

A similar study conducted by U.S. researchers Patrick K. McCluskey and Matthew Kulick also found that nearly 90 percent of the citizens participating in their study were willing to sign a petition to support an outright ban on the use of Dihydrogen Monoxide in the United States.
Why haven't I heard about Dihydrogen Monoxide before?
Good question. Historically, the dangers of DHMO, for the most part, have been considered minor and manageable. While the more significant dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide are currently addressed by a number of agencies including FDA, FEMA and CDC, public awareness of the real and daily dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide is lower than some think it should be.
Critics of government often cite the fact that many politicians and others in public office do not consider Dihydrogen Monoxide to be a "politically beneficial" cause to get behind, and so the public suffers from a lack of reliable information on just what DHMO is and why they should be concerned.       Part of the blame lies with the public and society at large. Many do not take the time to understand Dihydrogen Monoxide, and what it means to their lives and the lives of their families.

Unfortunately, the dangers of DHMO have increased as world population has increased, a fact that the raw numbers and careful research both bear out. Now more than ever, it is important to be aware of just what the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide are and how we can all reduce the risks faced by ourselves and our families.
What are some of the dangers associated with DHMO?
Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:
   

    Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
    Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
    Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
    DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
    Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
    Contributes to soil erosion.
    Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
    Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
    Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
    Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
    Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
    Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
    Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.

What are some uses of Dihydrogen Monoxide?
Despite the known dangers of DHMO, it continues to be used daily by industry, government, and even in private homes across the U.S. and worldwide. Some of the well-known uses of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:

    as an industrial solvent and coolant,
    in nuclear power plants,
    by the U.S. Navy in the propulsion systems of some older vessels,
    by elite athletes to improve performance,
    in the production of Styrofoam,
    in biological and chemical weapons manufacture,
    in the development of genetically engineering crops and animals,
    as a spray-on fire suppressant and retardant,
    in so-called "family planning" or "reproductive health" clinics,
    as a major ingredient in many home-brewed bombs,
    as a byproduct of hydrocarbon combustion in furnaces and air conditioning compressor operation,
    in cult rituals,
    by the Church of Scientology on their members and their members' families (although surprisingly, many members recently have contacted DHMO.org to vehemently deny such use),
    by both the KKK and the NAACP during rallies and marches,
    by members of Congress who are under investigation for financial corruption and inappropriate IM behavior,
    by  kids who play Beyblades,
    by the clientele at a number of bath houses in New York City and San Francisco,
    historically, in Hitler's death camps in Nazi Germany, and in prisons in Turkey, Serbia, Croatia, Libya, Iraq and Iran,
    in World War II prison camps in Japan, and in prisons in China, for various forms of torture,
    during many recent religious and ethnic wars in the Middle East,
    by many terrorist organizations including al Qaeda,
    in community swimming pools to maintain chemical balance,
    in day care centers, purportedly for sanitary purposes,
    by software engineers, including those producing DICOM software and other DICOM software tools,
    by popular computer science professors,
    by the semi-divine King Bhumibol of Thailand and his many devoted young working girls in Bangkok,
    by the British Chiropractic Association and the purveyors of the bogus treatments that the BCA promotes,
    by commodities giant Trafigura in their well-publicized and widely-known toxic-waste dumping activities in Ivory Coast,
    in animal research laboratories, and
    in pesticide production and distribution.

What you may find surprising are some of the products and places where DHMO is used, but which for one reason or another, are not normally made part of public presentations on the dangers to the lives of our family members and friends. Among these startling uses are:

    as an additive to food products, including jarred baby food and baby formula, and even in many soups, carbonated beverages and supposedly "all-natural" fruit juices
    in cough medicines and other liquid pharmaceuticals,
    in spray-on oven cleaners,
    in shampoos, shaving creams, deodorants and numerous other bathroom products,
    in bathtub bubble products marketed to children,
    as a preservative in grocery store fresh produce sections,
    in the production of beer by all the major beer distributors,
    in the coffee available at major coffee houses in the US and abroad,
    in Formula One race cars, although its use is regulated by the Formula One Racing Commission, and
    as a target of ongoing NASA planetary and stellar research.

   

One of the most surprising facts recently revealed about Dihydrogen Monoxide contamination is in its use as a food and produce "decontaminant." Studies have shown that even after careful washing, food and produce that has been contaminated by DHMO remains tainted by DHMO.
What is the link between Dihydrogen Monoxide and school violence?
   A recent stunning revelation is that in every single instance of violence in our country's schools, including infamous shootings in high schools in Denver and Arkansas, Dihydrogen Monoxide was involved. In fact, DHMO is often very available to students of all ages within the assumed safe confines of school buildings. None of the school administrators with which we spoke could say for certain how much of the substance is in use within their very hallways.
How does Dihydrogen Monoxide toxicity affect kidney dialysis patients?
Unfortunately, DHMO overdose is not unheard of in patients undergoing dialysis treatments for kidney failure. Dihydrogen Monoxide overdose in these patients can result in congestive heart failure, pulmonary edema and hypertension. In spite of the danger of accidental overdose and the inherent toxicity of DHMO in large quantities for this group, there is a portion of the dialysis treated population that continues to use DHMO on a regular basis.
Are there groups that oppose a ban on Dihydrogen Monoxide?
In spite of overwhelming evidence, there is one group in California that opposes a ban on Dihydrogen Monoxide. The Friends of Hydrogen Hydroxide is a group that believes that the dangers of DHMO have been exaggerated. Members claim that Dihydrogen Monoxide, or the less emotionally charged and more chemically accurate term they advocate for it, "Hydrogen Hydroxide," is beneficial, environmentally safe, benign and naturally occurring. They argue that efforts to ban DHMO are misguided.

Friends of Hydrogen Hydroxide is supported by the Scorched Earth Party, a radical and loosely-organized California-based group. Sources close to the Scorched Earth Party deny any outside funding from government, industry or pro-industry PACs.
   
Has the press ignored this web site and the Dihydrogen Monoxide problem?
For the most part, the press has not reported on the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide as much as some would like. Although many private individuals have put up web sites in a major grassroots effort to spread the word, major publications have not.

Recently, attention has been paid to the subject thanks to an incident in Aliso Viejo, California.  This so-called Aliso Viejo Incident was widely reported in the media, although the director of DHMO.org, Dr. Tom Way, was called a "prankster."  Once the Associated Press started circulating the story, it became fact, and the valuable information being provided by the DHMO.org website was deemed to be "rubbish" rather than an honest and unbiased recounting of facts about a dangerous, life-endangering chemical compound.

If you are a member of the press, you may access our online Press Kit.  See the main page for access information.  This resource is for members of the press only.

 
Is it true that using DHMO improves athletic performance?
Absolutely! With the numerous allegations of amateur and professional athletes using anabolic steroids and/or blood doping to enhance performance, virtually no attention has been paid to the performance enhancing properties of Dihydrogen Monoxide. It is perhaps the sporting world's dirtiest of dirty little secrets that athletes regularly ingest large quantities of DHMO in an effort to gain a competitive edge over an opponent.

One technique commonly used by endurance athletes in sports such as distance running and cycling is to take a large amount of DHMO immediately prior to a race. This is known within racing circles to dramatically improve performance.

Sports-medicine physicians warn that ingesting too much Dihydrogen Monoxide can lead to complications and unwanted side-effects, but do acknowledge the link to improved performance. DHMO is not currently considered a banned substance, so post-race urine tests do not detect elevated or abnormal levels of DHMO.
Can using DHMO improve my marriage?
   This is a popular myth, but one which is also actually supported by a number of scientific facts. Dihydrogen Monoxide plays an instrumental role in the centers of the brain associated with feelings of emotional attachment and love. Married couples have found that regular ingestion of DHMO can improve their marriage-related activities, while couples that never ingest DHMO often find that their marriage suffers as well.
What are the symptoms of accidental Dihydrogen Monoxide overdose?
You may not always recognize that you have been a victim of accidental DHMO overdose, so here are some signs and symptoms to look for. If you suspect Dihydrogen Monoxide overdose, or if you exhibit any of these symptoms, you should consult with your physician or medical practitioner. The data presented here is provided for informational purposes only, and should in no way be construed as medical advice of any sort.
   
Watch for these symptoms:

    Excessive sweating
    Excessive urination
    Bloated feeling
    Nausea
    Vomiting
    Electrolyte imbalance
    Hyponatremia (serum hypotonicity)
    Dangerously imbalanced levels of ECF and ICF in the blood
    Degeneration of sodium homeostasis

A recently noted medical phenomenon involves small amounts of DHMO leaking or oozing from the corners of the eyes as a direct result of causes such as foreign particulate irritation, allergic reactions including anaphylactic shock, and sometimes severe chemical depression.
What is a chemical analysis of Dihydrogen Monoxide
Recently, German analytical chemist Christoph von Bueltzingsloewen at the Universitaet Regensburg identified what may be key reasons why the dangers of DHMO are ever present. According to von Bueltzingsloewen, the chemical separation of dihydrogenoxide from the hazardous oxygendihydride is extremely difficult. The two similar compounds curiously occur in nearly equimolar distribution wherever they are found. It is not clear how the two contribute directly to the dangers inherent in Dihydrogen Monoxide, although von Bueltzingsloewen believes that a synergetic mechanism, catalyzed by traces of hydrogenhydroxide, plays a major role.    
What can I do to minimize the risks?
Fortunately, there is much you can do to minimize your dangers due to Dihydrogen Monoxide exposure. First, use common sense. Whenever you are dealing with any product or food that you feel may be contaminated with DHMO, evaluate the relative danger to you and your family, and act accordingly. Keep in mind that in many instances, low-levels of Dihydrogen Monoxide contamination are not dangerous, and in fact, are virtually unavoidable. Remember, the responsibility for your safety and the safety of your family lies with you.

Second, exercise caution when there is the potential for accidental inhalation or ingestion of DHMO. If you feel uncomfortable, remove yourself from a dangerous situation. Better safe than sorry.

Third, don't panic. Although the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide are very real, by exercising caution and common sense, you can rest assured knowing that you are doing everything possible to keep you and your family safe.
How can I find out more about Dihydrogen Monoxide?
We would be happy to tell you more about DHMO! Send us email at director_at_dhmo_dot_org, and we'll gladly attempt to keep you up-to-date on current developments in the study of Dihydrogen Monoxide, its uses and misuses.

There are a number of sites on the world wide web that contain more information on DHMO and related topics. It should be noted that we do not endorse these sites, nor do we control their content or political bias.

Please tell me which of these two groups is free ?
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on November 15, 2012, 08:56 am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: jpinkman on November 17, 2012, 05:24 pm
Quote
First of all, it is not so simple to just pack up and move to a new country. I would love to be in the Czech Republic as they have much laxer laws than the USA does, but that would entail me learning to speak their language and lots of other things. It is not trivial to change your citizenship.
Well no shit sherlock, nothing’s free. There are costs to moving, whether that’s money or effort. If I want to move to a different city to enjoy a better quality of life I still have to put the effort in of putting my condo up for sale, paying relocation costs, packing all my shit, ensuring my clients were aware and cool with my relocation or finding new clients, buying or renting in my new city of choice, etc. What does the cost of relocation have anything to do with the market of nations being any different than the markets within?
Quote
In a free libertarian society you do not need to pick any protection agency!
You're high. Not sure how you can say this when it’s quite likely that in your libertarian utopia if you didn’t pick a protection agency you would be immediately overpowered by a roving gang of home invaders composed and likely sent by the protection agencies you chose not to patronize. You can say that it was still your choice, however stupid, not to choose a protection agency to protect you in a state of anarchy and therefore you chose to die at their hands. But that’s not much of a choice just like it’s not much of a choice right now to not pay your taxes and get thrown in a cage. 
Quote
Your comparison of this situation to a free market is incorrect, if it were a free market I would opt out of funding the DEA immediately. I would opt out of funding any agency that enforces drug laws! No nations protection agencies have a package that I would spend money on. I am forced to select one thus I am not in a free market where I could select none. And within the nations there is not a free market or even the option to select from various agencies, there is a single monopoly protected by the federal government, and all of us are forced to fund these agencies and receive even "protections" that we do not desire. Your claim that this is equivalent to a free market shows that you haven't the slightest clue what a free market actually is.
I think Limetless had it about right when he said that you should really stick to what you know, IT and god-knows-what-else. Since you clearly have a very poor understanding of what a “free market” is this is obviously not something you know and if you look closely you’ll see I already answered what you’re arguing here. So what if there’s no nation with a working libertarian utopia? As I already said, free markets don’t provide you with an infinite set of options. You’re limited to buying what a free market produces, even if it doesn’t have ideally what you want. If you can’t find your dream home you’ll just have to settle for what’s available on the free market or you can build your own. If you can’t find your ideal country, nothing’s preventing you from buying an island out in middle of nowhere and living in a state of libertarian anarchy there. Or building a gigantic yacht/artificial island, sailing into international waters, and hoisting up a flag with a marijuana leaf on it while growing dope on your sovereign country-boat governed as a libertarian anarchy. Just like no one said building your dream home as an alternative to free market choices would be a cheap or easy endevour. You could say you don’t have the option of not spending at all on any of the options available but that would only reflect your poor understanding of a free market. If you can’t find your dream home, you can’t really opt out of spending money on a place to rent or own either since the alternative, homelessness, isn’t much of a choice any more than opting out of paying taxes and getting imprisoned is much of a choice. The point is that you do have a choice of close to 200 countries you could emigrate to. They are the product of an anarcho-capitalist free market. There is no one-world super-government dictating to sovereign countries. In this sense the market of nations is a much purer “free market” than the markets within those nations governed by those nations laws and regulations.  Looking more closely at your comments you seem to have the idea that the “free market” should produce exactly what you want free from the costs of making market choices which is patently absurd.
Quote
Indeed, and wouldn't you rather spend your money only on the things that you agree with? Why would you desire to be forced into funding things that you disagree with? Are you incapable of making choices on your own? The trade off is your freedom for slavery to the collective! When your money is forcibly taken from you and spent on things you disagree with, even on your own oppression, you are not a free person anymore.
You sound like a drama queen. I don’t consider paying taxes as “slavery to the collective”. There are a great many things my taxes go to fund that I totally agree with, including the protection of many freedoms unavailable in countries with far more authoritarian forms of government. You sound like a typical fanatical ideologue, capable of only seeing in black and white. To you, someone is only free or they are not. No grey area, no sense of nuance. Because a percentage of my tax dollars are spent on some things I don’t agree with, you insist I’m not free. I think you’re high. There are a great number of freedoms that I enjoy even if getting high on what I want, when I want, and where I want is not one of them. So if I feel mostly free, who are you to say I’m not? 

Quote
My neighbor can spend what he wants to spend and I will spend what I want to spend. I don't care about neighborhood defense, I care about defense of my own life and property. If other neighbors would like to pool resources so that we can afford more comprehensive neighborhood security, than those who pool money will obtain the services paid for. I will not force my neighbor to pay for defense and I will not pay for his.

You don’t care about common defense? Maybe you should. It’s amazing how poorly you’ve thought this through. What about the fact that what your neighbor spends on defense directly affects your defense budget and your property value? That cohesive, common neighborhood defense could be all that separates your secure, upscale neighborhood from becoming a violent ghetto? That if your neighbors chose to pool their resources for more comprehensive security and you didn’t, then you would be a freeloader because you would get residual benefit from the pooling of resources? You seem to have put no thought into all the ramifications and logistics that the defense of your property by you alone would require. Or how horribly inefficient and astronomically costly it would be for both security agencies and homeowners alike if each hired a different agency to protect their property ... if it’s even logistically feasible since you’d need a world labor force that consisted primarily of private protective militias.  It doesn’t sound like most people would even be able to afford anything but a cooperative, common defense even if you could pay a militia to defend your property, you’d be the exception.  Curious how a person would need to buy all these things; food, clothing, shelter, education, medicine, sanitation, justice, police, all forms of security and insurance, even permission to use the streets (for these also would be privately owned), yet in your utopian vision everybody always has enough money and time to act as discerning buyer of all these things! Remarkable!
I think you’d quickly find that life would be much easier and far less expensive with proximal cooperation on some level to take advantage of distribution of labor. You wouldn’t want to spend all your time and resources on defense of your home. If you even survived the quality of your life would be shit, not to mention you would be hard pressed to afford anything else.
Let me also remind you that we have social safety nets in place, medicare, social security, unemployment, food stamps, welfare, so that you don’t have the weakest, or temporarily unlucky, members of society dying in the streets. If you think private charities will somehow swoop all the feeble, old, laid off, and those no longer able to care or provide for themselves away then you’re living in fantasy land. Yours is a dog eat dog world of extreme competition where ones options are work, beg, or die. How are private charities supposed to stay funded to even current levels when there’s no government incentive to give to them to provide a tax writeoff? How much you wanna bet that those affected by no social safety net would think you a lunatic for calling  privatized anarchy “exactly what we have now”?!
Quote
Indeed and Jews could have moved from Nazi Germany prior to the holocaust so their extermination is to be blamed only on them. They were free! You understanding of what a free market is is extremely incorrect.

It’s amazing that anyone would use such a blindingly retarded analogy. Generally speaking, the DEA is not perpetrating war crimes and crimes against humanity. If you think they are, then you really need to look up what those things even mean. Second, it’s blindingly stupid because Jews had no way of knowing that the holocaust was going to happen before the holocaust happened. Many felt persecuted yes, and as a result bailed. Mass slaughter even occurred, but not to the extent of the holocaust since extermination camps weren’t built and industrialized mass slaughter didn’t begin until Hitler decided on the “final solution” to the “Jewish problem”, so to imply that Jews could predict the future holocaust so that those who died in it went to their deaths of their own volition is just asinine. I’m noticing an affinity you seem to have for very poorly thought through analogies and ideas.
Quote
Guess what, a critical mass of the population didn't give two shits about drug use until the United States federal government pushed out a bunch of propaganda and conditioned them into accepting that the war on drugs was a good thing and drugs were bad. Look at things like reefer madness , do you think the people who made that propaganda thought that it was honest truth? No, people who make propaganda at the highest levels understand that it is false and lies. The government lied to the people to justify imprisoning and enslaving millions of its own citizens for the profit of private interests. They have literally sold us into prison industrial slavery, and no our neighbors did not decide to do this on their own, they were conditioned into it by a group of powerful elites who would profit from our slavery
Dude, the fact you’re citing Reefer Madness here as government propaganda to lie, enslave, and imprison people proves that, at least on this subject, you’re truly a fucking blithering idiot ... a fucking imbecile.  Reefer Madness was funded by a church group in 1936 with the intent of teaching the public a “morality tale” on the dangers of marijuana use. The church group lied because they thought they knew better. It was fucking 1936!  Think about that for a minute.  Marijuana research and public knowledge of it was non-existent, so the church group used an alarmist approach that preyed on their own fears of the unknown to scare people into going to church and finding god in fear of the “demon weed” that created axe murderers. It was later purchased by a private maverick exploitation producer/director who re-cut it for the FOR PROFIT exploitation film circuit before it sat dormant for a couple decades until it was rediscovered and purchased in the early 70’s by the founder of NORML who began showing it at pro pot festivals where it became a hit with the mass public as a cult film BECAUSE it is such a patently ridiculous over the top JOKE. So this film was originally created and distributed by a religious group, then mass distributed by a private producer as SHOCK SATIRE on the EXPLOITATION CIRCUIT, before turning into an unintentional comedy cult film by the founder of NORML. At NO POINT was the GOVERNMENT at your so called “highest levels” involved in the production or distribution of this film. Get it?  So even though it turns out that locking people up on marijuana charges has become very profitable for the private sector prison industrial complex,  not only did Reefer Madness have nothing to do with the government, but in 1936 the prison industry WASN’T EVEN CLOSE TO BEING PRIVATIZED YET nor was there any way to predict prison privatization happening 50 YEARS LATER during Ronald Reagan’s push to privatize in the 1980’s that turned modern private prisons into cash cows. Dude get a grip.
Also can’t help but note the irony of the evils brought on by privatizing the prison industry when that’s precisely what you’re advocating in the privatizing of everything in your anarcho-libertarian utopia. Here’s an industry that I think is far better left in the public sector where it’s subject to public standards of accountability. I have far less of a problem with prison labor funding public interests and public works than I do with it lining the pockets of CCA shareholders and its board of directors.
Quote
Democracy is a flawed system, the masses are too easily manipulated for it to be meaningful in the slightest. We will what end the war on drugs when people wake up from decades or centuries of propaganda and lies? And this is your victory of democracy?!
Democracy is the worst system in the world, until you compare it to all the other systems of government. There is no perfect system of government, but to suggest we go from an imperfect but far more functional than all the rest as proven by recorded history system of gov to a state of total anarchy is some seriously fucked up thinking. Over time, we’ve tended to self correct and come out alright. We've made serious mistakes, sometimes dodging apocalypse by a combination of luck and determination. We've allowed our government take action in barbaric ways – internment camps, Vietnam, Iraq. And as citizens, we've stood by while injustices rolled over lives as in the war on drugs. But as a nation we tend to learn from our mistakes; we tend to correct them as best we can. Our always re-enforced self-interest and offhand sense of fairness produces a sort of lazy arc toward justice. Frustration and outrage brings wars to an end. Protest and disenchantment allow rights to expand, to not acknowledge the progress we’ve made as a country is just blind. But most importantly, there’s a system of government jointly owned by the people with checks and balances in place run by elected representatives for when we do decide to self correct and do the right thing. There is no such self correcting mechanism in a state of anarchy but absolute force subject to the whims of whoever is wielding that force.
Quote
So then they can move on to the next behavior that will be demonized and prosecuted, and the new masses will be conditioned by the new generation of propaganda and lies?! Slaves are too valuable for them to simply free us all. Government and democracy ensures an endless cycle of slavery with only details of the slaves backgrounds changing.
Yet you propose a private tyranny to enslave us instead where public accountability wouldn’t even exist. How brilliant you are. You seriously need a history lesson on how private tyrannies were FAR worse than the constitutional republics via representative democracies we have today.
Quote
You will need to clarify for me what exactly public good are in your opinion. In my vision all goods are private, so there is no need to provide public goods and thus your dubious claim that private industry can not provide them is entirely irrelevant.
OK, let’s conduct a thought experiment based on your anarchic utopia. Why should the boundaries of your property even be recognized by anyone else? If there’s no communal cooperation of any sort with neighbors where you agree upon the rules of property delineation, then it comes down to what you’re capable of defending on your own or paying an agency to defend your territorial rights. You’ll quickly discover this is a horribly expensive and inefficient way of doing things while your neighbors will find it far more cost effective and efficent to agree on a neighborhood state where they pay a fraction of what you’re paying for common defense while agreeing on a set of common rules for property delineation. Unless you’re far wealthier, you simply won’t survive matched up against the resources of a cooperative community of those who agree on a united common defense and have no reason to recognize what you claim is your property. So if you want to live, you’re gonna have to start getting used to the concept of cooperating with your neighbor on matters of common agreement unless you want to just hope that whenever this anarchy starts you’ve horded so much wealth that you can build your own fortress.
Public goods the private industry on its own has never shown a willingness to pay for on its own? Roads, bridges, clean water, clean air, environmental protections. These are public goods. If you’re insisting that roads and bridges are private, then you’re inviting a whole host of problems with monopolistic price fixing. Are you really still trying to insist such a system is “exactly what we have now”? If so, I have to ask whether you’re autistic, because despite this being your stated ideology it appears you’ve never bothered to think these things through.

Quote
I have attended private and public schools in a similar socioeconomic setting, I can say that in my opinion private education is superior. According to this time article they still found that children who attended Catholic private schools performed better, even when those variables were controlled for: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1670063,00.html

additionally that study looks dubious and political at first glance, although I have not read it.
Interesting article. I attended both private and public schools in similar SES too and I didn’t find one clearly superior to the other although I strongly preferred the public setting free of religious indoctrination. That Time article focused on the achievement score superiority of the private Jesuit setting but failed to determine why. In retrospect I can see how the private environment was much stricter, which could have led to a better educational environment for those lacking motivation and acts as a natural filter in expelling the worst performers who would then be left for the public school system to clean up. So I can see that easily as being the cause for the difference. But I don’t see how the stricter environment was a product of it being a private, for profit enterprise. Strictness seemed to be more a byproduct of the Jesuit heritage. The DoE report found education varied widely with excellent and shitty schools among all types; private, public, charter, religious.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: jpinkman on November 17, 2012, 05:29 pm
Cont.

Quote
So those that can't afford private schooling must be subject to statist indoctrination at a public school entirely funded by gun toting IRS agents extorting money from people, for the sole purpose of indoctrinating kids who can't afford an education otherwise into statism and exposing them early to government propaganda (D.A.R.E immediately comes to mind!) ? That sounds like an awful idea!
I know you must put a lot of effort into coming up with these distorted and absurd analogies, but they’re so poorly thought through that I personally would be embarrassed to use them even if you’re not. Because when it comes down to it, it’s strictly your opinion that your libertarian anarchist worldview is the “right” one and therefore “statism” is indoctrination at all. I always find it amusing that anarcho-libertarians throw around the word “statist” as a pejorative as if the person being labeled is supposed to feel insulted if they even know what it means. I feel about as insulted as if a Marxist were to call me bourgeois. Oooooh. Really? I’m bourgeois, how horrible! Not. It’s hard to be insulted when I’m perfectly comfortable with the meaning of the label and more overwhelmed with pity for that person and the narrow, self righteous prism through which they view the world. So when you try to bring up the evils of “statist indoctrination” as comparative to religious indoctrination to someone you would deem a statist, you can’t expect that person is going to find your argument compelling or that your use of it would make you look like anything more than certifiably insane. There might be a propaganda program like DARE reflective of the broader societal values of the state that I don’t agree with. But there’s nothing that specifically makes DARE a necessary component of what you would call “statism”.
There are a lot of people who think you’re totally off your rocker for thinking a purely privatized society would function any better than feudalisms and despotisms of the past, and wouldn’t see any value in the anarcho indoctrination you espouse. But it wouldn’t mean anything to you if a person told you about the hypothetical evils of a private schools providing kids anarcho-indoctrination, in fact you would probably commend it. Likewise, you’re so sucked into your “I am right, everyone else is wrong” mentality that you can’t discern how preposterous you sound when deeming statist indoctrination an evil to statists.  And your self righteous sanctimony couldn’t be more overbearing than your description of public schools “entirely funded by gun toting IRS agents extorting money from people”.  Again, this is strictly your opinion as many people paying taxes would disagree and find your characterization obscene and recognize the many benefits of government that you don’t believe exist.
Quote
Religious people already force me to fund the neighborhood public school, so once again in your nightmare 'free market' society nothing has changed except the name Government and the people in charge.
Wow. You really are clueless that you do in fact get reciprocal benefit from funding education even if you or your family member aren’t attending publicly funded schools. You see, educating people benefits our entire society. It greases the skids of capitalism having an educated labor force that can build upon, rather than reinvent the wheel. You benefit living in a more enlightened and educated society even if there might be aspects, like the war on drugs, that you don’t agree with. These are the sorts of things I would expect to explain to a child with an instinctively limited, short sighted vision of the world ... not an adult.
Quote
Look where you are typing this!! You are telling me this on a privately owned forum that is dedicated to drug traffickers who participate in the privately owned for profit drug trading market named silk road! This is illegal in every nation state on earth and yet we are still here.
So fucking what? I have a hard time believing you could possibly be that naive to think there aren’t differences between the virtual and real world. Your willingness to just dismiss the pervasive state of tyranny throughout the history of private states and private law is just mind boggling.  At the same time I also can’t help but note the irony and hypocrisy in your “look where you’re typing this” comment. Yeah look. The OSI model and related tech on which the internet is based was originally developed by GOVERNMENT, more specifically the US Department of Defense, would not exist if not for government. The TOR anonymizing tech was originally developed by the US NAVY. These key technologies from which you now base your livelihood were not conceived of by private companies but by GOVERNMENT. So yeah, look at where you’re typing this.
Quote
In the nightmare scenario that you proposed there is no difference to the scenario of today. Your view of the downfall of anarchy is that it decomposes into the government of today, and you see the government of today as good yet what anarchy will in your opinion turn into as bad. You suffer from cognitive dissonance.
Wow. Talk about pie in the sky. If you seriously think there’s no difference between the society you live in now and the feudalistic, monarchistic, despotistic, fiefdoms of the purely private states of the past then you are literally so far gone in your anarachic fantasia land that I honestly don’t see a redeemable pathway back for you.  So if you say I suffer from cognitive dissonance when I’m using history as my empirical guide as to why your utopia wouldn’t work, what would that make you when you have absolutely no real world empirical model for which your utopian society has ever worked? Think about that for a while.
Quote
Non-constitutional democracy is synonymous with mob rule and the constitution of the United States and any government will be interpreted away by the government. We do live in a totalitarian state.
And it’s this where I pretty much throw up my hands at a zealot whose mind appears far gone into a bizarre and unfathomable religion that you can’t discern reality from fantasy. To claim we live in a totalitarian state is not reality. You should speak to some people who actually have lived in a totalitarian state. You should study history to learn what it’s actually like living in a totalitarian state. We don’t live in one, no matter how much you think you’re nothing more than a forced slave. I bet if you lived in a real totalitarian state you would think differently. 
Quote
35% a financial slave is still a slave. There are degrees of slavery but freedom is only total.

Degrees of slavery huh? Why not say there are degrees of freedom instead and that slavery is only absolute? Forcing your own definitions upon freedom and slavery doesn’t automatically validate them except in the mind of a zealot.
Quote
The only difference you seem to believe exists between private and public is that public things cannot be bad and private things often are.
Hardly. You must have missed what I said earlier about private industry in many cases proving more efficient than public, but just not in every instance. Of course the conduct of a General could stoop to that of a warlord, or that of an army to the arbitrary rules of a private militia. But I also recognize there’s also something called “public accountability” with an army or General, that those entities still take their orders up the chain of command from the civilian elected president and are accountable by subpoena power to publicly elected congress members and the courts. It’s not a perfect system but the checks and balances in place are a hell of a lot better than no accountability at all by private militas and warlords. It’s a testament to your zealotry that you don’t recognize this.
Quote
There are other security agencies to govern him. If he violates the rights of other people who are offered security services through other private services, he will find himself dead.
More pie in the sky idealism on your part. You think all security agencies would have an equal amount of power? Of course not. You think they’re all going to battle against each other and risk death when they could just collaborate, divide up the territorial pie, and violate your rights at will? And please spare me the bullshit about how that’s essentially what we have now when we have constitutional protections against arbitrary violation of our rights that private law has never shown it could duplicate because private law solely serves the owners of private law. It’s funny how you rail against constitutional democracy as being pwned by private interests and the elite and advocate instead that we dive headfirst into a system purely pwned and controlled by private interests and the elite. Talk about fucking insanity, what you’re promoting is it. 
Quote
The DEA is part of the government and in practice the government is a law unto itself, only in your imagination does your idealistic statist utopia actually exist.
I never called, nor would ever dream of calling what we live in currently as a ‘utopia’.  That’s your straw man you’ve erected, most likely from feeling bitter after I’ve knocked down your vision of utopia as many times as I have.
Quote

We live in a totalitarian state ostensibly governed by mod rule but actually governed by small elite groups who have mastered the art of controlling large mobs.
I’ve debated a lot of anarcho-libertarians and only the most hardcore partisan zealots, usually the most ignorant, would try and claim that what we have now is mob rule. Even the most famous and well reasoned hardcore anarcho-capitalists like Rothbard and Friedman would never try and claim that the divided system of representative democracy we have now is mob rule. So OK, this might be your opinion. But I believe your opinion is based on a very poor understanding of how our government functions and a poor grasp of the facts.
Quote
No intellectually honest person can differentiate in any meaningful way between two different people who kick in a door and take drugs and prisoners. If you can differentiate between two such people, something is very wrong with your thought process.
Ah yes, so says the zealot lecturing anyone else about intellectual honesty? ROTFL.
If you can’t understand that one group has the backing of the rest of society while the other does not then I’m not going to be able to convince you otherwise. If you’re literally too dense to recognize that you do have legal and criminal recourse against the outlaw group, maybe not in recovering your drugs, but in kidnapping and destruction of your property, then what can I say? Zealotry is what it is.
Quote
Quote
But for you to advocate that when that day does come that DEA should just be lined up and shot is just insane. You sound like a wild eyed Marxist guerilla during the time of Pol Pot who went on to massacre 2.5 million bourgeois because they just HAD to know they were exploiting the landless proletariat through wage slavery and if they didn’t, well they needed to be made an example of anyway so future generations would know that ignorance was no excuse. So explain to me the difference between you and Pol Pot again?

The DEA agents should be treated as any other robbers and kidnappers would be. To think differently is to say that crimes committed in the name of a state are excusable. So explain to me how you are different from a Nazi war criminal?
Wow. It’s really amazing to me that anyone could be this thick.
THEY ARE NOT CRIMES COMMITTED BY THE STATE BECAUSE WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS PERFECTLY LEGAL.
Your constant comparison to Nazis is particularly ludicrous because there is no comparison between Nazi war criminals and DEA agents. The Nuremberg trials were established to determine the guilt of Nazis where only those found to have directly participated in war crimes and crimes against humanity were put to death. There were a number that were charged under the more nebulous “crimes against peace” or waging “wars of aggression” that were acquitted or received some time in jail, but were NOT put to death. What you’re proposing doing to the DEA where they’re all lined up and shot with no trial to determine guilt or culpability is FAR FAR worse than what happened to the Nazis. If what you’re saying is that DEA agents with blood on their hands should be indicted and put on trial and those found guilty of directly participating in war crimes and crimes against humanity should be put to death, I’m all for it. But to say they should all be lined up and shot without trial ... well you never answered my question. What makes you any different than Pol Pot?
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: Red Rama on November 19, 2012, 04:29 am
This a cool hypothetical, but I have to agree with some of the others that comparing DEA agents to Nazis is pretty overboard. Would I love it if Michelle Leonhart and her cronies were all lined up in front of a firing squad? Absolutely and let me be an executioner. It irritates me to no end how that woman can sit in front of a senate hearing committee with the glazed over look in her eyes of way too many prescription opioids and argue in response to Cannabis' medical value and safety compared to Heroin and Cocaine and say "Umm, I believe that all illegal drugs are bad.". I'd love a DEA PIG branded into each and every one of their arms and foreheads, or some tattoo stating how many people they robbed of their freedom. The greatest justice we can truly have against them is the day when our Government obeys the will of the people over its own interests and ends the drug war, because every single one of them will be scrambling to find a new job, and the 2.5 billion plus drain on our economy annually will finally cease. Plus all 50 states now have Secession petitions with thousands of signatures a piece. I'd love for another Civil War, because we all know which side the DEA would take, and it'd be their demise.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: kmfkewm on November 19, 2012, 12:30 pm
So I don't have the time right now (well I do but I am tripping and already spent a good hour replying to one half of your enormous reply) but here are replies to some of your 'points'. Also I see that I was likely incorrect about reefer madness being funded by the US government, although I can find sources that claim this (even reliable ones like ACLU sources) I can find other sources confirming that it was funded by a private church group. Well actually I can find about a dozen different claims of who funded it, but the most credible one appears to be a church group as you claimed. So I made a mistake on a specific piece of propaganda, there are government propaganda snippets I can find that are straight from the horses mouth that pretty much verbatim say all the points from reefer madness anyway.

Quote
So those that can't afford private schooling must be subject to statist indoctrination at a public school entirely funded by gun toting IRS agents extorting money from people, for the sole purpose of indoctrinating kids who can't afford an education otherwise into statism and exposing them early to government propaganda (D.A.R.E immediately comes to mind!) ? That sounds like an awful idea!

Quote
I know you must put a lot of effort into coming up with these distorted and absurd analogies, but they’re so poorly thought through that I personally would be embarrassed to use them even if you’re not. Because when it comes down to it, it’s strictly your opinion that your libertarian anarchist worldview is the “right” one and therefore “statism” is indoctrination at all.

And it is strictly your opinion that a religious charity school will indoctrinate children, maybe God is real and they picked the right religion :rolls eyes:

The difference is that in your society everyone is FORCED to pay for a public education system that instills ANY values into children, and in my world the people in society are FREE to pay for whatever schooling they want, and if they cannot afford to pay for the schooling they want they will very likely still be able to pick between a host of charity education providers. It is really so simple.

Quote
Not. It’s hard to be insulted when I’m perfectly comfortable with the meaning of the label and more overwhelmed with pity for that person and the narrow, self righteous prism through which they view the world. So when you try to bring up the evils of “statist indoctrination” as comparative to religious indoctrination to someone you would deem a statist, you can’t expect that person is going to find your argument compelling or that your use of it would make you look like anything more than certifiably insane. There might be a propaganda program like DARE reflective of the broader societal values of the state that I don’t agree with. But there’s nothing that specifically makes DARE a necessary component of what you would call “statism”.

Yes I am aware that you are a raging statist and proud of it; it is the reason why you think freely chosen religious charity schools indoctrinate children but also think that it is only my opinion that funded via force statist fascist schools indoctrinate children. The fact remains that in your society you are forced to fund a propaganda campaign that targets children ostensibly as 'health education' , and in my world I am free to give my money to the school that I want to, or no school at all. In my system education is reflective of the individuals desires; in your system the education system is funded via force, mandatory, and although it provides education its mixes it in with the propaganda of the government. Let the people who want to teach lies to children fund the DARE programs and leave my money to me, I will put it toward doing things like real drug research so that we can learn more about drugs and harm reduction.

Quote
There are a lot of people who think you’re totally off your rocker for thinking a purely privatized society would function any better than feudalisms and despotisms of the past, and wouldn’t see any value in the anarcho indoctrination you espouse. But it wouldn’t mean anything to you if a person told you about the hypothetical evils of a private schools providing kids anarcho-indoctrination, in fact you would probably commend it.

Indeed I would commend it and likely would voluntarily put funding into an anarcho-capitalist schooling system (I mean, I do like to learn things, I just don't like to learn bullshit, or be forced to pay for the government to indoctrinate more children to their agenda). If you would like to continue wasting your money on teaching kids propaganda, feel free to do so I will not stop you or make you fund what I want either :).

Quote
Likewise, you’re so sucked into your “I am right, everyone else is wrong” mentality that you can’t discern how preposterous you sound when deeming statist indoctrination an evil to statists.  And your self righteous sanctimony couldn’t be more overbearing than your description of public schools “entirely funded by gun toting IRS agents extorting money from people”.  Again, this is strictly your opinion as many people paying taxes would disagree and find your characterization obscene and recognize the many benefits of government that you don’t believe exist.

Of course everyone indoctrinates children to some extent, it is largely impossible to avoid. The difference is that in your system the propaganda is paid for via force and it is essentially forced onto everyone! I have no choice but to fund D.A.R.E, I have no choice but to fund the D.E.A, I don't like either of these establishments! I do not want to fund these establishments or programs! People with guns in the IRS demand that I do, if I do not they will throw me into a fucking prison. There is no analogy being made between the IRS and a band of gun waving extortionists, that is what the IRS is! Let the many people paying taxes who want to continue paying taxes continue paying them! I imagine when they are not threatened by men waving guns they will see no reason to throw their money away into programs and establishments that they don't support and that they are against! Let those who agree with me be free , and otherwise it is clear who the aggressor is and it is clear who wants to claim ownership of us. I say we own ourselves, in your world we are owned by the collective and it is bullshit. I will not accept that that is righteous as it clearly is not. 


Quote
Wow. You really are clueless that you do in fact get reciprocal benefit from funding education even if you or your family member aren’t attending publicly funded schools. You see, educating people benefits our entire society. It greases the skids of capitalism having an educated labor force that can build upon, rather than reinvent the wheel. You benefit living in a more enlightened and educated society even if there might be aspects, like the war on drugs, that you don’t agree with. These are the sorts of things I would expect to explain to a child with an instinctively limited, short sighted vision of the world ... not an adult.

Of course I know that it is better for us all if we are all educated. Perhaps I will donate charitably to a school that provides education freely. I will NOT fund such a school if they teach D.A.R.E , I will not fund such a school if they teach intelligent design either. Now I am EMPOWERED to support what I WANT instead of FORCED TO SUPPORT THOSE WHO WISH TO OPPRESS ME. See the difference? It is not that hard to understand, I am sure if you put a little bit of effort into it you can free yourself from your mental slavery.

Quote
So fucking what? I have a hard time believing you could possibly be that naive to think there aren’t differences between the virtual and real world. Your willingness to just dismiss the pervasive state of tyranny throughout the history of private states and private law is just mind boggling.  At the same time I also can’t help but note the irony and hypocrisy in your “look where you’re typing this” comment. Yeah look. The OSI model and related tech on which the internet is based was originally developed by GOVERNMENT, more specifically the US Department of Defense, would not exist if not for government. The TOR anonymizing tech was originally developed by the US NAVY. These key technologies from which you now base your livelihood were not conceived of by private companies but by GOVERNMENT. So yeah, look at where you’re typing this.

You are naive if you cannot see how the virtual world is changing the real world.

Although I can appreciate the irony of the fact that we are on an internet that was originally created by the US government, and that even the Tor of today (The military made the concept not the implementation) has some level of connection to the US government (not that there are not privately funded solutions from libertarians and anarchists, like I2P and Freenet), it is naive to assume that similar solutions would not have arrived through the free market (and indeed there are plenty of anarcho-libertarian  / cryptoanarchist created technologies and networks). The US government does still give large amounts of funding to Tor, this is of course our stolen tax dollars at work. I would continue to support Tor financially even if I were not obligated to do so by the government, because I believe in what Tor stands for and I recognize that it is one of the better low latency anonymity solutions. D.E.A I would not fund because I am very against them and I hope that their field agents are lined up and executed by firing squads.


Quote
Wow. Talk about pie in the sky. If you seriously think there’s no difference between the society you live in now and the feudalistic, monarchistic, despotistic, fiefdoms of the purely private states of the past then you are literally so far gone in your anarachic fantasia land that I honestly don’t see a redeemable pathway back for you.  So if you say I suffer from cognitive dissonance when I’m using history as my empirical guide as to why your utopia wouldn’t work, what would that make you when you have absolutely no real world empirical model for which your utopian society has ever worked? Think about that for a while.

"We have been slaves and thus we shall remain slaves" . That is what you just said essentially, and unfortunately it is hard to argue against it but I see everyday that we are making progress. I see that we are protecting our people from oppressive agencies like the D.E.A. , and it gives me hope that someday we will do even better. They have trillions of dollars and paramilitary armies to enslave us, and still I have friends stacking up millions of dollars selling drugs to willing customers. Still I am using LSD even right now I am tripping balls :). Unfortunately we still take our losses, Enelysion for example is a good friend of mine who got pinched by the department of homeland security for selling drugs online. He will probably spend most of his life in prison now, I guess joot too although I didn't know him as well. Nice to know that I am forced to pay for the agencies that are locking up my innocent friends huh? That is really freedom in your broken mind. But I know that we are just getting better and better and bigger and bigger and you know what not shit is going to stop the online drug scene. And we wont always be the victims either, someday those fuckers will see that they can be touched, and I feel no pity for them when that day comes, and there will be no excuses for them when that day comes.

Quote
And it’s this where I pretty much throw up my hands at a zealot whose mind appears far gone into a bizarre and unfathomable religion that you can’t discern reality from fantasy. To claim we live in a totalitarian state is not reality. You should speak to some people who actually have lived in a totalitarian state. You should study history to learn what it’s actually like living in a totalitarian state. We don’t live in one, no matter how much you think you’re nothing more than a forced slave. I bet if you lived in a real totalitarian state you would think differently. 

I live in a state that censors information and sends people who access censored information to die in prisons. I live in a state where I am forced to fund the imprisonment of my friends. I live in a state where I must hide from the police. I live in a state where my friends don't even know who they can trust because the person you thought was your best friend was an undercover DEA agent. I live in a totalitarian state, beyond any doubt in my mind. The details are all that differs when comparing my state with any other totalitarian state you can name.



Quote
Degrees of slavery huh? Why not say there are degrees of freedom instead and that slavery is only absolute?

Quote
More pie in the sky idealism on your part. You think all security agencies would have an equal amount of power? Of course not. You think they’re all going to battle against each other and risk death when they could just collaborate, divide up the territorial pie, and violate your rights at will? And please spare me the bullshit about how that’s essentially what we have now when we have constitutional protections against arbitrary violation of our rights that private law has never shown it could duplicate because private law solely serves the owners of private law. It’s funny how you rail against constitutional democracy as being pwned by private interests and the elite and advocate instead that we dive headfirst into a system purely pwned and controlled by private interests and the elite. Talk about fucking insanity, what you’re promoting is it. 

Thinking that we have constitutional rights is pie in the sky idealism. We are given the right to free speech and freedom of the press, and millions are in prisons for possessing the wrong pictures. We have the promise that religions will not be favored and religions are granted exceptions to the controlled substance act and can possess mescaline, dmt. We are told that we are free from slavery, what about the draft do you think the people who died in Vietnam were not mostly government slaves?

Again I will say, your fear of anarchy appears to be that it will turn into government. Indeed a scary prospect, we should do our best to make sure this does not happen, while understanding that nothing in life is promised to anyone.



Quote
I’ve debated a lot of anarcho-libertarians and only the most hardcore partisan zealots, usually the most ignorant, would try and claim that what we have now is mob rule.

A purely democratic system is synonymous with mob rule. I know that U.S.A is not a pure democracy, but it is close enough to democratic that it essentially is mob rule. But when mobs rule the real rulers are those who have mastered the art of mass manipulation.

Quote
Ah yes, so says the zealot lecturing anyone else about intellectual honesty? ROTFL.
If you can’t understand that one group has the backing of the rest of society while the other does not then I’m not going to be able to convince you otherwise. If you’re literally too dense to recognize that you do have legal and criminal recourse against the outlaw group, maybe not in recovering your drugs, but in kidnapping and destruction of your property, then what can I say? Zealotry is what it is.

The outlaw DEA has not broken the government laws, any recourse against them will need to be provided by private industry. Please let me know when a D.E.A. offensive defense agency starts up, I would love to take the funding that I am currently forced to provide to the D.E.A. and instead provide it to them. I also am strongly in favor of death penalties to those who are guilty of armed home invasions leading to kidnappings and prolonged false imprisonments.
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: paxous on December 31, 2012, 06:35 pm
just keep using drugs i think xD
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: ShardInspector on January 02, 2013, 02:55 am
jpinkman - In my book, you loose an awful lot of credibility in this 'debate' given your apparent need to conduct constant personal slurs and launch into demeaning personal attacks against kmfkewm.
Here is a SMALL percentage of the personal attacks you have come out with....

- You really are clueless
- You sound like a drama queen.
- It’s amazing that anyone would use such a blindingly retarded analogy
- Well no shit sherlock
- you’re literally too dense to recognize
- I think you’re high.
- I have to ask whether you’re autistic
- Wow. It’s really amazing to me that anyone could be this thick.

Additionally, unlike kmfkewm you have not provided any citations/links to backup any of your asserted 'facts'.
You also seem decidedly naive as well as you appear to have been biased in some respects regarding what the anarchist ideal/paradigm actually encompasses whereas kmfkewm clearly has a very good grasp on the stated ideals of democracy and capitalism.

I'm not stating that you are entirely wrong, just that you appear to be arguing with an incomplete set of understandings of the merits/failings let alone the more subtle aspects of BOTH sides of the coin..
Title: Re: how should we bring justice to those who participated in the drug war?
Post by: jpinkman on January 02, 2013, 05:39 am
Additionally, unlike kmfkewm you have not provided any citations/links to backup any of your asserted 'facts'.
You also seem decidedly naive as well as you appear to have been biased in some respects regarding what the anarchist ideal/paradigm actually encompasses whereas kmfkewm clearly has a very good grasp on the stated ideals of democracy and capitalism.

I'm not stating that you are entirely wrong, just that you appear to be arguing with an incomplete set of understandings of the merits/failings let alone the more subtle aspects of BOTH sides of the coin..

I probably did get carried away, which I admit is the natural byproduct of these sorts of debates.  At the same time if you bothered reading our first volley of exchanges my initial post to him was actually quite civil and there was a gradual escalation of provocation in his reply, as these sorts of debates are wont to do. Also where are these citations that you seem to think kmf provided as I just don't see them? If you have an issue with the factual basis of anything I said, it helps to cite specifics rather than issue vague generalities that can't be confirmed or refuted. Unless of course your whole purpose was to make unanswerable accusations rooted in the biases of your libertarian anarchist sympathies; given how nebulous your charges seems more likely. If not then it's time to step up and bring it.

Actually I think you missed the thrust of my primary criticism. I know kmf has a good grasp of capitalism, democracy, and anarcho-capitalist ideals and principles. My critique has mostly centered on the practical application of his ideology to the real world which I don't believe he's done a good or complete job of addressing that he's actually thought through such such issues. Although to be fair, given the handicap of trying to while frying on acid this is actually quite understandable. I personally would find such an exercise revolting if similarly incapacitated.

Anyway, if you're reading this kmfkewm I'm sure you know better than to take anything said in an online debate personally, but in case you did, please don't. AFAIC, whatever said in a heated debate should stay there. Arguing ideology will be every bit as vehement and combative as arguing religion. So really, I hope it slides off you as easily as it does me. Oh, and I've meaning to say for a while, I'm really sorry you found yourself doing that while tripping balls. :) I can't think of a more unappealing way to spend my time, well actually I can, but you get the point.