Posted on 11/04/2013 9:47:51 AM PST by Shout Bits
The Old Media in the form of the AP planted a doozie of misinformation regarding Bernie Goetz's recent arrest for attempting to sell marijuana to a police officer. The article described Goetz as a "vigilante" and racist, the thugs he shot as "panhandlers," and his gun as "illegal." All of the characterizations are completely wrong and deceptive.
Frist, Goetz was not a vigilante, he was only defending himself. In 1984, Goetz was confronted by four youths demanding money. The thug uses a language of tone and body so that while his words may be asking for money, the real message is a threat. Goetz correctly understood the message and shot the youths rather than be robbed (a common crime on NY Subways at the time). The criminals had numerous run-ins with the law before and since the incident; they were not panhandlers, but rather Goetz was exercising his unalienable right to defend himself based on the natural right to live. A vigilante is one who proactively seeks his version of justice, but Goetz did not ask to be confronted.
The young men Goetz shot were black, so the AP implied Goetz must be racist. Goetz did not choose the race of the thugs who approached him. Goetz is not responsible for the fact that even today, blacks are strongly disproportionately responsible for violent crime in NYC. Goetz was not racist in summing up his confronters, and facts he could not know at the time proved his assessment right – they were thugs and criminals. These insights no doubt influenced Goetz's jury to acquit him of all charges except for possession of an unlicensed gun – he spent the better part of a year in jail.
The AP may be nominally correct that Goetz's gun was not legal, but he was breaking no valid law. Natural law and the US Constitution protect Goetz's right to carry a weapon, so the NY law itself was illegal. Further, consider the ugly reality of the Subway at the time. In NYC, driving a car about town is a joke and taxi regulators ensure that at many times hailing a cab is a long shot at best, so the Subway is the only real option for most New Yorkers. The AP itself concedes that then there were 40 serious crimes per day in the Subway system. Goetz was essentially forced to enter a thug's paradise several times per day. If the government wants to create gun-free zones, they should at least provide security, but the Subways offered danger in addition to filth and stifling heat. People like Goetz had to choose between breaking illegal gun laws and becoming victims.
After a few other controversies, Goetz has resurfaced for being busted selling a trivial amount of MJ to an undercover cop. The worm has turned here. Even though the right to self-defense is immeasurably more important than the right to consume intoxicants at will, NY does not understand. In NY, guns are even more illegal than in the 1980's, but MJ is de facto legal. Anyone walking through parts of Central Park or down hipper cross-town sidewalks gets a regular whiff of the naughty weed. It is understood that MJ possession and consumption is to be accepted, although the NYPD continue to bust MJ holders as if they were child abusers. Public opinion has shifted away from Rockefeller drug prosecution and toward MJ legalization. Goetz is now a potential symbol of the stupidity of police dedicating undercover cops to busing $30 MJ sales, just as he was once a symbol of self-defense rights. The pro-MJ Left will not take his cause because they do not understand both issues are based on natural rights. Even when the Left is right, it is usually so for invalid reasons.
The recent Goetz radar-blip is further evidence that the OM and the Left in general are divorced from the principles upon which everyone should live – the first principles of the US's founding documents. Goetz is an unlucky pawn in an ugly game of government control. Self-defense and selling an intoxicant to a willing adult are not crimes, and both the Left and Right should leave Goetz alone.
Shout Bits can be found on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ShoutBits
Most fascinating TV I have ever seen.
Goetz even whips out a handgun and reenacts the shooting.
Did not know such an interview existed. I will look.
That doesn’t mean that such regulation is right or desirable, though.
Think about it. Bloomberg thinks he needs to ban large sodas and salt because he knows whats good for you better than you do. How exactly is your position any different? You think you're a conservative but you are pathetic. Little pissant control freak is what you are. No better than Bloomberg and perhaps even worse.
You have not made one single cogent argument to support your case. With slack-jawed people like you out there in the world trying to pass yourselves off as a conservative, it's no wonder we are in the shape we are in.
I notice that you aren't man enough to admit your error. Heck, you can't even intelligently make your case why you think we should all be more like Bloomberg.
No, this particular case did not involve the feds. However, the feds are involved in the war on drugs. For instance, even in cases where states have made marijuana legal, there have been federal raids on suppliers. Not only is there nothing in the Constitution allowing the federal government to make any drug illegal, there is a tenth ammendment that allows the states to determine the law regarding such drugs. Surely, if you are a conservative, you must oppose the feds violating the tenth ammendment and busting a drug supplier in a state where such activity is not illegal, right?
And please spare me the doper reference. I have personally never used any “illegal” drug. I barely ever even drink alcohol. I certainly would not change that behavior even if all drugs were made legal. This isn’t about drug use. It’s about the principle of limited government, which is the very heart of conservatism.
BTW, even if there is a clause in the constitution of New York allowing the state government to make drugs illegal, should we not support limited government power at all levels, not just at the federal level? Why would we want limited federal government, but uncontrolled state power? The priniciple of limited government is a good one at ALL levels. Either we believe that the government should have the power to regulate what substances we consume or it should not have that power. How can you argue against Bloomberg’s laws governing salt content of foods and large sized soft drinks, but argue in favor of drug laws? The priniciple behind them is the same; the government has the power to regulate what substances you can or cannot put into your body. Personally, I reject that principle, and I fail to see how any conservative could support that principle.
Yep, this quickly became just yet another doper thread.
Man has repeatedly proven that he is incapable of being perfect. That's why we have rules, regulations and laws.
So then, you are okay with government telling you what substances you can or cannot put into your own body? You are okay with Bloomberg’s soda and salt restrictions in NYC, for instance?
I’m not talking about a drug dealer shooting someone or an addict stealing from someone to get drug money. Those are crimes and should be prosecuted as such. I just see no difference between someone smoking marijuana in his own home and harming nobody but himself and someone smoking a cigarette in his own home and harming nobody but himself. If I’m wrong, then what is the major difference between the two cases other than the fact that one is legal and one is not (at least in most states).
BTW, which rules, laws, or regulations have allowed man to achieve perfection? Even with such, man remains imperfect. The goal of rules, laws and regulations should be to protect one citizen from having harm done to him or her by another citizen. It should not be to protect someone from doing harm to himself.
Rules, laws and regulations won't do it, but they are needed. Remember the 10 Commandments?
The goal of rules, laws and regulations should be to protect one citizen from having harm done to him or her by another citizen.
That's why we have laws against driving under the influence, discharging a firearm on a crowded city street, speeding, public nuisances, etc.
Sure some laws, rules and regulations are needed. The examples you gave are good ones. I certainly cannot argue against these laws. However, one feature these laws all share is that the intent of the laws you cite is to prevent on citizen from causing harm to another. Laws against possession or use of drugs do not share this feature. The only person directly harmed by use of drugs is the user. Why should we have laws to protect us from ourselves? I would also argue against things like helmet laws for motorcycle riders and seatbelt use laws in cars under the same principle.
If you support laws such as those making drug use illegal, then why would you oppose hypothetical laws such as one limiting your daily caloric intake? Can the government really tell you how much food you can eat? If you don’t support such a law, then why would you oppose it? I can’t see a reason to oppose such a law that doesn’t apply equally well to a law against drug use.
Even granting for the sake of argument that laws against possession and use are desirable, surely you could agree with me on the cases where the federal government has raided marijuana dispensaries in states where such dispensaries are legal under state law. If not, why even bother with the tenth ammendment? I have yet to see anything in the Constitution allowing the federal government to regulate or criminalize drugs. Since that power isn’t granted to the feds, by the tenth it must be reserved to the states or the people. If a state legalizes drugs, how can you support continued enforcement of federal drug laws in that state?
Finally, please realize that I am in no way arguing in favor of drug use. Drug use is stupid and harmful to the user. However, government legislation is not the answer. Tobacco use is stupid and harmful to the user, yet it’s not illegal. Ditto alcohol use. Ditto eating excessively. Why should drug use be treated differently. I would argue that much harm is done to drug addicts (in addition to their self-inflicted harm) by criminalizing drug use. If a person wishes to stop smoking, he can openly seek the help of a doctor, hypnotist, psychiatrist, or purchase any of a number of products designed to help him quit. He can do so openly without fear of prosecution. A drug addict has no such recourse. I have no data, but I am sure that there are numerous drug addicts who don’t seek treatment for their addiction based on their fear of prosecution and incarceration if they try to get help. I suspect that addicts wishing to seek treatment form a minority of all addicts, but why should we have laws discouraging them from seeking help?
Not necessarily. The users family, associates and employer can all be directly harmed, not to mention if the illicit drug user gets behind the wheel.
Tobacco use is stupid and harmful to the user, yet it’s not illegal. Ditto alcohol use. Ditto eating excessively
Both tobacco and alcohol are taxed and controlled. Would you endorse the same for high calorie foods?
A drug addict has no such recourse.
We read or hear about them frequently. Most are public figures.
Then why is alcohol legal? Why is tobacco use legal? Both of those cause similar indirect harm to those around the user. Both of those drugs can kill or cause health problems for the user, but those are indirectly harmful to the family, employer and associates of the user, not directly so. No employer of a drug addict has died from that addict’s overdose. No family member of an addict has developed health issues as a result of his drug use. If drugs need to be illegal because of the harm they can cause to a person’s family, associates, or employer, then so should alcohol and tobacco use be illegal. Surely you aren’t arguing that are you? We’ve tried that; see prohibition (it didn’t work real well).
Alcohol and nicotine are examples from a group of drugs that are legal. Marijuana and cocaine are examples from a group of drugs that are not legal. I am simply suggesting that, in principle, the only real distinction between the two groups of drugs is PRECISELY that one group is legal and the other is not. Therefore, making one group illegal is an arbitrary extension of government power and should be opposed.
Yes, most public figures have the financial resources to hire high-priced lawyers and keep themselves out of the criminal justice system to get their treatment. It would be much more difficult for the average non-famous addict to do the same. I would think most of them would be hesitant to come forward and admit drug use for fear of prosecution.
Why are cars, boats and motorcycles that can exceed any posted speed limit legal? They all are capable of killing and maiming the driver and innocents.
Why are NSAIDs and aspirin legal and available over the counter? All are capable of causing death.
Why not remove all laws and restrictions on all drugs? Why not disband the FDA and pharmacies? Why should pharmacists and MDs need to be licensed?
There are plenty of drug and alcohol addiction specialty hospitals that treat "average non-famous" patients. The cops don't arrest patients entering or exiting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.