Posted on 10/23/2002 1:04:07 AM PDT by Roscoe
Frustrated by the Libertarian Party's failure to make progress nationally, Jason Sorens GRD '04 decided the best course of action would be to take over Wyoming. Or maybe Alaska.
The plan, which Sorens calls "The Free State Project," is ambitious. It calls for moving 20,000 people -- including the one additional Yalie who has signed on so far -- over the next nine years to a sparsely populated state where they would take to the ballot boxes in order to repeal most drug and gun laws, eliminate the income tax, and privatize most government-run industries.
So in July 2001, he posted an essay on the project on the Internet. Within a few days, he had over 200 e-mails from people who were interested.
"The response was positively overwhelming," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at yaledailynews.com ...
Not at the moment, no. But we're on that path if Democratic corruption and the march toward socialism isn't curbed soon.
Said 20 million, would NOT have every job / profession / expertise represnted therein.
Yes they would.
Neither could you get any major business to move in / subsidize the new nation.
Ask the Bahamas about that.
There is no way on earth, that you could buy enough gold, to back whatever currency " NEW TINFOILIANIA " would use. And on and on and bloody on !
If everyone traded in their dollars for gold and silver coins and used those for currency, that's all the backing that's needed. The backing would be in everyone's pocket.
Wanna play games ? Okay ... here's the game, we get every single FREEPER and every member of their extended families and all of their friends and fly off to ... ?
It could happen if events of the last ten years continue. It's happened through history time and time again. I hate to break the news to you but most likely your ancestors lived in Europe 600 years ago.
Oh, never mind, this is fantasy for little children, so let's just say that we take over the USA. I become " QUEEN OF AMERICA " and have every non-Conservative arrested, lined up and shot.
Nope, I'm not with you there. My idea is better.
What , people complain because some of their mothers/ fathers/ husbands / wives / children / whatever are in that group ? TOUGH. next, to make you happy, we're back on the Gold Standard.
The U.S. already has it's credit established with the military to back it up. A fledgling nation would need real money at least until credit was built.
No, wait, I don't care about that, so that's out. But, I'll revamp education, from top to bottom ( and YES, I am VERY knowledgeable about this topic and could do it brilliantly !) and get rid of all unions.
I could go for that.
This isn't what you want to hear, I know , but it makes a lot more sense than anything you've written. You don't know the level of people's anger / disgust with the world, after WW II, any more than you know about corruption and what's wrong with things today.
I haven't made any claims as such. I asked you and you won't answer.
Are you even 30 yet ? How many advanced degrees do you have ? If you have any, they aren't in history, economics, politics, pyschology, sociology, government, or English. LOL
Engineering. I'll engineer a new nation. LOL
Of course you don't see any " solutions " from me ; that's NOT what this thread, or even your very off topic rants are about. Since you've asked ( finally ) , I'll give you the shortest answer. Influence everyone you know and ever run into, to vote GOP, get at least 80 % of all Dems ousted from every single, local, state, and Fed Gov offices, then, work on getting moderate GOPers out of office.
We've been doing that since 1932 and the nation is more socialist and there are more crimes committed by Democrats than ever. The people that make up this country aren't the same people that were here in the late 1800s. Too much unselective immigration is driving conservatism down.
That's just for starters ; however, it would go a long way in turning things around. Unlike your juvenile, purile, delusional mental masturbations, this would actualaly do something concrete. :-)
Why isn't it working?
My homepage tells the story. Rural areas red, urban blue. Who's been populating the blue areas in the last 100 years? The people we let in recently, that's who. Therein lies our mistake. We let socialists ecaping from socialism come in in too many numbers only to try to turn their new home into their old home. This isn't a racist statement either. The anti-Castro Cubans have been good immigrants relatively speaking. We got lucky they were the ones in prison that came in on the boatlift. All it takes is a little bit of selectiveness. A freedom test. Genes and chromosomes can't be changed. Exactly when are you expecting this great miracle return to freedom minded conservatism? Reagan was a great president and yet the march toward socialism continued during his presidency. Bush has been a very good president and yet the march toward socialism continues. FDR got the American people addicted to nanny government services and I don't see them giving up their addiction any time soon. Every year, it's more, more, more.
If we take back more of the media and the country still disolves into corruption and socialism, I don't see any way out. Then what? An island? Israel? Texas? Maybe the liberals would happily jettison Texas. There've been more amazing things in the history of the earth.
Your suggestion that Libertarian Michiel van Notten was seeking to establish "Self-appointed judges unbound by written law" is as absurd as the first time you tried to sneak it by.
Michael van Notten sought to help in the establishment of a free and self-sufficient Somalia predicated on the Codification of the Xeer, i.e., upon the Written Code of Somali Natural Law:
I began by saying that a social experiment with far-reaching implications is shaping up in Somalia. That experiment consists in the Somalis seeking an alternative to legislative law by looking to their existing customary tribal law, the Xeer, and its further development to serve all of the needs of an emerging urban society. The Xeer promises to become one of the great bodies of customary law, like Anglo-American common law or Jewish traditional law (Halacha). These legal codes are flexible, responsive, and can be maintained without a large central state or legislative apparatus.
A small amount of private funding has just been committed to begin codifying the Xeer. While the Xeerada (plural) appear to vary from tribe to tribe, it is only because each contains mythology particular to its tribe. In essence, the Xeerada are alike in protecting freedom of movement, free trade, and other individual freedoms, and forbidding the contrary-including taxation and legislation.
The Somali nation did not start with the tribes having a common language but by their common observance of the Xeer. Hence the law is called both father and child of the Somali nation.
A society organized strictly in accordance with the Xeer is technically a “kritarchy,” as opposed to a democracy, theocracy, monarchy, oligarchy, or other form of political government. The term, a little-used nineteenth-century word compounded from the Greek, literally means “rule by judges.” Many stateless societies have been kritarchies, including the well-known example of the Old Testament Jews during the time of the Judges. The proposed free enclaves also would be kritarchies, since they would be founded solely on the principles of successful modern commerce and the traditional Xeer. ~~Spencer Heath MacCallum
Relates Van Notten:
I found that Xeer literally means 'the cord that is strung around a nomadic hut and keeps it together'. Figuratively, it has come to mean 'the set of rules that keep society together'.
Among these principles are those four mentioned... as being typical Somali, to wit: freedom in their life, freedom to trade, freedom to move and freedom from governmental restrictions. So, Kingman and the Somalis do seem to agree that there are certain principles that 'belong' to human beings and are inherent in human nature. The Somali way of saying that these principles are 'natural rights' is that they are u dallasho ('obtained by birth'). The fact that the Xeer is something very fundamental comes out in the dictum Xeer wa darix ladafi karin (the law is like a trench one cannot jump over). ~~Michael Van Notten
Well, isn;t that interesting. Given the current "failure" of Libertarian Michael van Notten to assist the Somalis in developing a Libertarian Kritarchy predicated upon the Written Code of the Somali "Xeer" Common Law (in which Religion and Law are kept separate), many Somalis are instead adopting the totalitarian Islamic Shari'ah Tyranny in its place.
Guess you're pleased as punch about that, Roscoe -- after all, it is YOU who have celebrated the "failure" of the Somalis to establish Natural Law systems of governance, and instead called the adoption of Tyrannical Islamic Shari'ah Law "Something to be glad for." (134 posted on 10/24/02 12:08 AM Pacific by Roscoe) In your sociopathic hatred of Liberty and Natural Law, you actually call the establishment of Islamofascism in its place... "Something to be glad for."
You spit on the blood of thousands of your murdered countrymen with your sickening Aid and Comfort for Islamofascism.
Actually, the Bush administration has put the Somali Islamist movement al-Ittihad al-Islamiyya (“Islamic Unity”) on its list of terrorist organizations. How would you address that fact?
I would address it by saying that if the Somali Islamist movement has been identified as a Terrorist organization, then you must be real proud of your cheer-leading for the establishment of a Tyrannical Islamofascist State in Somaliland, aren't you?? Your Islamofascist "buddies" in that part of the world are getting their names in the headlines -- you must be so happy.
After all, your abhorrence for Liberty and Americanism is well-evidenced by the Pro-Islamofascist statements you have made on this thread:
Article 5: Religion
1. Islam is the religion of the nation, and the promotion of any religion in the territory of Somaliland, other than Islam, is prohibited.
2. The laws of the nation shall be grounded on, and shall not be valid if they are contrary to Islamic Sharia.
3. The state shall promote religious tenets (religious affairs), and shall fulfil Sharia principles and discourage immoral acts and reprehensible behaviour.
4. The calendar shall be the Islamic Calendar based on the hijra and the Gregorian Calendar.
Fifth Columnist Disruptors like "Roscoe" who openly celebrate the establishment of a Repressive Islamic Shari'ah Tyranny in Somaliland are a treasonous poison to Free Republic.
As with alcoholics, depends on the Junkie, and the Junk in question (Opium fiends are not famous for wanting to go on road trips... or engage in physical movement, for that matter). And, as with Alcoholics, that's what we have Drunk Driving and Public Intoxication laws for (and you can raise the Legal Penalties on those laws as high as you want, I am not likely to oject very much).
For me, as I said before, it comes down to this: What can I morally justify as a Jesus-like form of behavior?
I just can't see home-invasion to, for example, prevent the private usage of Opium... as a Jesus-like Moral Action.
It's a Private Property thing. I've little or no objection to regulations on the Public Commons (I'm a Taxpayer, a part owner), but...
...Is just a Prayer I can not see, as being something I could morally Pray to God.
And if I can't morally Pray for it, I can't morally Vote for it.
As always, JMHO. Best, OP
Alcohol isn't as addictive as hard drugs.
For me, as I said before, it comes down to this: What can I morally justify as a Jesus-like form of behavior? I just can't see home-invasion to, for example, prevent the private usage of Opium... as a Jesus-like Moral Action. It's a Private Property thing. I've little or no objection to regulations on the Public Commons (I'm a Taxpayer, a part owner), but... "Please Lord Jesus, bless and sanctify my breaking into this guy's home and putting a gun to his head so he won't smoke opium"... ...Is just a Prayer I can not see, as being something I could morally Pray to God. And if I can't morally Pray for it, I can't morally Vote for it. As always, JMHO. Best, OP
In Jesus' first advent he didn't come to be a drug agent, he came to be sacrificed as the lamb. You're going to see some law being enforced at the second advent.
And cigarettes are as addictive.
But in many, many, many cases... alcohol is much more destructive than either. Many alcohol-users drink and drive all the time, causing significant death and destruction.
But we do not penalize Alcohol users who stay at home, for the actions of those who drink and drive. We don't invade people's homes and smash bottles of Vodka; we punish those who actually drive while drunk.
In Jesus' first advent he didn't come to be a drug agent, he came to be sacrificed as the lamb. You're going to see some law being enforced at the second advent.
Sure... but unless you think that it is your responsibility to slay the wicked for their Moral Vices, it is the first advent which is our Life-example as Christians.
But cigarettes don't cause people to kill people. People can smoke all they want, I don't care.
But in many, many, many cases... alcohol is much more destructive than either. Many alcohol-users drink and drive all the time, causing significant death and destruction.
But the rate of addiction is much higher for hard drugs. All my friends drink, none have killed anyone or been killed. A few of my friends have done drugs, most lost their jobs, one was killed by a dealer. A million people have similar stories as mine. I vote what I know and that's what I know.
But we do not penalize Alcohol users who stay at home, for the actions of those who drink and drive. We don't invade people's homes and smash bottles of Vodka; we punish those who actually drive while drunk.
Yep, because society has decided that alcohol isn't as dangerous as hard drugs.
Sure... but unless you think that it is your responsibility to slay the wicked for their Moral Vices, it is the first advent which is our Life-example as Christians.
No, not totally. In the first advent He was an example to teachers. Turn the other cheek only applies when ministering and you offend someone. We are not to let people treat us as He was treated. He was meant to be sacrificed, we aren't. We're allowed to stand up for ourselves.
You don't believe in breaking in someone's home to enforce the law. What if you lived in the middle of a city and a neighbor was keeping a hydrogen bomb in his garage and said he was going to set it off. Should the police be allowed to break in this person's home and get the bomb? A bomb holder's problem's wouldn't be confined to his home and I feel that too many drug user's problems spill out into the street. I vote accordingly. You feel drug users do a good job of keeping their problems to themselves and you can vote accordingly. We agree to disagree, don't we. I went through this exact same stuff in 1200 posts in two days a month ago and don't feel like going through it again. If you want to see everything I wrote, I'll direct you to those threads if I can find them. Only 1% of the population want to legalize hard drugs and so this argument isn't worth a lot of my time. You're not going to get your way anytime soon. And it's things like this that make me never want to be part of the Libertarian party nor want to be around them if they were to run their own state or nation. Sorry.
Your friend who was killed by a dealer... he wasn't gunned down in one of those notorious street battles between employees of Rite-Aid and Wal-Mart Pharmacy fighting over Viagra turf, was he? Didn't think so.
Not to be flippant with the memories of the dead, but realize this: Opium was legal (a dutied import, on the regular customs schedule) in the US until 1905 (shortly after Governments began pushing heroin as a "cure" for morphine addiction... oh, great). But legal Pharmacists are not widely known for shooting eachother, or customers, over "turf".
You know it. So... "vote what you know"?
You don't believe in breaking in someone's home to enforce the law. What if you lived in the middle of a city and a neighbor was keeping a hydrogen bomb in his garage and said he was going to set it off. Should the police be allowed to break in this person's home and get the bomb?
What if your neighbor owned a gun?
If he said he was going to shoot you, then the Cops should take an interest.
If he didn't, the cops shouldn't.
Now, of course, as concerns nuclear weapons... I believe that a man should have a sufficient "fence" around his property to contain negative externalities... which renders the "private possession of nuclear weapons" unjustifiable for anyone with less than, say, ten thousand square miles of barren desert at a minimum.
However, the Government doesn't necessarily see it that way. Libertarians have demonstrated this... at least one libertarian has previously declared his intent to build a neutron bomb in downtown New York City (just to see what the Government would do).
Guess what... The Government sent them instructions -- and tried to subsidize them.
I mean, forget the current hysteria on kids discovering something dangerous about the Bomb in public libraries or (today) the Internet; in 1979 in response to us, the government promptly sent us instructions.
I applied for and promptly received a DOD number from the Pentagon, endless invitations to Military Surplus auctions, all along with a packet of specifications stamped TOP SECRET in sinister candy striped boxes that, upon advice of my father, as a retired Pentagon and intelligence high official, I promptly and without opening got rid of in an incinerator.
There was thus also the call of collective service. I received materials computer-addressed to "Dear Mr. Neutron" urging me to sign up for tax breaks in some Byzantine pro-disadvantaged and illiterate-minority hiring scheme of the City that, I must confess, after diligent re-reading, I never really quite understood. "The City of New York… believe we can encourage deaf, dumb, blind, alcohol-, controlled substance- or motor-dishabilatated (?) people who may not have reading or numeric skills in [here I presume the computer filled in a blank in the form-letter] home neutron-bomb industry with this tax advantaged initiative."
Holy cow. And people like that writer make fun of Libertarians?
Who was I to disagree with the City Fathers of the Mightiest Metropolis on Earth, by virtue of the UN presence, the very capital of the planet? They wanted those "blind blind-drunks" and folks who were "usually OK as long as they took their medication" sitting there next to me, cheek by jowl, as we crafted home N-bombs like a South Manhattan Santa with his whacked-out elves.
As I circulated drafts of this article over several months for comment, a friend noted that the climate was indeed different — in a way.
Chico, California, had passed a law — not against owning a Nuclear Bomb, not against building one, but exploding one in city limits. The fine is set at $500.
Call them up. They are very proud of this law.
A bomb holder's problem's wouldn't be confined to his home and I feel that too many drug user's problems spill out into the street. I vote accordingly. You feel drug users do a good job of keeping their problems to themselves and you can vote accordingly. We agree to disagree, don't we. I went through this exact same stuff in 1200 posts in two days a month ago and don't feel like going through it again. If you want to see everything I wrote, I'll direct you to those threads if I can find them. Only 1% of the population want to legalize hard drugs and so this argument isn't worth a lot of my time. You're not going to get your way anytime soon. And it's things like this that make me never want to be part of the Libertarian party nor want to be around them if they were to run their own state or nation. Sorry.
Majority Vote does not define Truth.
Try as I might, I can't make myself see...
And if I as a Christian can't morally Pray for it...
...Then I as a Christian I can't morally Vote for it.
As always, JMHO. Best, OP
She was killed. There was no reason to do it, she was 24 years old. He was simply wigged out on meth.
Not to be flippant with the memories of the dead, but realize this: Opium was legal (a dutied import, on the regular customs schedule) in the US until 1905 (shortly after Governments began pushing heroin as a "cure" for morphine addiction... oh, great). But legal Pharmacists are not widely known for shooting eachother, or customers, over "turf".
They weren't fighting over turf. He was simply wigged out on drugs. His drug using dad had killed a young girl a few years before and I guess he wanted to know what it felt like and being high on meth reduces one's inhibitions.
You know it. So... "vote what you know"?
I will and I know that hard drugs are too addictive to too many people to be legal.
What if your neighbor owned a gun?
If my neighbor threatened to shoot me with his gun for no reason then he should be arrested for that.
If he said he was going to shoot you, then the Cops should take an interest. If he didn't, the cops shouldn't.
My neighbors have guns, that's fine with me. Guns don't make one crazy like hard drugs do.
Now, of course, as concerns nuclear weapons... I believe that a man should have a sufficient "fence" around his property to contain negative externalities... which renders the "private possession of nuclear weapons" unjustifiable for anyone with less than, say, ten thousand square miles of barren desert at a minimum.
I feel the same about drugs. Since that's not possible then keep them illegal.
However, the Government doesn't necessarily see it that way. Libertarians have demonstrated this... at least one libertarian has previously declared his intent to build a neutron bomb in downtown New York City (just to see what the Government would do).
Figures.
Guess what... The Government sent them instructions -- and tried to subsidize them.
They saw him as a joke.
Majority Vote does not define Truth.
But it's the law.
Oh, crystal meth. My pardon. I agree that crystal meth, "redneck cocaine", is a genuinely evil drug.
It's manufacture is also a direct consequence of Drug Prohibition.
When these products were taken off the market, meth was reborn.
Today's meth labs are very similar to the illegal distilleries of the era known as the "Noble Experiment." During our alcohol-prohibition era, thousands died and thousands went blind and were crippled for life from what was then known as "bathtub gin."
Like the meth of today, the "bathtub gin" was easily made from household and industrial products. Like the meth of today, the "bathtub gin" was a product created by prohibition. Like the meth of today, illegal alcohol could be manufactured just about anywhere. Like the meth of today, Prohibition-era alcohol was of unknown quality, potency and purity.
When alcohol Prohibition ended in 1933, almost 100 percent of the "bathtub gin" producers went out of business for economic reasons and stayed out of the business for economic reasons. When alcohol prohibition ended in 1933, the U.S. murder rate declined for 10 consecutive years. Have we learned any lessons?
Not yet. ~~ Kirk Muse,Mesa, Arizona
Commercially, Crystal Methamphetamine is an economically non-viable drug, were it not for the economics of Prohibition. Like "white lightning" bathtub gin, Crystal Meth will not survive decriminalization in any significant quantity.
Frankly, the economics just aren't there for it without the artificial profit margin.
Guess what... The Government sent them instructions -- and tried to subsidize them. ~~ They saw him as a joke.
It was a Joke.... until the Government itself started shipping Top-Secret DOD specifications to him. (Which is precisely why he burned the specs... unlike his Government, he possessed Common Sense).
Majority Vote does not define Truth. ~~ But it's the law.
It is the Law, sure... but the current state of Law is not the Ethical Question that a Christian considers when he is asked to make Law (as I am, indirectly, at every Election).
If I am asked to vote for or against a given Policy, the only Moral standard I can think of is, "What is a Jesus-Like moral action?"
Try as I might, I can't make myself see...
...as being something I could morally Pray to God.
And if I as a Christian can't morally Pray for it...
...Then I as a Christian I can't morally Vote for it.
As always, JMHO. Best, OP
By way of example, Cocaine is an economically viable drug, regardless of Prohibition. Cocaine was profitable in modest doses ("Coca-cola") long before Prohibition, and it is an insanely profitable drug now (although, just as we saw with "white lightning" under Alcohol Prohibition, producers have an economic incentive to package and market the drug in extremely high concentrations in order to facilitate Ease of Smuggling).
But I don't immediately recall "Metha-Cola" being a profitable Tonic Drink prior to prohibition economics.
Although even if it were profitable -- which is dubious -- the lower dosages encouraged by Non-Prohibition would probably be much less dangerous than the extremely high concentrations which are economically encouraged by Prohibition Economics.
Illegality creates "hard-ness".
Prohibition is the difference between 19th century "Coca Cola", and 20th century "crack cocaine". It creates an economic incentive to package and market the drug in extremely high concentrations to facilitate ease of smuggling.
No, they manufacture because they know how. If everything was legal except meth, they would still manufacture it because they like it.
Commercially, Crystal Methamphetamine is an economically non-viable drug, were it not for the economics of Prohibition. Like "white lightning" bathtub gin, Crystal Meth will not survive decriminalization in any significant quantity.
Yes it would.
Frankly, the economics just aren't there for it without the artificial profit margin.
Then they would make it themselves.
It was a Joke.... until the Government itself started shipping Top-Secret DOD specifications to him. (Which is precisely why he burned the specs... unlike his Government, he possessed Common Sense).
Uh-huh.
It is the Law, sure... but the current state of Law is not the Ethical Question that a Christian considers when he is asked to make Law (as I am, indirectly, at every Election).
As sure as it should be illegal for someone to have a hydrogen bomb in their garage in a city, hard drugs should stay illegal. You never did answer my question: Should the police be allowed to go into someone's house to remove a hydrogen bomb in a city?
For the sake of those murdered by people on hard drugs, you should pray for it if that's the kind of stuff you pray for.
And then people would want the good stuff. That's why they choose crack over coke. There's a demand for potent drugs, the more potent, the more some want it.
Demand creates hardness.
Prohibition is the difference between 19th century "Coca Cola", and 20th century "crack cocaine". It creates an economic incentive to package and market the drug in extremely high concentrations to facilitate ease of smuggling.
Plus people liked the extra-potency.
A pure libertarian country with no government other than tribal judges is not required for this project to be feasible. Nor is separation of church and state. What is required is political stability, enforcability of contracts, the rule of law, and security of private property. Also helpful are a liberal trade policy, a low tax burden, and a stable currency. The constitution of Somaliland seems favorable to the at least some of these things.
False.
All of the things that libertarianism is destructive of.
The identified terrorist activities are in Somali, which you assert Somaliland should be part if.
As interpreted by our court judges.
Federal & state drug ~prohibition~ laws do not so comply on any number of grounds.
Then do drugs and see if the courts will save you from going to jail.
Reasonable law ~regulating~ the commercial sale & public use of mind altering substances on public health & safety grounds are perfectly constitutional, as you well know, as per alcohol.
Test it in the courts. I'll stand back and watch.
Which leaves this question. -- Why do you support unconstitutional prohibitionary type laws, -- laws which in their enforcement are destroying the very principles our free republic is built upon?
Our republic wasn't built on drug freedoms any more than it was built on the right of people to have sex in public.
You're the one that believes that states don't have the right to outlaw drug use, aren't you. So much for the myth of "state's rights Libertarians". LOL
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.