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 ...
I don't worry about what's harder than the other. They're all bad and it's more efficient to keep them all outlawed. My sample size is big enough for my vote.
The rest of your post is probably written by liberals. I deleted it. Personal experience is all I need.
So how many of the very elect will there be and what will they be doing?
There's no such thing as the "very elect", the term NEVER occurs in Scripture... not even once.
As with much of your "Bible interpretation", you're just making this up.
If you claim otherwise, cite one verse of Scripture which specifically refers to the "very elect".
"Very Elect". ONE verse.
Otherwise, you're just fabricating Lies into God's Holy Word.
Yes on the condition that the drug he is administering is legal.
Is that what it says in the Bible? Can you find any instance of a drug being outlawed in the Bible?
A state ordained of God.
So how was it "theft", if the State had Outlawed the property-ownership in question?? Be specific -- how was it "theft", if the State had Outlawed the Ownership in question??
The Nazis weren't of God.
Also, you do not treat those who become intoxicated on Private Property, as you would like to be treated.
Yes. I subject myself to the same laws as everyone else.
For example, a Yemeni Muslim would outlaw your beer, but permit the herbal intoxicant khat, an amphetamine-like euphoriant and stimulant. You would turn the tables, and outlaw khat while permitting beer.
I won't live in Yemen.
What do you both have in common? Your both in favor of violating the Golden Rule -- breaking into people's houses and putting a gun to their heads to prevent Private Intoxication.
I'm willing to live under the same law that I vote for.
So you want to outlaw ALL drugs now? Alcohol too?
I don't worry about what's harder than the other.
If you are going to keep alcohol legal, you'd be hypocritical not to consider them to alcohol. Your own personal experience means nothing, and you won't find a study that backs what you are saying save meth and some lesser used drugs which I've already yielded to you
When did you vote to have meth outlawed?
I'm not convinced that pot is a god to smokers. Close though.
And the US is my antithesis and just as valid a proof. The fact that China claims in public that it no longer has any drug abusers (now that it is a communist dictatorship) is not impressive in the slightest.
I'm sure there are many drug abusers in China. But it was really bad after 1600 with opium. They were forced to make it illegal because of the rate of addiction.
One could purchase heroin over the counter in 1900 in the US. It wasn't a big problem. It became so only after prohibition was enacted with heroin, cocaine and the like. The Pope used to drink an elixer containing Cocaine and swore by it. So did many Americans.
Opium was a big problem in China after 1600. Why were drugs made illegal if no one was getting addicted to them?
At any rate, this is a deflection on your part. Self-medication is an inherant right. You don't seem to want to disagree with that. Why not?
Drug addiction isn't self-medication.
Doesn't seem to matter to #3Fan. Apparently, his "golden rule" is, "him whose gots the Gold, makes the Rules."
Only the real Golden Rule does not work that way. The real Golden Rule is...
Ergo, if you do not want Other Citizens to define for you, according to THEIR determinations, what substances you will be permitted to consume... and to break down your door and put a gun to your head if you violate THEIR decision...
...Then you cannot Morally do this to other citizens.
...Then you cannot Morally do this to other citizens.
You haven't even responded to the question.
Drug addiction isn't self-medication.
I have never said that it is. Do you or do you not agree that self-medication is an inherent right?
Yes, I'm willing to live under the same laws as the ones I vote for.
You KNOW that such behavior is a Violation of the Golden Rule.
I would hope that there would be something to stop me from being a toothless drug addict.
What about Christian Scientists, who don't believe that ANY sort of conventional medicines should be used? Should they do to you that which you want to do to others??
Through the law, yes. I choose to live in a constitutional republic. It guarantees that I can live around people who believe as I what's good for society. That's why I'm a strong believer in state's rights.
Funny, I don't recall any morphine bars anywhere.
No interruption at all, thanks for the thoughts.
There's certainly evidence that different sorts of religion tend to be favorable to different sorts of government, but it's not an easy breakdown... especially given that it breaks down by Denominations within Religions at least as much (or moreso) than it breaks down by Religion per se.
JMHO.
What does that have to do with the legality of morphine?
It's not trespassing.
You have said that you believe that the law must conform to God's law to be legitimate. Yet you have no idea what the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence says about government authority and from where it is derived?
I only worry about things that are against God's law. Whether the Constitution declares it gets it's power from the people or from God is irrelevant. It's the laws that matter.
Either one is before that generation died, What does it matter?
It speaks of alot of things. What does this have to do with what Jesus prophesied in Matthew? That Prophecy was predicated upon the statement "this generation shall not pass."
And it didn't. The last days began with the crucifixion.
Revelation speaks of the end. The end will come when wars end.
Mar 13:7 And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for [such things] must needs be; but the end [shall] not [be] yet.
You have already admitted that you have absolutely no idea where authority comes from in a constitutional republic. Thus you have now been proven a liar. You didn't chose to live in a constitutional republic. You were born here and you are under the delusion that you had something to do with the drug laws even if indirectly by voting for a congressman who supported them.
You have had absolutely no affect on the drug laws. You didn't "chose them" nor did those who disagree with them have any affect on their passage. The laws violate the constitution on several levels. But you wouldn't know that because you can't be bothered to even know what your own constitution says. I bet you also call yourself a "patriotic" American.
Eee-gads. Talk about turning the words of Jesus upside-down.
Your "golden rule" amounts to an immoral authorization for anybody to impose their own commandments on anyone else as long as they use the Force of Law to do it.
Your prohibitionism has led you into outright blasphemy.
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.