Confused Democrats renew attack on Free State Project

[Dada Orwell]

FoxNews.com did an audio feature this week on the Free State Project in which members were honored yet again with the ultimate compliment:

An attack... By a Democrat party hack!

The Free State Project, for those uninitiated, is the movement aimed at persuading 20,000 liberty-oriented individuals to move to New Hampshire and reinforce the increasingly bold freedom movement there. Free Staters, almost to a man, oppose "Nanny Government..." including gun control, coercive funding of public schools and drug prohibition.

Here's NH Democrat Party chair Kathy Sullivan's take on the Free State Project:

"Well I think it's a bad idea because the leadership of the Free State Project is talking about establishing an autocracy in New Hampshire. I'm a firm believer in democracy, I do not think it's a good idea for a group to come in and try to take over, in essence, control of the government. I think that democracy is a great thing. Unfortunately, the leadership of the Free State Project is promoting this as an actual takeover of the government and promoting the establishment of an autocracy."

Free Staters, while always happy to be attacked by Demothoritarians, were nevertheless confused by Ms. Sullivan's remarks.

Most of them favor extremely limited government and increased state & local *autonomy* to such an extent that Sullivan herself has in the past called them "anarchists."

One theory is that Sullivan meant to say "autonomy" instead of "autocracy" or that she thinks the word "autocracy" means "autonomous state." This is understandable if she was raised in a government school.

Just for the record:

Autocracy

1. Government by a single person having unlimited power; despotism. 2. A country or state that is governed by a single person with unlimited power.

- American Heritage College Dictionary:

[Cultural Jihad]

Why would he bother? It's dangerous.

As if cooking or using meth today in one of the 'slave states' is not dangerous, and as if no one bothers to do what is dangerous today.

[Cultural Jihad]

That is the whole Idea. Stiffle others opinions.

So whose opinions are being stiffled? No one's that I can see.

[ovrtaxt]

Instead, I disapprove of vilifying the immigrants who are here, and recognize the reality of their existence, and wish to integrate them, and separate out those who are here to be productive from those who are here for no good. I'm sure you do, too.

Exactly. I'm for enforcing the just laws which define and protect the borders of a sovereign nation. I am for ending the welfare handouts, paid for by me, to individuals who are not citizens of this nation, and have violated these laws. I am for rewarding those who respect the rule of law, who have applied legally for entry and citizenship, with the rewards of becoming and American, and meeting those who do not with it's judgment.

I'm sure you do not. I'm sure you are willing to somehow comprimise lawlessness in the name of 'compassion' or 'social justice' or some other flimsy false justification.

[mvpel]

As if cooking or using meth today in one of the 'slave states' is not dangerous, and as if no one bothers to do what is dangerous today.

The only reason it's worth the risk of danger to cook it is because of the incredible profit margin that the enforced scarcity imposed by the War on Some Drugs has guaranteed for it.

If the government restrained itself to its Constitutionally-authorized duties instead of trying to control what its citizens put into their bodies, mood-altering substances (other than Paxil, Zoloft, Celexa, Prozac, Adrafinil, Deprenyl, Effexor, Moclobemide, Reboxetine, Tianeptine, Lexapro, Luvox, Nortriptyline, Remeron, Serzone, Trazodone, Wellbutrin, etc, which are patented) would be available for pennies a dose, which is near their intrinsic value, and I suspect that not many people would bother with the risk of cooking meth if they couldn't demand a thousand times that price.

[Cultural Jihad]

Well, one often hears stories that the price is all artificially high, whereas in actuality it is determined solely by supply and demand. As an example, cannabis costs the same whether one buys it on the street or walks into a government-approved cafe for it.

[Dada Orwell]

Someone asked for a link to the audio file that generated this thread. here it is:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108219,00.html

You'll have to scroll down to the picture of the porcupine.

mv wrote:

##As if cooking or using meth today in one of the 'slave states' is not dangerous ##

"slave states" heh heh

[mvpel]

Al Capone's criminal organization pulled in something on the order of $60 million a year during alcohol prohibition, corrupting vast swaths of government and law enforcement, and America got its first exposure to "gang warfare:"

What is it about this kind of social pathology that so enchants you? Do you think it's better than however many people masturbating themselves to death on chemical orgasms without the benefit of a Government bootprint on their door?

[Cultural Jihad]

What is it about this kind of social pathology that so enchants you?

Libertarians for fraud, eh?

[mvpel]

Fraud? What are you talking about?

[gnarledmaw]

Or,

“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”
H.L. Mencken

[dustind]

The cost to produce almost any drug is about the same regardless of whether it is currently legal or not. If you get rid of taxes and regulations they would be cheaper still. Illegal drugs would cost about the same as Tylenol to produce. They would also be a lot safer and accidental overdoses on almost any drugs would be nearly non existent.

There is very little labor or material cost involved in the production of drugs. The cost is there due to risk of loosing your life or freedom by going against the government, doing everything in secret, and competing in the black market. When was the last time people got killed over producing and selling alcohol? When did all the moonshiners close shop? Making anything illegal increases the profit for anyone who is willing to break the law. I could make a killing selling cigarets in many parts of the country right now due to taxes, litigation costs, and regulations on the product. They are $8 a pack in some places!

[Cultural Jihad]

And yet the price is either the same or higher for legal, government-approved cannabis. Again, it's simply the law of supply and demand.

[dustind]

I agree that it is supply and demand, but the price of drugs, both legal and not is distorted incredibly by the government. The supply would rise if the market was not so restricted and regulated.

[Cultural Jihad]

Indeed, but the the fact is the going price is still the same or higher for legal cannabis than the price for the same illegal thing on the corner. None of your many replies have addressed that point yet.