Posted on 01/20/2003 4:59:56 PM PST by unspun
Well, a couple things to consider. First of all, is this trend necessarily the result of national drug policies? Second, consider the time period that this report and the data are from, and ask yourself wheather the people issuing the data might lie to make themselves look better.
Yes it is. And yet, there it is, in black and white. Like I said, Being self evident doesn't preclude it being in the scriptures.
Also, be careful who's getting kicked! In America, Caesar is us folk!
Is now. Wasn't then. :)
Is now.
Sorry, I strongly disagree. The "government" does not equal the "people." Our constitutions make a clear distinction between the government and the people. For example, in Article I Section 8 of the federal constitution, the people delegate a few powers to the government. In Amendment 9, the people retain all rights not delegated to the government.
I remember hearing Professor Murray Rothbard digress one time in his History of Economic Thought class. He said his wife had Larry King on the radio on the drive to class that evening and Larry told a caller, "...but, but, in America the government is the people." Rothbard couldn't help wondering, "If the government is the people, does that mean that when the government kills us like they did at Waco, that we are committing suicide?"
With regard to taxation (tribute) Caesar treated the "people" of what was left of the Roman republic in a manner much closer to Jesus' Golden Rule than the government of our "free" republic treats its "people."
Just look at Jesus and Peter's discussion about the nature of taxation in Matthew 17 cited earlier in this thread by poster .30Carbine in #129:
Jesus: "What thinkest thou, Simon? Of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? Of their own children, or of strangers?"
Peter: "Of strangers."
Jesus: "Then are the children free. Notwithstanding, lest we should offend [the agents of kings of the earth]..."
The idea of a government (especially a republic) stealing tribute from its own citizens had to wait for 2 wolves and a sheep style democracy to become popular.
Now that gives me an idea. Maybe we can persuade FR's pro-War Racketeers to withhold support for expansion of the Empire until Bush and Congress treat us with the same degree of respect that Caesar treated Roman citizens by putting an end to taxing us and exacting tribute only from conquered peoples?
Part of the problem is, when pro-WOD's make statements or express opinion, the anti-WOD's discredit those opinions because they differ from their own. Now, if we are speaking about "empty opinions," they would have the "right" to challenge/discredit an opinion, the same as would a pro-WOD in discrediting the anti-WOD's. When a pro-WOD makes a statement or expresses an opinion, the anti-WOD DEMANDS proof/support/websites/names, etc. Once the evidence is presented, however, the anti-WOD's discredit these sources, i.e., professors they don't know or other reputable organizations' sources, as well. For instance, they have already discredited information posted on Eagle Forum and it sources, without providing any proof to document or substantiate their refutations.
The anti-WODS merely state their refutations and these must be taken on its own standing, such as "that doctor's works have been discredited." Oh, really? Well, by whom, when, and why? Tidbits of information like this are not provided to support their claims. That, by the way, is just one example; there are countless others like that on a multitude of threads.
From what I have noticed on many, many threads, the anti-WOD's discredit any and all information which would either conflict or impede their goal (little or no drug laws). Without adding information about the topic at hand, e.g., marijuana and its effects on the human body, the thread is then hijacked to a discussion about something else: alcohol. As if the presence of one "evil" justifies the presence of another.
When pro-WODS do not agree with anti-WODs, they also rever to name-calling or disparagement and attribute opposing opinions as being emotionally based. They are also suspect of any Government publication or research, or even independent publications and research if it aligns itself with the government and dismiss them all as "propaganda," etc.
As I have already mentioned, the anti-WOD's do not provide materials to back up their refutations as pertains to doctors' credentials, as pertains to THC, or as pertains to most anything they claim, state, or opine.
With that in mind, how could it then be possible to have a dialogue or resolve issues with people who demand evidence but produce none; when certain posters resort to name-calling or insult-hurling when they cannot convince another to agree with them; or when many anti-WOD's seem more interested in refining their debating "techniques" instead of "brain-storming" for solutions---which would actually be the whole point to such a thread. It is for these reasons that I (and many others) refrain from posting on these threads. And, it is all about "me" you know! : )
Is now. Wasn't then. :)
Apolgies for reading your post too hastily.
Yet, were we Caesar then? Yes and no and yes, according to the D of I, Ay?:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...."
What I'm thinking of is an attempt to see, among those willing to post, how few overall policies we could coalesce around. Four? Three? Two? The prospect of one would be very dubious.
While I'm not optimistic that we can have overlapping discussions without a free for all, I'd say that the failure to even maintain discussions would also be a pertinent kind of statement.
LOL!!! That, it sure would, unspun. : )
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This does not preclude the people, continuing to promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of our Liberty, from more specifically addressing national roles for handling certain subjects. In fact, the powers reserved by the people may at any time be further proscribed to methods of government, by Amendment. That is a very original intent of constitution.
For another of many instances, there is a portion of FR dedicated to the astronomy picture of the day. Some of these are by means of NASA or the JPL. I see no provision for these (or for setting food and drug standards) in the Constitution, though I do see a very proper role for federal government there, as do most conservatives.
A new Libertarian bumper sticker: "Elected representatives are unconstitional!!!"
You've admitted your first argument is crap. I don't see any reason to consider that one to be any better.
True, but I'll point out that kingoms are populated by subjects - "strangers" to the King. Republics are populated by citizens.
Yes, they do. Some of us even look far enough down the road to see that what is "safe" and in our own immediate interests is not necessarily best.
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.