11th Commandment, "Right to Abuse"

Those times are on their way to being over. Any sort of unspoken agreement has long since deteriorated. My dad and his friends used to talk about being sent on for drunk driving(multiple times), getting away with possession of even some hard drugs, and other things. It's not like that any more. Too many people have broken trust on one side or another. Drugs became more illegal, unofficially, the first time a crack head broke into somebody's house, or a drug dealer shot some punk kid that owed him money. The world is jaded, and now we have to live w/ less freedom. It's not right, but it's life.

 

no I dont agree at all. it gives the government the right to rule me til I feel I am being infringed upon. the right to bear arms basically is the right to overthrow an oppresive government.

 

I am confused, how can you say "I wish the man agreed." and, in the next breath, tell us that the man does agree?

Which is it rummy?

 

I never said he agreed and if I did it was a typo.

 

oh i see you fail to distinguish between my interpretation of the document and the actual practice that I have come into contact with.

 

Oh, I see, #22 was not directed to me. Nevermind then. Continue on.

 

But we can't have laws and regulations on individual levels. Just like in a class room, the behavior of a few cause restriction for the many.

You know, I never looked at it like that.

 

Rummy, you edited post #19 after I responded, I think.

 

what were the framers of the constutution thinking when they wrote it and what had they just done with that self given right?

 

What self given right?

 

prolly. was that the one that starts with yup. I didnt meant to post i meant to go advanced. accidents happen.

 

when the u.s. constitution was formalized there was indeed no such thing as a controlled substance, nor for that matter border patrols, building codes or driver's licences!

there was also unfortunately, no self restraint against robbing the land from the people who happened to be already living there, nor for that matter protection of any kind for women and children from their fathers and husbands.

neither petrolium nor it's uses had yet been discouvered and even coal wasn't yet being extracted on any signifigant scale.

that was then and this is now
and these are two very very different kinds of worlds.

if there is one glaring flaw in the u.s. constitution today, and there may be several others, (espcialy involving election law and procceedures), it is that the attourny general is appointed by the president.

i aggree it is both arbitrary and absurd to 'control' 'substances'
but neither do i see that as a reason to recreationaly consume them

that is a matter of personal tast
but the harm if any a person causes while under their influence
ought to be treated like any other harm they might have caused otherwise, neither more nor less because of it.

voluntarily impaired judgement is no excuse
and disturbing the peace is not victumless

=^^=
.../\...

 

so you assume that was my crimes?

 

assume? crime? what's that all about?
i make no assumption that you have committed any natural crime.

why would you assume that i do or would?

=^^=
.../\...

 

I totally agree with you on this Lynsey.

 

I dont belive in the system, i have lost faith in governmental authoritys to do what is right. I live in my own little world.

 

the limitless diversity of natural reality comes several orders of magnitude closer to making sense then ever does the mutual coerciveness of human society.

in principle no government has the right to take away the rights of anyone not given it "by mutual consent of the governed". in practice governments are people and people are people.

if there was an effective way to prevent any hierarchy from ever forming, we might all be better off. or we might not. but it IS one source of anxiety we COULD, and there HAVE been societies that have, get along just fine without. IF we could ever come up with a sufficiently effective way for it to not exist.

and i refuse to assume we sooner or later might not.

(although if we were to go suddenly from where we are now to the abscence of any sort of social organization a lot of people would get real hungry. but there's absolutely no reason in hell the social organization neccessary to maintain infrastructure on which our comfort zones and to a lesser degree our survival in current numbers depends, cannot be of a NONhierarchal architecture. that also can and has been done, and done quite successfully.

all that is needed is a way to protect nonhierarchicly organized societies from the encroachment of heirarchy,
and like i said, i refuse to believe there cannot eventualy
be devised some means by which this might ultimately be done)

=^^=
.../\...

 

I don’t know if that is entirely true.

“Betwixt subject and subject, they will grant, there must be measures, laws and judges, for their mutual peace and security: but as for the ruler, he ought to be absolute, and is above all such circumstances; because he has the power to do more hurt and wrong, it is right when he does it. To ask how you may be guarded from harm, or injury, on that side where the strongest hand is to do it, is presently the voice of faction and rebellion: as if when men quitting the state of nature entered into society, they agreed that all of them but one, should be under the restraint of laws, but that he should still retain all the liberty of the state of nature, increased with power, and made licentious by impunity.” Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government

Strip us of our role (as has been done) and license is his.

Unfortunately, size matters. I would think the same theoretical problem that plagues communal living and communism might plague man in the state of nature. Only if we were to live in groups comparable in size to the natives would we be able to live in the state of nature.

Locke was good enough to taunt us with the way in which we can ensure it effectively exists. It is the desired goal of my life’s work which has come to be known at the great expense of grad school. In his own words ... “No man in civil society can be exempted from the laws of it: for if any man may do what he things fit, and there be no appeal on earth, for redress or security against any harm he shall do; I ask, whether he be not perfectly still in the state of nature, and so can be no part or member of that civil society; unless anyone will say, the state of nature and civil society are one and the same thing, which I have never found yet any one so great a patron of anarchy as to affirm.” 2nd Treatise.

With this, I couldn’t agree more.

 

I wish I could agree with this. All that would take is a widespread trust of your fellow man. To be able to allow him total freedom over himself, and trust him not to use that freedom against you in one way or another. If people could trust one another we wouldn't need police or government. We've come to this, I believe out of neccessity, because of the naturally ambitious human nature. People need something to fear, that something is government for now.

 

I have to disagree there. I think that drug laws are what push people into violence. Shady characters get involved when things become illegal.

Think about cigarettes. How many people do you know that smoke? How many of them would you say are addicted to nicotine? Did any of them ever kill anybody for a smoke? I think most likely not. Why go through the trouble of killing someone when you can buy a carton at the store? But as soon as NY started to push new laws restricting smokers "rights", things started to get violent almost instantly. Remember the bouncer in the NY night club that got stabbed to death after telling a guy he wasn't allowed to smoke there? That never would have happened if there wasn't a law about it to begin with.

Not that I'm about legalizing ALL drugs, but I think even nasty shit like crack wouldn't be as big of a deal if there weren't laws in place that make it hard to come by. I've known crackheads (as well as meth heads, pot heads, and heroin junkies) and they're usually lazy. They don't wanna kill people. The dealers are different, because they're not killing someone over pot, or meth, they're killing them because they owe money. Maybe we should make money illegal. People die for it all the time.

Am I even making any sense? My mind is fuzzy right now, I've been up for about 48 hours now. If this post just seems like a bunch of babble you'll have to wait for me to get some sleep before I can come fix it.