Furious Republicans find write-in to oppose Tom Alciere
TomAlciere
Hey, everybody, check this out:
I drove up to Concord Friday and filed for New Hampshire State Senate
District 13 as a Republican.
Naturally, the Republican Party bigshots had to scramble to find
somebody to run against me, God forbid that a candidate who supports
liberty and thinks logically should get the nomination.
Too late! I filed the papers at about 14:55 EDT (18:55 UTC) and when
they found out, the 17:00 EDT (21:00 UTC) deadline had already passed.
Now they've found a write-in candidate to run against me.
The thing is, a write-in candidate needs a big campaign to tell
everybody why they shouldn't vote for Tom Alciere, because Tom Alciere
supports your rights and Dennis Hogan doesn't. Tom Alciere wants to
call off the War on Drugs now, before any more cops get themselves
killed in action first. So write-in Dennis Hogan, all you cop-lovers,
and then whine like crybabies when your favorite cop gets killed in a
drug raid. Blame everybody but yourself when you voted for it.
Tom Alciere
have you read BILLY'S REWARD? http://billysreward.tomalciere.com
TomAlciere
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060620/NEWS01/106200107/-1/business
Frank Ross
"TomAlciere" <TomAl...@TomAlciere.com> wrote in message
news:1150820189....@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
David Long
<ross_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Suprise suprise Tom is back and on drugs again
You know, if you want to get the drug laws repealed 'in the name of
liberty' there's a very easy way to do it.
Convince the voters and win at the ballot box.
You don't need to make widows in the process.
I guess this idea is lost on Tom.
TomAlciere
You enemies of liberty require of us, actions on the part of other
people. "Convince" is an action verb, but part of the action is
performed by the direct object. We explain, and they agree. However, in
practice, what happens is that we explain, and they don't agree, even
though we are right.
We are the Abolitionists, the ones with the correct opinion about
slavery. We are the libertarians, the ones with the correct opinions
about drug laws.
You can have whatever opinions you want about either, but when you
resort to violence, such as enslaving or arresting innocent people, you
are crossing the line.
Libertarians CANNOT convince people who insist on being wrong, but
Freedom Fighters do make the enemies of liberty pay a price for their
malicious wrongdoing.
Drive too fast, pay the price with cash, no matter how intensely you
hold your wrong opinion that you have a right to drive as fast as you
want. Impose drug laws, and you pay the price with cops' blood, no
matter how intensely you hold your wrong opinion that you have the
right to impose them.
Libertarians need to get the maximum possible mileage out of each and
every cop that chooses to get his ass gunned down waging the War on
Drugs. Here are a couple from this year: 1 March 2006, Assumption
Parish, Louisiana; 23 March 2006, Bibb County, Georgia.
Tom Alciere
Peter H. Proctor
wrote:
>You know, if you want to get the drug laws repealed 'in the name of
>liberty' there's a very easy way to do it.
>
>Convince the voters and win at the ballot box.
Obvious communist. Issues of personal liberty do not depend on a
popular vote. At least, that's what the founders thought.
As Madison tells us in Federalist 10
" Complaints are everywhere heard..... that measures are too often
decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the
minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and
overbearing majority."
" (In a democracy) there is nothing to check the inducements to
sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is
that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and
contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security
or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their
lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
PHP
TomAlciere
In BILLY'S REWARD a character makes a case for how gang rape is a
democracy: Five persons say YES, one person says NO, the majority
rules, and elects one of themselves "sheriff" to grab and handcuff the
victim, and force the victim into the sheriff's van. One vote is
useless, and so is campaigning, but killing the sheriff might work.
Tom Alciere
http://billysreward.tomalciere.com
Raker
federal and state constitutions (as far as I know) take measures to protect
the minority -- and even the individual -- from the matters of the majority.
Note the Bill of Rights. I don't recall the right to possess or sell
narcotics was among those protected rights.
The constitutions also allow the majority to hold some sway to prevent
anarchy. And, whether one agrees with it or not, that majority has made
certain dictates regarding the possession and sale of certain narcotic
substances.
So, Mr. Ross makes a succinct and valid point about the method by which
those dictates can be changed. And to suggest that personal liberties take
precedence over the health and safety of the majority is tenuous, at best.
Now, Mr. Alciere has clearly been recorded -- even on this forum --
advocating and even supporting the use of terror tactics on New Hampshire's
communities and its duly appointed law-enforcement officials. Certainly, I
doubt he presents a clear and present danger, so he's entitled to rant. And
while I would never suggest anyone vote for him, he's entitled to try to
twist the democratic process he so seems to despise to meet his own ends.
But then, he's apparently a Libertarian -- a member of an organized
political party dedicated to abolishing organized politics and government.
Clearly an oxymoron, and Mr. Alciere seems to be a wonderful example of what
such thinking produces.
Todd
"Peter H. Proctor" <d...@drproctor.com> wrote in message
news:0h9h9250h9fafnu90...@4ax.com...
Dr. Zarkov
> Clearly, Madison was discussing the tyranny of the majority, but both
the
> federal and state constitutions (as far as I know) take measures to
protect
> the minority -- and even the individual -- from the matters of the
majority.
> Note the Bill of Rights. I don't recall the right to possess or sell
> narcotics was among those protected rights.
The Bill of Rights does not specifically mention a lot of individual
rights (e.g., privacy). However, the 9th Amendment states:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The right to control what you put into your own body in your own home is
such a personal and fundamental right that I believe that the framers of
the Constitution would have been appalled that government has presumed
to infringe on it.
> The constitutions also allow the majority to hold some sway to prevent
> anarchy. And, whether one agrees with it or not, that majority has made
> certain dictates regarding the possession and sale of certain narcotic
> substances.
Actually it was the government that made such dictates, not that that
changes the point. When the dictates of government or the majority are
oppressive or evil, individuals have a right and possibly a duty to take
extralegal means to oppose them. Indeed that was the means by which
this nation came into existence.
"Criminal actions cannot be excused if committed on government orders;
conscience supersedes the authority of the law of the state."
--Albert Einstein
"Human Rights," _Ideas and Opinions_ New York: Crown, 1954.
"Nobody believes that obeying every law is an ultimate moral principle.
There comes a point...at which there is a higher law than the
legislative law."
--Milton Friedman (Nobel Prize in economics, 1976)
PBS Interview
"In matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place."
--Mahatma Gandhi
In "Webster's Electronic Quotebase," ed. Keith Mohler, 1994.
"If it [the law] is of such a nature that it requires you to be the
agent of injustice to another, then I say, break the law."
--Henry David Thoreau, "Civil Disobedience"
> So, Mr. Ross makes a succinct and valid point about the method by which
> those dictates can be changed. And to suggest that personal liberties
take
> precedence over the health and safety of the majority is tenuous, at
best.
But of course it is a straw man argument to say that what is proposed is
that "personal liberties take precedence over the health and safety of
the majority." No one is proposing any such thing. And it is a
ridiculous stretch to suggest that what a person puts into his own body
in his own home endangers the health and safety of anyone.
> Now, Mr. Alciere has clearly been recorded -- even on this forum --
> advocating and even supporting the use of terror tactics on New
Hampshire's
> communities and its duly appointed law-enforcement officials.
Certainly, I
> doubt he presents a clear and present danger, so he's entitled to
rant. And
> while I would never suggest anyone vote for him, he's entitled to try to
> twist the democratic process he so seems to despise to meet his own ends.
>
> But then, he's apparently a Libertarian -- a member of an organized
> political party dedicated to abolishing organized politics and
government.
> Clearly an oxymoron, and Mr. Alciere seems to be a wonderful example
of what
> such thinking produces.
Far be it from me to defend Mr. Alciere, but it is surely a bizarre
charge considering the fact that the main point of the original post was
that he was running on the REPUBLICAN ticket.
Equally bizarre is the charge that the Libertarian party is dedicated to
abolishing organized politics and government. Not that I think that
would necessarily be a bad thing, but it is simply a error in fact to
say the Libertarian party advocates it, as anyone can see from examining
their platform.
www.lp.org
The first item in their FAQ is:
What is a Libertarian?
“Libertarians believe that you have the right to live your life as you
wish, without the government interfering -- as long as you don’t violate
the rights of others. Politically, this means Libertarians favor rolling
back the size and cost of government, and eliminating laws that stifle
the economy and control people’s personal choices.”
Peter H. Proctor
>Clearly, Madison was discussing the tyranny of the majority, but both the
>federal and state constitutions (as far as I know) take measures to protect
>the minority -- and even the individual -- from the matters of the majority.
>Note the Bill of Rights. I don't recall the right to possess or sell
>narcotics was among those protected rights.
This shows exactly why Hamilton opposed a bill of rights-- the fear
that if certain rights were specified, this would mean others do not
exist. Such fears were why the 9th amendment specifically
specifies that there are other rights...
A better question is where does the constitution give the feds the
power to control "Drugs". "Enumerated powers, etc." The
constitution lists only three federal crimes-- treason,
counterfeiting, and piracy. Only in the case of piracy, etc. is
congress granted the power to define, as well as puninsh the offense.
>The constitutions also allow the majority to hold some sway to
prevent
>anarchy.
And "anarchy" is related to drugs how? Just the opposite, in fact--
Not for nothing did Marx equate religion with opiates as a means of
pacifying people.
Similarly, in the context of Federalist 10, the "ensure domestic
tranquility" bit in the preamble pertains primarily to preventing
civil violence caused by majoritarian tyrrany. The WOD is a classic
example of this.
> And, whether one agrees with it or not, that majority has made
>certain dictates regarding the possession and sale of certain narcotic
>substances.
A classic example of exactly the sort of thing Madison complained
about in Federalist 10. BTW, to the founders, the classic example
of majoritarian tyrrany was the banning of General Alkibiades by the
Athenian assembly for "profaining the Eleusian mysteries". We now
understand this to mean he took a hallucingen recreationally. The
end result of this episode was the loss of the Pelopenesian war.
>So, Mr. Ross makes a succinct and valid point about the method by which
>those dictates can be changed. And to suggest that personal liberties take
>precedence over the health and safety of the majority is tenuous, at best.
I'm an MD, PhD toxicologist, I guarantee that, unlike the WOD,
"drugs" per se rarely affect the health and safety of anybody but the
user. Alcohol being a partial exception, naturally.
Dr P
Peter H. Proctor
wrote:
>The right to control what you put into your own body in your own home is
>such a personal and fundamental right that I believe that the framers of
>the Constitution would have been appalled that government has presumed
>to infringe on it.
In Anglo-Saxon common law, the oldest personal right is that "A man's
home is his castle". It was just assumed.
Dr P
Frank Ross
"TomAlciere" <TomAl...@TomAlciere.com> wrote in message
news:1150842531....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Frank Ross
Frank Ross
"Frank Ross" <ross_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7qednefGuu4uewTZ...@comcast.com...
Frank Ross
people to get himself elected to, what was it now, the state senate as a rep
from Nashua. They proceeded to make wild and crazy statements about self
defense and misuse of police authority. He actually advocated killing police
officers.
He became such an embaressment to the people he was removed from office.
If you don't remember just do a Google search for his name or use "the
honorable tom alciere" chucle....
He has no honor just retoric and lies.. oh and big cajones.
"TomAlciere" <TomAl...@TomAlciere.com> wrote in message
news:1150820268.7...@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Raker
> The Bill of Rights does not specifically mention a lot of individual
> rights (e.g., privacy). However, the 9th Amendment states:
>
> "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
> construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
>
> The right to control what you put into your own body in your own home is
> such a personal and fundamental right that I believe that the framers of
> the Constitution would have been appalled that government has presumed to
> infringe on it.
Oh, don't misunderstand my opinions of drug laws in any given state. I've
long felt that most now-controlled substances should be legalized, limited
(like alcohol and tobacco) to a certain segment of the public, and taxed.
Preferably, the proceeds of those taxes should go toward use-prevention
campaigns, which have worked wonderfully with tobacco over the past 60
years.
That's not my point. My disagreement with Mr. Alciere is over the method by
which he proposes changing those laws.
>
>
> > The constitutions also allow the majority to hold some sway to prevent
> > anarchy. And, whether one agrees with it or not, that majority has made
> > certain dictates regarding the possession and sale of certain narcotic
> > substances.
>
>
> Actually it was the government that made such dictates, not that that
> changes the point. When the dictates of government or the majority are
> oppressive or evil, individuals have a right and possibly a duty to take
> extralegal means to oppose them. Indeed that was the means by which this
> nation came into existence.
>
> "Criminal actions cannot be excused if committed on government orders;
> conscience supersedes the authority of the law of the state."
> --Albert Einstein
> "Human Rights," _Ideas and Opinions_ New York: Crown, 1954.
>
> "Nobody believes that obeying every law is an ultimate moral principle.
> There comes a point...at which there is a higher law than the legislative
> law."
> --Milton Friedman (Nobel Prize in economics, 1976)
> PBS Interview
>
> "In matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place."
> --Mahatma Gandhi
> In "Webster's Electronic Quotebase," ed. Keith Mohler, 1994.
>
> "If it [the law] is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent
> of injustice to another, then I say, break the law."
> --Henry David Thoreau, "Civil Disobedience"
These are intriguing points, most or all of which were by people who
advocated peaceful disobedience and non-violent protest. Mr. Alciere does
not. One's right to disagree with me ends long before one's right to use
violence.
>
>
> > So, Mr. Ross makes a succinct and valid point about the method by which
> > those dictates can be changed. And to suggest that personal liberties
> take
> > precedence over the health and safety of the majority is tenuous, at
> best.
>
>
> But of course it is a straw man argument to say that what is proposed is
> that "personal liberties take precedence over the health and safety of the
> majority." No one is proposing any such thing. And it is a ridiculous
> stretch to suggest that what a person puts into his own body in his own
> home endangers the health and safety of anyone.
>
History and economics show a long list of public damage caused by private
use of drugs: Increased crime rates (even discounting the actual crime of
drug posession or sale), increased homicide rates (frequently from car
accidents, but from other means as well), increased insurance and
health-care costs; decreased property values in areas where drug use and
sale are prevalant; decreased economic activity... The list is very long.
Exactly. A political party organized to dismantle government. I recall
speaking to a state Libertarian party chief once who advocated the
elimination of municipal governments, public school districts and the
criminal court system. Any disputes regarding actions we now perceive to be
crimes -- like homicide -- or zoning and land-use disputes et al could be
settled by civil courts, he suggested. He suggested education should be
private, not public, and that all roads be privately held toll roads.
Interestingly, as public education, land use and transportation are the
three most-critical elements to a thriving economy and community, that's
another certain oxymoron in Libertarian thinking.
And understand the issue behind Mr. Alciere's candidacy: Simple politics
dictates that third-party candidates are always outsiders at a big
disadvantage to the Big Two (or Big One, in New Hampshire's case.) One may
be a libertarian, or even a Libertarian. But one is going to need a major
nomination to win an election. I may not like those politics, but that's the
way it is.
Todd
Pete nospam Zakel
<ra...@twcny.rr.com> writes:
>History and economics show a long list of public damage caused by private
>use of drugs: Increased crime rates (even discounting the actual crime of
>drug posession or sale), increased homicide rates (frequently from car
>accidents, but from other means as well), increased insurance and
>health-care costs; decreased property values in areas where drug use and
>sale are prevalant; decreased economic activity... The list is very long.
Note that for every single one of these it is prohibition that causes the
problems, not drug use itself. The drug use happens regardless. Legalizing
the sale, possession and use decreases crime rates (even discounting the
"crime" of drug possession or sale), decreases homicide rates (frequently
from "turf wars", but from other means as well), lowered insurance and
health care costs (which are driven up by the fact that illegal drugs cause
more health problems than legal drugs), increased property values because drug
use and sales can be managed by zoning restrictions, and increased economic
activity because the black market economy is moved into the legal market.
The list is very long.
-Pete Zakel
(p...@seeheader.nospam)
"Computer programmers do it byte by byte"
drp
<ross_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The only freedom you really have is in your head.
In the old Soviet Union, this was true. But hopefully it is not the
case in the US. At least not yet....
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> Clearly, Madison was discussing the tyranny of the majority, but both the
> federal and state constitutions (as far as I know) take measures to protect
> the minority -- and even the individual -- from the matters of the majority.
> Note the Bill of Rights.
...which american politicians have been vigorously wiping their asses
with for the last 150 years.
--
regards, Peter B. Perlsø - liberterran.org - antipartiet.dk
"The politicians don't just want your money. They want your soul. They
want you to be worn down by taxes until you are dependent and helpless."
- James Dale Davidson, National Taxpayers Union
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> And
> while I would never suggest anyone vote for him,
I'd vote for him. He's crazy enough.
--
regards, Peter B. Perlsų - liberterran.org - antipartiet.dk
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> But then, he's apparently a Libertarian -- a member of an organized
> political party dedicated to abolishing organized politics and government.
I must have missed something, but the last time I checked, the LP wasn't
against government, just against /big/ government.
Dr. Zarkov
>>The Bill of Rights does not specifically mention a lot of individual
>>rights (e.g., privacy). However, the 9th Amendment states:
>>
>>"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
>>construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
>>
>>The right to control what you put into your own body in your own home is
>>such a personal and fundamental right that I believe that the framers of
>>the Constitution would have been appalled that government has
presumed to
>>infringe on it.
>
>
> Oh, don't misunderstand my opinions of drug laws in any given state.
I've
> long felt that most now-controlled substances should be legalized,
limited
> (like alcohol and tobacco) to a certain segment of the public, and
taxed.
If you agree that drugs should be legalized, we agree on the fundamental
issue.
...
>>But of course it is a straw man argument to say that what is proposed is
>>that "personal liberties take precedence over the health and safety
of the
>>majority." No one is proposing any such thing. And it is a ridiculous
>>stretch to suggest that what a person puts into his own body in his own
>>home endangers the health and safety of anyone.
>>
>
>
> History and economics show a long list of public damage caused by
private
> use of drugs: Increased crime rates (even discounting the actual
crime of
> drug posession or sale), increased homicide rates (frequently from car
> accidents, but from other means as well), increased insurance and
> health-care costs; decreased property values in areas where drug use and
> sale are prevalant; decreased economic activity... The list is very long.
History and economics show fairly conclusively that the "public damage
caused by private use of drugs" is minimized when drugs are legal and
are greatly increased by criminalization.
When drugs were legal throughout the 19th century and prior to the
Harrison Act of 1914, there was little drug-related crime or the other
problems so common nowadays. Drug users, even addicts, generally led
relatively normal lives.
The U.S. experience with prohibition of the potent and widely used drug
alcohol clearly showed that criminalization vastly increased the
problems associated with it.
Present-day countries that have legalized or decriminalized certain
drugs (e.g., Netherlands, Switzerland) have reported improvements in
drug-related problems.
Most of the major problems now blamed on drugs can be clearly traced to
the illegality or are greatly increased by it. The enormous amount of
crime associated with illegal drugs is almost entirely due to the
illegality. Gangs of dealers fight turf wars just as bootlegger gangs
did in the 1920s. Addicts must steal to get enough money to pay the
black market prices of drugs, which are inflated by thousands of
percent. The spread of HIV and hepatitis virus through contaminated
needles is entirely due to the illegality. Contaminants and other
problems in street drugs greatly increase their danger. Etc., etc.
Enforcing the drug laws costs tens of billions of dollars a year. The
indirect costs are estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
>>www.lp.org
>>The first item in their FAQ is:
>>
>>What is a Libertarian?
>>"Libertarians believe that you have the right to live your life as you
>>wish, without the government interfering -- as long as you don't violate
>>the rights of others. Politically, this means Libertarians favor rolling
>>back the size and cost of government, and eliminating laws that
stifle the
>>economy and control people's personal choices."
>>
>
> Exactly. A political party organized to dismantle government....
Um, no; their platform says: "rolling back the size and cost of government."
But even those libertarians who are anarchists would not deny that
people have the right to form whatever governments they like by
voluntary agreement on their own properties.
...
drp
>When drugs were legal throughout the 19th century and prior to the
>Harrison Act of 1914, there was little drug-related crime or the other
>problems so common nowadays. Drug users, even addicts, generally led
>relatively normal lives.
The classic example is Dr. James Halstead, professor of surgery at
Johns Hopkins. Dr Halstead essentially founded modern surgery and
modern surgery training while being seriously addicted to Morphine his
entire life. Because tolerance sets in so quickly, in the absence
of gummit interference, most opiate addicts establish their own
maintenance programs. Which means the problem is essentially
self-limiting.
Dr P
Frank Ross
""Peter Bjørn Perlsø"" <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
news:1hhd1uw.1em7z53ux6dqnN%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...
> Raker <ra...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> But then, he's apparently a Libertarian -- a member of an organized
>> political party dedicated to abolishing organized politics and
>> government.
>
> I must have missed something, but the last time I checked, the LP wasn't
> against government, just against /big/ government.
>
> --
Raker
"Dr. Zarkov" <Mi...@Mongo.com> wrote in message
news:BKGdnfHNvdKSxQbZ...@rcn.net...
> Raker wrote:
> >>The Bill of Rights does not specifically mention a lot of individual
> >>rights (e.g., privacy). However, the 9th Amendment states:
> >>
> >>"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
> >>construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
> >>
> >>The right to control what you put into your own body in your own home is
> >>such a personal and fundamental right that I believe that the framers of
> >>the Constitution would have been appalled that government has
> presumed to
> >>infringe on it.
> >
> >
> > Oh, don't misunderstand my opinions of drug laws in any given state.
> I've
> > long felt that most now-controlled substances should be legalized,
> limited
> > (like alcohol and tobacco) to a certain segment of the public, and
> taxed.
>
>
> If you agree that drugs should be legalized, we agree on the fundamental
> issue.
>
Actually, you're missing the fundamental issue: Mr. Alciere has supported
violence against people -- in this case government-appointed law-enforcement
officers -- to make his wishes come to pass. It's unacceptable to grant him
authority over a class of people he wishes to violently to destroy.
Why Mr. Alciere may want to do so is irrelevant.
Todd
Dr. Zarkov
Yes, Dr. Halsted is one notable example. BTW, it’s Dr. _William_
Stewart Halsted (1852-1922).
Notable people in recent times who have been regular drug users include
chemist Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel prize for inventing polymerase
chain reaction, Paul Erdös, one of the most prolific mathematicians of
all time, who regularly used amphetamines, and astronomer Carl Sagan.
Paul Erdös used amphetamines towards at least the last 30 years of his
long and productive life. He died in 1996 at age 83. The number of
papers he published is phenomenal. The only period in which Erdos did
not produce anything was a span of one month during which he had stopped
taking amphetamines at the insistance of his friends. He said, "I'd look
everyday at the pages in my hands to fill them up with ideas and my mind
was blank... "
Kary Mullis won the Nobel prize for inventing polymerase chain reaction,
the technique for duplicating DNA so that extremely small samples can be
analyzed. In his biography, _Dancing Naked in the Mind Field_, Mullis
credits his inspiration partly to his use of mind-altering drugs like LSD.
Dr. Zarkov
> "Dr. Zarkov" <Mi...@Mongo.com> wrote
>>Raker wrote:
>>
>>>>The Bill of Rights does not specifically mention a lot of individual
>>>>rights (e.g., privacy). However, the 9th Amendment states:
>>>>
>>>>"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
>>>>construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
>>>>
>>>>The right to control what you put into your own body in your own home is
>>>>such a personal and fundamental right that I believe that the framers of
>>>>the Constitution would have been appalled that government has
>>>>presumed to infringe on it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, don't misunderstand my opinions of drug laws in any given state.
>>>>I've long felt that most now-controlled substances should be legalized,
>>>>limited (like alcohol and tobacco) to a certain segment of the public, and
>>>>taxed.
>>
>>
>>If you agree that drugs should be legalized, we agree on the fundamental
>>issue.
>>
>
>
> Actually, you're missing the fundamental issue: Mr. Alciere has supported
> violence against people -- in this case government-appointed law-enforcement
> officers -- to make his wishes come to pass. It's unacceptable to grant him
> authority over a class of people he wishes to violently to destroy.
I don't know exactly what Mr. Alciere advocates, and the stance of one
person is not of any general relevance.
As far as using violence goes, it is the government and its agents who
routinely initiate violence against persons for the "crime" of putting
something into their own bodies in their own homes.
Peter H. Proctor
wrote:
>As far as using violence goes, it is the government and its agents who
>routinely initiate violence against persons for the "crime" of putting
>something into their own bodies in their own homes.
Federalist 46 (Madison)
" Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess
over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of
subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by
which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the
enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple
government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military
establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as
far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to
trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid
alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes."
>
drp
<ross_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>""Peter Bjørn Perlsø""
>> I must have missed something, but the last time I checked, the LP wasn't
>> against government, just against /big/ government.
> AND LAWS AND ORDER AND AND AND AND
The Founders were libertarians. Do you claim they were against
Law and Order? Just the opposite in fact.
But what they realized is that majoritarian oppression of
individual rights is a major cause of social disorder. History
teaches this over and over. See federalist 10. The WOD is an
absolutely classic case. The War of Northern Aggression is another
one.
What do you think the "Insure domestic tranquility" bit in the
preamble is all about? Hint, it ain't about a police state
enforcing a bunch of damn-fool laws, but about limiting such excesses
of "faction".
PHP
Wizard
you tried this ... Moron!