Libertarians and Wealth
eric vieweg
Unconstitutional laws need to be brought for review by the Supreme
Court. Lawyers can be hired to research and promote Constitutional law.
Private law schools could be built to train Libertarian lawyers.
Business could be researched, explained, and communicated to the masses.
Business ownership as a goal for "poor" people could become a "national"
campaign. Investment could be researched, explained, and communicated to
"average" people. Property ownership, stock ownership, and higher
incomes will help "average" people have a reason to refuse to "submit"
to tyranny. Private custom-designed schools with custom-designed
curriculums (and maybe paychecks for students) could be researched,
funded, and built as an option to the current government indoctrination
centers. Curriculum design could be funded, researched, and perfected to
help determine the "best" curriculums for schoolchildren. And
finally, wealthy Libertarians could fund Libertarian politicians.
Wealthy Libertarians could fund the research and design of solutions for
whatever problems that they decide are needed to be solved. Wealthy
Libertarians could fight the "Good fight", with their wealth. My two
cents--Eric Burks Vieweg.
Ronin
eric vieweg wrote:
> If a Libertarian becomes wealthy,
We are wealthy and true libertarians. (All praise belongs to the Lord.)
> then they could do many things.
Not quite.
> Unconstitutional laws need to be brought for review by the Supreme
> Court.
Really? Let's look at Gates. Say that he became libertarian. His worth? App
65 billion, on paper. Against: A fed budget of app 1.8 trillion and add to
that trillions controlled by American Statists.
All one person can do is educate.
> Lawyers can be hired to research and promote Constitutional law.
Waste of time. The Big C (US Constitution) is the problem. NOT the
solution.
> Private law schools could be built to train Libertarian lawyers.
At what cost? To what purpose? How would this benefit the cause?
> Business could be researched, explained, and communicated to the masses.
Education. First; we need a creed to live by. Otherwise what shall we
explain to the masses? The same convoluted, compromising, pragmatically
oriented message the LP sends us?
> Business ownership as a goal for "poor" people could become a "national"
> campaign.
Red Herring. The ONLY issue should be freedom. Financial opportunities
should be advertised as a welcome "fringe benefit."
> Investment could be researched, explained, and communicated to
> "average" people.
Ditto above.
> Property ownership, stock ownership, and higher
> incomes will help "average" people have a reason to refuse to "submit"
> to tyranny.
Nope. Financial stability creates complacency and often leads to fear in
those seeking to remain so.
> Private custom-designed schools with custom-designed
> curriculums (and maybe paychecks for students) could be researched,
> funded, and built as an option to the current government indoctrination
> centers.
At what cost? To what purpose? How would this benefit the cause?
> Curriculum design could be funded, researched, and perfected to
> help determine the "best" curriculums for schoolchildren.
Waste of time. We don't have centuries to combat thousands of yrs. of
statism. We demand Freedom Now.
> And
> finally, wealthy Libertarians could fund Libertarian politicians.
There aren't any that I know of.
> Wealthy Libertarians could fund the research and design of solutions for
> whatever problems that they decide are needed to be solved.
Doing so.
> Wealthy
> Libertarians could fight the "Good fight", with their wealth.
How?
> My two
> cents--Eric Burks Vieweg.
Our millions say your two cents are ill spent.
Sorry eric, IMNSHO ,you suffer from misinformation and disinformation
induced naiveté. Now the good news: It's a curable condition.
Ronin.
Brandon Berg
>
> We are wealthy and true libertarians. (All praise belongs to the Lord.)
>
> > then they could do many things.
>
> Not quite.
>
> > Unconstitutional laws need to be brought for review by the Supreme
> > Court.
>
> Really? Let's look at Gates. Say that he became libertarian. His worth?
App
> 65 billion, on paper. Against: A fed budget of app 1.8 trillion and add to
> that trillions controlled by American Statists.
>
> All one person can do is educate.
I beg to differ. If I had billions of dollars, I'd buy a monarch. I'd find a
small, slightly underdeveloped monarchy, and pay the ruler to let me take
his place. I would then raise a small army and police force, and inform the
entrepreneurs of the world that the Kingdom of Libertopia was open for
business. Since I'm not a bilionaire (yet), and I don't have the people
skills to raise that kind of money, I don't forsee that happening in the
near future.
--
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Brandon Berg $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Avowed Enemy of God and Government
The Democratic Party--Because only the government knows The
Right Way to spend your money.
BretCahill
Message-id: <26626-38...@storefull-113.iap.bryant.webtv.net> writes:
> If a Libertarian becomes wealthy, then they could do many things.
>Unconstitutional laws need to be brought for review by the Supreme
>Court.
You don't need money to be an activist.
Paine died impoverished, Jefferson in debt.
U. S. District Court costs $150.00.
The higher courts aren't much more.
>Lawyers can be hired to research and promote Constitutional law.
Why would any true libertarian entrust
his money and liberty to lawyers?
Bret Cahill
All conservatism is based on censorship of
economic information.
-- Bret Cahill
BretCahill
Message-id: <3818FC8E...@cdsinternet.com> writes:
. . .
>eric vieweg wrote:
>> If a Libertarian becomes wealthy,
. . .
>All one person can do is educate.
The most, the best anyone can ever do is
get people to think.
>> Lawyers can be hired to research and promote Constitutional law.
>Waste of time. The Big C (US Constitution) is the problem.
That's only because you don't know how
to use it.
You haven't read any background material.
. . .
>> Private law schools could be built to train Libertarian lawyers.
>At what cost?
That's why libertarians need to stop being
below average income earners and make
the big bucks.
. . .
> How would this benefit the cause?
How would ANYTHING cause libertopia
to break out?
. . .
>Education. First; we need a creed to live by.
And before you can do that libertopists
need to stop dodging issues, playing
silly word games and attempting other
really transparent attempts at deception
that do not fool even 0.5% of the
population.
Of course, once libertopists have all
their internal contradictions placed in
front of them, they decide to get out of
politics altogether.
>Otherwise what shall we
>explain to the masses?
I keep wondering what the principle of
libertopians is.
> The same convoluted, compromising, pragmatically
>oriented message the LP sends us?
Instead of calling themselves the "Party
of Principle" they should just STATE
the principle.
Let voters decide,
1. If the principle is any good, and,
2. If libertarians follow the principle.
. . .
>The ONLY issue should be freedom.
The means and the end should be
freedom.
There are many issues.
> Financial opportunities
>should be advertised as a welcome "fringe benefit."
A benefit of the the high tax long lasting
high growth full employment Klinton
economy.
. . .
>> Property ownership, stock ownership, and higher
>> incomes will help "average" people have a reason to refuse to "submit"
>> to tyranny.
>Nope. Financial stability creates complacency and often leads to fear in
>those seeking to remain so.
This is why Russia is such a great place
to live.
. . .
>We don't have centuries to combat thousands of yrs. of
>statism. We demand Freedom Now.
Then you might as well fantacize about
libertopia breaking out.
F=ma. Libertopists ain't got no infinite
force, so you ain't gittin' no instant change.
>> And
>> finally, wealthy Libertarians could fund Libertarian politicians.
>There aren't any that I know of.
It's another internal contradiction.
>> Wealthy Libertarians could fund the research and design of solutions for
>> whatever problems that they decide are needed to be solved.
>Doing so.
Or more precisely, the rich are duping
the ignorant with libertopic economics.
. . .
>> My two
>> cents--Eric Burks Vieweg.
>Our millions say your two cents are ill spent.
Another contradiction.
>Sorry eric, IMNSHO ,you suffer from misinformation and disinformation
>induced naiveté.
That's usually the problem.
> Now the good news: It's a curable condition.
ONLY if they stop fantacizing, dodging
issues and spouting internal
contradictions without shame.
Jackson Harvey
BretCahill wrote:
> >Waste of time. The Big C (US Constitution) is the problem.
>
> That's only because you don't know how
> to use it.
>
> You haven't read any background material.
How do you know what anyone has read? The answer is that you don't, you are
stating an assumption as if it were a fact. As usual...
> >At what cost?
>
> That's why libertarians need to stop being
> below average income earners and make
> the big bucks.
You have yet to provide any support for your implication that the average
Libertarian makes less than the average American. An assertion must be proven
before it can be used to make conclusions. This is elementary logic material.
> > How would this benefit the cause?
>
> How would ANYTHING cause libertopia
> to break out?
Who cares? No one talks about Libertopia except you.
> >Education. First; we need a creed to live by.
>
> And before you can do that libertopists
> need to stop dodging issues, playing
> silly word games and attempting other
> really transparent attempts at deception
> that do not fool even 0.5% of the
> population.
Since libertopists are a figment of your imagination, it is not surprising that
they share many of your characteristics.
> >Otherwise what shall we
> >explain to the masses?
>
> I keep wondering what the principle of
> libertopians is.
Why didn't you ask? It is NIoF. That means non-initiation of force. Stated
simply, Libertarians believe that the only purpose of government is to prevent
and punish the initiation of force. In doing so, initiation of force by the
government must be avoided.
> > The same convoluted, compromising, pragmatically
> >oriented message the LP sends us?
>
> Instead of calling themselves the "Party
> of Principle" they should just STATE
> the principle.
I just did.
> >We don't have centuries to combat thousands of yrs. of
> >statism. We demand Freedom Now.
>
> Then you might as well fantacize about
> libertopia breaking out.
Why? Do you need company?
> F=ma. Libertopists ain't got no infinite
> force, so you ain't gittin' no instant change.
We have a grammar book, though. Perhaps you should look into the concept.
> >> And
> >> finally, wealthy Libertarians could fund Libertarian politicians.
>
> >There aren't any that I know of.
>
> It's another internal contradiction.
How, precisely? I am sure you will ignore this, as you ignore anything that
would force you to back up one of your silly assertions. And you accuse us of
dodging.
> >> Wealthy Libertarians could fund the research and design of solutions for
> >> whatever problems that they decide are needed to be solved.
>
> >Doing so.
>
> Or more precisely, the rich are duping
> the ignorant with libertopic economics.
Since libertopists are a figment of your imagination, this sentence must mean
that you are rich and are attempting to dupe the ignorant. Have you fooled
yourself yet?
> >> My two
> >> cents--Eric Burks Vieweg.
>
> >Our millions say your two cents are ill spent.
>
> Another contradiction.
How, precisely?
> >Sorry eric, IMNSHO ,you suffer from misinformation and disinformation
> >induced naiveté.
>
> That's usually the problem.
Yes, and Libertarianism is one solution.
> > Now the good news: It's a curable condition.
>
> ONLY if they stop fantacizing, dodging
> issues and spouting internal
> contradictions without shame.
Try it and tell us how it goes. Most of us never started, so we don't know
what it's like to quit.
Jackson Harvey
BretCahill
<3819B9FD...@tc.umn.edu> writes:
>BretCahill wrote:
>
>> >Waste of time. The Big C (US Constitution) is the problem.
>>
>> That's only because you don't know how
>> to use it.
>>
>> You haven't read any background material.
>
>How do you know what anyone has read?
When they write really stupid things.
> The answer is that you don't, you are
>stating an assumption as if it were a fact.
It's a fact. If you don't believe me, quizz
the ignoramous.
>> >At what cost?
>>
>> That's why libertarians need to stop being
>> below average income earners and make
>> the big bucks.
>
>You have yet to provide any support for your implication that the average
>Libertarian makes less than the average American.
Do your own research.
>An assertion must be
>proven
>before it can be used to make conclusions.
Not true. You can assume a solution
and then prove it later.
>> > How would this benefit the cause?
>> How would ANYTHING cause libertopia
>> to break out?
>Who cares?
Some libertopic poster.
. . .
>> >Education. First; we need a creed to live by.
>>
>> And before you can do that libertopists
>> need to stop dodging issues, playing
>> silly word games and attempting other
>> really transparent attempts at deception
>> that do not fool even 0.5% of the
>> population.
>
. . .
>> I keep wondering what the principle of
>> libertopians is.
>Why didn't you ask? It is NIoF.
EVERY despot says that.
>That means non-initiation of force. Stated
>simply, Libertarians believe that the only purpose of government is to
>prevent
>and punish the initiation of force.
Madison wrote that *justice* was the
end of government.
> In doing so, initiation of force by the
>government must be avoided.
Government ain't initiating any force.
You consent to the rules and regulations
by hanging around.
You can leave anytime.
>> > The same convoluted, compromising, pragmatically
>> >oriented message the LP sends us?
>>
>> Instead of calling themselves the "Party
>> of Principle" they should just STATE
>> the principle.
>I just did.
Well, tell them to just state the principle.
>> >We don't have centuries to combat thousands of yrs. of
>> >statism. We demand Freedom Now.
>> Then you might as well fantacize about
>> libertopia breaking out.
>Why?
F=ma. Libertopists ain't got no infinite
force, so you ain't gittin' no instant change.
Jackson Harvey
BretCahill wrote:
> >How do you know what anyone has read?
>
> When they write really stupid things.
Just because someone reads something doesn't mean they agree. when someone
reads something that you agree with and then write something that you don't,
it doesn't mean they didn't read it.
> > The answer is that you don't, you are
> >stating an assumption as if it were a fact.
>
> It's a fact. If you don't believe me, quizz
> the ignoramous.
You have an interesting definition of "fact." You have no proof that you are
correct.
> >You have yet to provide any support for your implication that the average
> >Libertarian makes less than the average American.
>
> Do your own research.
It is your assertion. The logical fallacy that you are engaging in is called
shifting the burden of proof. No points for this one, though, since you have
committed it before.
> >An assertion must be
> >proven
> >before it can be used to make conclusions.
>
> Not true. You can assume a solution
> and then prove it later.
If you are making an assumption, it should be stated as an assumption.
Libertarians often make the assumption that all people have certain rights,
for instance. The difference is that we know and say that this is an
assumption.
> >> How would ANYTHING cause libertopia
> >> to break out?
>
> >Who cares?
>
> Some libertopic poster.
Not true. You are the only one who talks about Libertopia, which suggests
that you are the only one who cares. Unless, of course, you are the
libertopic poster to whom you are referring.
> >Why didn't you ask? It is NIoF.
>
> EVERY despot says that.
I have asked you before to back up this statement. All we need is a quote by
every despot that they believe that the initiation of force or fraud is wrong,
and that the only purpose of government is to prevent or punish the initiation
of force or fraud. We are still waiting.
> >That means non-initiation of force. Stated
> >simply, Libertarians believe that the only purpose of government is to
> >prevent
> >and punish the initiation of force.
>
> Madison wrote that *justice* was the
> end of government.
What is your point? We are discussing Libertarianism.
> > In doing so, initiation of force by the
> >government must be avoided.
>
> Government ain't initiating any force.
Every act by the government is by force. When no force was being used
previously, the government is initiating force.
> You consent to the rules and regulations
> by hanging around.
Not true. The country is not the property of the government. Therefore we
are not initiating force by remaining, but the government is initiating force
when it uses force against us.
> >> Then you might as well fantacize about
> >> libertopia breaking out.
>
> >Why?
>
> F=ma. Libertopists ain't got no infinite
> force, so you ain't gittin' no instant change.
You are mixing your metaphors. It is the government who is using force.
Jackson Harvey
"moderate" Libertarian
wcolley
> The most, the best anyone can ever do is get people to think.
The most, the best Bret Cahill can ever do is get people to laugh.
> All conservatism is based on censorship of economic information.
>
All of Bret Cahills posts are based on the absence of information
William C Colley
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
BretCahill
Message-id: <381B6178...@tc.umn.edu> writes:
>BretCahill wrote:
>
>> >How do you know what anyone has read?
>>
>> When they write really stupid things.
>
>Just because someone reads something doesn't mean they agree.
If it's a self evident truth either they agree
or they are considered insane.
>when someone
>reads something that you agree with and then write something that you don't,
>it doesn't mean they didn't read it.
You only believe that because you never
read it.
. . .
>> >You have yet to provide any support for your implication that the average
>> >Libertarian makes less than the average American.
>>
>> Do your own research.
>
>It is your assertion.
If you don't like it, then refute it.
. . .
> The logical fallacy that you are engaging in is called
>shifting the burden of proof.
The Party of 0.5% should be willing to
go the extra mile to show voters they
ain't a bunch of wing nuts.
. . .
>> You consent to the rules and regulations
>> by hanging around.
>
>Not true.
Read the excellent article on taxpatriation
in the Nov '96 _Forbes_.
>The country is not the property of the government.
It ain't the property of landlords like George
III.
Bret Cahill
All conservatism is based on censorship of
economic information.
-- Bret Cahill
JohnGalt
>ericb...@webtv.net (eric vieweg) in
>Message-id: <26626-38...@storefull-113.iap.bryant.webtv.net> writes:
>
>> If a Libertarian becomes wealthy, then they could do many things.
>>Unconstitutional laws need to be brought for review by the Supreme
>>Court.
>
>You don't need money to be an activist.
>
>Paine died impoverished, Jefferson in debt.
>
>U. S. District Court costs $150.00.
>
>The higher courts aren't much more.
>
>>Lawyers can be hired to research and promote Constitutional law.
>
>Why would any true libertarian entrust
>his money and liberty to lawyers?
>
And exactly what profession do the highest proportion of our
politicians claim to have?
>
>Bret Cahill
>
>
>All conservatism is based on censorship of
>economic information.
> -- Bret Cahill
JohnGalt
NRA Life
Libertarian
remove notreet to reply via e-mail
wcolley
> You don't need money to be an activist.
Bret Cahill doesn't need to make sense to post on usenet groups.
> >Lawyers can be hired to research and promote Constitutional law.
> Why would any true libertarian entrust his money and liberty to
> lawyers?
Why do libertarians not trust politicians with taxpayer money when the
majority of politicians are lawers?
> All conservatism is based on censorship of economic information.
>
All of Bret Cahills post are based on the censorship of mental activity.
Jackson Harvey
BretCahill wrote:
> >Just because someone reads something doesn't mean they agree.
>
> If it's a self evident truth either they agree
> or they are considered insane.
Something that is obvious to you may well be wrong.
> >when someone
> >reads something that you agree with and then write something that you don't,
> >it doesn't mean they didn't read it.
>
> You only believe that because you never
> read it.
To what, precisely, are you referring? I am quite sure that there is no book
that could instantly transform me into an idiot, which is what would be required
for me to believe that everyone agrees with everything they read.
> >> >You have yet to provide any support for your implication that the average
> >> >Libertarian makes less than the average American.
> >>
> >> Do your own research.
> >
> >It is your assertion.
>
> If you don't like it, then refute it.
Are you admitting that you have no evidence wjatsoever to back up your assertion?
> > The logical fallacy that you are engaging in is called
> >shifting the burden of proof.
>
> The Party of 0.5% should be willing to
> go the extra mile to show voters they
> ain't a bunch of wing nuts.
According to whom? Who are you to say what we should do?
> >The country is not the property of the government.
>
> It ain't the property of landlords like George
> III.
>
Doing the dodge, as usual.
Jackson Harvey
"moderate" Libertarian
BretCahill
<1415c574...@usw-ex0102-013.remarq.com> writes:
. . .
>> The most, the best anyone can ever do is get people to think.
>The most, the best Bret Cahill can ever do is get people to laugh.
Most humor is absurd contradictions,
which are plentiful here.
Here's my favorite looneytopian joke:
Libertopist: "And when libertopia breaks
out, everything will be done by consent,
because there will be no nonconsenters in
libertopia."
Straight Man: "What about those with no
dough or financial resources? Will they
be able to influence society?
Libertopist: "No, because those without
any dough cannot do jack in a pure
market economy."
Straight Man: "Why can't libertopists get
get libertopia to break out?"
Libertopist: "We ain't got no dough."
Straight Man: "He he. Sounds like your
problem isn't getting to libertopia. Your
problem is getting OUT of libertopia."
Bret Cahill
All conservatism is based on censorship of
economic information.
-- Bret Cahill
wco...@my-deja.com
> Most humor is absurd contradictions, which are plentiful here.
>
And will continue to be so as long as Bret Cahill continues to post
them.
> All conservatism is based on censorship of economic information.
>
All of Bret Cahills posts are based on censorship of mental activity.
William C Colley
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Apple
BretCahill wrote:
> wcolley <wcolley...@olemiss.edu.invalid inMessage-id:
> <1415c574...@usw-ex0102-013.remarq.com> writes:
>
> . . .
>
> >> The most, the best anyone can ever do is get people to think.
>
> >The most, the best Bret Cahill can ever do is get people to laugh.
>
> Most humor is absurd contradictions,
> which are plentiful here.
>
> Here's my favorite looneytopian joke:
>
> Libertopist: "And when libertopia breaks
> out, everything will be done by consent,
> because there will be no nonconsenters in
> libertopia."
>
> Straight Man: "What about those with no
> dough or financial resources? Will they
> be able to influence society?
>
> Libertopist: "No, because those without
> any dough cannot do jack in a pure
> market economy."
>
> Straight Man: "Why can't libertopists get
> get libertopia to break out?"
>
> Libertopist: "We ain't got no dough."
Here's where your joke breaks down Cahill.Because we are not in a pure market
economy.
Power in a democracy is based on concensus.
Power in "Libertopia" is based on market forces.
> Straight Man: "He he. Sounds like your
> problem isn't getting to libertopia. Your
> problem is getting OUT of libertopia."
God I wish I had all day to sit on thecomputer like you.
BretCahill
>From: Apple <app...@bellsouth.net>
>Date: Sat, 13 November 1999 01:31 AM EST
>Message-id: <382D05AF...@bellsouth.net>
. . .
>God I wish I had all day to sit on thecomputer like you.
I don't. I'm not saying politics isn't good
for a laugh but if I could get someone else
to say the obvious, I'd certainly quit.
When people complain about not having
any political power in the U. S. I really
have to wonder:
Are they even trying? It's not like you
have to elbow your way into power in the
U. S.. The political vacuum here will
pull you in like a black hole.
To get an idea of what I'm talking about
adopt Justice Brandeis's philosophy, that
the "highest office in the land is that of
the private citizen" and write about a half
dozen letters to elected officials.
Don't be rude but don't pander either.
Don't be too clever by half and don't be
cynical.
Just tell them what you want. Keep the
discussion off of private matters.
Since no one ever writes except on some
last minute petty self interest matter,
you'll be treated as an IMPORTANT
PERSON -- you must be important to
not be too cynical to write -- who knows
his thoughts should be taken seriously.
You'll be surprised at how responsive our
government is.
Bret Cahill
All conservatism is based on censorship of
economic information.
-- Bret Cahill
BretCahill
Message-id: <382D05AF...@bellsouth.net> writes:
Do you mean, because we are not in a
pure market economy libertopists cannot
get libertopia to break out, or because we
are not in a pure market economy
libertopists don't have the dough to make
libertopia break out?
>Power in a democracy is based on concensus.
Most consent.
>Power in "Libertopia" is based on market forces.
Everyone consents because everyone is
an angel in libertopia and therefore
government isn't necessary.
>> Straight Man: "He he. Sounds like your
>> problem isn't getting to libertopia. Your
>> problem is getting OUT of libertopia."
There's an internal contradiction either
way.
JohnGalt
Like the letters I wrote last month regarding the medical marijuana
issue in D.C. I sent letters to both my Senators and my
Representative. Only the representative responded, with a lame canned
letter stating how the legalization of any drug sends the "wrong
message" to our children. Which completely ignored the point that this
was a referendum of the medically prescribed use of marijuana.
>Since no one ever writes except on some
>last minute petty self interest matter,
>you'll be treated as an IMPORTANT
>PERSON -- you must be important to
>not be too cynical to write -- who knows
>his thoughts should be taken seriously.
>
Don't have any self-interest here, don't live in D.C.
>You'll be surprised at how responsive our
>government is.
>
Not anymore.:<(
>
>Bret Cahill
>
>
>
>
>
>All conservatism is based on censorship of
>economic information.
> -- Bret Cahill
JohnGalt
Jackson Harvey
BretCahill wrote:
> >Power in "Libertopia" is based on market forces.
>
> Everyone consents because everyone is
> an angel in libertopia and therefore
> government isn't necessary.
Actually, Libertarianism is a response to the fact that we are not angels. If we
were all perfectly moral and logical, either socialism or statism would work just
fine, because motivation would not be needed beyond what is good for society, and
because everyone in government would do what is best for society.
Jackson Harvey
"moderate" Libertarian
Jackson Harvey
JohnGalt wrote:
> Like the letters I wrote last month regarding the medical marijuana
> issue in D.C. I sent letters to both my Senators and my
> Representative. Only the representative responded, with a lame canned
> letter stating how the legalization of any drug sends the "wrong
> message" to our children. Which completely ignored the point that this
> was a referendum of the medically prescribed use of marijuana.
My representative said that he had fought long and hard against drugs, so
he could not support the medical marijuana initiative, but if there was
anything he could do for me or my family, just let him know. Isn't this
great? The voters approved medical marijuana, but because the guy hates
drugs he is willing to overrule the voters. However, he offers to help in
any way he can. How about supporting democracy? That would be a big
help.
Jackson Harvey
"moderate" Libertarian