Slashdot Mirror
Voters Vote Yes, County Says No
Khyber writes in with a story from Montana, where residents of Missoula County voted in a referendum intended to advise county law-enforcement types to treat marijuana offenses as low-profile. The referendum would not have changed any laws, but was advisory only. After voters approved it, county commissioners overturned it by a 2-to-1 vote. They were swayed by the argument of the county attorney, who had a "gut feeling" that Missoula's electorate had misinterpreted the ballot language. The move has resulted in a flood of disaffection among voters, especially young voters. "Is there even a point to voting any more if the will of the people can so easily be subverted by two people?" one voter posted on a comment blog.
I think they forgot something...
How do you expect us to RTFA if there's no FA?
What on *earth* does this have to do with "news for nerds"?
No and that is why voting among American citizens is extremely low.
I keep telling myself I'm not the desperate type.
There are no links to the actual news story... surely this was covered in the local paper or something???
this is it.
the government is so far removed from the ppl they don't even try to make it look legit anymore.
it would not matter if an entire state voted to allow medical weed, the feds just ignore it.
they can not allow anything to subvert their insane war on a plant. but hey, enjoy that beer and a cig! they are much safer.
-.no
Where the elected representative and not the people are the ones that, in the end, make the decision. While it is a surprise that it happens in such a low level in the power hierarchy, it is not like it doesn't happens all the time on Washington. Switzerland has a democracy, it suits better to their needs. America has a republic, used to be good when the representative to people ratio was around 30000, but not anymore.
You can change who is in charge, but they are the ones who will decide for you.
Here in Oklahoma, we brought the lottery to a vote three times and it passed all three times, but we never got the lottery until about a year after the third time.
Could it be that the only reason this is being brought up is because it has to do with marijuana?
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
While I may agree with the sentiments expressed in the article... why on earth do we have an article posted in the first place without a link? Kind of defeats the entire purpose, doesn't it, if there's nothing we can read to verify any of this?
I found this story doing a Google search. From TFA:
The tone of the hearing shifted when Van Valkenburg said that he had proposed the amendments because of a "gut feeling" that Missoula voters were not "detail-oriented" enough to understand the complete scope of the initiative.
I think the only ones who failed the "detail-oriented" test are the slashdot editors who posted a story that references an article and a blog but failed to provide any links.
GMD
watch this
The government taxes and spends a LOT of money to prosecute the war on drugs. Virtually every department gets a cut.
It is only logical that a county attorney would want to continue prosecuting these cases, otherwise he might have to cut staff and save the taxpayers a few bucks.
There was no link in the story, so here's some that seem to be relevant.
An article
relevant Google news search
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like TROLLING.
I'm glad to see this happens elsewhere. I thought maybe Arizona had a monopoly on that. Here, they hold a vote, then decide whether to follow the result or not. Whenever they choose not to, their excuse is usually "the voters didn't understand this".
The world is my oyster. That's why it's always in a stew.
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2007/03/24/news /local/news04.txt
Man -- and I thought *I* was lazy. But too lazy to Google it? Wow.
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
http://www.newwest.net/index.php/city/article/miss oula_county_comission_amends_marijuana_deprioritiz ation_initiative/C8/L8/
Each state has 2% of the Senate vote.
Montana seems to have 2 Democrat senators... maybe they should start a groundswell by voting in some libertarians who wouldn't put up for that stuff.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
OK, that was bizarre -- even coming from an AC...
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
And seeing that communism isn't exactly the solution we're looking for, let's all convert to imperialism. ....What?!
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C1 bottles of beer on the wall. Take one down, pass it round... Oh, umm...
The county prosecutor opened the meeting by telling us that we did not understand the initiative, to which many of us, myself included, assured him that we read the initiative in its entirety, and did understand it. When everybody was done speaking, he came back up and told us that he disagreed with us, and that we still did not understand the initiative. In addition, he showed us a map showing how the votes were distributed, and told us that since most of the votes were centered around the "metropolitan" area of Missoula, and not so much in the surrounding areas of the county, that it was not fair to voters to have this initiative.
I really enjoy living in Missoula for a number of reasons, but the local government is not one of them.
For the record, I did vote, and will continue to, regardless of my opinion that voting is purely symbolic.
It's been said by Jean-Jacque Rousseau in the Social Contract that Democracy stops being Democracy (Democracy in the sense of Voting for Opinion vs the difference between Democracy and Republicanism) when the Government stops being a representative for the people. Once that happens it becomes an oppressive tyranical force something akin to a Dictatorship which is the ultimate end of Democractic rule, hence why its been said that every Democractic society needs to continuously reinvent itself and suffer a civil upheavel or it will become a Dictatorship in rule but a Democracy in name, this is the worst type of Dictatorship since it abuses not only the people it controls but also lies to the truth of its own existance. I would rather live under a Dictatorship which acknowledged it was rather than one who said it wasn't. Hence why I'm glad I live in Canada, although we still face many problems along the same lines but not as bad yet.
"the problem with common sense is that its not that common"
Article in local paper.
The actual initiative
The current story.
You're welcome.
Measure (This is actually short and readable. Maybe you will place it on the ballot in your county?)i nit.pdfs /local/news04.txt
http://www.co.missoula.mt.us/Election/Marijuana_I
Article
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2007/03/24/new
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
The chairman of the Democratic party in my county pulled a trick to prevent a motion to initiate impeachment of President Bush from even getting voted on. There was great outrage among local Democrats. We had a county Democratic convention today. It was early Saturday morning but I showed up. It was the first convention I've ever attended but I was pissed off that the will of the people had been subverted.
A new more progressive chair and vice-chair were voted in unanimously. You can make a difference, especially by starting at the local level and working your way up.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
the jew is going around.
From --
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
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.
We live under a defacto theocracy, with an entire canon of state enforced "morality" -- not just "anti-drug" but also "anti-racist" dogma, forced down the throat of an unwilling people by a managerial elite that think they're called by God or something to tell the rest of us how to live our lives.
There is only one fundamental human right from which all other options for living can be chosen:
The right to freedom of association with people of like mind upon land you have a natural right to occupy.
The rest is details or theocratic aggression.
Seastead this.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about? First, nobody told the voters they got to choose the law, they simply got to advise the council. If they're not happy with the way the council took their advice, next election they can replace the council.
State != feds. If a state has a law contradicting a federal law, the federal law overrules. By definition, the fed ignores state laws - it's not their job to enforce them, and federal laws take priority. This was a county level law. Corruption in one county (and I'm not saying this is a case of corruption) is hardly evidence of corruption on a state or federal level.
That node was flagged by the new /. content analyzer as unreachable and optimized out.
Fascinating technology, really. Here's a link to how they do it:
This is the same behavior exhibited by the Massachusetts legislature in 2000 when the tax payers voted on a binding referendum to lower the state income tax rate from 5.3% to 5.0%. This time period was during a $1B annual surplus but the legislators stated that it was not finacially wise for the state to lower the tax rate and that the resulting decrease would not significantly benefit the tax payers in terms of cold hard cash. As it was a binding referendum the legislators simply passed a bill the next day to raise the tax rate back to 5.3%
This only confirms the reason why I and many others simply do not vote. Votes are simply subverted, and ignorance is usually cited by those in power.
The voters probably did not understand the wording of the ballot.
The voters probably did not understand what they are voting on.
The voters are too stupid to vote so just project the illusion that their votes matter.
I for one am sick and tired of the government and those in power who think they are above the voters. Government and those who work for the Government exist to serve the public, not the other way around.
Support your local school shooter, give them your firearms.
The correct name is Cannabis. Marijuana refers to cannabis sativa strains originating in Mexico. There is also cannabis indica, which is lower in THC (the 'high') and higher in CBD (which is more beneficial in some medical cases, such as cataplexy).
There are also two other main strains, Industrial Hemp being one of them, but also another which i cannot remember the name of.
After so many countless Americans have fought and died to protect our freedom, we end up with fascist totalitarianism. It's like they all died in vane.
Kharma is like a boomerang. Mine is broken.
I live in Missoula and discussed this initiative with quite a few people, none of whom are consumers of unregulated or illegal substances. They all voted for this, and they all understood it clearly. "The police should be investigating real crimes" was the most commonly cited reason. There are unsolved robberies every week in this town that receive, as far as anyone can tell, scant police attention. Police can build careers and the county can confiscate property (and generate revenue) "busting people for drugs" but investigating robberies is hard work and not glamorous in any way. The people of Missoula county understand this clearly. The people who overturned this will very likely be voted out of office next chance.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
American democracy is a form of entertainment. A stage show, which certainly does not take requests from the audience.
Task Mangler
b) Elected officials don't do things the way you would.
Are you on the weed or what?
Why do you not vote for someone who thinks like you do? Don't tell me it doesn't matter, because you already told me you didn't vote, so we can't really know, now can we?
Personally, I think the problem is that we have ended up with a binary choice for elected officals; Assholes and Dimwits. The de-facto two party system just doesn't cover the real-world spectrum of opinion, including those who self-select to opt out of the system because, wah, wah, there is noone who exactly represents them exactly.
change is incremental, but if you don't vote you are stuck with no hope of change. If everyone who didn't vote "because it doesn't matter" voted for someone other than the two big parties it might give those of us who vote holding our nose a hint that other out there care too.
I always vote.
Sometimes "my guy" wins, sometimes he loses. I am almost always disappointed either way, by the policies that the guy in office advocates. Usually it seems like elected officials do something, just to be doing something, which is almost always wrong.
Hmm, maybe there isn't much difference, other than the fact that I can at least say "I tried".
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
>The influence of lobbyists and the nice gifts they bring matters much more than any pathetic constituent.
Two possible reasons for this, both curable by voter action.
First possibility, the politician cares more about booze and hookers in the short term than about getting reelected to get more booze and hookers in his next term. Voters can fix that every time someone's term comes up.
Second possibility, the lobbyist gifts actually influence elections. In the US, literal vote-buying is rare. Politicians want money for their campaigns so they can buy TV ads. Voters can fix that problem too, by ignoring TV campaign ads and by talking politics with their friends to drown out the campaign ads ("Joe, Joe, who do you think is going to be good for your family? Are you going to believe me, or some ad agency from New York?").
When somebody does a bad job it's their fault. When you can fire them and you don't it's your fault.
"...and then, depression set in."
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Stop voting them back in
What happened in Missoula County is similar to how the Electoral College works. Voters in the US do not directly elect the President and Vice President, but choosing the electors. Electors are members of the Electoral College who actually elect the President.
l -college/faq.html, "In the early 1800's, the term 'electoral college' came into general usage as the unofficial designation for the group of citizens selected to cast votes for President and Vice President. It was first written into Federal law in 1845, and today the term appears in 3 U.S.C. section 4, in the section heading and in the text as 'college of electors.'"
a /electcollege_3.htm "The Founding Fathers feared the direct popular election option. There were no organized national political parties yet, no structure by which to choose and limit the number of candidates. In addition, travel and communication was slow and difficult at that time. A very good candidate could be popular regionally, but remain unknown to the rest of the country. A large number of regionally popular candidates would thus divide the vote and not indicate the wishes of the nation as a whole.
From http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electora
"It is possible that an elector could ignore the results of the popular vote, but that occurs very rarely. Your vote helps decide which candidate receives your State's electoral votes."
Why do we have an Electoral College? Because back in the 1800's, it took too long to count the popular votes. In addition, from http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/
On the other hand, election by Congress would require the members to both accurately assess the desires of the people of their states and to actually vote accordingly. This could have led to elections that better reflected the opinions and political agendas of the members of Congress than the actual will of the people.
As a compromise, we have the Electoral College system."
Who are you? Some would be politician who's too lazy, or crazy, to get on the ballot? With your telling your friend how to vote as opposed to letting him make a decision on his own, one wonders.
In Soviet Russia, you represent Democracy!
Ballot initiatives don't have much of a direct effect (although the actual news story I found says that they're still deprioritizing non-felony possession), but one of the commissioners who voted to change the initiative needs to run for re-election in 2008. If anyone plausible wants her job, it probably wouldn't be hard to defeat her on a platform of not second-guessing the electorate and the pot declaration that voters already went for.
> Iranians capture 15 brit soldiers.
I think they were sailors and marines that were captured, not soldiers.
Ganja is in the dominion of Jah, and is not within the jurisdiction of the governments of men. Anyone who takes a stand against cannabis is putting themselves at war with their own soul. All of you smokers know this is true, but can't be explained or admitted in public.
soap,ballot,jury,ammo. you used the first two, try the third, and then go enforce your state's term limit. If nothing else the bad national PR should bring them down.
We are all just people.
it would not matter if an entire state voted to allow medical weed, the feds just ignore it.
I have this crazy insane fantasy that I know will never happen. California votes to legalize marijuana, and then of course federal agents come in to arrest some people to "make an example" but then, in my fantasy world, the governor of California mobilizes the national guard and has the federal agents arrested, and then goes on TV and says, "ok federal government, what are you going to do? You are NOT going to fight a civil war over this because you don't have the balls tha Lincoln had. So your choices are, 1: get over it, or 2: oh wait, there is no 2."
This is exactly why I don't vote, & never will.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
You know, it was 75 years ago this month since marijuana was banned by the federal government. Use of this weed has risen every year since then. Could it be that the law just isn't working? Naw...
you were pwned!
With your telling your friend how to vote as opposed to letting him make a decision on his own, one wonders.
Yes, only those with the finances to have their opinions televised should be allowed to express opinions or influence people. We little people shouldn't think too hard or speak too loudly, it might cause us to forget our place.
We are all just people.
The cable news channels would all bust a nut over that.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Belladonna is a plant too. It doesn't change the fact that it's deadly. Opium and Coca are plants too. That doesn't make them harmless. Drug abuse and addiction harms not just individuals, but entire families, and the rest of society.
Beer and (another addictive, carcinogenic plant:) tobacco are not safer. They should be restricted More, and that's gradually happening to smokers, worldwide.
Just what are you suggesting we do about the problem with drug abuse and addiction?
Hurray for yet another never ending war!
Now lets go play some golf.
We are the people who fix your computers. We are the people who keep your infrastructure moving and alive. We are the people who make sure your insignificant lives are not interrupted because some piece of technology you depend on (that you've never bothered to learn anything about, even though it runs your life) breaks and we save the day.
Guess what? We don't LIKE alcohol! It fucks up our work. We smoke pot because it is relaxing and mentally stimulating. Anyone who doesn't feel the same way either hasn't smoked 'real' marijuana or they have a physical/emotional problem with it. Great! Don't smoke pot.
Just don't tell me I have to quit because YOU have a problem with it.
America DOES have a marijuana problem. The Problem? 80% or more Marijuana users are smoking LOW-GRADE marijuana that promotes medical and emotional issues.
Maybe it was short term memory loss.
"Is there even a point to voting any more if the will of the people can so easily be subverted by two people?"
I suspect this will be an unpopular opinion, but... SCREW the will of the people!
(in most cases)
The point of electing representatives is to make complex decisions that otherwise couldn't be made by an uninformed electorate that doesn't have sufficient time to be come educated on every issue. Now, this is not specific to this particular issue, but to issues in general. Generally speaking, direct democracy to decide various issues is a bad idea.
On the other hand, here in California, we do have the referendum system, which I actually do support. Sometimes we do need a direct vote of the people to make law. But that doesn't mean that elected reps should automatically roll over to the will of the people, if it's clear the people were not sufficiently educated. That's what they're there for.
If the people think the elected reps are wrong, they can vote them out in the next election.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
it's classic psychology: they have trained dogs to learn that they cannot control their surroundings. they teach them that if they get an electric shock from jumping over a barrier, then the dogs just lay down and take the shocks
it's sad, and it works just as well on humans
the point is to effect control on your government, that's the beauty of a democracy. but if a democracy is populated by those who think helpessly, like slaves, like, you, then democracy does not work
when you withhold your vote, you only help those who you complain about. those who you hate are HAPPY that you do not vote. if their actions lead you to not vote, all the more reason to do the actions they do, according to them
your psychology is that of a slave in a fascist state. and if enough people who think like you populate this country, then that is exactly what it will become. BECAUSE of people like you, not in spite of people like you
look: there will ALWAYS be assholes who try to manipulate the system. always. but simply because they exist, you will withhold your voice from your government. incredible. you must always fight the assholes who would subvert democracy. but if you simply stop fighting them, and give up your vote, then guess what? they win
if this country is not democratic in anyway, it is more because of people like you, then the assholes who would subvert it. because evil assholes can be fought. apathy on the other hand, is an obstinate unmoveable useless obstacle
people who think like you are the biggest reason democracy fails: "i'm helpless, so i will not vote"
no, you're not helpless, your vote counts. you only think that way because you have been trained like a dog in a cage. you've learned helpelessness, you have no heart, you've ceased caring
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It's this kind of crap that has led to governments being overthrown. While this is just an advisory on mary jane, tomorrow it could be any of the bill of rights thats tossed out. Politicians who overrule the will of the people are playing a dangerous game.
Just remember, Ted Kaczynski lived in Montanna.
Canada, along with most other stable democracies, changes gradually and peacefully. Violent civic upheaval leads to long stagnant periods without change, segmented by another violent upheaval. Revolutionary societies such as the USSR and the USA are neither healthy nor stable.
... it seems like the initiative was poorly drafted:
If the initiative truly is a "mere suggestion," and voters thought it was more than that, put out a new initiative that unequivocally states that the intent is not to advise law enforcement, but to actually change the law. If Van Valkenburg is just an obstinate jackass, and the initiative actually was designed to change the law, it should be relatively easy to enforce the language.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Nerds tend to care about and try to understand how systems of any sort work, and are particularly intrigued and interested when those systems behave anomalously or break down. In this case, the democratic process is a system, and the implementation of this system in a particular county in a particular state seems to have broken down spectacularly, and about an issue which many young people care about, no less.
So, it is news for nerds. And its stuff that matters to many here, judging by the decent number of comments thus far.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Are not all what we, as public suffer from due to "guts" politicians have ..
they always have the "guts" to oppose popular will, but however manage to stay in power still.
Read radical news here
Fred Van Valkenburg
(406) 258-4737
fvanvalk@co.missoula.mt.us
County Commissioners
(406) 258-4877
200 W. Broadway St, Missoula, MT 59802
Bill Carey
(406) 721-5008
644 Cleveland St, Missoula, MT 59801
Barbara Evans
(406) 543-1268
808 Whitaker Dr, Missoula, MT 59803
...of the authoritarianism present in both major political parties. The unifying thread in politics today is paternalism - the belief that people are stupid (there really is no other way to read this council decision), and need the guidance of a wise government/polity to avoid ruin. Our elected representatives follow this belief in spades. So does the majority of the population that believes politics is a team sport (team blue is smart, team red is teh stupid and vice versa). There is a better way, but it requires letting go of this silly concern that people, given the opportunity, might make poor choices. Sure, some people will because some people are idiots. But most wont. And ultimately, as long as they're only harming themselves, it is not our business to coerce them into making the "right" choices. Period.
There's a lot of bullshit talk of collective responsibility these days. But it's really just a slicker version of good old fashioned paternalism, no different in essence than the paternalism inherent in the divine right of kings. If you really want change, vote for the people who truly believe in personal responsibility. If you really want change, vote out anyone who believes in social engineering, no matter what guise it takes. Run for office yourself if you want, but remember, there are many valid ways to participate in politics. Just talking to your friends and making them aware of options other than the current bipolar authoritarianism can help. Working to reform the major parties can help. Really, the only thing that doesn't help is walking away in disgust, even if it is all too tempting these days.
So this is a compelling reason to vote, not a reason to wuss out of the democratic process.
...What do you want for a place where the primary crop is dental floss?
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
Little people allow themselves to be so in democracy; How else would you explain the intellectual stimulating movie "Predator" being the launchpad for 2 future governors.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
Those who cast the votes decide nothing.
Those who COUNT the votes decide everything.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
What this shows is a chilling ignorance of how the system works among those voters. Advisory referendums are, well... advisory. They are not binding. They are easy to disregard and overturn by design.
Becoming diaffected because the system works as designed is stupid. Get off your ass and pass a binding resolution.
Is there even a point to voting any more...?
There hasn't really ever been a point. Even in the absence of fraud our votes aren't actually counted.
I am in the midst of a series on voting on my blog. Please let me know what you think. There's a lot more to come in the series, though.
Left! Left? I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around your poor leftie-biggot excuse for an arguement.
;)
While I don't sport a Neo-Libertarian bent myself, I do believe that legalization or at least the downsizing of regulations concerning personal behaviors is a torch carried by the said-same people. Oddly enough it's one of the platforms on which I agree with them (Yup! I'm a leftie.) Needless to say the marijuana legalization issue is less left/right oriented as it is a freedom/fascism issue.
That having been said, I'm a nerd (technology and Linux geek) and this is news to me, and might I add very interesting and important to all Americans not just non-nerd ones.
So not only are you wrong in the crux of your post, but also in the snide undercurrent also. Have a nice day!
cat sig >
Sadly it's just a microcosm of the wider world. The UN General Assembly (i.e. The rest of the world) can vote all it likes but it's resolutions are non-binding. Yet when just a handful of countries vote (the Security Council) their word is law. The 5 permanent members ("permanent" already being an affront to any kind of democracy) also have veto power over everyone else. It's so ridiculously undemocratic, I'm not really sure why anyone bothers turning up. I think the rest of the world should set up their own UN, where countries have an equal say. If you think that countries should have unequal representation, it should be based on population count not wealth since you would not like rich people in your own country to have more votes than you, would you?
Some of us prefer not to inhale the byproduct of other people's addictions (or suffer the consequences of a new class of DUI drivers). For me, the smoke is a migraine trigger and the only argument for legalization I can see even having the slightest merit is the medical one (and I suspect that even that argument is greatly exaggerated due to bias). I would say it's fine to do only in your own homes, but I have no evidence to believe that the majority of people would be able to manage such self-control.
Your generalization is flawed: geekiness has nothing to do with consumption of any sort of substance. Perhaps a case can be made for novelty-seeking behaviors, but that says nothing about continued use. The generalization you invoke isn't even a stereotype, much less a fact.
This happened In Western Australia. The state voted No to daylight savings this was an entire State of Australia not a small county/city. The government didn't like the way we voted so they introduced daylight saving anyway.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
get some real friends.
And they wonder why voter turnout is low and voter apathy is high. Our votes no longer matter. If the community as a majority decides that something should happen then it should happen. If the was thought to be misinterpreted then there should be a second vote by the PEOPLE, not by the GOVERNMENT. They're essentially saying we're too stupid to understand the ballot.
Just more erosion of our rights as people. I feel bad for those people out in Montana.
If you were offended by anything I said... No, I'm not sorry. Please lighten up.
..the Java emulator story posted 3 hours earlier it apparently matters to quite a few nerds.
At last, an new slogan!
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
Who gives a rat's ass other than the 420 crowd stuffing their pie holes with Doritos beating off to Attack of the Show reruns?
is very strong indeed. It will grow much stronger with crap like this going on. The Iowa militia is strong too. So is the Missouri, Nebraska, Minnesota.. Lots of us have guns and could easily make a mess. Memebers of the US military and guard might not be so loyal to the politicians as they think.
Of course there is still a point to voting - next time around, vote out your representatives. I mean, it's not like elections are fixed, or vote counting is fraudulent.
Oh, wait. Never mind.
Wow, way to bring out the straw men. Driving under the influence of drugs is already illegal, smoking weed at home should not be however.
California already legalized marijuana for medical use. It's still illegal though, due to the US Congress abusing the interstate commerce clause (with a complicit but un-justifiable Supreme Court ruling).
See Gonzales v. Raich: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v_Raich
(Posted anonymously only because I used mod points in this discussion. -- Astro Dr Dave)
We had THREE referendums on daylights savings - all got a resounding "no". They then initiated it anyway. Then they had a referendum on extended trading hours - again a very strong no vote. Guess what we're getting in a few months?
I'm sorry... computer says no... *cough*
(If you don't get it)
-jX
Don't you just love politics? It's like a comedy of errors.
..where some dictator (face reality, he's a dictator who got in in a series of coups using mass electronic blackbox voting election fraud) unitary executive just does whatever the hell he wants to do, and elections later that trounce his party and his policies, meaning "we the people" want things to change as in pronto now, mean absolutely nothing. "la la la, I can't hear you!" nonsense. "signing statements".
Yep, it's a problem. Autocratic regimes are always a problem historically, and it usually has to get worse with the state sponsored tyranny and terrorism before it gets better.
The war on some drugs is a rousing success-given your goal is to help bring about a terrorized population police state. That's why they don't want to change it-that and the fact (george carlin reference now), that there are way too many rich fatcat republican bankers and others of their ilk like the rogue spooks making billions off the "illegal" drug trade.
There's a lot of gnashing of teeth out there about the poor quality of our political leadership and the lack of good candidates who will stand up and fix what's wrong. But a timid people will never produce strong, moral leaders. It's axiomatic. If we want things to change in this country, we're just going to have to do it ourselves. We have to be strong if we expect our country to be strong. Corrupt political leaders will never bring themselves to justice--we have to do it. The police will never arrest themselves for violating the law, so we as citizens must arrest them. That's the ultimate guarantor of democracy, folks, us.
Can't speak for folks in other parts of the country, but Montanans still remember what it means to be free. They will correct this and those who think they can simply overrule a democratic vote.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
We are the people who fix your computers. We are the people who keep your infrastructure moving and alive. We are the people who make sure your insignificant lives are not interrupted because some piece of technology you depend on (that you've never bothered to learn anything about, even though it runs your life) breaks and we save the day.
Guess what? We don't LIKE women! It fucks up our work. We fuck children because it is relaxing and mentally stimulating. Anyone who doesn't feel the same way either hasn't fucked 'real' children or they have a physical/emotional problem with it. Great! Don't fuck children.
Just don't tell me I have to quit because YOU have a problem with it.
America DOES have a child fucking problem. The Problem? 80% or more child fuckers are fucking LOW-GRADE children that promotes medical and emotional issues.
The people in your district have voted in favor of cannibis. Cancel or Allow?
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
Here's a few links for everyone:
s /local/news04.txt
c ed_Amendment_to_Marijuana_Law_Passed_by_the_People #c5840343?cedit=58403435840343
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2007/03/24/new
http://www.grupthink.com/topic/5605
http://digg.com/politics/Voters_Appalled_Over_For
Nevermind, these people who made the decision must be such amazing all knowing individuals, they know better than the people who voted.
My own thoughts about the futility of the Democratic process aside, one of the most beautiful things about said process is the fact that it's politicians are notoriously spineless.
If every person posting in indignation where to say, express their thoughts directly to the Missoula County Commissioners' Office, who knows what could happen?
oops, whats this?
Missoula County
Board of County Commissioners
200 W. Broadway
Missoula, MT 59802
Main Office Telephone Number: 406-258-4877
COMMISSIONER: JEAN CURTISS
Contact Person: Jean Curtiss
Phone: 406-258-4877
Fax: 406-721-4043
Email: mailto:jcurtiss@co.missoula.mt.us (or) bcc@co.missoula.mt.us
Location: Second Floor of Courthouse Annex Room 210
COMMISSIONER: BILL CAREY
Contact Person: Bill Carey
Phone: 406-258-4877
Fax: 406-721-4043
Email: mailto:bcarey@co.missoula.mt.us (or) bcc@co.missoula.mt.us
Location: Second Floor of Courthouse Annex Room 210
COMMISSIONER: BARBARA EVANS
Phone: 406-258-4877
Fax: 406-721-4043
Email: mailto:bevans@co.missoula.mt.us (or) bcc@co.missoula.mt.us
Location: Second Floor of Courthouse Annex Room 210
I have (very roughly) blogged about an idea that I had to implement an e-democracy without _any_ overhauls to the current parliamentry system.
http://www.blognow.com.au/edemocracy.
Basically you:
I don't know if this has ever been done anywhere in the world yet. I'm thinking of doing this for our (Australia's) next federal election. I don't think it well get up by a long way - but it might the next time around (or the next one)...
If you make referendums that aren't binding then yes, they are purely symbolic. If the vote is "We like this idea but aren't going to force it," don't be surprised if the government just ignores it. If this is REALLY something the voters care about then do something about it. Do a binding referendum, recall the county prosecutor and so on.
If you want to exert power over the government, you have to actually back it up. Non-binding referendums don't do shit. This is no more useful than congress passing a non-binding resolution against the war in Iraq. It's fluff, pure and simple. If you want something to really get done, you have to do a real resolution and then be prepared to put teeth in it.
You don't use electricity in your house?
Tell me you can 'quit' using gas/diesel?
Hey.. why don't you quit buying fresh produce? That comes in trucks that produce byproducts that _I_ inhale and it gives ME headaches. You don't see me bitching at your stupid ass for it.
Cigarettes give me headaches and I used to smoke them for 20 years. You don't see me jumping on anyone for second hand smoke unless they're being a complete moron.
Yes... I popped off a silly remark... The whole freakin subject is just retarded.
How about yours? A whole new class of DUI drivers? In what world do you live in that people DON'T smoke pot in the cars around you daily?? Do you have ANY idea of what kind of quantities of pot are sold?
As for your 'headaches' from inhaling second hand smoke? Stop hanging around thugs that smoke dirt and seeds... get a higher class of friends. You don't go to the store and buy rotten grapes right? Well... lots of folks buy crappy pot because it's illegal and no regular dependable supply can be set up. Can you imagine what kind of grapes you would find people selling if they were illegal? Pathetic.
You sit there and believe wholeheartedly that you're 'aware' of the whole 'drug thing'.
Hey putz... wake up and smell your own B.S. When was the last time you actually was honest with yourself? When was the last time you looked in the mirror and said "Fuck it... I'm not going to lie to myself anymore.". Never, eh? Keep living the lie. Swallow your valium, take your lunesta, eat your govt. pharms and be happy.
GO BACK TO SLEEP AMERICA! YOUR GOVT IS BACK IN CONTROL!
Putz
That's why the State of Minnesota, in its wisdom, made sure the new Twins baseball stadium couldn't be put to a referendum.
It's one thing to remember this is a republic, not a democracy. It is another thing to see how government serves the corporations, not the people.
The right to freedom of association with people of like mind upon land you have a natural right to occupy.
So. Where does the process begin? How does the 'population of the people' set in motion the chain of events that will replace the current govt.?
Are we able to create a govt that will not violate human rights?
You and I both know that the current govt. will never "step aside".
You and I both know that their 'mind set' is not conducive to the creation of a "new" govt and they will, therefore, be pretty much useless.
What steps will need to be taken to bring about a peaceful change?
Is the only outcome chaos and destruction? Rebellion and war?
I seriously hope not but the similarity between our gotv practices today and the govt in Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged' is just too spooky. I remember reading it as a kid thinking "People wouldn't be stupid enough to let a real govt get away with that, but it is a great story." Now I have to say it's beginning to become alarming.
The heap had been rolling quite slowly toward the lip of the canyon for some time... the sudden rush of acceleration before all that destruction at the end was a complete surprise to the occupants.
If you believe that then you really need to re-read the Bill of Rights.
9 8007,00.html?xid=rss-nation
5 846864220&q=gun+control+penn+and+teller&hl=en
Or check out the following...
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,15
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=231250844
Yeah, what chance would a few guys with guns and improvised munitions stand against a modern, well-trained, professional army...
Maybe the war in Iraq can provide us with some clues. How's that thing going, anyway?
'nuff said.
No, he's New Here
Do me a favor, don't speak for all of us, okay? I like the drink, I like the weed. I can get shitfaced, I can get wacky, I can quit for years, I can choose to go back. Done all that. I'm in IT, but I don't live for my work. I live.
And low-grade pot doesn't create "emotional issues" other than getting pissed that you got ripped off for shwag.
In all three cases, the legislators threw the term limits out (which limit them to only a few terms). They refuse to leave, and have deemed the overwhelming majority vote of the people to be either caused by confusion reading ballets or just plain wrong.
That's flat-out incorrect. The Legislature didn't throw the term limits out, the courts did, as Nebraska's first two attempts at a term limit law also imposed term limits on federal representatives, something the State of Nebraska has no jurisdiction over. The third time, they limited it to state officials, and (SURPRISE!) the courts had no problems with it. I don't know how you can say that they "refused to leave" when every legislator who was term-limited out did indeed leave after the 2006 election.
Because the people kept on sending out petitions to get it back on the ballot and voted on, the legislature decided to fix that. They made all sorts of new rules on the petition process, cutting the time to circulate petitions in half, doubling the required amount of votes, using nefarious methods to reject signatures, etc.
Those changes you speak of only happened AFTER the final success of the term limit initiatives. Don't conflate to the two together to show evidence of some evil plot.
Once you let someone be a full-time politician, the power goes to their head. The influence of lobbyists and the nice gifts they bring matters much more than any pathetic constituent. Show me someone who's a life-long politician and I'll show you a crook - party need not matter.
Next thing you will vote for one President and another one will be inaugurated... Oh, wait.
Obligatory Office Quote:
Creed: That, is Northern Lights, Cannabis Indica.
Dwight: *Sigh*, No, (pause) it's marijuana.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
The second amendment does not apply to normal citizens. It applies to organized militias.
That's your interpretation. Thankfully, many other people disagree.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
What I'm talking about as "natural rights" is the Lockean "state of nature". In a state of nature, every man has territory or he dies. This is simply a biological observation.
Seastead this.
In Sweden we voted about changing to driving on the right in 1955. The results were 82.9% against. The parliament still forced us to switch sides in 1963.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_referendums
So, representative democracy might not be the perfect system for governing, but it is the best we have.
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
Even if you are this principled, I think this approach is misguided. Consider the cost/benefit to society of letting you die of a minor treatable illness instead of allowing you to continue contributing as an active member. Consider the cost/benefit to society of helping you over a few rough months with welfare than to have you spiral into poverty and likely crime. If public education is good enough, even people who live off welfare could have children who surpass them and contribute beneficially. The world doesn't need to be so cold, and in many developed countries, it isn't.
From this comment, I'm assuming you're American, since I've only ever heard arguments and fear of government size from friends from the states. I don't quite understand this point, but there must have been some severe cultural trauma in the past to inspire this fear of government. This fear is not present in people from other countries, as far as I know. It seems there are many problems which can only be addressed efficiently on a country-wide scale. The government should be as big as it needs to be to address those problems, no more, no less. Clearly the government shouldn't interfere with fundamental human-rights. The rest is economics.
This time period was during a $1B annual surplus
And what happened in the next time period? The economy took a big dump and states across the country faced budget shortfalls in the billions. Buy not throwing away their surplus to a big tax cut, Massachusetts wasn't hit as hard later on.
They should look at what democracy is realy about and look at what the president does. He listens to what the peop^h^h^h^hhow to delete al this and not post?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
The key is the first. A lone individual with a gun is no danger to the government. A large organization, even without guns, which can freely assemble, communicate, plan, and share vital pieces of information (governmental weaknesses, tactics, etc) is a danger to the government. 5 shots at police does nothing, 546 precisely placed knife wounds does everything.
In Florida, the same thing happened. The citizens voted "YES" to have a commuter train system built (twice). We even voted for the higher taxes to do it! But Governor Jeb Bush decided, "NO" all on his own. And so there is no train.
Democracy is all but dead in the States. Recently China passed laws to secure private property rights to it's citizens, while here in the U.S. emanate domain laws were watered down to allow seizures for commercial interests. Who's more communist now?
:T:R:A:N:S:
I'd like to point out that most of the insurgents are either getting new munitions from Iran or have plenty of military grade munitions laying around from the previous administration.
I mean a 150MM artillery shell isn't something you keep about your house either is it?
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
I don't know where you live, but I'm glad I'm not there!
Fortunately, I've hardly ever been around it here (not sure where you got the idea that this had anything to do with my friends), but first found that I was sensitive to the smoke when visiting Amsterdam, a place where pot is already legal. It has nothing to do with "quality", since the pot being smoked in Amsterdam is presumably "high-grade", nor would it be something that was fixed with legalization.
Migraines are more than headaches. Please look them up; it may be enlightening.
Not an apples-to-apples comparison (pun intended). The right to eat, a necessary condition for life, trumps the pain delivery may cause. Furthermore, even for non-necessary goods, such as electricity, the fumes from vehicles are not the intended byproduct of delivery (the fruit/good is); they are an unfortunate side-effect that we are working very hard to reduce or eliminate. Finally, you're not presenting an argument for pot, you're presenting an argument against fruit.
Why?
I had expected such a response, though I'm not entirely sure what "lie" you're referring to. I prefer making lifestyle changes to simply medicating my problems away; medications are something to be taken only when necessary and then for the shortest duration possible (and then only after reading and analyzing the effects right down to the level of chemical bonding). I don't even take medications for the aforementioned migraines, preferring to simply avoid triggers.
Anyway, I'm not sure why you feel the need to attack me or presume all sorts of ridiculous things about my lifestyle simply because I hold a dissenting viewpoint. The only thing you can truly infer from my argument is that I tend to avoid pot smoke.
There's a reason it was called the quiet revolution.
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
This certainly doesn't sound like democracy at work... Looks like it is time for some officials there to step down and for people to establish true democracy in their county.
Some people find relief from their migraines smoking pot -- maybe you should give it a try.
the only people getting killed are insurgents and American Soldiers, who are almost exclusively from the lower classes. As far as the upper classes, who are profiting handsomely from this war, are concerned, the Wars going great.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Hey, it's my goddamn Constitutional RIGHT to have 150mm artillery shells lying around the house!
Haida Manga
All you need is slaughterhouse dirt for nitrates and some old car batteries for sulfuric acid and you're ready to blow that tree stump out of your yard... military grade munitions are very overpriced.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
I honestly cannot think of anything more compassionate that has a realistic chance of working than to force decentralization by individuals, acting alone and undetectable, making synchronized, but otherwise uncoordinated and unplanned, attacks on its control nodes to bring it down. Yes, I know this means many people will suffer but I really think it is the least painful of a wide range of bad options.
Seastead this.
It may be the reason for the second ammendment, only thing is the second amendment is now redundant. The very instant anyone attempts to put together a group of people with the aim of affecting Government policies or methods through the 'bearing arms' avenue, they'll be thrown in prison or sent to GTMO.
Somebody mod parent up, he's absolutely spot on. How useful is the 2nd amendment anymore, when even a few hippie war protesters are so dangerous, they have to be confined in 'free-speech zones'? Maybe a 'test case' is in order....
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
what's the other option?
to paraphrase winston churchill: democracy is the worst form of government devised, except for all of the other types of government
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
the bush administration has committed many crimes
but if you think they are of the same order and magnitude as what the nazis did, you are seriously deluded or propagandized
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
#4 isn't a democracy, and #2 and #3 aren't real democracy either
if it's not democracy, then work must be made to make it a dmeocracy, not just stop voting. what does that do but enforce the efforts of evil assholes?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
you're offered a choice between no change and little doubtful change
to not vote means your influence is certain: zero
unless you are advocating change via nondemocratic means, when you do not vote you are advocating acceptance of evil assholes who subvert democracy
those who destroy democracy DEPEND upon you not voting
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The Quiet Revolution preceded the October Crisis.
Further, the October Crisis also supports my position, as the FLQ not only failed in all their goals, but led the Quebec sovereignty movement to universally renounce the use of violence.
Just because you have a majority doesn't mean you walk all over the minority, he said. Too often there's more emphasis put on dividing people than on uniting them.
..wouldn't that be a compelling argument for legalisation?
09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0
The proxy system didn't seem to appeal to people in sufficient numbers to make any impact on the electoral system. If widely adopted it would form the affinity groups in a public manner which would allow them to seek independence in conjunction with other groups that were disenfranchised. It might also put enough pressure on the political system to represent the interests of the people, although I don't hold out as much hope there.
The Hutter Prize basically depends on the largess of the wealthy (including corporations) which, as it turns out, isn't forthcoming. What the Hutter Prize would do in theory is solve the knowledge problem -- which would allow an objective metric of epistemological merit to be affixed to a given description of the world. This is the sort of thing you need if you are going to "argue" with a theocracy since theocracies insist on "dialog" rather than experimentation. It has the essential weakness of any theory-intensive approach to the problem of knowledge.
Seastead this.
No wonder you worry about epidemics so much. You're a vectorist.
Seastead this.
owned
If you get caught with weed, even if the sentence from the local police is low or non-existant, you WILL lose the privelidge of taking out student loans and receiving grant money from the state or federal government. That far outweighs any local penalty given out, even if its 30 days in jail... I'd rather take 30 days than not have the ability to go to school and become educated...
I've read Slashdot for the last 5 years, and now I start posting... Go figure
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
"Is there even a point to voting any more if the will of the people can so easily be subverted by two people?"
As we anarchists like to say, "No matter who you vote for, the government gets into power."
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
You can't take the sky from me...
This was an advisory refendum only. It was symbology. Absolutely no substance. It's the equivalent of telling a rapist "please be gentle".
I am all in favor of full narcotics legalization. But I am not so stupid to think that some idiotic feel-good "advisory" referendum would change anything. You might as well be sitting around a campfire singing Kumbaya. If you want to change things in Montana, you need to start with referendums that have teeth in them. Then start voting out the bastards.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Some of the effects of these drugs make alcohol pale in comparison.
disclaimer: i'm neither for nor against legalization/decriminalization/whatever. if you ask me, there's way more broad/serious issues to be worring about in the states. i'm getting the fuck out of this country soon anyway, so you guys are on your own regardless. now for my... cents...
i mean, if you've taken ecstasy, marijuana, and heroin, and that's still your opinion, you've gotta hook me up with your supplier. but seriously, i've gotten really, -really- drunk before. pretty intense, this alcohol stuff. i mean, i've seen people barely able to walk after drinking a bunch. or even unable to walk. even with a little bit, it's fairly obvious that someone's been drinking. now, i've never had ecstasy effect my motor or mental faculties to such an extent, ever. marijuana? you've got to be kidding me. i just got back from africa, where i spent three weeks trying to smoke as much pot as i possibly could [literally], and that didn't come close to being as intense as a good night of drinking. now, heroin, i've only tried once. and i snorted it, no needles for me. let me tell you, wow was i disappointed. you'd figure with all these rock stars on it, it'd be the most euphoric experience ever. nah. kinda weak. i mean, really weak. i hear shooting it is more intense, but meh.
either way, my take on the matter is that alcohol is ridiculously intense compared to just about any drug i've ever taken. except maybe embalming fluid and ketamine. but ironically, i found the effect of both of those to be strikingly similar to that of alcohol. especially with ketamine, virtually indistinguishable from alcohol. note, i've never messed with crack or meth or anything that ridiculous, so perhaps my view on the matter is incomplete.
so if you haven't been as... adventurous?... as me regarding use of illegal drugs, there you have it. if you're looking to get -fucked up-, alcohol is still pretty much the best way to accomplish that. the only reason i smoke so much pot is because alcohol is too intense for me. hopefully my lengthy ramble has convinced someone that there's really no drugs that would make alcohol pale in comparison.
mmmm... acid...
Oddly enough, alcohol use flourished under prohibition despite the dangers of unsafe underground products. Usage actually dropped when prohibition ended. Also, people increased consumption of more dangerous liquers and decreased consumption of bulky drinks like wine and beer. This went back to normal after prohibition.
One source.
In other words, I believe that legalizing MJ would lead to a decrease in crime, a decrease in incarceration, a reduction of the cost of or law enforcement, or at least a reprioritization towards more damaging crimes like rape and murder.
I don't read AC A human right
Soap box, the ballot box, jury box and ammo box
--To be used roughly in that order.
I don't read AC A human right
that means you all should believe, worship, and obey that my brother is a douche because I have gut feeling.
destiny, chance, fate, fortune; they're all ways of claiming your fortunes, without claiming your failures. -gerrard
anarchy quickly becomes rule by warlords
if you don't understand why, you don't understand human nature. i'm certain in your thought experiments anarchy really rocks, but in the real world, populated by real human beings, it is basically the definition of suckage
please move to somalia where you can experience your glorious anarchy and leave the rest of us with a better grasp on human nature with the pursuit of a sound government we deserve
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I've come up with scads of great ideas while high on pot. In fact, that's one of the reasons I like it. It puts my brain into overdrive. In fact, there was a period in my life where I smoked a lot of it and it added a second, more encompassing way of thinking onto the way I used to think. You ought to give it a try, you might be pleased with the results!
I was the fifth person to testify at this hearing. There were six people to testify in favor of the amendment (which would allow law enforcement to go after felony marijuana crimes,) and over 30 people against it. Pretty much every reason Van Valkenberg gave for amending the initiative was soundly refuted, but it was pretty clear by the time I got up to testify that two of the commisioners weren't even listening to us. The only comments we got from them were requests that we speed it up because they "don't want to be here all day."
or suffer the consequences of a new class of DUI drivers
Hot tip, they're already doing it. Therefore there is nothing new and your point has destroyed itself with only a tiny bit of actual thought. Perhaps you should have tried thinking about it for a second before posting such drivel.
. For me, the smoke is a migraine trigger and the only argument for legalization I can see even having the slightest merit is the medical one
Well, that's not how a free society works. You need to come up with an argument for illegalization.
Nobody has yet come up with an honest rational argument for that, so it should be legal.
Granted this isn't a free society hence drug laws which can only empower the police state and have no possible positive effects. Go ahead try to find one you will fail.
it would not matter if an entire state voted to allow medical weed, the feds just ignore it.
You're correct, except you shouldn't have put it in the hypothetical. California already legalized medical marijuana and the feds illegally went in and arrested people for engaging in perfectly legal activities.
This is just sad, and not from what you are probably thinking. It takes this to get young voters intersted in voting? Of all the things to get up in arms about (the same people who have been running the VA hospitals wanting to take over their health care for one), this is the best thing they could think of to get excited over, the legalization of marijuana?
While I am libertarian in my beliefs and really don't have a problem with people doing drugs as long as they are not infringing on the rights of others, I have to admit that the legalization of drugs comes down pretty low on the list of items of Liberty that are under assault.
you revel in thought experiments. you have a wonderful list of what ifs. you're probably a student (or if you're an adult, that's just scarier) and so you have no real world experience with trying to make money and live a life. and so you can consider these ideas as sound when they are obviously crackpot, simply because you are so naive and earnest. so anarchy makes sense to you, in your perfect little hermetically sealed bubble, apart from the daily worries of the average person
unfortunately, how the human beings in your delightful experiment actually behave is different than you project. you want me to provide assertion for this. this is like asking me to prove to you that digestion results in shit: it should be your common knowledge already, such that if you don't know the fundamental aspects of the subject matter, then the issue is less that i will not prove it to you, and more that if you even have to ask for proof, it shows out of touch with reality you are, to ask such a foolish question
anarchy doesn't work. if you need to ask why, you're seriously deluded, and not worth the time explaining it to, because anyone who would need such explaining is already out of touch with simple rational persuasion
look, i'm certian you're a very positive, earnest little clueless fellow. why don't you write some more polemics, have some flamewars with some better adjusted folk, have a few brainstorming sessions with a few other deluded fools, and go squat in some abandoned building, or whatever gives you a hard on about your grand utopian scheming. you're not the first of your crackpot utopian kind, and you won't be the last
but i'm sorry, that you are so out of touch with essential human nature that you lack the fundamental understandings of why anarchy is pure hell, and you certainly are not worth the intellectual charity effort on my part to try to open your eyes to simple common sense and basic fundamental reality that a kindergartener could appreciate
good luck to you fruitcake. say it loud, say it proud, provide some entertainment for the us well-adjusted folk
xoxoxoxoxoxox
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Maybe we can learn how to better keep county commissioners, lawyers, or moon dust out of our underground dens.
You don't think small arms can defeat the U.S. government ask the Iraqi insurgents, hint they are winning and "we" (U.S. neo-con belligerents) are losing. Same thing with the 2nd amendment I think the heavily armed U.S. populace is very capable of defeating our cumbersome top heavy bureaucratic U.S. military in a 4th generation asymmetric guerrilla war.
http://antiwar.com/lind/index.php?articleid=1702
That's why as a decentralist anti-authoritarian leftist I think the right wing gun nuts (who I disagree with on about everything else) are right about the 2nd amendment as a check on government power.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
Waco was about shooting police officers trying to serve a Warrant. The Branch Davidians were 1 of several groups snagged in a multi year long investigation involving a couple of fairly disreputable gun dealers who were selling semi->full auto kits to people at gun shows. The list of groups the kits were sold to include several gangs as well as drug cartels. At the conclusion of that phase of the investigation, the govt went after the people who had purchased the kits to get them back off the street. When the warrant was served on the BD compound, several police officers where shot. Starting your legal proceedings by shooting police officers isn't likely to make things go your way in the long run. Stupid thing is that with a few hours of paperwork & some ingenuity, the BD compound could have legally had those same half dozen full auto weapons - via at least 2 alternate methods. Their issue is that they clandestinely purchased the conversion kits through a dealer known to be supplying drug dealers/gangs with them.
Personally, the people on the county commission should be removed for failing do their jobs; represent the people. If they felt the people misinterpreted the ballot then they could have done a poll to see if people understood or try the vote again. Over turning the vote with out proper evidence is wrong and an abuse of power that should not be tolerated. It falls to the people of the county, as Americans, to do this; it is stated in the Decoration of Independence that its the peoples reasonability to take such action. After all, the government is for the people not the other way around.
As for the advisory on marijuana offenses, this is a hard topic because people have varying beliefs what they all feel is the correct one. While history shows that prohibition does not work and the removal of a persons rights only encourages this action on other topics; leaves me to believe that its the wrong course. However, legalizing it and having strong punishments for abusing it appears to work better to some degree but its not a perfect answer. For example: drunk driving has strong punishments, though one can ague that we still need stronger punishments here. Its not a perfect answer and I think this causes problems for people because they would like a perfect answer when none exists. However, there is all ways room to improve or tweak the laws to find the best balance between peoples freedom and the potential harm/harm it can cause other people when the user(s) abuse drugs/toxins.
The real problem with both is the ability to maturely hand the drugs/toxins as well as passing that ability on to the kids. Its the hardest thing to teach and learn as well as the one that most people fear has not been learned. Hopefully, we are not trying to avoid teaching this lesson or handing this off to someone else in hope that its will all work out in the end.
> Hey, it's my goddamn Constitutional RIGHT to have 150mm artillery shells lying around the house!
;-)
If you get 150mm artillery shells, I want ICBMs and a couple pounds of Pu239
Either that or a couple big tanks of liquid nitrogen and a bunch of magnesium rods...
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
There's a third alternative to the choices of revolt or vote for the least corrupt politician.
Run yourself.
Currently, in my home state of NC, candidates can run independently with petition signatures of 4% of registered voters in their constituency. Currently, nobody does this and wins. However, it seems to me that getting together a large enough group to run a reform candidate and win would be much easier than getting a large enough group together to forcibly overthrow the government.
Speed, coke, and heroin were quite accessible years ago, and once thought to be okay. They were touted as panaceas, much like weed today. Soldiers were given drugs to ward off fatigue. Truckers and college students would use speed to stay alert. But addiction became a Huge problem, which lead to prohibitions. It's not a Big Conspiracy.Yeah, that's a great idea, considering that people die every day, with AA. And then there's the fact that anyone can have too much to drink, and drive impaired. AA only represents a small fraction of alcoholics. The majority of addicts are delusional about - and impaired by - their substance abuse.Addiction has a high recidivism rate. The vast majority of smokers CAN'T quit. There is an negative impact on society who pays for smoker' medical bills, and the friends and family who have to be exposed to, or take care of they're smoking-induced stroke- or cancer-victim parents, and later themselves.It's not easy getting animals to stoke.
Animals Exposed To Marijuana's Active Component Will Self-Administer
"Self-administration of drugs by animals, long considered a model of human drug-seeking behavior, is characteristic of virtually all addictive and abused drugs.
See: Tolerance and dependence.Sometimes people try to defend their position by crying about discrimination. Like you. Other times they can think of the right thing to say: Just because the idiot majority believes marijuana is harmless doesn't mean they're right.
how about stopping income-related tax by forming proxy-based economies that operate outside the jurisdiction of the IRS?
MORTAR COMBAT!