As are many shows/documentaries these days, tonight the National
Geographic channel aired two about the effects of the drug war.
And of course, as is true with virtually all these shows, the
cause was not once mentioned. Lucy Liu even had a perfect
opportunity when she asked a member what sustained their gang.
The member answered honestly: "drug selling". Lucy did not follow
up.
In the distant future, we will be viewed as a more blind society
(no offense TLP) than Nazi-era Germany. The same questions will
be asked about us: "why didn't they DO something?"
If any of you saw tonight's shows on San Quentin and Most
Dangerous Gangs (esp "MS13"), you may understand what I mean.
We live in an insane world, and I am personally pessimistic about
our near future. As evidenced even right here, very few
understand (admit) the main cause of most modern crime and our
loss of freedoms - and that it is preventable. I say "admit"
because admitting a prejudice does not happen until the prejudice
is dead; and prejudice dies very hard. Just try to imagine living
in Nazi Germany and being one of the few knowing the truth about
what was going on (and not being prejudiced against jews). It
would have been insane. As was true then, is true now: the act
and threat of terrorism was a ruse; their own ignorance and
prejudice turned out to be their real enemy and their downfall.
It's not hard to see how believing the terrorism ruse is so much
more attractive to bigotry than blaming the prohibition factor;
terrorism allows you to hate a lot of muslims AND all druggies.
But to believe that foreign terrorism is the threat, when you can
see massive evidence of the real threat of prohibition happening
every single day by simply opening up a newspaper or turning on
the tv, is pure selective reasoning. Evidence is everywhere.
Anyone can go out and stop anyone on the street and ask them
certain questions; after a short time, more evidence will be
exposed. To not fear increasing collateral damage from tomorrow's
drug war more than anything else is having your head in the sand.
************
{American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
"not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
unjust lawsuits.
See www.fija.org
[Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
_____
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 6:15 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: RE: [LOP-General] Re: [Libertarian] Re: Libertarian
Party 2008 Presidential Poll - P
From: mark robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [Disclaimer for readers of all "libertarian vs anarchist"
> debates:
>
>
>
> Although the "opponents" usually seem totally opposed to each
> other's viewpoints (even their names: "libertarian" /
> "anarchist"), both are in agreement on the main problem (big
> government and non-consensual force) and the obvious solution
> (reduction of the problem). Both philosophies (boyd's & paul's)
> value the minimization of force/aggression & govt. The
difference
> lies in the details of best achieving this reduction. Even
though
> the debate process usually includes each side passionately
> accusing the other of questionable motives and likely failure,
> neither view intends to support force; both intend to reduce
it.
> But each sees their own view as superior and the other as
> inferior, in regard to the best chance of eventual / long-term
> success of achieving and maintaining the goal.
>
>
>
> Judging the validity of either side is not the purpose of this
> disclaimer. Said disclaimer would be wise to refrain from any
> more positioned comment than to say "it is a dilemma". But said
> disclaimant is a fool to think that comment (or this
disclaimer)
> will be able to retain a perfectly neutral position - inserted
in
> the middle of the debate. Even so, he thinks such a reminder of
> the common denominator is warranted, even if only for the
benefit
> of the reader.]
this is actually very well thought out and informative post. And
until we get much further along the road to liberty and freedom,
it is really only a theoretical debate on an obscure point of
philosophy. And I will willingly concede that until then it is a
moot point.
BWS
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
_____
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
* Visit your group "Libertarian
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian> " on the web.
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
be>
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
_____
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
