The DEA Steals From California's Teasury

California NORML has a new angle on the DEA's medical marijuana raids, noting that they are costing the state "tens of millions in tax revenues":

Although the DEA has tried to portray dispensaries as illegal drug dealers, records show they have operated as legal businesses, paying income, payroll, business, and sales taxes, and offering workmen's compensation, unemployment, and health insurance benefits to their employees. Several dispensaries closed by the DEA had licenses to operate from local governments, including facilities in Alameda County, Morro Bay, and Kern County.

California NORML cites several cases in which sales tax payments by dispensaries were disrupted by DEA raids. (It also notes that the federal government has grossly exaggerated the income earned by the dispensaries, failing to take into account not only taxes but the cost of rent, payroll, and inventory.) "At this time of budget deficits," says California NORML Director Dale Gieringer, "we can ill afford the DEA's war on medical marijuana. Californians are better off having medical marijuana distributed by tax-paying businesses, than being taxed in order to arrest, prosecute, and imprison medical marijuana providers."

Comments

David | December 14, 2007, 12:51pm | #

I wonder what would happen if a sizable majority of states had dispensary laws similar to California?

x,y | December 14, 2007, 12:53pm | #

An interesting tack by NORML. I'm more dogmatic and believe in first principles, but as far as these types of arguments go, well played.

Billy Beck | December 14, 2007, 12:57pm | #

Shorter NORML: "Get your goons to lay off, and we'll cut you a piece of the action."

With friends like that, I might as well splash down a syphilis cocktail on the rocks.

Fucking disgusting.

J sub D | December 14, 2007, 1:43pm | #

Fucking disgusting.

Billy Beck -
What is so disgusting about a business "paying income, payroll, business, and sales taxes, and offering workmen's compensation, unemployment, and health insurance benefits to their employees."

Or pointing out that they did until shutdown by the feds?

sage | December 14, 2007, 2:11pm | #

This isn't really surprising. NORML is pretty libertarian when it comes to the drug war - but probably that's where it ends. I don't think they're all for the smaller government we all want.

| December 14, 2007, 2:32pm | #

NORML is pretty libertarian when it comes to the drug war - but probably that's where it ends.

Having made the mistake of indirectly supporting them financially until I had the misfortune of meeting with them - yes.

They're typical vulgar leftists, so the nearest they get to libertarianism is that they don't want the government to destroy people who live exactly like them and do exactly and only the same things they do.

Many libertarians who happen to live that same way and do those same things mistake this for libertarianism, because they're dumb, myopic (or perhaps glaucomic) potheads.

Billy Beck | December 14, 2007, 2:40pm | #

J: If you actually have to ask, then you have no serious business attending this forum.

J sub F | December 14, 2007, 2:50pm | #

J: If you actually have to ask, then you have no serious business attending this forum.

Great response, genius. Do you think legal businesses shouldn't pay their taxes? Shouldn't provide employee benefits? Shouldn't point it out? What, oh libertarian guru, is "so fucking disgusting".

Dangerman | December 14, 2007, 3:14pm | #

Yeah, J sub D, you fucking n00b, why don't you let REAL libertarians like Billy Beck here tell it like it is?

C'mon Billy, make me proud.

Billy Beck | December 14, 2007, 3:22pm | #

"Do you think legal businesses..."

Stop. Just stop it.

Episiarch | December 14, 2007, 3:29pm | #

Billy is an anarcho-libertarian. I understand him perfectly.

Ruthless | December 14, 2007, 3:37pm | #

Let's start calling this more of the panhandlers' approach to legalizing drugs.

When will we just stand up and say the Founders had a huge oversight? They tried to protect our right to put whatever ideas we wish into our heads. They SHOULD HAVE also protected our right to put whatever substances we wish into our bodies.
The only reason they didn't was because they could not know how stupid their descendents would be.

J sub D | December 14, 2007, 3:38pm | #

Billy is an anarcho-libertarian. I understand him perfectly.

Ther's other words for anarcho-libertarian. Shorter ones. A rare attack of the polites prevents me from listing them.

Billy Beck | December 14, 2007, 3:45pm | #

Bullshit.

Kwix | December 14, 2007, 3:59pm | #

Billy Beck | December 14, 2007, 3:45pm | #
Bullshit.

Do you think you could be a bit less vague here? I mean "bullshit" is a fine dandy word but does not, on its own, make a sentence.

Shorter NORML: "Get your goons to lay off, and we'll cut you a piece of the action."

I suspect that NORML is trying to play the state against the fed by pointing out how much money the dispensaries put into California's coffers. That's the kind of friend I can deal with. It surely ain't libertopia but it is a step (back)towards federalism and that is, IMHO, a good thing.

I find NORML's perspective and tack to be interesting if doomed to failure. California has shown little interest preventing DEA raids, sometimes to the extent of actually providing police assistance. I am just not seeing a local yokel police chief telling his men to "form a barricade" against the invading DEA hordes regardless if the Governator himself declares that is what is to be done.

zig zag man | December 14, 2007, 3:59pm | #

IMHO NORML has done nothing to enhance my liberty. They take money from people who believe in ending the war on cannabis, but do close to zero when it comes to actually making progress. It seems to me that they only hire lawyers to work the courts rather than support real political change. Unless someone can point out dramatic changes brought about by NORML in the war on cannabis, I think it is a work program for lawyers.

NORML likes to proclaim that it is doing a good job by inviting people to Amsterdam for a conference. Yeah, everyone can afford to put their lives on hold and go over to Amsterdam. (It will be interesting encountering ICE on their return flight as most of them will be pulled aside for secondary searches.) While the rest of us do the real work toward change. What a waste of $. NORML is doing less than most people on the internet for free.

zig zag man | December 14, 2007, 4:02pm | #

Sorry;

NORML is doing less than most people do on the internet for free.

R C Dean | December 14, 2007, 4:06pm | #

It also notes that the federal government has grossly exaggerated the income earned by the dispensaries, failing to take into account not only taxes but the cost of rent, payroll, and inventory.

Is anyone shocked that government employees would be insensitive to the costs of an enterprise, not to mention less than clear on the difference between net and gross income?

Billy Beck | December 14, 2007, 4:18pm | #

"Do you think you could be a bit less vague here?"

Sure. It was my remark on "J sub D's" bullshit.

Bingo | December 14, 2007, 4:23pm | #

I had this idea that all members of congress should have to undergo mandatory bi-monthly drug testing. For the children.

Kwix | December 14, 2007, 4:40pm | #

Billy Beck | December 14, 2007, 4:18pm | #
"Do you think you could be a bit less vague here?"

Sure. It was my remark on "J sub D's" bullshit.

And which "bullshit" would that be? That "legal businesses" pay taxes (accurate) or that anarcho-libertarians have been called other names (also accurate).

If you are going to confront someone on a topic you consider "bullshit" it helps if a)you lay out your argument in clear detail and b)proceed to argue your points.

"Bullshit" is not a discussion/debate/argument or a sentence.

VFW x3 | December 14, 2007, 5:14pm | #

Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Please read our Constitution while you still can.

While a State may ban a substance, the Federal Government has no legal authority to do so.

Make no mistake, they have guns and tasers and will kick down your door, rob, kidnap and torture you until you fall into line but their behavior no more legal than that of the Taliban when they do the same.

Billy Beck | December 14, 2007, 5:20pm | #

"And which "bullshit" would that be?"

Read the goddamned thread, Kwix. Christ on a banana-peel, already; it's right in front of your face.

J sub D | December 14, 2007, 5:30pm | #

Billy Beck -

I'm over the attack of the polites. You are a boor. You have nothing but invective to add to the conversation. I'll await your insightful, nuanced response.

WTF | December 14, 2007, 5:36pm | #

Billy Beck, if you're willing to invest this much energy in being a dick, why won't you invest less energy in answering a simple question?

Billy Beck | December 14, 2007, 5:42pm | #

Well, Mr. Judy-boy with no name, you can call me a boor if you want to, but you'll never see me creeping around dropping insinuations that I'm not man enough to state right out loud when I have something in mind.

Get it?

WTF -- let me explain something to you, sonny: the creep I just addressed already knows the answer to the question that a couple of you have been too fucking stupid to figure out.

Now: are there any other questions? Let me know, and I'll determine whether they're actually worth serious effort.

WTF | December 14, 2007, 5:47pm | #

So I guess you just really like being a dick then. Fair enough. Have a nice weekend, internet tough guy.

Billy Beck | December 14, 2007, 5:51pm | #

{shrug} That's what you 'guess'.

J sub D | December 14, 2007, 6:23pm | #

Let's start calling this more of the panhandlers' approach to legalizing drugs.

Revenue was a talking point in the debate over the 21st Amendment. Money talks.

Billy Beck | December 14, 2007, 6:27pm | #

Shorter Judy-boy: "Habit roolz."

Kwix | December 14, 2007, 6:32pm | #

Billy Beck | December 14, 2007, 5:20pm | #
"And which "bullshit" would that be?"

Read the goddamned thread, Kwix. Christ on a banana-peel, already; it's right in front of your face.

That you are an asshat who can't be bothered to lay out a simple argument. Yeah, I got that. Thanks.

It is you sir that have no serious business attending this forum as it is a place for discussion and airing of ideas not blanket statements of "bullshit".

I know you think you are God's gift to liberty, but until you present a reason for me to believe it in this forum, say a reasoned argument, you are just another shrill voice on the HnR screaming for attention.

Billy Beck | December 14, 2007, 6:37pm | #

"That you are an asshat who can't be bothered to lay out a simple argument."

Look, kid: the word I chose, very deliberately, is the argument. Pay close attention while I get out the Big Crayon and scratch out the Big Picture on your flat forehead. Watch; The punk I'm talking about said this:

"Ther's other words for anarcho-libertarian. Shorter ones. A rare attack of the polites prevents me from listing them."

And I called it what it is.

And then, some of you decided to get up on your hind-legs and start hollering and moaning about "vagueness".

Fuck you, until you can put the vaunted incision of your beady little eye on the ball.

J sub D | December 14, 2007, 7:08pm | #

Billy Beck,
I told you the polites attack was over, you barely literate, foul mouthed, poor excuse for protoplasm of doubtful intelligence.

Other terms for anarcho-capitalists like yourself include, but are not limited to, fools, dumbshits, morons, idiots, simpletons, the feeble minded, off their meds, dipshits, fucktards, asslicking cunts, pimples on the boil on the diseased ass of a crack whore, et al.

Is that language that your childish, unbalanced mind can understand, Billy Beck? Damn, you're a fuckin' loser.

Billy Beck | December 14, 2007, 7:10pm | #

Oh, I might have expected a lot better than that from you, sir, being a man of your education and all, and most especially in a place full of such indignant clamoring for "arguments".

I might have, but I sorted you on the first lap here.

Reilly | December 14, 2007, 7:34pm | #

...and just think how much better this thread would be if certain people (well, person) weren't pricks.

Billy Beck | December 14, 2007, 7:44pm | #

Okay, let's review the bidding: I advised a person here to "stop". He comes on with a strictly flubber-spined cough behind his hand because -- he says -- he's too "polite" to spit out his own hairball. I call him on it. Others promptly stomp their gas-pedals all the way to the floor and drive right off the edge of that curve, completely blind to the road-signs. Flubber-Spine heaves himself into action and cranks up seventy-six words of the most dirt-common flailing available on the internet today -- all while the questions of "argument" are hanging in the air, mind you.

And I'm the "prick".

Tell me something: what does all that make you?

WTF | December 14, 2007, 7:53pm | #

Actually, lil' Billy, the heat you're getting comes more from the comments you conveniently left out of your ever so self-serving summary of the thread - your refusal to answer J sub D's repeated questions about your first (12:57) post, as well as this:

"J: If you actually have to ask, then you have no serious business attending this forum."

But I suspect you already knew that; you're just having too much fun being an internet tough guy.

Billy Beck | December 14, 2007, 7:58pm | #

That very issue that I stated in what you quoted is why I told him to "stop".

I knew what I was dealing with. I always see 'em coming a mile away, and I have a long history online to prove it.

WTF | December 14, 2007, 8:00pm | #

I think we can all agree that you've proven _something_ here, but I'm afraid it's not what you think, and it's not terribly flattering to you.

Billy Beck | December 14, 2007, 8:02pm | #

Ps., kiddo: I asked you if you had questions, but I was not going to take another step with you until you grasped the issue that I'd identified in one word. It was right there in front of you, and you never did because -- "internet tough guy" -- you had your dick wired to your gas-pedal.

You can have it your way. I'll always see to it.

Stephen Gordon | December 14, 2007, 8:05pm | #

An entire thread filled with acrimony and Donderoooooooooo hasn't even arrived yet?

Awik Donderooooooo | December 14, 2007, 8:26pm | #

Billy,
I see you are a true libertarian! Come with me and vote for Rudy and together we shall rule the world!!

Stephen,
Sorry I'm late. I'll swing by and "light your cigar" later.

J sub D | December 14, 2007, 8:29pm | #

I knew what I was dealing with. I always see 'em coming a mile away, and I have a long history online to prove it.

Hilarious. There is NO WAY I could make up anything that telling.

Billy Beck | December 14, 2007, 8:33pm | #

Awik: I have never voted in my life and I never will. I do not submit my rights to the whims of majorities. Only fools do that.

Ron Paul should get out of government and seek honest employment.

"The saddest life is that of an aspirant under democracy. His failure is ignominious and his success disgraceful."

(H.L. Mencken, Baltimore Evening Sun, December 9, 1929)

Kyle Bennett | December 14, 2007, 11:54pm | #

Billy,

Looks like you've picked up some habits from Priss. Can't you stop toying with the poor helpless little things?

Billy Beck | December 15, 2007, 12:24am | #

At my third comment, Kyle, I was ready to just let it go. When one of 'em started his bloody insipid crap, that was it. "Fight's on." I was ready for anything, if he'd been man enough to step up to it, and we might have gotten serious about things. When the chimp chorus started up, it was as obvious as daylight what was going on, and I made up my mind that I was going to run them right over the cliff.

You're looking at people with a rank pretense to ability with what they take up here. These assholes will vote, and they can't even manage to hold together what's staring them right in the face with all the time in the world to read it slowly with their fucking fingers up on the monitor.

I'm telling you, man: it's the Endarkenment.

We're not going to make it.

Kyle Bennett | December 15, 2007, 12:40am | #

I'm telling you, man: it's the Endarkenment.

We're not going to make it.

"When the lights go out in New York..." No, we likely won't make it, but we might make it through.

* | December 15, 2007, 8:40am | #

Billy seems hell-bent on proving the Gresham's Law applies as aptly to forum commentary as it does to currency. Why does this site seem to draw so many schizos?

* | December 15, 2007, 8:43am | #

To comment on the actual substance of the article: I think NORML's approach here is spot-on and will be persuasive to many Californians.

Kyle Bennett | December 15, 2007, 9:43am | #

Why does this site seem to draw so many schizos?

Because "Reason" is supposed to mean something, but instead we get: "I think NORML's approach here is spot-on and will be persuasive to many Californians."

Patrick Chkoreff | December 15, 2007, 9:52am | #

J sub F wrote:

"Do you think legal businesses shouldn't pay their taxes?"

An individual should only pay taxes voluntarily. If he is not willing to pay taxes, nobody should force him to do it.

"Shouldn't provide employee benefits?"

An individual should only pay employee benefits voluntarily. If he is not willing to pay employee benefits, nobody should force him to do it.

"Shouldn't do X?"

An individual should only do X voluntarily. If he is not willing to do X, nobody should force him to do it.

If you have any more questions, please see "X" above. Thank you.

Kyle Bennett | December 15, 2007, 10:01am | #

An individual should only pay taxes voluntarily. If he is not willing to pay taxes, nobody should force him to do it.

Oh, c'mon, you can't do that. Why then, how would they fund the drug war?

Your argument is not going to be persuasive to many Californians.

Patrick Chkoreff | December 15, 2007, 10:06am | #

Kyle wrote:

"Your argument is not going to be persuasive to many Californians."

LOL. Classic. Spot on. Funny 'cause it's true.

Billy Beck | December 15, 2007, 10:10am | #

"I think NORML's approach here is spot-on and will be persuasive to many Californians."

I think about "many Californians", and I'm not surprised.

Patrick Chkoreff | December 15, 2007, 10:29am | #

Thanks all, I now have a handy phrase to soften the blow of declarative sentences, e.g. "Although this will not be persuasive to many Californians, a 2% rate of return compounded for 10 years yields approximately 21.9%." And to think that I was born in California.

Ayn_Randian | December 15, 2007, 10:58am | #

OK, I'm not sure who let the anarcho-tards in, or if they had some vision in their heads that they were going to come over and start acting like rank assholes and ruin the Reason community, but they have another thing coming.

I note that Mr. Bennett here gets his Internet and e-mail through Comcast. Mr. Bennett, did you know that Comcast, since 1997, has given almost 6 million dollars to lobbyists and well-connected politicos? And almost $500,000 went to GWB

So if you want to play all holier-than-thou True Libertarian©, maybe you should consider going with a company who won't place your internet bill directly in the pocket of the RNC/DNC.

Oh, what's that you say? You have to have internet, and all companies lobby, so what's the dif? You mean that you sacrifice your Libertarian Street Cred so you can post belittling little circle-jerk comments? Oh, well, I guess then you'd be a hypocrite.

J sub D | December 15, 2007, 11:11am | #

Support Anarchism. Because it works so well in Mogadishu.

Billy Beck | December 15, 2007, 11:13am | #

"...ruin the Reason community..."

{laugh, laugh, laugh} Yeah; it's such a serenely contented herd of cats, you see, and it just won't do to be upsetting their concert-purring.

You idiot. Who the hell do you wish you could be?

Billy Beck | December 15, 2007, 11:16am | #

"Support Anarchism. Because it works so well in Mogadishu."

Yeah, and that bunch of dirt-scratching savages are so well trained in Western traditions of reason, too, that it makes the point. To an imbecile.

J sub D | December 15, 2007, 11:43am | #

Yeah, and that bunch of dirt-scratching savages are so well trained in Western traditions of reason, too, that it makes the point. To an imbecile.

Do you believe it would work in New York City? Des Moines, Iowa? Anywhere? Anarchists deny the basic nature of man. That is delusional at best.

Kyle Bennett | December 15, 2007, 12:11pm | #

JD,

At least you have the integrity to properly credit the progress that has been made in Somalia. Look it up some time.

Shorter Ayn_Randian: "I didn't mean that big a tent!"

Billy Beck | December 15, 2007, 12:11pm | #

"Do you believe it would work in New York City? Des Moines, Iowa? Anywhere?"

It does, right now, even as we type.

The basic necessary conditions for what we're talking about, though, are being bred right out of the culture at a furious pace. It's not going to be long -- on a proper historical long-view -- before the only differences between the savages of Mogadishu and the ones here will very stylishly superficial.

"Anarchists deny the basic nature of man. That is delusional at best."

You know, I've been at this a long time. And it has never stopped amazing me: what a confession that is, from every person I ever saw write it.

Patrick Chkoreff | December 15, 2007, 12:13pm | #

There is no anarchy in my business. I am an archon, a leader, and we have archy here. However, if you stop serving me adequately, I will not lock you in a cage or take your property -- I will simply stop serving you.

... Force is *so* 20th century ...

Kyle Bennett | December 15, 2007, 12:22pm | #

... Force is *so* 20th century ...

Now we're even, exchange-of-catch-phrase wise, that is.

J sub D | December 15, 2007, 12:54pm | #

You know, I've been at this a long time. And it has never stopped amazing me: what a confession that is, from every person I ever saw write it.

Confession or facing reality? Speaking of confessions, here is an interesting one.

Billy Beck | December 15, 2007, 12:59pm | #

"Confession or facing reality?"

There is nothing mutually exclusive about them, in this context. It could be both, but beware: if it is, then it's time to take a long hard look in the mirror.

"Speaking of confessions, here is an interesting one."

Why don't you tell everyone what you think it means?

Kyle Bennett | December 15, 2007, 1:05pm | #

Why don't you tell everyone what you think it means?

Why should he, when the implication lets everyone make up their own meaning, to suit their individual tastes. So much more Libertarian, dontchya know.

J sub D | December 15, 2007, 1:05pm | #

Why don't you tell everyone what you think it means?

Why? It spraks for itself.

J sub D | December 15, 2007, 1:06pm | #

Make that speaks.

Billy Beck | December 15, 2007, 1:07pm | #

It's nothing but the truth. Whether you like it or not.

Kyle Bennett | December 15, 2007, 1:08pm | #

Oh, I like "sprak" so much better. For some time now, we've needed a phrase for this kind of pseudo-conversation. I think "sprak" fits quite nicely.

Sprak to me, JD.

Billy Beck | December 15, 2007, 1:17pm | #

That was not uncalled for, Kyle.

It's exactly what's going on.

J sub D | December 15, 2007, 1:30pm | #

It's nothing but the truth. Whether you like it or not.

Oh, I believe ya.

Billy Beck | December 15, 2007, 1:34pm | #

Bullshit".

Linda Morgan | December 15, 2007, 2:13pm | #

Anarchists deny the basic nature of man.

Is this to say that a need for coercive governance is fundamental in human nature?

Kyle Bennett | December 15, 2007, 2:15pm | #

Is this to say that a need for coercive governance is fundamental in human nature?

It apparently is to some humans' natures. The ones that confess it so, anyway.

Billy Beck | December 15, 2007, 2:16pm | #

"Confession": anyone facing Linda's question must handle all the implications.

Kyle Bennett | December 15, 2007, 2:20pm | #

anyone facing Linda's question must handle all the implications.

The ones that think it so couldn't possibly handle all the implications. Isn't that the point of this exercise?

Billy Beck | December 15, 2007, 2:28pm | #

I hope not, Kyle.

That hope is the whole reason why I'm still doing this, even in the face of more bullshit.

Awik Donderoooo | December 15, 2007, 3:41pm | #

Billy Beck | December 15, 2007, 11:13am | #
You idiot. Who the hell do you wish you could be?

Oooh, ooh!!! I want to be Billy Beck!!

There's nothing more that I want in life than to be a mid-life hack who thinks that not fomenting change, by either voting or action, then bitching about the existing situation is the noble and principled way to live.

Billy Beck wrote:
I fucking hate this place.
But it's not as if I hate America.

Billy Beck is too "principled" to play within the bounds of government by voting and paying taxes but too chickenshit to play outside of it in the revolutionary way and overthrow it.

Shit or get off the pot Billy-boy but the time for your porcelain contemplation is over. The more time you spend doing nothing in the name of freedom the more liberty that slips through your fingers.

Billy Beck | December 15, 2007, 4:37pm | #

"...too chickenshit to play outside of it in the revolutionary way and overthrow it."

That's what you think.

Ayn_Randian | December 15, 2007, 4:49pm | #

Oh little Billy is lying to you. From his link:

However, I will not resist with arms against prosecution.

How's that again, you chickenshit? You know what, Billy, perhaps its time you stopped hiding behind angry arrogance and futilely posting on medium-trafficked blogs and go out there and shot you some coppers. Come on, man, somebody's gotta be the hundredth monkey.

Seriously, why won't you resist? Aren't they the ones initiating force on you? Isn't it your right to defend yourself? So man the fuck up and do it already!

Go ahead, hero...we're right behind ya.

J sub D | December 15, 2007, 5:03pm | #

"...too chickenshit to play outside of it in the revolutionary way and overthrow it."

That's what you think.

Poseur.

Ayn_Randian | December 15, 2007, 5:06pm | #

Oh, Beckster, you're such a man!

From Little Beckster's Blog:

I just took another call from the New York State Troopers' Police Benevolent Association. That's about the fourth one this year.

The guy on the phone was all cheery like we were bar-buddies or something. "Mr. Beck, unfortunately, we've had five troopers killed in the line of duty this year, and..."

And that's where I bit his ass off. "I don't care. Go to Albany. Don't call me anymore."

I bet you have the BIGGEST DICK around, you know, being an asshole to the troopers' association makes you a real man.

Really it does...you're a stud.

Kyle Bennett | December 15, 2007, 5:16pm | #

That hope is the whole reason why I'm still doing this

Remember where you are, Billy. These are the three percenters that in theory don't need convincing, but are going to convince the rest. You find hope in that?

My hopes lie in a different direction, and my purpose here is not to see what I can put in, but what I can take out.

Remember who it was that had to be stopped to put the lights out.

BTW, Patrick, I emailed you. Just in case it got filtered.

J sub D | December 15, 2007, 5:17pm | #

Really it does...you're a stud.

Ayn_Randian -

Just musing here.
Angry white male. Failure in school, on the job, in life generally. Unable to form adult relationships with women. Play the Billy Badass game on the tubes, fantasizing about how tough and revolutionary he really is. Goes to work at Dairy Queen on Monday.

Kyle Bennett | December 15, 2007, 5:20pm | #

Billy, it looks like they're really taking a shine to you. I mean, they've got fully fleshed out fantasies now, fer Chrissake.

Ayn_Randian | December 15, 2007, 5:22pm | #

I see Kyle's still contributing to Leviathan by refusing to renounce Comcast. That's OK, Kyle, your posts here are more important than pretty much directly giving money to the politicians you assuredly hate. Because we're all SO fascinated by the recent influx of anarchoscum.

Beckster seems to have forgotten that Rand was explicitly NOT an anarchist and believed that the State had a role in providing a military, police and courts. But perhaps he doesn't read Atlas Shrugged as often as he claims.

Kyle Bennett | December 15, 2007, 5:31pm | #

ARian,

I wasn't talking to you.

Ayn_Randian | December 15, 2007, 5:36pm | #

No, J sub, it's worse than that.

You know those folks who read Objectivist literature and think it's OK to act like assholes? (you might not, they're usually teenagers)...it's that, writ large, with more old-age bitterness and with a splash of music hippy on the side.

Billy, I acted like you like, four years ago...I get the whole "angry individualist" thing, I really do, because I used to live it. I still consider myself an Objectivist. But this white-boy "Fuck da Police" thing you have going is NOT Objectivism. Objectivism is a tool for living life; it's not supposed to be your all-consuming obsession.

J sub D | December 15, 2007, 5:38pm | #

ARian,

I wasn't talking to you.

He's right there, Ayn_Randian, Kyle was talking to his anarchist butt buddy.

Kyle Bennett | December 15, 2007, 5:43pm | #

I acted like you like, four years ago

Wow, four years, huh? You're like, what, an elder statesman, now then?

Objectivism is a tool for living life

So why don't you live the damned thing then? You think spending your life pleading for permission to take a piss is the way to do that?

Billy Beck | December 15, 2007, 5:47pm | #

Do you people want to argue, or talk about me?

Kyle Bennett | December 15, 2007, 5:47pm | #

Do you people want to argue, or talk about me?

They don't know the difference.

WTF | December 15, 2007, 5:50pm | #

Gawd, you guys (Billy-boy and Kyle) are far more unintentionally hilarious than you'll probably ever realize, with your cryptic apocalyptic statements and your internet tough guy attitudes. Shouldn't you both be off somewhere masturbating angrily to your charcoal sketches of Ayn Rand and Wonder Woman touching each other in their dirty places?

I heartily encourage you keep up the tough guy talk; I could definitely use some more laughs today. I'm sure the people reading along in silent amusement agree.

Kyle Bennett | December 15, 2007, 5:53pm | #

I could definitely use some more laughs today.

Laugh all you want. You don't matter.

WTF | December 15, 2007, 6:02pm | #

"Laugh all you want. You don't matter."

That's perfect! Keep it up, but next time, if you could include some reference to "sheeple," that would be pure unintentional comedy gold!

RWW | December 15, 2007, 6:03pm | #

Then why bother, Kyle? I agree with you and Billy; these people are scum -- worse than scum, really, in their "free market" pretensions. So why all the effort here?

Billy Beck | December 15, 2007, 6:05pm | #

I'll tell you why.

It's because I don't think these people are all that's left of America.

That's why.

Ayn_Randian | December 15, 2007, 6:07pm | #

I never said he was talking to me.

Wow, four years, huh? You're like, what, an elder statesman, now then?

No, I'm a fast learner.

You think spending your life pleading for permission to take a piss is the way to do that?

We're not at that point, you hyperbolic bastard.

And even though we might find more to agree on than disagree, you're fucking with my friends. You can't just crash in to a community, spouting off nasty rhetoric and shotgun blasting everyone you see because you think you're some kind of Uebermenschen because you really "get" Rand and the proles don't.

Cocksuckers like you all are what give Objectivists a terrible name in the libertarian/freedom-loving community. You're nothing more than religionists, claiming that there's the "One True Way" to Enlightenment and the ignorant masses are deserving of nothing more than derision.

I see you're still not renouncing Comcast, even though they lobby with the "eeeevil" State.

Do any of you anarcho-folks even realize that Rand supported the military (see: Rand's Address to USMA) the courts and the police?

There are intelligent, thoughtful Objectivists who have debated and furthered the philosophy (because it's not complete). You guys are NOT among them

Then why bother, Kyle? I agree with you and Billy; these people are scum -- worse than scum, really, in their "free market" pretensions. So why all the effort here?

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out, douchebag.

Kyle Bennett | December 15, 2007, 6:43pm | #

So why all the effort here?

Because it's not for them.

Cocksuckers like you all are what give Objectivists a terrible name

Here's a hint: I don't care the slightest what kind of reputation objectivism or Ayn Rand has. It's completely irrelevant.

the ignorant masses are deserving of nothing more than derision.

They're beyond deserving even that, and any derision they got here from me was purely an afterthought.

the "eeeevil" State.

You really don't get it. The state is not the root of the "eeevil", it's the symptom. You want to see the root? Here is is: "I think NORML's approach here is spot-on and will be persuasive to many Californians." It's not your tax money they want, that's a means to their ends. It's your continual pleading they live on. And "they" isn't the state, it's those "many Californians" you're pleading with. Stop it, already.

Do any of you anarcho-folks even realize that Rand supported the military

Do any of you supposed free thinkers realize how irrelevant it is what Rand supported or didn't support?

Ayn_Randian | December 15, 2007, 6:57pm | #

Do any of you supposed free thinkers realize how irrelevant it is what Rand supported or didn't support?

As if free-thinking requires starting from scratch every time a human is born. You don't believe in say, building on knowledge? Rand's intellectual insights carry a little more weight with me, so yeah, I guess it is relevant to know what other people think. Do you think there's a reason the phrase is Don't reinvent the wheel?

"I think NORML's approach here is spot-on and will be persuasive to many Californians."

Do you realize you're getting your panties in a bunch over what one commenter said on a blog? Seriously, Reason just reported on the story. You guys jumped all over one commenter. How pathetic are you?

Still waiting on that Comcast explanation...how about it, little purist? Don't you think it's time you dumped a company that has pump half-a-mil to GWB already?

They're beyond deserving even that, and any derision they got here from me was purely an afterthought.

Well, go away then. Stop wasting your precious pearls of wisdom on swine like us and fuck off.

Kyle Bennett | December 15, 2007, 7:08pm | #

As if free-thinking requires starting from scratch every time a human is born. ... Do you realize you're getting your panties in a bunch over what one commenter said on a blog?

I take it you've read enough Rand to know what "dropping context" means?

Stop wasting your precious pearls of wisdom on swine

I've told you, it's not for you. Let me put it more bluntly: I, (and I presume Billy as well), have deliberately hijacked this thread for my own purposes that have nothing to do with you, your little coffee klatch here, or whatever it is the Reason editors think they're trying to accomplish. I am not trying to convince you of anything.

Even this post is not meant for your benefit.

VikingMoose | December 15, 2007, 7:16pm | #

Kyle = RWW = Billy = 7.5/10 trolling
(potential awesome troll link with "WTF")

7.5/10 good job! But Randian kicked yer asses if this weren't a troll job. But as a troll job, URKOBOLD might not wither your taint.

And Randian still wins the day.

Ayn_Randian | December 15, 2007, 7:17pm | #

I, (and I presume Billy as well), have deliberately hijacked this thread for my own purposes.

Wow, you're just a modern-day Ragnar now, aintcha? *swoons* I can't imagine any purpose of hijacking a blog thread that wouldn't reek of pathetic.

Yeah, and you're buddy-boy Beckster seems to think his purpose here is to "run 'em to the wall." I say again...pa...the...tic

And I hope Reason sees fit to ban you for admitting you're here to troll and hijack discussions.

Kyle Bennett | December 15, 2007, 7:25pm | #

Viking,

It was not a troll. It's not for them.

I can't imagine any purpose of hijacking a blog thread that wouldn't reek of pathetic

Though it won't be persuasive to many Californians, my purpose was to speak with and to the few people in the room who might matter. You are not among them.

And I hope Reason sees fit to ban you

They'd have every right to. Or, if they simply state that they wish me to no longer comment here, I will honor it.

It's be their loss, but they're lost already.

Ayn_Randian | December 15, 2007, 7:25pm | #

VM, thanks for the props. I understand stopping the motor of the world, but trolling? WTF?

Billy Beck | December 15, 2007, 7:25pm | #

I'm not going anywhere, and I don't care what you think of Rand, of what you think I think of Rand, or what you think of me. I don't care about the "community" that you think you ramrod. There was no "hijack[ed]" discussion until "your community" hit the gas at December 14, 2007, 3:38pm. You could look it up.

And you have nothing to say to any of the principles or their implications at hand.

Yell all you want. You don't count.

Ayn_Randian | December 15, 2007, 7:32pm | #

You know, I'm stunned that as little as you care, Beckster, you're still here.

Oh, I see, you're all lathered up about somebody slamming anarchos. God, cry about it a little, huh? I'm trying to understand here: if you care so little about others' opinions, why are you all wrapped around the axle about...uhh, someone's opinion?

And you have nothing to say to any of the principles or their implications at hand

From what I've seen, neither have you. Maybe, Your Highness, you'd care to come down from Olympus for a hot minute and dispense some godly wisdom on us peons?

Who Its Meant For | December 15, 2007, 7:34pm | #

[i]And I hope Reason sees fit to ban you for admitting you're here to troll and hijack discussions.[/i]

That is precisely why no one on this earth should listen to a thing you say, in matters trivial or otherwise. You obviously can't grasp this concept enough to meet it head on, and therefore there will be no reasoned, intelligent debate on your part, so you'd rather they "be banned" by those with power to do so.

VikingMoose | December 15, 2007, 7:37pm | #

I certainly, for one, does not, nor can, count. As for the observation of trolling, that stands. As does the guess that you three (at least) are probably the same - hanging out at your community college computer lab.

Randian has demonstrated an excellent knowledge of All Things Rand, and since you two are going for the abrasive argument, you'll lose to the regular who knows his stuff better. On points and on personality (Randian, however, finished tied for third in the swimsuit part. I'm sure he understands)

And from how you've behaved, I'm happy to take the loss. In fact, I'll head out to my bunk, complete with my Noam Chomsky Blow Up Doll, my leather-bound copy of "Heather Has Two Mommies" (the edition with the sweaty pillow fight scene on page 69), and I'll be BATIN till my heart's content.

And I won't miss you three (*at least) when you go. But Randian and the rest of his Delta Buddies (?) are always welcome. Even though he's from Columbus. And people from Columbus are a little off. Especially THE COLUMBUS ACADEMY people. But Upper Arlington swimming was really good.

Kyle Bennett | December 15, 2007, 7:40pm | #

Who Its Meant For,

*nod*

Billy Beck | December 15, 2007, 7:42pm | #

"I'm trying to understand here:"

No, you're not, so cut the bullshit.

"...if you care so little about others' opinions, why are you all wrapped around the axle about...uhh, someone's opinion?"

I didn't say "others". I said "you".

And that was a half-assed try at a good example of why you don't count.

Ayn_Randian | December 15, 2007, 7:44pm | #

You obviously can't grasp this concept enough to meet it head on

NONE of you has seen fit to lay out a concept that can be met "head on". Maybe, like I said, you can come down off of the Mount and simply state an argument.

Especially THE COLUMBUS ACADEMY people. But Upper Arlington swimming was really good.

We only claim the Academy people in the way that you would defend that weird uncle to outsiders (shhh...tell no one!). But yes, UA swimming is great (esp. the female seniors...uhh...Heads to Stevo's Bunk

J sub D | December 15, 2007, 7:45pm | #

There was no "hijack[ed]" discussion until "your community" hit the gas at December 14, 2007, 3:38pm. You could look it up.

I did. Hhere 'tis. In it's entirety.

J sub D | December 14, 2007, 3:38pm | #

Billy is an anarcho-libertarian. I understand him perfectly.

Ther's other words for anarcho-libertarian. Shorter ones. A rare attack of the polites prevents me from listing them.

Sensitive little ego you got there Billy boy. Do not go out into the real world. Someone might say worse than that to you after you act like a rude prick as a way of introducing youself.

Ayn_Randian | December 15, 2007, 7:51pm | #

Do not go out into the real world.

J sub: fortunately, with the social skills that our little Beckster has demonstrated, I don't think we have to worry about that.

Beckster, don't you have some Policy Charity's Representative to go swear up and down or something? I mean, that is what makes you such a right-on rational super-stud, right?...being rude-as-all-fuck to a charity person?

Don't forget Rand's watchword, little kiddies: benevolence.

Kyle Bennett | December 15, 2007, 7:52pm | #

Maybe, like I said, you can come down off of the Mount and simply state an argument.

6:43

But you won't meet it head on, I'll bet on it. You haven't yet, in the last hour and eight minutes.

Mike S. | December 15, 2007, 7:53pm | #

There's a reason I don't indulge forums like these much anymore, and it is this: I just want to see damn near everyone die in writhing agony now. Why? Because you deserve it so very badly, you circle-jerking thieves who always manage to find a "need" for the continued authorization of state force.

True, objective Justice would have nothing less, and would not stand to have anything like comedy delaying her action.

Billy Beck | December 15, 2007, 7:54pm | #

"Do not go out into the real world."

I've been around "the real world" more than you could stand to know. You're dead wrong.

Now, here's your descent from the mount: go answer Linda Morgan's question.

Ayn_Randian | December 15, 2007, 7:55pm | #

you'd rather they "be banned" by those with power to do so.

Well, for one, when you come on and freely admit that you're hijacking a thread for some kind of Sphinxian purposes, some great Catholic mystery that no one can know about, then, yeah, I see no problem with banning your ass from further discussion.

And don't forget, assclown, it's not power they have to ban you, it's their free right as the property owners to ban you, and my privilege to ask, something you and all your little chirping buddies should respect more than anything.

Kyle Bennett | December 15, 2007, 8:02pm | #

ARian,

You have two to choose from now, and I think Billy's suggestion is more on point.

Should we give you till, say 8:30 to meet something, anything, head on, and after that assume you never will?

Ayn_Randian | December 15, 2007, 8:03pm | #

I just want to see damn near everyone die in writhing agony now.

HOLY FUCK THERE'S ANOTHER ONE OF THEM! And he's seen to fit to completely leave the reservation.

Hey Mike S., as someone who believes in benevolence and the goodness of most people, I hope that you free yourself from your mental prison and go live your life, instead of wishing death upon everyone.

Kyle - I see no argument in your 6:43 post. No cleanly stated premise or statement of contention. As a matter of fact, the one statement you made with a "?" mark, I answered.

I've been around "the real world" more than you could stand to know. You're dead wrong.

Why should I accept some preposterous statement like that with no facts or evidence to back it up?

Is this to say that a need for coercive governance is fundamental in human nature?

I don't believe in human nature; humans are born tabula rasa. So your question is false from the start. YOU FAIL.

J sub D | December 15, 2007, 8:03pm | #

I'm outta here. I've been much amused by the soicial misfits, but that's enough. To Billy, and his maladjusted cirle jerk buddies, FUCK OFF!

To others, talk to ya later. These ain't troll. These are disturbed individuals.

Ayn_Randian | December 15, 2007, 8:05pm | #

And no, Kyle, I am not doing this all night and morning (since it's 0415 where I am right now). So hurry up, make a real argument, or go away.

Kyle Bennett | December 15, 2007, 8:08pm | #

AR, should we take that as your concession speech?

It's only 8:07, you still have 23 minutes. C'mon, you can do it, work that little brain of yours like it's never been worked before.

Kyle Bennett | December 15, 2007, 8:12pm | #

I don't believe in human nature

See, Billy, that is pretty much what's left of America, and the world. There's no saving them anymore, there's only saving ourselves from them.

Ayn_Randian | December 15, 2007, 8:13pm | #

Kyle - clearly you have no interest in actually discussing anything. Your 6:43 post had NO defined contention or debatable questions. I'll wait about, oh, 10 more minutes or so for you to come up with one. Tell you what: quote from the post what you want to discuss (because my tiny little brain just can't seem to divine a question from your rantings) and we'll go from there.

It's a reasonable request.

Kyle Bennett | December 15, 2007, 8:14pm | #

You still have another 17 minutes.

Minion of URKOBOLD | December 15, 2007, 8:17pm | #

CLEARLY KYLE IS INFLUENCED BY THIS. HIER.

URKOBOLD HAS LAND IN TAINTSVILLE, FL FOR THOSE WHO WISH TO SAVE THEMSELVES FROM THEM. OR IS IT THOSE WHO ARE THEM TO SAVE THEMSELVES WISH?

IT IS CONFUSING. SUFFICE TO SAY, URKOBOLD IS THERE. TAINTSVILLE IS THERE. AND WEIBSKOBOLD IS BOUNCY BOUNCY.

Ayn_Randian | December 15, 2007, 8:20pm | #

And Kyle loses, for failing to actually provide an argument he wants to discuss.

I am sure you're fine with that though, Kyle, because you and Billy and all your little friends can withdraw from the thread and jerk off to how glorious your thought process was and how well you all did and glory in your self-satisfaction. Despite the fact none of you ever, ever put forth a clearly defined debatable point or rational argument.

Billy and Kyle and all his little minions have proven themselves very effective time-wasters, and I furious at myself for even bothering with a bunch of bullshit artists such as them.

Kyle Bennett | December 15, 2007, 8:24pm | #

Oh Noes! I'll have to take that as a definite concession. I'm devastated with disappointment, but that's what I get for allowing myself to hope.

I furious at myself

No you not.

Go off to bed now, sleepy head.

WTF | December 15, 2007, 8:31pm | #

"...and I furious at myself for even bothering with a bunch of bullshit artists such as them."

You can't look at it that way, AR; you have to think of it as some sort of performance art and enjoy the absurdity of the notion that there are people who are truly so self-deluded as to think this crap they're saying means something. It also helps if you're amused by the pretentiousness, rather than offended by it.

They've been a wonderful distraction for me while I've been at work all day. You deserve to get some enjoyment out of it too. It's when you try to address them on honest, intelligent terms that you lose; they made it abundantly clear quite a while ago that they're not so big on honesty and intelligence.

Ernest Brown | December 15, 2007, 8:41pm | #

"honesty and intelligence?"


The honesty and intelligence of calling oneself an "Ayn Randian" while engaging in wholesale social metaphysics and turning a blind eye to the whole point of the moral illegitimacy of submitting to the coercion of the state as NORML is doing? Yeah, I thought so.

Herein lies the garbage:


"What is so disgusting about a business "paying income, payroll, business, and sales taxes, and offering workmen's compensation, unemployment, and health insurance benefits to their employees."

Or pointing out that they did until shutdown by the feds?"

Instead of addressing this abject surrended to the right of the state to tax, these oh so vaunted "enemies" of collectivism got their fithly little soots in the air and threw Breck Girl hissy fits because they can only live their lives through the approval of others. Rand couldn't stand Billy Beck, but she couldn't stop vomiting if she returned from Valhalla and wittnessed this disgusting display.

Shem | December 15, 2007, 8:41pm | #

Revenue was a talking point in the debate over the 21st Amendment. Money talks.

There's a compelling argument to be made that it was *the* talking point, and that complaints about gangsterism were just window dressing.

Ernest Brown | December 15, 2007, 8:42pm | #

"abject surrender"

VM | December 15, 2007, 8:44pm | #

AR - sent you email. Unrelated to discussion hier. Could have to do with UA or StX or something Ohio. Or might not. You'll see.

*disappears in cloud of foam*

Linda Morgan | December 15, 2007, 8:44pm | #

I see J sub D ducked out before I could ask if he would yet care to address my question about what he meant when he said that anarchists deny the basic nature of man. He might have considered offering one of the yes and no options since he was in such a hurry.

But I see that ARian has taken a stab: I don't believe in human nature; humans are born tabula rasa.

And that certainly does help explain why s/he didn't say "anarchists deny the basic nature of man" like J sub D did, and hints at why s/he does not offer the requested clarification.

Shem | December 15, 2007, 9:18pm | #

However, if you stop serving me adequately, I will not lock you in a cage or take your property -- I will simply stop serving you.

It's so cute to see people who are too effete to defend themselves from society turn their weakness into a virtue by refusing to even try. Have fun figuring out how long withholding your services lasts in the land of (state) coercion-free living when Bubba with a hungry family and no grounding in anarchist theory realizes that a pair of colts beat four aces.

Jeffrey Quick | December 15, 2007, 9:21pm | #

"If the Feds would lay off CA Med MJ, the state could steal its fair share." -- shorter NORML.

It's a turf war between rival gangs. And the only kind of person who would cheer one or the other on is a gangster.

Linda Morgan | December 15, 2007, 9:36pm | #

Have fun figuring out how long withholding your services lasts in the land of (state) coercion-free living when Bubba with a hungry family and no grounding in anarchist theory realizes that a pair of colts beat four aces.

You you mean to imply here, Shem, that the state defends you from your armed countrymen by requiring you to pay toward their upkeep?

Linda Morgan | December 15, 2007, 9:39pm | #

Do you

Billy Beck | December 15, 2007, 9:42pm | #

"It's so cute to see people who are too effete to defend themselves from society turn their weakness into a virtue by refusing to even try. Have fun figuring out how long withholding your services lasts in the land of (state) coercion-free living when Bubba with a hungry family and no grounding in anarchist theory realizes that a pair of colts beat four aces."

Thanx. I'll take my chances.

Would that be a problem to you?

Shem | December 15, 2007, 10:31pm | #

You you mean to imply here, Shem, that the state defends you from your armed countrymen by requiring you to pay toward their upkeep?

Some of them. The threat of the application of its force also provides a useful deterrent to others. The aforementioned Bubba, for example, who thinks twice about acting when the threat of incarceration is in play. I'd rather not have to dedicate all my energy to maintaining what I have in the face of uncontrolled barbarism. That's no way to run a society. In fact, it's not society at all. And, considering the fact that cooperation is the basis of every advancement that makes our life so pleasant, society is pretty important.

Billy-Not at all. Though it is vaguely irritating to have to listen to you crow about the virtues of your choice as if you were Prometheus bringing fire down to we heathens living in the shadow of Olympus. A little like having to listen to a younger brother who's just learned his multiplication tables. But as I said above, amusement at your mixture of naivete and arrogance makes up for it, somewhat.

Ernest Brown | December 15, 2007, 10:42pm | #

"Some of them. The threat of the application of its force also provides a useful deterrent to others. The aforementioned Bubba, for example, who thinks twice about acting when the threat of incarceration is in play. I'd rather not have to dedicate all my energy to maintaining what I have in the face of uncontrolled barbarism. That's no way to run a society. In fact, it's not society at all. And, considering the fact that cooperation is the basis of every advancement that makes our life so pleasant, society is pretty important."


OK gang, it's time for Hit N' Run's newest game show, SPOT THE CONTRADICTION!

Mike S. | December 15, 2007, 10:54pm | #

Ayn_Randian: Hey Mike S., as someone who believes in benevolence and the goodness of most people, I hope that you free yourself from your mental prison and....

Explode brown, you crummy second-hander.

Shem | December 15, 2007, 11:14pm | #

Tell me how it's contradictory, Ernest. Because "in the absence of authority to prevent it, people will take advantage of each other to a degree that will render civilization impossible" seems pretty straightforward.

Mike S. | December 15, 2007, 11:20pm | #

Shem? If "people" really are that slimy toward each other all day long if left to their own devices, what makes you think that giving them a government with authority over YOU to play with is such a wonderful idea?

Kyle Bennett | December 15, 2007, 11:20pm | #

in the absence of authority to prevent it, people will take advantage of each other to a degree that will render civilization impossible

But that's exactly what you advocate, and what you've mostly gotten.

Billy Beck | December 15, 2007, 11:38pm | #

"Billy-Not at all."

Fine, then. We're agreed that government is not a value to me. Would you force me to pay for it?

"Though it is vaguely irritating to have to listen to you crow about..."

Yeah, yeah, I'm sure it's all very regrettable, but that doesn't matter to the political question. I have to listen to people like you singing paeans to government all day long, and all this is how things are naturally going to go until we get that question resolved. I'd have better things to do, too, but I'm not the one advocating making you pay for things that you don't value, and this fact makes it pretty obvious where the essential problem is in all this.

Shem | December 15, 2007, 11:39pm | #

Shem? If "people" really are that slimy toward each other all day long if left to their own devices, what makes you think that giving them a government with authority over YOU to play with is such a wonderful idea?

Because if you create one with hard and fast rules that can't be transgressed, and a system of checks and balances to keep any one individual or group from gaining too much power, you can create a government that preserves freedom while maintaining the ability to act as a deterrent.

I'll ask, what makes you so sure that a society without government *won't* become just what I believe it will? I base my theory on having done social work, and seeing both A) scummy people who live to take advantage of others without concern for ethics, fairness, or even basic human compassion and, far more common B) desperate people willing to transgress just about any boundary to protect their families. What does your world view say about the existence of these people? How will your society survive them?

Ernest Brown | December 15, 2007, 11:47pm | #

"Because if you create one with hard and fast rules that can't be transgressed, and a system of checks and balances to keep any one individual or group from gaining too much power, you can create a government that preserves freedom while maintaining the ability to act as a deterrent."

...and if the big rock candy mountain teleports itself next door, I'll have sweets for the rest of my life.

Brother, you dare to say that -Billy- is a "mixture of naivete and arrogance" and then unload a bunch of idiotic ahistorical hooey like that?

Kyle Bennett | December 15, 2007, 11:49pm | #

if you create one with hard and fast rules that can't be transgressed, and a system of checks and balances to keep any one individual or group from gaining too much power, you can create a government that preserves freedom while maintaining the ability to act as a deterrent.


And how do you propose to do that with no authority over it?

Ernest Brown | December 15, 2007, 11:56pm | #

"And how do you propose to do that with no authority over it?"

Shhh, Kyle, pay no attention to the man behind the curtin. Shem is the Great and Powerful Vote!

Billy Beck | December 16, 2007, 12:02am | #

"I'll ask, what makes you so sure that a society without government *won't* become just what I believe it will?"

All my half-century of experience with people all over the country. You get to cite yours -- I get to cite mine. And the people that I've dealt with are not the manifest aberrations that that social workers deal with. They're the broad span and stretch of this country, everywhere, every day. They're not interested in murder. They're interested in producing values.

So far. Anyone old enough can look around in broad daylight and see that character being leached right out of them, generation by generation, and there is one general reason for that. It's that there is more law and order laying on their backs than ever before in American history.

This society is becoming what you say, right in front of you, because of the thing that you're arguing for.

Shem | December 16, 2007, 12:08am | #

Brother, you dare to say that -Billy- is a "mixture of naivete and arrogance" and then unload a bunch of idiotic ahistorical hooey like that?

Because I acknowledge that it won't be perfect. Because perfect isn't possible. What I'm advocating is good, which is enough for now.

And the people that I've dealt with are not the manifest aberrations that that social workers deal with.

But those people exist. And it doesn't take many of them to make life impossible for everyone else. If it weren't so, then government would never have developed in the first place.

Kyle Bennett | December 16, 2007, 12:16am | #

But those people exist. And it doesn't take many of them to make life impossible for everyone else. If it weren't so, then government would never have developed in the first place.

Do you realize how true that really is? It's just not in the way you think. Government developed of, by, and for those people. They sought a way to get out from under the authority of you, of anybody, and they found it. And yet you continue to forfeit your authority to them.

Next time you do your social work, take a good hard look at those people you describe. They are your masters. Even if they don't realize it themselves.

Billy Beck | December 16, 2007, 12:22am | #

"...perfect isn't possible."

I've never referred to perfection. That's your word. Observe:

"But those people exist. And it doesn't take many of them to make life impossible for everyone else. If it weren't so, then government would never have developed in the first place."

To begin with, that's just nonsense. In more than a thousand years (at the very least), the only entities that could begin to approach making life impossible for everyone else are governments and people fighting and killing to establish them.

Beyond all that, though, I never dispute that "those people exist", because that's not the point. It's a plain fact that they do, and the question is what to do about them. Now, if they make you nervous, then I can see that that's a problem. But you have no right to chain me to it as your solution.

I wouldn't do that to you.

Ernest Brown | December 16, 2007, 12:25am | #

"Do you realize how true that really is? It's just not in the way you think. Government developed of, by, and for those people. They sought a way to get out from under the authority of you, of anybody, and they found it. And yet you continue to forfeit your authority to them.

Next time you do your social work, take a good hard look at those people you describe. They are your masters. Even if they don't realize it themselves."

Excellent point, Kyle, and one that I was about to bring up. If the existence of the Lumpenproletariat acts as a veto on freedom, then it does so even more under government than in "anarchy." A government limited by the desire for freedom is not going to provide security from parasites (cf. THE GANGS OF NEW YORK), and, likewise, a government whose prime justification is security is not going to care about the violation of the rights of any particular individual. (ditto for Rudy Guiliani's rule of New York City)

Ernest Brown | December 16, 2007, 12:31am | #

"Because I acknowledge that it won't be perfect. Because perfect isn't possible. What I'm advocating is good, which is enough for now."

No, you didn't. You said:

"Because if you create one with hard and fast rules that can't be transgressed, and a system of checks and balances to keep any one individual or group from gaining too much power, you can create a government that preserves freedom while maintaining the ability to act as a deterrent."

There is no such thing as an untransgressable rule, no such thing as a "system of checks and balances" that doesn't demand fierce attention and rational oversight, just the sort of attention and oversight that you and your allies here are too tired and bothered to deal with, which is why you "want George to do it."

Well, George is "doing it." He's doing it -real good.-

dhex | December 16, 2007, 1:03am | #

They SHOULD HAVE also protected our right to put whatever substances we wish into our bodies.

ruthless, though i feel you on this, seeing as they missed out on how some human beings were legal persons and some where legal property was pretty fucked up (to put it as mildly as possible), i think the "you own yourselves" amendment was unfortunately impossible.

Linda Morgan | December 16, 2007, 1:06am | #

I asked:

You you mean to imply here, Shem, that the state defends you from your armed countrymen by requiring you to pay toward their upkeep?

Shem answered:

Some of them.

So if couldn't get from government what government takes from you (ostensibly) on their behalf, they’d come gunning for you? There’s no other way for them to get what they need and there’s no realistic way for you to cooperate with others to defend your property and your life against their demands?

I'd rather not have to dedicate all my energy to maintaining what I have in the face of uncontrolled barbarism.

But you’re okay in the face of uncontrolled government? Or maybe you consider that you've got control, along with sufficient say over what is taken from you to placate Bubba.

That’s no way to run society.

Society’s a pretty big enterprise to "run". I guess that’s why government has to be so big.

[C]onsidering the fact that cooperation is the basis of every advancement that makes our life so pleasant, society is pretty important.

Obedience enforced by the coercive government that you suggest is required to uphold and “run” society is anything but cooperation. Just as the requirement by government for you -- and me -- to fund its payment of protection money to people you fear is anything but the foundation of a free and sustainable society.

dhex | December 16, 2007, 1:38am | #

So far. Anyone old enough can look around in broad daylight and see that character being leached right out of them, generation by generation, and there is one general reason for that.

because you had to walk to school uphill both ways in the snow?

also have you heard the music its fucking terrible.

in other news we all grow old and eventually we die.

Mike S. | December 16, 2007, 1:42am | #

Shem....
> Mike S....
> >Shem? If "people" really are that slimy toward each other all day long if left to their
> >own devices, what makes you think that giving them a government with authority over
> >YOU to play with is such a wonderful idea?
>
> Because if you create one with hard and fast rules that can't be transgressed, and a system
> of checks and balances to keep any one individual or group from gaining too much power...
If the *premise* of your argument is that people are corrupt, then how does it automagically become possible for them to create such a thing?

Your argument destroys itself with its own givens.

Ayn_Randian | December 16, 2007, 5:58am | #

Yet, if he is living in a society of other men, it is not enough t