"I find Trump’s rhetoric about “death to drug dealers” very interesting."
Trump is talking about the cartels who run "weapon of mass destruction" levels of drugs and people smuggle.
For example, there was enough Carfentanyl seized at the Canadian border to kill the whole population of Canada in one incident. These substances are being used as weapons against us ATM. I have no problem with what Trump is talking about.
"I will hold my opinion about Marijuana until after GA as I dont have first hand experience and I hear both sides from awakened circles."
This is not about opinion or efficacy, it is about natural law and the state cannot morally tell me what to take or not take, the substance is irrelevant. This is the Great Awakening and after going through all of this, the bullshit has to end.
"You deliver your services and I refuse to pay as per the contract saying I was not happy with your services."
"Others prefer that in an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, any formerly state-provided institutions or services that consumers demanded would be provided by voluntarily-funded or voluntarily-formed organizations, with defense and security being provided by private defense agencies or communal militias rather than through taxation, and where money is privately produced in an open market."
What this actually looks like in practice I have no idea, but I do know that the Founding Fathers only staved off a pure Orwellian nightmare for a couple of hundred years. The Constitutional Republic failed and now is the time for something based on Natural Law.
So let me see if I have this right. Carfentanyl is a deadly drug and the government absolutely has the right not just to tell people not to inject it, but to kill anyone who distributes it.
At the same time when it comes to Marijuana, not only questioning whether it might cause long term damages is irrelevant, the state has not right to tell you what you can take or not, the substance is irrelevant.
So the question that begs itself into being asked, is who gets to decide what is a deadly drug and whats not to be questioned? I am assuming a private FDA that you can hire (just like private defence agencies) that will tell you whats falls under substance is irrelevant and what doesnt?
As for the private defence agencies and communal militias - do you not see a problem there ? Those who can pay the most will control these militias (or the corruptible part of those militias) and with that control the whole community.
The point I am trying to make is beware of ideology thats coated in the particular flavor of sugar that you love.
If I were to ideologically poison patriotic people who love individualism and liberty, I would use exactly this.
Rule of thumb I follow: Anyone dealing in absolutes is pushing a potentially evil agenda. Reality is complex. We can take a good guess at the kind of social system that will work well.
Every person should first understand the true nature of our reality. No secrets (This is the GA)
Don't allow anyone to print fiat currency. Cut off the magic money, and 99% of our problems go away.
Small government with explicitly limited scope, and the will and knowledge by the people to enforce this.
You make some good points and I can see why what I said sounded contradictory.
"So let me see if I have this right. Carfentanyl is a deadly drug and the government absolutely has the right not just to tell people not to inject it, but to kill anyone who distributes it."
The context is here is that the cartels are an arm of the deep-state and explicitly part of the enemy in this war. They have been intimately involved in so many aspects of this whole sordid affair. After some sense returns to the planet no scheduled drugs should be regulated whatsoever.
"....not only questioning whether it might cause long term damages is irrelevant, the state has not right to tell you what you can take or not, the substance is irrelevant." - Yes.
"So the question that begs itself into being asked, is who gets to decide what is a deadly drug and whats not to be questioned? " After this, no one. They are all legal to posses and manufacture.
"As for the private defence agencies and communal militias - do you not see a problem there ?" - Yes, yes I do. It is a curly one and I do not have a decent answer to your concern.
What you have suggested in your three points is a sensible starting point.
Bosi wanted to roll laws back to 1913 or so as a starting point and then ask the Australian people how they wanted to be governed going forward.
Edit:- I still don't like Bosi for his puritanical views and advocacy of continued government theft.
I am not advocating tearing everything up right out of the gate rather than continued movement away from anything that looks like the over-government that we have had.
"I find Trump’s rhetoric about “death to drug dealers” very interesting."
Trump is talking about the cartels who run "weapon of mass destruction" levels of drugs and people smuggle.
For example, there was enough Carfentanyl seized at the Canadian border to kill the whole population of Canada in one incident. These substances are being used as weapons against us ATM. I have no problem with what Trump is talking about.
"I will hold my opinion about Marijuana until after GA as I dont have first hand experience and I hear both sides from awakened circles."
This is not about opinion or efficacy, it is about natural law and the state cannot morally tell me what to take or not take, the substance is irrelevant. This is the Great Awakening and after going through all of this, the bullshit has to end.
"You deliver your services and I refuse to pay as per the contract saying I was not happy with your services."
"Others prefer that in an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, any formerly state-provided institutions or services that consumers demanded would be provided by voluntarily-funded or voluntarily-formed organizations, with defense and security being provided by private defense agencies or communal militias rather than through taxation, and where money is privately produced in an open market."
What this actually looks like in practice I have no idea, but I do know that the Founding Fathers only staved off a pure Orwellian nightmare for a couple of hundred years. The Constitutional Republic failed and now is the time for something based on Natural Law.
So let me see if I have this right. Carfentanyl is a deadly drug and the government absolutely has the right not just to tell people not to inject it, but to kill anyone who distributes it.
At the same time when it comes to Marijuana, not only questioning whether it might cause long term damages is irrelevant, the state has not right to tell you what you can take or not, the substance is irrelevant.
So the question that begs itself into being asked, is who gets to decide what is a deadly drug and whats not to be questioned? I am assuming a private FDA that you can hire (just like private defence agencies) that will tell you whats falls under substance is irrelevant and what doesnt?
As for the private defence agencies and communal militias - do you not see a problem there ? Those who can pay the most will control these militias (or the corruptible part of those militias) and with that control the whole community.
The point I am trying to make is beware of ideology thats coated in the particular flavor of sugar that you love.
If I were to ideologically poison patriotic people who love individualism and liberty, I would use exactly this.
Rule of thumb I follow: Anyone dealing in absolutes is pushing a potentially evil agenda. Reality is complex. We can take a good guess at the kind of social system that will work well.
Every person should first understand the true nature of our reality. No secrets (This is the GA)
Don't allow anyone to print fiat currency. Cut off the magic money, and 99% of our problems go away.
Small government with explicitly limited scope, and the will and knowledge by the people to enforce this.
You make some good points and I can see why what I said sounded contradictory.
"So let me see if I have this right. Carfentanyl is a deadly drug and the government absolutely has the right not just to tell people not to inject it, but to kill anyone who distributes it."
The context is here is that the cartels are an arm of the deep-state and explicitly part of the enemy in this war. They have been intimately involved in so many aspects of this whole sordid affair. After some sense returns to the planet no scheduled drugs should be regulated whatsoever.
"....not only questioning whether it might cause long term damages is irrelevant, the state has not right to tell you what you can take or not, the substance is irrelevant." - Yes.
"So the question that begs itself into being asked, is who gets to decide what is a deadly drug and whats not to be questioned? " After this, no one. They are all legal to posses and manufacture.
"As for the private defence agencies and communal militias - do you not see a problem there ?" - Yes, yes I do. It is a curly one and I do not have a decent answer to your concern.
What you have suggested in your three points is a sensible starting point.
Bosi wanted to roll laws back to 1913 or so as a starting point and then ask the Australian people how they wanted to be governed going forward.
Edit:- I still don't like Bosi for his puritanical views and advocacy of continued government theft.
I am not advocating tearing everything up right out of the gate rather than continued movement away from anything that looks like the over-government that we have had.