From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 21:07:44 MDT
--- Phil Osborn <philosborn2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
> One serious but unaddressed problem with building a
> "free state" in today's world is that the existing
> states will not let you.
Which is the point of the FSP. We move 20k libertarians to one state
which is most conducive to our goals, infiltrate the political process,
and make that state even more liberty oriented.
>
> In a Free State, one would presumeably be free to do
> whatever non-aggressive thing one wanted. Otherwise,
> what point? Use or sale of drugs is non-aggressive.
> How long would it take for one of the existing drug
> cartels to move in and set up operations, perfectly
> peacefully and very likely spreading a piece of their
> $billions around to make sure that everyone was happy
> and probably behaving like the most perfect neighbor
> you could possibly want?
WHich cartel are you talking about, the Cali Cartel or the
Bayer/Smith/Kline cartel???
When drugs are legal, the profit incentive for criminal enterprise
disappears. Legitimate producers will produce quality produce under
pharmaceutical conditions at an affordable price, a price that can be
taxed to pay for negative externalities of the drug's improper use.
>
> How long would it then take for one of the major
> terrorist nations - for example, the U.S.A. - to move
> in militarily, as it has elsewhere all over the globe,
> to enforce its own version of public policy - killing
> drug dealers and anyone who supports them or gets in
> the way, and supporting gangs of local thugs to keep
> their own hands relatively clean?
Well, for example, if NH were selected as the Free State, we'd have an
advantage in that we have absolutely no active duty military facilities
here. Therefore ANY federal active military unit that wants to move
into or through the state must obtain permission from the governor to
do so, or risk violating the tenth amendment.
>
> And, as a non-U.S. citizen, members of this "free
> state" will not qualify now, under the new
> interpretation of "rights" by the U.S. state, for
> basic human rights, in total contradiction of the
> entire basis of the U.S. Constitution, yes, of course,
> but so what? The Bush Administration has finally
> managed to get de facto and de jure recognition of the
> principle that "rights" are something that the state
> grants you, and, as such, are whatever the law
> defines.
Uh, not quite. Firstly, the Free State would refuse to cooperate with
Patriot Act enforcement, since, for example, here in NH we have an
unfunded mandates law. No government can order another government
entity to perform some function without funding that function.
Therefore, the feds can't ask the state or local governments to enforce
the Patriot Act without funding said enforcement in its entirety.
The feds are actually scared of forcing the issue as well, because they
know that they would lose their case before a structuralist SCOTUS. NH
regularly tells the feds to take a hike over federal mandates that have
funding strings attached. We told them to take a hike over seat belts
and motorcycle helmets, for example. We still get highway funding,
despite the feds threatening to take it away.
In fact, NH only gets 71 cents back of every dollar we send to the feds
in taxes, the lowest of any state. We know we don't need the feds. They
need us more than we need them, so they never try to force the issue
because NH is the only state that has a right of revolution and
secession built into its state constitution. They piss us off enough
and we are gone. Oh, yeah, and we have the largest gun makers in the US
here too...
>
> That's the implicit meaning of denying the application
> of basic rights - as in the Bill of Rights - to
> non-U.S. citizens. That's the whole real point of
> detaining those people in the concentration camp in
> Guantanamo. If being a non-citizen means you have no
> rights, then rights must be something artificial -
> like incorporation - which is a fiat of the state. If
> so, then the only questions are those of legality.
> Clearly if rights is just another name for due
> process, then why would we need a "free state"? And,
> what, if anything, would the term mean? We are
> already perfectly free, almost by definition - free to
> do anything legal.
No, you are conflating two separate issues.
When an individual violates the Geneva Conventions by acting as an
illegal combatant, ALL of their rights are automatically forfeit
BECAUSE of their crime of acting as an illegal combatant. They can be
legally executed summarily without trial. These are not innocent men in
Gitmo's prison. They are killers who refuse to wear a uniform, who
attack civilians and torture innocents. They refuse to operate by the
Geneva Conventions, and since they choose to operate in violation of
the laws of war, they will be tried outside the civilian court system,
for their crime is not a civil crime, it is a military one.
I have several times asked people to read the Geneva Conventions,
please do not make any more unsupported claims about such things until
you do so.
=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
- Gen. John Stark
Blog: Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com
Flight sims: http://www.x-plane.org/users/greendragon/
Pro-tech freedom discussion:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exi-freedom
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 21:16:14 MDT