To reach blacks, libertarians must begin to understand the African-American experience

[James Madison]

Racist who doesn't like being called a racist taking the high road.

The thing about racists is they always collectivize individual traits.

What a collectivist thing to say.

 

[osan]

Second, apples and oranges mix together quite well to make ambrosia (food of the gods). And yes, I know what you're trying to say, but I disagree. If someone entices someone to do something, then punishes that person for doing that, the "mix" is appropriate.

You'll get no argument from me on that point, but that is a separate issue of entrapment. What I was referring to was the fact that ANYONE (forget race for the moment) always has the choice to do or not do in such cases. That the whole deal is a setup from the get-go should provide even stronger impetus not to take the bait. It is not as if people do not know the consequences of these brands of choice. That the consequences are synthetic and wholly unjust - criminal in fact - is another issue. I'm not saying that because the acts are "wrong" that those who do them deserve what they get when caught, but that they should be smarter in making the choices precisely because there is a corrupt mob who will cage or kill them without authority.

...the fact that most made the choice does not absolve the culpability of those who brought the drugs into the community in the first place.

We agree.

Of course using the "canary in the coal mine" example, increasingly it's poor whites getting caught up in the drug prison industrial complex because of crystal meth. Again blacks were just test subjects or "guinea pigs" as you put it.

Experience appears to bear this out.

Did you hear about the black musician that became friends with actual card-carrying klansmen? Some of them left the klan.

Didn't most leave? After the '20s most members took a hard second look at what it all meant.

No problem with the expression. The reason Bill Cosby caught hell is because he made his statements publicly and blacks were concerned that (some) whites would take those statements in isolation and run with them.

No no no... that is not at all how I recalled it. I would also note that one does not respond with "Uncle TOM!" when the concerns are as you state. The responses I read of were pure and unvarnished bile. He has pissed on a very big and heavily vested parade.

Now here's the question. Armed with the information that Bill's comments were not an "isolated incident", how do you reach out to blacks who agree with his position, but are wary of those who might exploit his words for divisive reasons?

By being carefully clear with one's words? Black conservatives get the uncle tom treatment as if they were lily-white klansmen, if media accounts are to be believed... and I'm not 100% sure they can be. But the consistency of reportage does leave one wondering whether it is indeed the case. What happens there is consistent with the same issues between, say, white liberals and conservatives. For example, what motive do intergenerational white welfare recipients have to agree with those conservatives of any denomination who call for personal responsibility? None that I can see and this is borne out by the fact that just about any time you hear an opinion, it is that conservatives are heartless and want to see babies die. Just like any other statistical group, those of the black persuasion who are enjoying their "free ride" are going to attack anyone who threatens the gravy train, especially if those are also black. Betrayal is perhaps the most bitter of human circumstances, is it not? This isn't black people being black. It is, as you yourself wrote, human nature. How did jews regard NAZI collaborators? Not very well at all, as I recall. How did Klansmen respond to whites who associated a little too freely with blacks? Not pleasantly in many cases. And so it goes.

Right. But I'm looking at the irony from a different vantage point. In the 1950s - 1960s the Federal Government took an activist role in Southern politics. By the 1970s lynch mobs were a thing of the past. (I certainly don't remember any). So you're using the existence of lynch mobs prior to an expansive Federal role in Southern politics to advocate what exactly?

Not sure I'm following you here. Was I advocating something? I thought I was only citing an observation.

I agree. And the way to defeat that logic, in my opinion, is to show how abuse of Federal power has had unfavorable consequences to the person or group in question.

Sure, but my point was that there is a disturbingly large proportion of people who refuse to acknowledge such consequences no matter how they are presented. I'd simply ignore them were they not so great a plurality. That fact is frightening because it connotes a mindless mob of individuals whose minds are dangerously set against you. It is not dissimilar to the old lynch mobs running about on Friday nights chasing some poor guy through the woods because they were whipped up to believe he looked as a white woman the wrong way. There is no reasoning with such creatures - they are mindless lunatics gone blood-simple and I cannot think of anything in this world that frightens me more than this. Ever see "The Sandpipers"? The scene where the couley is chased by the mob and strung up, his chest sliced open... that is what I'm talking about here. To my eyes, that is more frightening than lighting off a hydrogen bomb.

Okay. But the thread is about reaching blacks with the libertarian viewpoint.

Depends on what one means by "reach". It certainly does not mean "win over" in terms of thought because they are already of that bent. To me it means to get them to openly stand for their beliefs amongst "their own" (another horrible nonsense term, but again I use it to be conversational), and that is the real crux of the problem precisely because they get stones thrown at them for having the temerity to hold such positions.

Except sometimes "stupid" is just an inability to put something into a form the listener will accept. Come on. I got someone wearing a Che Guevera t-shirt to push for a 5% flat tax!

That is not what I meant at all. I specifically referred to those who refuse to accept truth no matter how adeptly one presents it. Inability to see for the absence of the right presentation to an otherwise capable and open mind is not stupidity. Blatant refusal to accept truth regardless of how perfectly presented, OTOH, may be that... or pure corruption of character.

Ummm...if you say so. But did you know that putting something within six bold tags like your doing doesn't do anything for your post? Seriously, only one bold tag is needed to bold texts and the other bold tags are redundant.

I didn't put any bold tags in. I copied and pasted from your post. I just assumed that you put them there, not really paying much attention because I was too busy thinking on the points in question. I wondered why you bolded the text as much as it was but did not bother to check that which I'd copied. OK, I just looked back to the post in question and there are only bolded words and phrases. I have no idea what happened there. I'd assumed what I pasted was faithful to the original. My bad.

Similarly using the same argument over and over again to convince someone else of your position doesn't do anything. Some of us are trying other arguments and are having some success. You could do the same. Or you just just lament that those who aren't being persuaded by you are stupid.

I was only attempting to explain my meaning as originally expressed.

Jews in Israel are the majority. Jews in America are in the minority. If you are afraid of the majority then you might not want the majority keeping and bearing arms.

I see your point, but I do not believe this is the reason for the positions so widely held, but I concede I may be mistaken on that point.

That said, are Israeli Jews in favor of Israeli Arabs having the right to keep and bear arms?

Point taken.

So many people? To double your political influence you only need to convince one other person. To go exponential you need to convince two other people both of whom only need to convince two other people who all need to convince two other people and......

If that is the case, then I must submit that we are not doing so well. We are making headway, but the issue of time does appear to be pressing, given what I see happening around us, what with MRAPS becoming commonplace in local police mob organizations and all that.

 

[dannno]

I agree with the author that many libertarians do need to have a better understanding of black history and how it relates to their current condition, but I don't think the author has a very good understanding about how libertarianism would improve their situation in the long run.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Crack uses force - addiction. Crack uses fraud - illusion of a better existence.

What is your argument, here?

The interdiction of 'crack' uses force - robbery to fund an agency that not only picks winners and losers in the drug trade (that is, they directly help multi-ton traffickers) but also flagrantly violates rights, steals property, and justifies it all through collectivist re-imagining of the Constitution.

The interdiction of 'crack' uses fraud - an illusion of paper notes having varying ascribed values, not being tied to any sense of reality and rather floating on corporate, bankster (who are tied at the hip with multi-ton traffickers) credit; to wit, the debasement of all's currency for immoral scams and schemes.

To argue as you do, I could paint a picture for any collectivist's (to be clear, I am referring to the majority having supposed authority over the true minority [i.e. the one]), momentary concerns and the 'need' to disallow, sanction or forbid this or that (I could also paint the picture of why this is immoral, foolish, and shortsighted).

I really wouldn't know where to begin.

From the disallowing of firearms, to the banning of high sugar substances (or high carbs, whatever the majority deems to be correct in a given time period) to the restriction of the internet.

These would all be covered under one (or both) of your two general points.

 

[jmdrake]

You'll get no argument from me on that point, but that is a separate issue of entrapment. What I was referring to was the fact that ANYONE (forget race for the moment) always has the choice to do or not do in such cases. That the whole deal is a setup from the get-go should provide even stronger impetus not to take the bait. It is not as if people do not know the consequences of these brands of choice. That the consequences are synthetic and wholly unjust - criminal in fact - is another issue. I'm not saying that because the acts are "wrong" that those who do them deserve what they get when caught, but that they should be smarter in making the choices precisely because there is a corrupt mob who will cage or kill them without authority.

Okay. Seems we're in total agreement on the GWOD (global war on drugs). Yep the government shouldn't bring them in. Yep the users shouldn't use them. Sadly black and white people use them. (According to Ron Paul's stat, blacks and whites use drugs in equal percentages but blacks get shafted worse in the legal system. That is largely because of economic reasons.) So my response is both to work to end the GWOD and to inform whoever I can not to fall into the trap.

Didn't most leave? After the '20s most members took a hard second look at what it all meant.

Most is a relative term. At one point most of the powerful people in Birmingham Alabama were KKK. I know this because of research I did for a term paper. The Birmingham News, still the most influential paper in Alabama, would carry KKK meeting notices on the front page. My great-grandfather was "friends" with the sheriff who was also a klansman. You couldn't be sheriff without being a klansman. And the klan was very strong long after the 1920s. Do you know why George Wallace lost his first attempt to be governor in 1958? It was because his opponent was endorsed by the klan. George Wallace was actually a progressive who initially talked about harmony among the races.

Anyway, there are still pockets where the klan is popular. But that wasn't my point. My point is that with the right tactics you can win over almost anyone. If you think you can't then there is a problem with your tactics. Here's the story I was talking about.

http://guardianlv.com/2013/11/kkk-m...-joke-and-what-happens-next-will-astound-you/

No no no... that is not at all how I recalled it. I would also note that one does not respond with "Uncle TOM!" when the concerns are as you state. The responses I read of were pure and unvarnished bile.

Just because you "recalled" it a certain way doesn't make your "recall" the only correct "recall". I was alive then too you know? And I saw other reactions. Sure in every situation there are the extreme reactions. If you only choose to focus on that, that doesn't make your "recall" right. And for the record, Uncle Tom was a hero. Unlike most people who use that term, I actually read the book.

By being carefully clear with one's words? Black conservatives get the uncle tom treatment as if they were lily-white klansmen, if media accounts are to be believed.

I've never known of a black person to consider the term "Uncle Tom" to be the equivalent of a "lily-white klansman". Did you know that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr was called an "Uncle Tom" by Malcolm X and others? It wasn't because Malcolm thought MLK hated black people. It's because Malcolm thought non violence was a bad idea.

.. and I'm not 100% sure they can be. But the consistency of reportage does leave one wondering whether it is indeed the case. What happens there is consistent with the same issues between, say, white liberals and conservatives. For example, what motive do intergenerational white welfare recipients have to agree with those conservatives of any denomination who call for personal responsibility? None that I can see and this is borne out by the fact that just about any time you hear an opinion, it is that conservatives are heartless and want to see babies die. Just like any other statistical group, those of the black persuasion who are enjoying their "free ride" are going to attack anyone who threatens the gravy train, especially if those are also black. Betrayal is perhaps the most bitter of human circumstances, is it not? This isn't black people begin black. It is, as you yourself write, human nature. How did jews regard NAZI collaborators? Not very well at all, as I recall. How did Klansmen respond to whites who associated a little too freely with blacks? Not pleasantly in many cases. And so it goes.

What is becoming increasingly clear to me is that you are actually proving the OP article correct. Your personally perceived knowledge of the black experience for outstrips your actual knowledge. As a result I don't see how you could be very effective. And I'm not meaning that as a slight. I'm sure there are many areas that I don't know as much as I think I know and that I'm not as effective as I could be.

Not sure I'm following you here. Was I advocating something? I thought I was only citing an observation.

I was asking a question. Maybe you aren't advocating anything. I know that I advocate blacks, whites and others to look at government differently. It's not easy, but I'm having some success.

Sure, but my point was that there is a disturbingly large proportion of people who refuse to acknowledge such consequences no matter how they are presented. I'd simply ignore them were they not so great a plurality. That fact is frightening because it connotes a mindless mob of individuals whose minds are dangerously set against you. It is not dissimilar to the old lynch mobs running about on Friday nights chasing some poor guy through the woods because they were whipped up to believe he looked as a white woman the wrong way. There is no reasoning with such creatures - they are mindless lunatics gone blood-simple and I cannot think of anything in this world that frightens me more than this. Ever see "The Sandpipers"? The scene where the couley is chased by the mob and strung up, his chest sliced open... that is what I'm talking about here. To my eyes, that is more frightening than lighting off a hydrogen bomb.

And so your point, in ten words or less, is......? That last sentence is disturbing. "To my eyes, that is more frightening than....." The real enemy is fear itself. I know FDR got a lot of things wrong, but that one quote is timeless. We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Just about every criticism that you have leveled at some other "group", blacks in general, Jews in general, welfare whites in general, can be traced to some legitimate fear that group has. Deal with the fear and the problem goes away. But you can't deal with fear in others if you become gripped by fear yourself. The KKK was born out of fear. Fear that the radical shift in political power in the south caused by post civil war reconstruction would lead to the wholesale destruction of southern white society. Fear causes people to be reactionary and to cling to a particular idea long after there is any justification for it.

Depends on what one means by "reach". It certainly does not mean "win over" in terms of thought because they are already of that bent. To me it means to get them to openly stand for their beliefs amongst "their own" (another horrible nonsense term, but again I use it to be conversational), and that is the real crux of the problem precisely because they get stones thrown at them for having the temerity to hold such positions.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but winning over a Che Gueverra t-shirt wearing Obama supporter to advocating for a 5% flat tax without me even advocating a 5% flat tax sounds like reaching someone by any definition.

That is not what I meant at all. I specifically referred to those who refuse to accept truth no matter how adeptly one presents it. Inability to see for the absence of the right presentation to an otherwise capable and open mind is not stupidity. Blatant refusal to accept truth regardless of how perfectly presented, OTOH, may be that... or pure corruption of character.

*SIGH* You can't know if someone will refuse to accept truth no matter how adeptly one presents it unless you really believe that you are the most adept person in the world at presenting truth! I would bet you the national debt that if you had been the one talking to my cousin you wouldn't have won him over. And without the intervention of his brother to get us to quit shouting and start talking I probably wouldn't have one him over. And had you met me ten to fifteen years ago you probably wouldn't have won me over either. And apparently its impossible for me to win you over to the truth that there are many people that you are oh so willing to write off as "unreachable" that could possibly be reached by a different approach.

I didn't put any bold tags in. I copied and pasted from your post. I just assumed that you put them there, not really paying much attention because I was too busy thinking on the points in question. I wondered why you bolded the text as much as it was but did not bother to check that which I'd copied. OK, I just looked back to the post in question and there are only bolded words and phrases. I have no idea what happened there. I'd assumed what I pasted was faithful to the original. My bad.

Okay. My comment on that withdrawn.

I see your point, but I do not believe this is the reason for the positions so widely held, but I concede I may be mistaken on that point.

That was just a theory. I have not done any research. I understand support for gun control in the black community. It's largely driven by looking blindly at gun violence statistics coupled with personal experience. For instance at the age of 6 I got between two relatives pointing guns at each other. That put me decidedly in the gun control camp until well into adulthood. My "waking up" to 9/11 truth caused a complete paradigm shift for me on guns. If I believed (and I do) that elements within our government at the very least had foreknowledge of 9/11 and looked the other way, how could I trust those same people with the power to disarm the country? Note, I'm not trying to engage a debate about 9/11 in this thread. I'm just explaining how I shifted from anti-gun to pro 2nd amendment.

If that is the case, then I must submit that we are not doing so well. We are making headway, but the issue of time does appear to be pressing us, given what I see happening around us, what with MRAPS becoming commonplace in local police mob organizations and all that.

I posted a Ben Swann story about MRAPS on my Facebook page. One of my black friends, who I'm pretty sure voted for Obama, posted back a picture he took of an MRAP filling up next to him and he agreed with me that the trend was frightening. That's a point of common ground. On my Twitter feed I posted the thread Anti-Federalist posted about questions regarding the 4th of July. One of my close friends, who likes Ron Paul but leans democrat, said she was about to wish me a Happy Fourth but she saw my Tweet and wanted to know if that was how I really felt. I explained that I still love this country but have concerns such as the "no refuse blood checkpoints" that were going on. She looked up the information, was shocked to find out it was true, and agreed with me that such measures are concerning.

Winning people over a little bit at a time, one person at a time, is tedious, but it's the only thing I've done so far that has had a lasting impact. Yes we've had great "money bomb" days. And I'm glad to see Rand Paul in the senate. I gave Rand a little money, but I doubt anything I did made much of a difference in his campaign. But I got 8 family members to cross over and vote for Ron Paul in the GOP primary in 2012. That was the first time any of them had voted in a GOP primary. Imagine the impact if every Ron Paul supporter did that? Imagine Ron Paul's primary votes last time times 8. If you've got some more powerful idea, I'm ready to hear it.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Add to the blacks as the canary in the coal mine process, the rise of the prison industrial complex (first pile them up with blacks, then expand the 'prison planet' procedures to everybody else), the rise in mass illegitimacy (first encouraged among black girls in the '60's-'70's, then white teens thereafter) to weaken the family, the surveillance/SWAT team state (at first justified to crackdown on drugs in black areas, then expanded to terrorism), etc.

It appears that blacks have been the primary laboratory for building the Total State in the US, decade by decade. Wilbert Tatum of Harlem's Amsterdam News summed it up by saying (something like), the problem with most white Americans, who believe they're better off than (n-words), is that they don't know that the elite regards them as the white (n-words).

This is truth, right here.

Let us not mince and prance around the words.

We, every of us, are the new niqqers on the global plantation.

 

[osan]

Okay. Seems we're in total agreement on the GWOD

I think we are in greater agreement than that. I suspect we are speak past each other in some ways... perhaps differences in expressive styles, who can say?

You were making a point I perhaps was being too subtle about - if you're not getting through, your method may be failing. But the complementary notion also holds: if you're not getting through, perhaps the failure is not yours.

 

[nayjevin]

If we grant that the first wave of addicts could be excused for naiveté, what about the second? The third? The tenth? IS it your assertion that after 30 years of watching people's lives turn to shit that one can claim they didn't know what the result of that first hit might be?

From the perspective of an addict who grows up knowing nothing else. Imagine there is no 'watching people's lives turn to shit.' There is only being a part of the group whose lives are shit, and always will be. There is no feeling of 'this is not the life for me' or 'I'm more like those successful people on TV.'

Then somebody comes along and says 'fuck them. You don't want to be like them. They're all born into money and don't give a shit about us. They vote in the people that keep us here. They hire the cops that put your daddy in jail.'

If there are self-image problems caused by such statements or otherwise poor upbringing it becomes that much more difficult to make the right choices to succeed, or even know what successful choices are.

Much of that is not the fault of the impressionable child who grows up in a bad situation. I'm all for personal responsibility but it can't be expected from a person who hasn't ever seen opportunity.

 

[nayjevin]

What is your argument, here?

The interdiction of 'crack' uses force - robbery to fund an agency that not only picks winners and losers in the drug trade (that is, they directly help multi-ton traffickers) but also flagrantly violates rights, steals property, and justifies it all through collectivist re-imagining of the Constitution.

The interdiction of 'crack' uses fraud - an illusion of paper notes having varying ascribed values, not being tied to any sense of reality and rather floating on corporate, bankster (who are tied at the hip with multi-ton traffickers) credit; to wit, the debasement of all's currency for immoral scams and schemes.

To argue as you do, I could paint a picture for any collectivist's (to be clear, I am referring to the majority having supposed authority over the true minority [i.e. the one]), momentary concerns and the 'need' to disallow, sanction or forbid this or that (I could also paint the picture of why this is immoral, foolish, and shortsighted).

I really wouldn't know where to begin.

From the disallowing of firearms, to the banning of high sugar substances (or high carbs, whatever the majority deems to be correct in a given time period) to the restriction of the internet.

These would all be covered under one (or both) of your two general points.

If self government is legitimate, and a government is legitimate to the extent it minimizes force and fraud, then the individual would abstain.

 

[osan]

It appears that blacks have been the primary laboratory for building the Total State in the US

I must agree here - the entire psychological landscape made them perfect for it. A marginalized group to whose rescue the rest was not likely to come running, if for no other reason than the absence of any sense of connection. It was easy to look at this as "their problem" if the truth were known. But it mostly wasn't because white Americans were still decent people and if they'd known what was going on I suspect they would have been less ho-hum. But look to media now and see how events were painted and all of a sudden the majority response becomes far more sensible and less evil in appearance. "Those people" were painted as being up to nothing better than no-good. Those perceptions didn't just pop out of Jed Clampett's ass one Tuesday morning in June. They were crafted, IMO. Government in action must always be painted as justified.

Wilbert Tatum of Harlem's Amsterdam News summed it up by saying (something like), the problem with most white Americans, who believe they're better off than (n-words), is that they don't know that the elite regards them as the white (n-words).

In Theire eyes, we are all niggrahs. That's been boilerplate a very long time.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

If self government is legitimate, and a government is legitimate to the extent it minimizes force and fraud, then the individual would abstain.

What does, "If self government is legitimate" mean? Of course it is legitimate. One owns themselves. Morally, physically.. this is a certainty. The idea that any one (or rather, a group of people) has more authority over your life, (if you are acting peacefully, not violating anyone else's rights, and acting within the law), is one of the greatest evils to ever plague mankind. I'm not really sure why there is an "if" there.

The issue I have with the second portion of your statement, ("and a government is legitimate to the extent it minimizes force and fraud"), is that you've defined "force" and "fraud" so ambiguously as to cover virtually everything a given majority finds distasteful (at the violation of other's natural rights). Inanimate substances do not use force. And insofar as "crack" is a baking soda based, cocaine containing "rock", it is not fraudulent. To be clear, buying crack, smoking crack, or selling crack, is not in violation of anyone's rights. I say this knowing all the ills that come from the substance. To gather a majority and ban any of the three, or in today's case to put people in a cage for it is in violation of people's rights.

"....then the individual would abstain." This is off-putting as well. First and foremost, many would like nothing more than to smoke crack cocaine [in peace and without being treated as a bum when obtaining the substance]. They'd like not to be robbed and ripped off constantly. The prohibition of cocaine being ended would make the prices affordable for the average person. That is, they won't be knocking out your car windows and scrounging for items to sell. Property crimes would drastically reduce. The social stigma of using the substance isn't going to change anytime soon, but without the "war on drugs" rhetoric, people, if they have a shred of decency in themselves, anyways, will live and let live.

Your use of "If [self government is legitimate]" and your previous vague, all encompassing definition of force and fraud, leaves this final statement a little bit peculiar. I do not know what you mean by it. Some would not abstain. Even defining the use, or sale, of crack cocaine as using force and as fraud and prohibiting it, people would still not abstain (this does not make self-government illegitimate). They could, and did, turn this country into a prison and people would still not abstain. Now if your point is that if certain protected agents of the government didn't flood the Los Angeles streets with cocaine, and further export it to metropolitans around the country, then many people would never have come in contact with the substance and would not have had anything to do with it, then we are in agreement.

I hope I don't seem as if I'm picking nits. It isn't my intention.

 

[FloralScent]

Racist who doesn't like being called a racist taking the high road.

The thing about racists is they always collectivize individual traits.

A Communist who doesn't have a valid point to make screeching "racist" to divert attention away from the fact.

 

[nayjevin]

What does, "If self government is legitimate" mean? Of course it is legitimate. One owns themselves. Morally, physically.. this is a certainty. The idea that any one (or rather, a group of people) has more authority over your life, (if you are acting peacefully, not violating anyone else's rights, and acting within the law), is one of the greatest evils to ever plague mankind. I'm not really sure why there is an "if" there.

It would have been more accurate (pleasurable to subjective judgments such as ours?) to say 'If you believe self government is legitimate.' I thought that was more off-putting, because I wasn't talking to a 'you' and saying 'If one believes...' makes people think I think I'm Confucius. I just put the 'if' because I don't intend to decide for others what they believe, though I do think some things are so obvious everyone ought to believe them.

The issue I have with the second portion of your statement, ("and a government is legitimate to the extent it minimizes force and fraud"), is that you've defined "force" and "fraud" so ambiguously as to cover virtually everything a given majority finds distasteful (at the violation of other's natural rights). Inanimate substances do not use force. And insofar as "crack" is a baking soda based, cocaine containing "rock", it is not fraudulent.

Once self-government has been adopted, I think it's interesting to look around at things like that in terms of the non-aggression principle. If it leads to conclusions that don't make sense, one mustn't adopt them. But if I own myself, and I don't like force and fraud, I won't like things that make me feel bad. If they make me feel good but then destroy my life, I don't want them.

To be clear, buying crack, smoking crack, or selling crack, is not in violation of anyone's rights. I say this knowing all the ills that come from the substance.

Wow, yeah I guess so, it's not necessarily, in that there isn't a right to not be sold crack in the Constitution or studies of natural law. But being fraudulent to somebody is wrong. People get an idea that crack is better than no crack. But it's not true. How do they get that idea? Sometimes it's from fraud - somebody wants to profit selling crack so they lie.

To gather a majority and ban any of the three, or in today's case to put people in a cage for it is in violation of people's rights.

Yeah cages are bad, Ron Paul is right that we need focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment. But in the same sense that it's really against what I want for a person to be drunk and next to me talking, it's bad for communities to have crack. People don't want it when they are trying to succeed. It pollutes the environment!

This discussion reminds me: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/interviews/rand-paul/

"....then the individual would abstain." This is off-putting as well. First and foremost, many would like nothing more than to smoke crack cocaine [in peace and without being treated as a bum when obtaining the substance].

But they are defrauded. It's not good for them!

They'd like not to be robbed and ripped off constantly. The prohibition of cocaine being ended would make the prices affordable for the average person. That is, they won't be knocking out your car windows and scrounging for items to sell. Property crimes would drastically reduce. The social stigma of using the substance isn't going to change anytime soon, but without the "war on drugs" rhetoric, people, if they have a shred of decency in themselves, anyways, will live and let live...

Some would not abstain. Even defining the use, or sale, of crack cocaine as using force and as fraud and prohibiting it, people would still not abstain (this does not make self-government illegitimate). They could, and did, turn this country into a prison and people would still not abstain.

I see what you mean, people are going to do it even though more and more money is spent trying to stop it with bigger police toys. It's still hard to believe that it's not stopping some of it, and why not make things better?

As long as people are defrauded, and have the wrongheaded belief that crack is better than no crack, at least minimize the crime that results from it? Like, come to our rehab center voluntarily, and we will give you a free dose of crack. Then a smaller and smaller dose as we ostracize your usage until we don't give you any, but we'll feed you and love you.' Much less turf war and violence, robbery?

Your use of "If [self government is legitimate]" and your previous vague, all encompassing definition of force and fraud, leaves this final statement a little bit peculiar. I do not know what you mean by it.

I think you're right that from the perspective of annoying legal proofs and philosophical sound reasoning and semantic squabble my statement isn't good. But if good is white people arguing about semantics I don't want to be good.

Thinking about the way the temporary feeling of drugs defrauds people into believing it's better than not using them, and the way people who are addicted do the drugs even after they say they don't want to, makes me think of how interesting the non-aggression principle is on many levels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

The non-aggression principle (NAP)—also called the non-aggression axiom, the zero aggression principle(ZAP), the anti-coercion principle, or the non-initiation of force principle—is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. NAP and property rights are closely linked, since what aggression is depends on what a person's rights are.[SUP][1][/SUP] Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership.

Supporters of the NAP often appeal to it in order to argue for the immorality of theft, vandalism, assault, and fraud. In contrast to nonviolence, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violence used in self-defense or defense of others.[SUP][2][/SUP] Many supporters argue that NAP opposes such policies as victimless crime laws, coercivetaxation, and military drafts. NAP is the foundation of libertarian philosophy.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP]

Now if your point is that if certain protected agents of the government didn't flood the Los Angeles streets with cocaine, and further export it to metropolitans around the country, then many people would never have come in contact with the substance and would not have had anything to do with it, then we are in agreement.

I feel like I've heard that often enough to believe it must have happened to some extent, but I've never researched it. But the same applies to crack dealers.

I hope I don't seem as if I'm picking nits. It isn't my intention.

I like you, enlarged kneecaps and all.

 

[nayjevin]

A Communist who doesn't have a valid point to make screeching "racist" to divert attention away from the fact.

I know right?

 

[juleswin]

I watched a speech Marin Luther King gave where he said a few things that made me think. I don't know how true what he said is but if its true, then I can understand why mere freedom will not be good enough for them. It explains a lot when you listen to some of their gripes.

Here the video, its less than 2mins long.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

It would have been more accurate (pleasurable to subjective judgments such as ours?) to say 'If you believe self government is legitimate.' I thought that was more off-putting, because I wasn't talking to a 'you' and saying 'If one believes...' makes people think I think I'm Confucius. I just put the 'if' because I don't intend to decide for others what they believe, though I do think some things are so obvious everyone ought to believe them.



Once self-government has been adopted, I think it's interesting to look around at things like that in terms of the non-aggression principle. If it leads to conclusions that don't make sense, one mustn't adopt them. But if I own myself, and I don't like force and fraud, I won't like things that make me feel bad. If they make me feel good but then destroy my life, I don't want them.



Wow, yeah I guess so, it's not necessarily, in that there isn't a right to not be sold crack in the Constitution or studies of natural law. But being fraudulent to somebody is wrong. People get an idea that crack is better than no crack. But it's not true. How do they get that idea? Sometimes it's from fraud - somebody wants to profit selling crack so they lie.



Yeah cages are bad, Ron Paul is right that we need focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment. But in the same sense that it's really against what I want for a person to be drunk and next to me talking, it's bad for communities to have crack. People don't want it when they are trying to succeed. It pollutes the environment!

This discussion reminds me: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/interviews/rand-paul/



But they are defrauded. It's not good for them!



I see what you mean, people are going to do it even though more and more money is spent trying to stop it with bigger police toys. It's still hard to believe that it's not stopping some of it, and why not make things better?

As long as people are defrauded, and have the wrongheaded belief that crack is better than no crack, at least minimize the crime that results from it? Like, come to our rehab center voluntarily, and we will give you a free dose of crack. Then a smaller and smaller dose as we ostracize your usage until we don't give you any, but we'll feed you and love you.' Much less turf war and violence, robbery?



I think you're right that from the perspective of annoying legal proofs and philosophical sound reasoning and semantic squabble my statement isn't good. But if good is white people arguing about semantics I don't want to be good.

Thinking about the way the temporary feeling of drugs defrauds people into believing it's better than not using them, and the way people who are addicted do the drugs even after they say they don't want to, makes me think of how interesting the non-aggression principle is on many levels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle





I feel like I've heard that often enough to believe it must have happened to some extent, but I've never researched it. But the same applies to crack dealers.



I like you, enlarged kneecaps and all.

This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[kathy88]

Nice to see you posting Drake. Hope you and yours are well.

 

[jmdrake]

I think we are in greater agreement than that. I suspect we are speak past each other in some ways... perhaps differences in expressive styles, who can say?

You were making a point I perhaps was being too subtle about - if you're not getting through, your method may be failing. But the complementary notion also holds: if you're not getting through, perhaps the failure is not yours.

You are exactly right. It was pointed out in Bible study recently that Jesus at times had trouble getting through to His own disciples.

 

[jmdrake]

Nice to see you posting Drake. Hope you and yours are well.

Thank you! I'm doing fine and life is improving.

 

[osan]

From the perspective of an addict who grows up knowing nothing else. Imagine there is no 'watching people's lives turn to shit.' There is only being a part of the group whose lives are shit, and always will be. There is no feeling of 'this is not the life for me' or 'I'm more like those successful people on TV.'

I grant that this can be the case. It may even be the average reality, but it is not universally so. I grew up in the ghetto and I know the life well. Since I was 8 I wanted nothing other than to get the hell out. No way was I going to be like that. My parents had some small part in this, with the emphasis on "small". Very small. Most of it was my nature, so far as I can tell.

Then somebody comes along and says 'fuck them. You don't want to be like them.

Would you agree that the person in question is no friend?

They're all born into money and don't give a shit about us. They vote in the people that keep us here. They hire the cops that put your daddy in jail.'

And this is, on the whole, pure ignorant bile. Not yours, theirs.

If there are self-image problems caused by such statements or otherwise poor upbringing it becomes that much more difficult to make the right choices to succeed, or even know what successful choices are.

No argument there. But what does that say about the parenting in question? To say "they don't know any different" seems to me endlessly condescending. It implies that they are incapable of doping out for themselves the most basic common sense notions and I do not accept that for a moment. That lets such people off the hook far too easily - it's the old victim mentality gussied up in slightly different words and coming at you from another direction. I call that primo-fail.

Much of that is not the fault of the impressionable child who grows up in a bad situation.

Agreed, but the impressionable child is not always quite as vulnerable as you suggest. That aside, he presumably becomes an adult one day and the choice is always available to him to remain the same or change. That is available to virtually everyone. I grew up in a world of shit. I could tell you stories you would not believe of the things to which I was subjected and the far worse I'd seen others suffer. I once made a grown woman burst into tears when I took issue with her stridently offered opinion that men could never know what rape was like. I did nothing other than relate some of the things from my childhood and she went all to pieces. That's how bad some of the stuff was. My point is that this was all I knew and yet I CHOSE not to allow my life go in the direction my experiences would dictate. I decided that I was captain of my life. If I can do it, anyone can. That others don't is more often a function of attitude than aptitude, so far as I can see.

I taught in NYC ghetto schools for 3 years and I can tell you that the kids in the 'hood are anything but stupid. Therefore, there is nothing going on out there that by necessity defeats their ability to make better lives for themselves. I would add that some of my worst students had parents who did everything they knew how to get their issue to tread the righteous path. In some cases the child simply refuses, despite having a solid family life. The same can be observed in middle-class suburbia. I watched this brand of drama playing out with the families of my daughter's friends in high school and, just as in the ghettoes, some kids with seemingly solid family lives chose poorly despite their full knowledge that they were heading for a high-speed collision with a brick wall. Awareness may be a necessary condition, but it is certainly not always sufficient.

People choose and it is not always so neatly discernible why they go this way or that. The babes in the woods argument holds little water with me because I have seen far too many people who, by that theory should have been burned to fly ash, put their lives right and became what I would assess to be successful.

I'm all for personal responsibility but it can't be expected from a person who hasn't ever seen opportunity.

Why can't it? You make a VERY big statement here - an important one, in fact, and yet you do not explain it, nor support it with facts. I would ask you explain why it is so.