Personally I don't hold any reverence for laws. I do what I personally feel is right. I still stop at stop signs and don't drink and drive. Some things are just common sense. I made this thread because of an old lady's attitude towards marijuana and the shoutfest between O'reilly and the mustache guy. There is an older lady that I work with. She started complaining about how un-family friendly the store is because it sells a beer pong kit, playboys and "them marijuana papers" (rolling papers) I then questioned her as to why marijuana is any less "family friendly" than the beer and cigarettes we sell. I got a speel about how it is against the law. This topic was simmering in me after seeing the debate between O'reilly and the other guy. It seemed like the conservative view on laws is that if we ignore one we will descend into anarchy. So, how do you feel about laws?

It depends on the law. If I don't agree with the law, I don't follow it. I carry a gun without a permit (been doing it since I was 18; all gun laws are null and void due to the 2nd Amendment anyway), run red lights every day (after looking both ways, of course), smoke weed if I feel like it (VERY occasionally), etc.

Most people are sheep, live in fear of the government, when the truth is if you keep your mouth shut about things, chances are very low you'll actually get caught.

Only about 1/3 of the laws explicitly state their purpose. The government (for lack of a better term) inflates it's rules. For example, the Patriot Act is basically amending lots of other laws, which takes forever to look up the actual point of it.

Speaking of the Patriot Act, how the hell could someone vote for it? Sign a few more freedoms away for a false sense of security...

So why are you confessing to your crimes on the internet?

So what're you gonna do when someone decides to imprison you?

I can't speak for you, but I know no court in my area will side with me when I say gun laws are null and void due to 2A, won't compensate me for false arrest and detainment, and shooting back will create as many problems as it solves..

I'll burn that bridge when I come to it. I have gotten a ticket for running a red light, but I've done it so much for the last 5 years that it's worth it from all the time I've saved avoiding sitting at lights.

I'm not too concerned about getting caught carrying without a permit. How often do you get frisked by a cop in your everyday life? It's not like I'm running around robbing people or anything. I mind my own business.

It's an anonymous forum... even though the government could figure out who I am, I think they have more important things to worry about.

You are just an idiot.

And why is that?

I stop and look both ways first. If no one's coming, then there's no reason to sit there and wait.

And they say that like its a bad thing.

I also have no reverence for laws.

All gun and drug laws are too restrictive. That's why I ignore them. I own myself, I'll decide what I'm going to do. As long as I'm not hurting anyone else, they should fuck off and mind their own business. People who blindly obey what others tell them to do are sheep.

As I've said many times before, government is government simply because it has a monopoly on force. It has no inherent justification or legitimacy. Would you obey some arbitrary bullshit rules that some gangster set up and told you you need to follow? No? So how is ignoring laws concerning victimless crime any different?

As to ignoring traffic laws, well, most of them are idiotic. Many traffic lights are stupidly timed, and there's no reason to sit around waiting for one to change for 5 minutes just because it happens to be red and not green. Like I said before, I do stop and make sure no one is coming, just as I do at a stop sign. As long as no one's coming, what color the light happens to be displaying at the time is irrelevant. I see cops running red lights all the time (without their sirens on, etc.), but I guess the rules don't apply to the king's men.

As to speed limits, most of the time they're set ridiculously low so the State can make more money pulling people over. It has nothing to do with "safety", and everything to do with rich politicians getting richer.

Oh, I forgot to mention: I also don't pay income taxes.

None. It's black or white. Either laws are laws and that's it, or they aren't. A lot of people will act like illegality is reason enough and then I throw one of their conscious decisions back in their face and "that's different."

Common law is a joke. Laws are just a bullshit justification for: "We don't like you or how you behave, so we're going to team up on you, pool our money, break your legs, and use our paid for leg breakers to force you to pay your share of their bill. Then we'll try to get out of paying our share, dream up bullshit reasons to charge you more than yours, and if you don't like it, the leg breaker has been trained in how to put a bullet in a dissenters head and how to provoke them in to making it look justified."

That story is as old as time, and every time some motherfucker says "That's not right!" and spills their blood to fix it, some lazy content asshole with a bible in their hand errodes away at it until things are proper fucked up again.

Laws are bought and paid for, and my freedom isn't for fucking sale!

Parallax: +1 rep as soon as I can again for being a free-er man than myself. If only everyone followed your example.

All drug laws are there because you can't control yourself when your high on PCP. Laws are to protect people from each other.

I do agree that most gun laws only hurt the lawful gun owners, while the criminals don't give a fuck about the laws, so they stock up on AKs.

As for income taxes, what happens when you get shot by someone, or someone breaks into your house? Huh? Who is going to come to save you? Without taxes, police, fire, ambulances and all other public services wouldn't exist.

Bullshit. Laws are there to enforce the power monopoly of the State. In particular, prohibition laws exist only because they increase the size and power of government. If it had anything to do with "protecting people", the laws simply wouldn't exist. Prohibition causes far more crime than it prevents.

I pay far more than my share for that in other taxes and fees.

Also, I think "social contract" theory is bullshit, but I've said this before: If the governments which claim jurisdiction over me start obeying the limits set on them by their respective Constitutions (that means all gun laws abolished, etc), I wouldn't have as much of a problem with paying taxes and would probably start paying them again.

How do you get away with not paying taxes?

I'm sure all the resources they put towards fighting the drug trade make them money and give them power. I'm sure they are making money off of all the tax revenue they get off of the illegal drugs.

How was the government better off in the 20s during Prohibition? They had to deal with all the fucking organized crime that was going on. It was more of a hassle for them than it was a source of power. Do you know why they put Prohibition in to place? To protect the people. Do you know who put pressure on legislators to put Prohibition into place? Women's Temperance Movements. They wanted to stop the 'moral decay' of society through the ban on alcohol. They didn't want to increase the size of government.

We have drug laws to protect people from each other. Not so the government gets more control of the people.

The government gets more money and power from certain drugs being illegal than they ever would if they were legal and taxed.

Is your method the way that will likely end in a standoff with the feds or did you remove yourself from their "to tax" list?

__________________
It has begun:
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2

Well, you may have heard about me on the news. My name's Ed Brown and I'm currently posting from my compound in New Hampshire.

Sorry Mr. Brown but my local media doesn't like to report on issues like that. We'd much rather hear about Paris Hilton's legal woes because it makes us feel better about ourselves when we're finished watching.

Itd epends, laws about drugs and alcohal, fuck that I will break it, they can't control my life. I will be sensible.
Seriously laws, like carrying weapons, hell no.
I am not going to young offenders when I could legally carry my under 3 inch knife.
Would i use that knife to kill someone?
In defence yes.
In attack, no.

Little to none. I have never once in my life questioned any decision because of the possible legal implications.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3290003&page=1

I like how the artcile talks about you and your wife, then has picture of 2 guys with facial hair.

I might believe that if Ed Brown had ever said more than 3 sentences that made sense. The tough part about this whole liberty thing is that you have to defend the fringe guys, because you're next.

Anyways, the law has no relation to what is right. Do what is right, not what the law says, to the best of your ability.

+1
How about someone tell us exactly how government profits from the drug war and back it up with facts?

How so? I think that is bullshit.

Lol, no shit. I can't believe they put that picture. It totally makes him out to be a faggot in the first few sentences because it's like "a new Hampshire couple."

- Anirak

The same way the drug companies make money. It's much more profitable to treat someone for 10+ years than it is to cure them once and send them on their way.

Law enforcement and local/state governments know it's much more profitable to fine people regardless of the amount of drugs they have and then release them back into the world to fine them again later.

Most of them don't go the obviously corrupt LAPD route and bust anyone and anything they can to bring in revenue, and increase the power and value of their departments though. Why do you think domestic violence and street problems seem to be the least of their worries? No money to be made.

I thought it was pretty obvious.. +1 to Oday and Para.

Drug dealers with a half kilo of crack will not only get fined, but they will go to JAIL. Which costs the state thousands of dollars a year.

I'm conflicted on this one.

On the one hand, I have a very libertarian world view and believe that people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

On the other, I am an agent of the mechanisms of social control, take my job seriously, and did swear an oath or two to that effect.

I'd have to say that I use the escape clause for all orders (and laws) as taught to everyone who joins the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Enforcement Division: You are obligated not to obey those orders (or laws) which are illegal, immoral, or unethical.

Thus I choose to obey the laws which are, on the surface of them, "right". Don't murder, don't steal, don't rape your neighbor's cow, etc.

On the other hand, laws which affect my personal freedom without in any way addressing the possibility of me doing harm to other people, I feel free to ignore.

Here are just a few I thought of in about 5 minutes:

1. Entire agencies are devoted to fighting the War on (people who use certain types of) Drugs.

2. Governments make tons of money off fines people charged with drug possession are forced to pay. (Same thing with speeding tickets and how speed limits are set artificially low). These fines are usually in the hundreds of dollars. That's way more than they'd make off of drugs being taxed, especially since people would just grow their own shit in their backyards and ignore the tax.

3. Lots of law enforcement agents make a shitload of money off of bribes from drug dealers.

4. Prohibition has been largely responsible for the militarization of civilian police forces. Look at all the new toys they get to buy (guns, helicopters, body armor, armored vehicles, etc.) and the kickbacks the politicians get from the companies that make these toys.

This applies to all the new SWAT teams every department has now, as well as to regular patrol officers. Just a few years ago, cops on the beat carried 6 shot revolvers. Now they carry "high capacity" semi autos with multiple extra magazines, wear body armor, and usually keep a semi automatic rifle of some sort (usually an AR15) in their cars. These are weapons that should be restricted for civilian 2nd Amendment purposes only, and regular cops on the beat are driving around with them. The founding fathers specifically warned against this.

5. It "justifies" many law enforcement agencies' huge budgets, since they spend most of their time enforcing prohibition laws or fighting crime that is caused by prohibition.

6. Government gets to use it as an excuse for many of the unconstitutional things it does. Violations of the 4th and 2nd Amendments are almost always "justified" because of prohibition.

7. Federal and state governments have grown exponentially in many ways due to prohibition, and prohibition has been used by the federal government to usurp more of the states' privileges and centralize power in Washington.

It doesn't cost them anything. It only hurts the taxpayers, and it "justifies" the States' huge budgets dedicated to fighting prohibition. Think of all the agents who would be out of a job and all the agencies that would be abolished or whose budgets would be slashed dramatically if prohibition ended.

IMO:
Legislations is something you have to factor into your everyday life. It's another factor in the equation of your deciding whether to do something or not.
Morality is an entirely different thing, unrelated to legislation, even if they match up.

Exactly, our taxes pay for those prisons and "correctional systems", which is going to be raped from our incomes no matter what you do. If they end up costing more, taxes are raised to compensate.

It's not just the dealers either. It's tons of no-name low level users and the dealers. It's not just the amount of money used to house the criminals, considering many drug ops seize money and other assets. Some states even have laws that confiscate your worldly possessions to sell at auctions to "compensate" for them having to process and jail the offender.

Fuck, if they don't have enough money after taxing the people to death, fining you for your "offense", then taking all your shit to sell off, I don't know how they'll ever have enough money for their "war".

Anyone with a well developed sense of morality should have no reverence for the law. Essentially the law is represents one groups attempt to impose their morals on you. Inevitably there will be occasions where a law was, in your opinion, immoral. I don't see how you could justify mindlessly obeying the law if it went against everything you believed was right and good.

I hold no reverence for the law. All that matters to me are the consequences of breaking it. By default I will follow a law, but if I believe it is unjust then I will consider breaking it.


That's just ignorance. If you only knew what went in to developing a drug...

It's not ignorance, it's logic. If you make someone pay for treatment or cure, you will make more profit by treating them for a long time, rather than curing them once.

I'm not saying every drug company acts this way of course, but if you watch 20 minutes of evening TV, you'll see pill ad after pill ad. A similar comparison would be the "oil shortage" of the late 70s.

I'm no biochemist, but I do know how much effort is put into the medical sector.

I totally agree with what you just said.

However, I just want to point out one thing. There seems to be two kinds of laws, one that has to do with morality (such as, murder is wrong, and therefore is illegal), and the other kind, which is more operational (as in, vehicles may only go when the traffic light is green. vehicles may not go when it's red).

I support your view in that we should always exercise our judgement in whether to follow certain laws that have to do with morality. However, I believe that everybody should follow the second kind of law, the operational ones, in order for society to function smoothly.

P.S. I greatly enjoyed reading your thoughts on socialism. You should post more on this topic.

Why don't you name just one company that acts like that? ... I am pretty sure you don't know how drug discovery/development works. There simply is no room in the process for them to make the choice that your are implying.

That's a load of bullshit

I hope you realize that time is close before the Oil Crash happens/your jobs are all exported to China/you have no damn rights anymore..

LOL

(5char)

m The CIA selling Crack in the 1980s to keep the Black Man down and to raise money for all their covert operations

Part of it: Iran-Contra Affair

reverence definition:


fear: a profound emotion inspired by a deity; "the fear of God"
regard with feelings of respect and reverence; consider hallowed or exalted or be in awe of; "Fear God as your father"; "We venerate genius"
a reverent mental attitude
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I fear the law and I hate the laws in place

So no, no "reverence" from me

FUCK THE LAW

on a related note I'll use NWA: Fuck the Police a a source

How did they vote for that damned PA? Well I'll tell you that nobody was allowed to read it before it was voted on, pushed though without any debate.

Well I don't know about monetary gain, but through prohibition of anything the government is allowed to increase its size and power.

Everytime there's a "war on" something, be it "terror", drugs, or crime the government looks for excuses to perpetuate its state of relative tyranny, specifically through the creation of superflous "alphabet soup" law enforcement agencies.

For example, the BATF swelled into an enourmous beaurocracy during the prohibition, then alochol became legal, so the agency created the National Firearms Act of 1934, not to prevent crime or protect the citizenry, but to invoke massive noncompliance (i.e. cause more crime) so as to keep their funding and prevent themselves from being downsized.

I don't know much about the "war" on drugs, but it easily could be following a similar pattern.


And SWF, I'll leave your CIA crack conspiracy theories alone, you seem quite convicted to them, but the Chinese aren't gonna "take our jobs".

The only jobs going to the chinese are manufacturing jobs, which the Japanese had us beat at anyway, and haven't been a major force in the U.S. economy since the end of world war II.

China doesn't have nearly enough skilled workers or expanded infrastructure or even high technology for "all our jobs" to be "exported to the Chinese".

Maybe in 40 years, but who knows what kind of bigger problems there'll be by then.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. I obey all the arbritrary laws of the current world order except for the ones I feel I can get away with breaking without hurting or defrauding others in the process.

Sure there is. Cures don't make good returns on r&d investment, so the r&d money is allocated towards making minor improvements to existing treatments so they can renew the patents. Most R&D towards cure's is done with public funds.

I don't respect "laws" I respect rights. Killing infringes on the right to life. Stealing on the right to property, assualt on the right to life and pursuit of happiness. When (very rarely) laws uphold rights as they were intended to I follow them. Drug laws, for example, prohibit a victimless "crime" and actually infringe upon the rights of humanity, so fuck them

Thanks for essentially quoting me.

PUA, I already said I don't have access to the distribution information of pharmaceutical corporations, but the scenario does work.

Do you have any numbers to back that up?

The average cost to develop a new drug is over one billion dollars. Obviously they are going to want to exploit the products that have proven efficacy and have gone through clinical trials for as much as they are worth. The point I was making is that there is no room to choose between developing a "cure" and developing and a treatment that takes a "long time."


You implied that you knew for a fact that some companies acted in the manner you described.

ETA: And he didn't essentially quote you. His position is about the R&D dollars, yours was about the profit of prolonged treatment vs cures.