Oregonians support ending drug decriminalization

[PAF]

@susano

It was John Adams.

And he's right.

^ That's what the centralists sold them. ^

Governments have no legitimate right to rule, and cannot therefore, define, grant, restrict, or take away natural rights, or alter natural law, without destroying the concept of freedom in the process. Any government constitution is in direct contradiction of this truth, as constitutions are meant to first define the powers assumed by government, when government has no justifiable authority to claim power over any man, his property, or his beliefs. Considering the U.S. Constitution, especially Article 1, Section 8, it grants unlimited powers to government, including the power to tax, to control all money, to control all commerce, to provide for the general welfare, to provide (control) for all common defense, to borrow money creating common debt, to declare war, to raise armies and militaries, to assume control of all by complete power over the militia, and grants itself ‘authority’ to purchase (steal) any property it deems necessary for these purposes, among other powers. If this is not enough, government gives itself the power to make all laws necessary for executing any and all powers as ‘vested’ by the Constitution. As you can see in this statement alone, this constitution was meant to ‘vest’ massive powers to government. Nothing could be more harmful to freedom, nor could it be more blatantly immoral and absurd.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Liberty-of-All

[susano]

Apologies. The counter-point is that these issues are actually quite complex and subtle, and the "conventional wisdom" on both left and right tends to be so wrong that it's just beyond belief. If you'd like to understand where I'm coming from, overall, I highly recommend Thomas Sowell's excellent and highly readable book, Basic Economics. I read that book in 2007 and it turned my world upside down. Note that I was a highly conservative Republican at that time, both culturally and economically. I had no idea how messed-up my economic beliefs were until I read BE. And, as a conservative, I was an economics genius compared to any typical moderate or left-leaning American. It's a problem so enormous that sometimes I despair of how it will ever be corrected. Milei-level of drastic is a bare-minimum. I think even more drastic measures would be required in the US because the stakes are so much higher. I don't even think about it very much because it's just too much to bear...



I think we should not double-down on failed policies, and the War on Drugs is a proven failed policy. That doesn't mean I'm pro-legalization, I'm just anti-NEW-measures-which-are-proven-failures. We don't need to empower cops any more than they already are. And what else are you going to do to "get fentanyl off the streets" besides empowering our already tyrannical, redcoat police-forces?! What we need to do is wake up, as a nation, and start addressing the hard problems, in order of hardness. So yes, that means we need to confront the hardest problems first. And first among those is ending the Fed. That doesn't mean we need to complete the project of ending the Fed before addressing fentanyl. If I were "emperor pro-tempore" of America, this is the deal I would strike: if my fellow Americans are so eager to get fentanyl off the street, first pass a resolution that the Fed is going to be ended and set up a committee to research how that will be done, and then move on to fentanyl. And I would apply that same bargain for every issue that suburbanites care deeply about, because suburbanites automatically care about the wrong things. That's no fault of their own, because there is no good reason why they should care about the right things, that is, the incentives are all wrong.



My point still stands: the government itself is the problem, not the solution. Adding more of the poison won't cure the problem created by the old poison.



Mark my words (seriously): You ain't seen nothin' yet.

Fentanyl is already illegal in the vast majority of the country. I don't know how much is stopped coming into the country or what the level of enforcement is when someone is busted with it. I'll guess it's not much because "criminal justice reform".

It's a long way from the Fed to some teenager dying from fentanyl. To me it's saying you have to end the fed to make drunk driving a crime.

[susano]

^ That's what the centralists sold them. ^

The constitution and our system of government is flawed. I still agree with John Adams about morals and "religion" though I would say spirituality. Whatever type of society humans live in, having a high regard for mankind doesn't seem compatible with flooding one's country/community/streets with drugs intended to addict and kill.

[ClaytonB]

It's a long way from the Fed to some teenager dying from fentanyl. To me it's saying you have to end the fed to make drunk driving a crime.

Pretty much, yes, that's the idea. As a result of many complex social dynamics, the collective intelligence of humans in a large, unorganized group tends to be well below the population average. The population average isn't even very good. So, the intelligence of a large, unorganized group of people (such as the electorate) is horrible. Economists have partially explained why this happens in rational ignorance theory. There is such a thing as rational stupidity. If it doesn't matter to me to invest effort thinking something through, why will I bother? And if my choice (vote) doesn't make a difference in the ultimate outcome, then why would it matter to me to invest effort into it? The root problem is that the majority-vote mechanism for decision-making doesn't scale.



For this reason, if I were in an "emperor pro tempore" position, I would basically "hold hostage" the issues that the everyman cares about (e.g. sports regulations and nonsense like that) in exchange for action on actually important issues, such as the Fed, strangulating regulations and taxation, uparmoring of police (that is, reversing it), and many more. "One for you, one for me." You give me one of my issues that are actually important, I will give you one of your issues that you care about. In this way, the populace would become motivated to actually fix the country. "He fixed the baseball pitch rules!" Who gives a damn about baseball pitches. But if I could use that (or something equivalently trivial, but which the everyman is deeply passionate about) as a bargaining chip to force Congress to start the process of shutting down the Fed, that's precisely what I would do. "You want fentanyl off the streets. OK, but first, give me my #1 action-item."

[susano]

Pretty much, yes, that's the idea. As a result of many complex social dynamics, the collective intelligence of humans in a large, unorganized group tends to be well below the population average. The population average isn't even very good. So, the intelligence of a large, unorganized group of people (such as the electorate) is horrible. Economists have partially explained why this happens in rational ignorance theory. There is such a thing as rational stupidity. If it doesn't matter to me to invest effort thinking something through, why will I bother? And if my choice (vote) doesn't make a difference in the ultimate outcome, then why would it matter to me to invest effort into it? The root problem is that the majority-vote mechanism for decision-making doesn't scale.



For this reason, if I were in an "emperor pro tempore" position, I would basically "hold hostage" the issues that the everyman cares about (e.g. sports regulations and nonsense like that) in exchange for action on actually important issues, such as the Fed, strangulating regulations and taxation, uparmoring of police (that is, reversing it), and many more. "One for you, one for me." You give me one of my issues that are actually important, I will give you one of your issues that you care about. In this way, the populace would become motivated to actually fix the country. "He fixed the baseball pitch rules!" Who gives a damn about baseball pitches. But if I could use that (or something equivalently trivial, but which the everyman is deeply passionate about) as a bargaining chip to force Congress to start the process of shutting down the Fed, that's precisely what I would do. "You want fentanyl off the streets. OK, but first, give me my #1 action-item."

That's crazy!