meet the vigilantes
the dollar vigilante blog
Fiscal Spliff
Share this article on:
[Editor's Note: The following post is by TDV Managing Editor, Redmond Weissenberger]
“My stock answer was that medical marijuana would start to be legalized in 10 years and that marijuana would start to be legalized in 20 years, probably during an economic crisis.” — Mark Thornton
Drug laws are probably the most inane (well maybe a close second to environmentalism in today’s world: San Diego Residents Face 6 Years In Prison For Washing Their Car) expression of the power of the state. Typically, the average person rationalizes laws in this way: “I am law abiding, and I respect the law as it is just, therefore I am not worried about the law applying to me.” Also, they generally buy into the state’s justifications of why a particular law has been put in place.
When the state oversteps its bounds and crosses into areas that are obviously the realm of personal choice, such as what substances one chooses to put into one's own body, even the average person starts to question the laws that have been laid down. And the first questioning of these arbitrary laws begins for many with the personal experience of an outlawed substance.
Marijuana in the eyes of the state is seen as a gateway drug. What they mean by that is that if you use marijuana, you will be open to using other, “more dangerous” drugs such as cocaine and heroin. And it is listed in the same “schedule” as those other mind altering substances.
I see marijuana as a gateway drug as well, a substance that opens the doors of perception. And what do you perceive? That the state has been lying to you since the day you were born. The seeds, as you will, of the state’s destruction lie in its own propaganda - in its desire to control behavior, it undermines its own authority. It is drilled into your head that drugs are a one-way ticket to hell, but when you have that first toke, or in the days of alcohol prohibition, that first beer, you wonder what all of the fuss was about. And it isn’t long before the gears start turning - “if they lied to me about this, what else are they lying to me about?”
The modern social democratic welfare state is caught in its own contradictions. On one hand it champions individual rights and justifies its own existence as a protector of these “rights”- on the other hand it does its best to undermine them and transform its subjects into children.
And so as we continue to be pessimistic about the continued descent of the federal government into tyranny, we can appreciate the green shoots of liberty arising in the form of marijuana decriminalization and legalization in Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Massachusetts, Detroit, MI., Flint, MI., Ypsilanti, MI., Grand Rapids, MI., Kalamazoo, MI., Burlington, VT., and Montana. Thank you for having the courage to say “Just Say No” to the state.
Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em.
Redmond Weissenberger is the Managing Editor of The Dollar Vigilante and a Founding Director of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada, the centre for the study of the Austrian School of Economics within Canada.
.jpg)
Ah, drug laws. The absurdity of statism burning with such unmistakable absurdity that it's a wonder that even the dimmest willing taxpayer doesn't get the urge to march on the capital and burn it to the ground.
But this just goes to show, gentle reader, that there really different kinds of people in the world. Some people love being in love and relish the idea of having sex with just one person for the rest of their lives. Some people like torturing small animals. And some people just deep down in their bones love being told what to do. It doesn't matter how offensive, ridiculous or immoral the order; being commanded just somehow feels right...
Shoot that Iraqi child. Shoot these gypsies and homosexuals in the back of the head. Let us keep half your money and then send us an accounting report by mid-April. Don't have sexual relations with willing partners of the same sex or a different race. Don't drink the liquid distillation of these plants. And whatever you do, don't smoke that plant over there.
People will do the damnedest things when told to by people wearing the robes of political or religious authority. Now it's one thing to do objectionable and self-damaging things --like pay taxes-- under protest when there's a gun in your face...But it is quite another to do these same things with a skip in your step and a song in your heart. Most of the world is full of the authoritarian lickspittles who fall into the latter camp. They love the feel of the master's boot on their neck, the crack of the whip on their hindquarters. They love to hop to it with a cheery "yessir, boss" when elected or officially appointed sharply-dressed thugs bark the order.
It's bondage, domination and sado-masochism for the masses. BDSM for the world. We're all for a good dose of private perversion in the name of fun...but this willing subjugation to the violent aggressor known as the state...it's just disgusting. And it's why nonsense like Prohibition of substances for personal use exists and gets to cause so much misery.
The sado-masochistic majority who would shove children into fiery ovens in the name of the state...and who consider it their sacred duty to pay the state's extortion...are the same people who nod approvingly at Prohibition. Logic? Morality? Minding your own business? Psht! Never mind the violent black markets, the innocent lives ruined for enganging in private pleasure...the state says it's wrong and that's that! So what if this war on using plants for pleasure ends up costing trillions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives in the resulting violent black market, or any trace of individual privacy or security in one's own home or vehicle?
I wonder if this desire to ignore reason and morality in order to submit is inborn or if it is learned. I'm sure as with all things it's a combination of the two. But as with all things, there must be some natural inclination, some combination of prenatal biological factors that creates an inclination and, dare I say, a talent for authoritarianism..? Just as some people are more likely to end up killing hookers given the right (wrong) home environment...maybe some (most) people are just born to become statists, especially given the condition of this state-afflicted world. Maybe those of us who end up libertarian or anarchist despite the global malady of statism...maybe we really are genetic mutations, destined to step away from the herd even though the world makes that a difficult...even dangerous...move.
In any case, such as we are we can't help but look for the best ways to make a buck or two on the forefront of what we hope is the beginning of a worldwide change. The world may be waking up to the destructive and ridiculous nature of drug prohibition...but this stuff isn't exactly legal in most places yet. In fact, things are just downright weird right now with some American States no longer looking to prosecute marijuana use or sale while their federal masters will still toss users and sellers into federal forced sodomy camps. Strange times here in the USSA.
Strange times mean new market opportunities. We explored one of these new opportunities in depth and at length in the most recent issue of TDV Homegrown, our newest newsletter dedicated to surviving and thriving in strange times in the declining imperial police state. Our advice isn't for everyone. It takes a certain amount of daring and unconventional thinking. If you think that may be up your alley, then check us out more about Homegrown here.
Regards,
Gary Gibson
Editor, The Dollar Vigilante
Share this article on:
Yoututbe
55
Videos | 2343 Subscribers 
Twitter Feed
Archives
- May 2013 (24)
- April 2013 (30)
- March 2013 (32)
- February 2013 (28)
- January 2013 (30)
- December 2012 (24)
- November 2012 (30)
- October 2012 (31)
- September 2012 (30)
- August 2012 (31)
- July 2012 (36)
- June 2012 (31)
- May 2012 (29)
- April 2012 (22)
- 1 of 3
- ››
latest comments
I speak from experience. I was put in federal prison...
1 hour 31 min ago
Comments (14)
First of all, yes, ALL environmental laws are BAD.
This I state to be clear, and to engage in questioning of what are the environmental laws in principle? When and if you decide to discover what they are, you will see that yes, they all are very stupid. And it is not just that currently all environmental laws happen to be bad. No, they all bad in principle.
To someone who is afraid to be covered in neighbors soot, I must say that your best friend in defence against that soot is the law guarding private property rights. If, however, you are a communist (i.e. a person without an ability to think), then you'd throw away all the private property laws and then, when you breathing that soot in, you'll quickly construct something in their place, like the law "to protect the enviromnment". That law wouldn't work nearly as good as the private property law would. It would only ever be a "next best" subsititute.
Now, a bit about the story. Why does the city of San Diego attack an owner of a car, washing his property, with his own water, in his own driveway, instead of suing that owner for contaminating the drainage water?
Because, by doing it correctly, the city would approve of and made visible that person's property rights. By suing someone for effects arising from someone's use of his property rights, the city will be reinforcing the privatye property rights principle. That is what the city doesn't want to do. Instead, it assumes everything that could have happen in their favor during a court of law had already happened, and proceeds from there.
Thus, the mere fact of washing the car, becomes a verdict on consequent contamination.
Similarly, the fact of driving under influence, becomes a verdict of horrible accident resulting from that.
And so on.
So, what is going on here? Well, we see that the forces of communism are sinking in their inefficiencies. What they are trying to do is to hold on a straw. Their straw is to skip the process together with the risk of losing the case, and go straight for the bounty. On one hand it makes the bounty easy, but this is the view of a loser. From a viewpont of a fighter, what this means that if they were having to defend each case again, - they could not do it! They do not have the energy to defend themselves without the law being tilted in their favor!
This should tell us that their end is near. I sense their blood already. If they can not afford to fight anymore, that means that they are barely breething. All we have to do is to ratchet up the abuse of the system a level or two up. And make it as random as possible. Force them to increase the expenditure of the energy and they will not be able to cover it all (because their ineficiency means they eat through all of it, never saving anything for a rainy day).
Just like th USSR, this new union of soviet socialist states will not be able to deal with increasing expence and will collapse.
Straw man alert!
Reflector, have you heard of the tragedy of the commons? the "P roblems" that you refer to would best be solved by privatizing all "commonly owned property" given that collectives do not exist, only individuals.
also, please stop claiming that I was complaining about "all environmental laws." as I wasn't.
redmond, i like your article for the most part, except the very beginning was off on the wrong foot.
but please dispense with the "straw man alert" nonsense, do you even know what that means?
you did clearly state:
"Drug laws are probably the most inane (well maybe a close second to environmentalism..."
what kind of evil person doesn't like environmentalism?
environmentalism is merely caring about our environment, and the world around us.
environmentalism absolutely should NOT be conflated with environmental statism.
yes, i have heard of the tragedy of the commons, thanks for asking.
"the "P roblems" that you refer to would best be solved by privatizing all "commonly owned property""
i'm not entirely convinced this is true - long ago people were free to walk the earth where they liked. at some point people decided they could "own" land, basically meaning they were taking away its use from everyone else and keeping it for themselves, it's a strange form of black magic. who has the right to do this? the earth has existed billions of years before any human. what human ever had that right to make that initial claim of property, taking a piece of land away from everyone else, that up to that point was free and open to anyone? and if that initial claim of property was not just, then it was a fraudulent title of ownership that was passed on to others.
there is one other point in your comment i would like to challenge:
"given that collectives do not exist, only individuals."
if individuals can exist, then collectives can exist.
if you can see that collectives don't exist, then why can't you see that individuals don't exist?
Fundamental to all our behaviors is our will to live, our survival instinct. Combine this with what I call genetic memory and you have the key to understanding human activity. There are indeed legions of people who will do what they are told by the state, king, aristocracy, but in the same moment expect to be taken care of. Ditto: bureaucrats. There is a smaller group who resist the state or any outside authority over their lives. Unfortunately we all blunder around in the dark,
victims of our own ignorance - not understanding the roots of our behaviors. Until we do, we're screwed.
to slander all environmental laws with one broad brushstroke is foolish.
there are just and reasonable ones, as well as quite the opposite.
for example, if i'm your neighbor, do i have the right to gather a large pile of tires in my yard and set them on fire, covering your house in soot and polluting your air?
C'mon Reflector,
I post a reference to an outlandish green bylaw, and you come back with a total straw man - are you sure you aren't a paid environmental straw man?
At no point did I mention "all environmental laws" - did you even click thru the link? I am simply making the point that apart from the war on drugs, environmental laws are the most ridiculous.
Burning items on a front lawn and getting soot on someone elses property obviously violates the non agression principle, washing your car, obviously does not.
And yes, I am a global warming skeptic and proud of it if you were wondering.
Thanks for Reading.
@reflector:
I share your concern for the environment. Let's remember, though, that the most egregious ecological assaults are committed by agencies of the state or by the state-privileged fictional personhoods we know as corporations.
IMO environment problems are best addressed by protecting private property rights. Your soot covering my house would be a transgression of my property and is best resolved, of course, by my simply asking you, neighbor to neighbor, to dispose of your leaves in some other way. That failing, other non-violent means such as community admonition or arbitration through a disinterested, mutually agreed upon third party would be preferable to my siccing armed agents of the state on you.
Whatever else we may think of media mogul Ted Turner, he has done far more as a private land owner in Montana to protect and wisely manage vast tracts of wilderness and ranchlands than any federal agency such as EPA could ever do, constricted as they are by political pressures, corporate lobbies, and government budgets (funded by stolen money).
For a more detailed exploration of possible approaches toward private justice in an anarchic society via voluntary dispute resolution organizations, various articles and youtube presentations by Stephen Molyneux might be of interest.
@a:
yes, of course.
and whether pollution is caused by individuals acting as individuals, or individuals acting as agents of a fictitious entity known as a corporation, it is still a problem.
it is not merely about private property rights, however.
there are commonly enjoyed public resources, such as the air, the oceans, public parks, etc. - just because no specific person or entity is given a private title to these resources doesn't mean they shouldn't be protected from abuse.
thank you for recommendation on stephen molyneux, i've been wanting to check out his videos for a while now anyhow, i will look into it.
No, there really are no "public" resources. Everything comes down to property right if you carry it out. It's true nobody owns the air, but you do own your actions.f thoset actions violate another's property, you are the one to be held responsible. And yes, community standards can and will develop through the marketplace via mutual agreements so compromises will be made though they will be through mutual agreements rather than some externally imposed fiat.
do i have the right to gather a large pile of tires in my yard and set them on fire, covering your house in soot and polluting your air?
Of course you don't, and that would be covered already by tort laws (which originated in the anarchistic, common law). Redmond is correct in his characterization of environmental laws. I would suggest obtaining a solid understanding of what laws already exist before clamoring for more.
@anonymous:
"Redmond is correct in his characterization of environmental laws."
the term "correct" is a value judgement, it's your opinion.
please learn to distinguish fact from opinion before making unhelpful statements such as this.
to suggest that all environmental laws are bad, no matter what, is a simplistic generalization.
If you're actions are polluting the airspace and dropping soot all over someone else's space then you are aggressing against that person so the Non-Agression Principle would apply there, but arbitrarily created laws from the state to govern specific details while being funded by extortion are not necessary in a case like that where simple common law would be applicable. There are no valid justifications for statism or its self-proclaimed authority.
@dana:
i understand the point you are making.
however, you should understand that i am not justifying statism.
as far as "arbitrarily created laws", is there any other kind?
when i drive a car down the road, and that car emits exhaust, thereby lowering the air quality of the neighborhood and causing pollution, i am, technically, violating the non-agression principle.
does this mean i should never drive a car?
how much pollution is too much?
envirnomental laws, yes, while they are arbitrary, and yes, while they are far from perfect, attempt to set community standards and norms for people to limit the harm they do to those around them.
I feel my quality of life is lowered all the time because I see fat and ugly people who depress me and because I have to listen to arguments trying to justify the violence of the state. Car exhaust is the least of my problems.
That's the thing though. State propaganda argues that every little action is somehow somebody else's business, is destroying the planet or the universe or whatever. But I maintain that in a free market environment the costs of various types of little damages would be met and the market would steer technology to be less and less polluting without need of legislation.
Post new comment