|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: Annapurna1]
#2133872 - 11/24/03 11:41 PM (20 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Annapurna1 writes:
are you trying to tell me that a consortium of elite corporations hasnt nearly cornered the US economy??
Oh, so now it's a consortium. And of course, you will say that any corporation that sells things in the US is part of that consortium.
You seem incapable of backing up a single one of your statements. Which "consortium" of automakers has "cornered" the US economy? I don't know about you, but last time I checked, I could buy Japanese cars, German cars, Italian cars, French cars, Korean cars.... is BMW part of the "consortium"? How about Hyundai?
Which "consortium" of television manufacturers has cornered the US economy? Which consortium of computer makers?
And that they dont impede on our freedoms as such??
No, they don't. I ask you again, explain to us how General Motors or Nike or IBM impedes any American's freedom. Be specific. What specific right has General Motors stripped from you? What action could you perform if General Motors didn't exist that you cannot perform today?
If you really are that lame, then its as simple as there's only a finite amount of resources...
And no one in a free market economy could ever control even the majority of any single resource, let alone all of it.
....and if one entity manages to acquire enough of them, then it is necessarily a controlling entity.
Again, you seem incapable of understanding what I am asking. Let's pretend for the sake of argument that someone (or some corporation) could actually buy every gram of silver in the US, and buy every single existing silver-producing mine in the US, and could buy the mineral rights to every single potential silver-bearing ore deposit in the US. How -- specifically -- would this decrease your freedom?
pinky
--------------------
|
Baby_Hitler
Errorist



Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,587
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 hour, 31 minutes
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: Phred]
#2133889 - 11/24/03 11:49 PM (20 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
There is only one property law in the world.
If you can take it, it's yours.
Many of these starving people have had billions of dollars of intellectual property stolen from them by big business, particularly the pharmaceutical industry.
The san tribe of Africa is negotiating with a pharmaceutical company for compensation for a drug they discovered centuries ago. Rarely does any such compensation occur, and it is doubtfull whether the Sans will receive any either. International law doesn't seem to recognize those types of property rights.
-------------------- Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ (•_•) <) )~ ANTIFA / \ \(•_•) ( (> SUPER / \ (•_•) <) )> SOLDIERS / \
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: Annapurna1]
#2133909 - 11/25/03 12:01 AM (20 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Why do you think we start wars for oil monopolies...
I think the neocons have assured us they invaded Iraq for "freedom" and for "WMD".
I for one believe them...
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy

Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: Phred]
#2133969 - 11/25/03 12:21 AM (20 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Oh, so now it's a consortium. And of course, you will say that any corporation that sells things in the US is part of that consortium. You seem incapable of backing up a single one of your statements. Which "consortium" of automakers has "cornered" the US economy? I don't know about you, but last time I checked, I could buy Japanese cars, German cars, Italian cars, French cars, Korean cars.... is BMW part of the "consortium"? How about Hyundai? Which "consortium" of television manufacturers has cornered the US economy? Which consortium of computer makers? And that they dont impede on our freedoms as such?? No, they don't. I ask you again, explain to us how General Motors or Nike or IBM impedes any American's freedom. Be specific. What specific right has General Motors stripped from you? What action could you perform if General Motors didn't exist that you cannot perform today?
I cant answer specifically which rights have been affected. However, all of the examples you gave are very large MNCs that hold considerable political influence. As such their activities will affect our laws and freedoms. Again, i cant give you any real specifics, but in the case of GM, they bought out many public transportation systems in the early 1950s (direct involvement in municipal politics) to make ppl buy cars, which in turn greatly increased our dependance on oil. And without going into detail, that eventually led to 9/11 and the PATRIOT act.
Quote:
And no one in a free market economy could ever control even the majority of any single resource, let alone all of it.
But we dont live in a free market. And its precisely because of monopolies and oligopolies like the ones you named that we dont. In a free market, "intellectual property" (which forbids one from producing and selling certain items) could not exist. And you could buy cocaine and heroin in a supermarket (and again, its because of large pharmaceutical companies that you cant). So without getting into specifics, thats a prime example of how such corporations have impeded our freedoms. When they talk about "free markets" in the US, its the same as the Soviets claiming to represent the interests of workers. Sure, no one company or consortium owns the entire world (yet), but a relatively tiny number of them together come pretty close.
Quote:
Again, you seem incapable of understanding what I am asking. Let's pretend for the sake of argument that someone (or some corporation) could actually buy every gram of silver in the US, and buy every single existing silver-producing mine in the US, and could buy the mineral rights to every single potential silver-bearing ore deposit in the US. How -- specifically -- would this decrease your freedom?
Silver might not compare to oil; but it is still a vital commodity with a wide range of applications. So if that did happen, that entity would hold considerable influence; although maybe not to the extent of Exxon.
--------------------
"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
|
bigfatdork
Now I Have Teeth

Registered: 10/19/03
Posts: 1,310
Loc: North PoLL
Last seen: 17 years, 10 months
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: Phred]
#2134204 - 11/25/03 02:43 AM (20 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
pinksharkmark said: Annapurna1 writes:
If I were to invent a cure for AIDS tomorrow, I would need no plutocracy to become the wealthiest person on the planet.
some how I don't think you'd be all that rich, not unless *gasp* the governments stepped in and provided your drug to their ppl.. http://www.unaids.org/EN/other/functiona...FileSize=118836
-------------------- "But it was alright, he had won the battle against himself, He Loved Big Brother"
|
Baby_Hitler
Errorist



Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,587
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 hour, 31 minutes
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: ]
#2134223 - 11/25/03 03:07 AM (20 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mushmaster said: where's all the extra food going?
Alot of it goes to production of meat. Some goes to liquor/beer/wine some is made into fuel.
Some people just like to roll around in beans.
-------------------- Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ (•_•) <) )~ ANTIFA / \ \(•_•) ( (> SUPER / \ (•_•) <) )> SOLDIERS / \
|
GazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: Phred]
#2134316 - 11/25/03 06:35 AM (20 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Why should there be limits placed on the amount of money you can earn and the amount of property you buy from others with that money? Who has the right to enforce the limits? How (by what rational process) are the limits to be decided, and by whom?
I feel that the pursuit of limitless wealth will arrive at a situation where few have much more than they need and many will have less than they need, which in effect is where we are right now. To me this is a system which allows certain parties to restrict, impinge upon, and eliminate the freedoms of others. To me it seems obvious that championing the rights of the individual to the point where they are able to affect other individuals negatively is an idea that does not hold up to close logical scrutiny.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!


Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: GazzBut]
#2134948 - 11/25/03 12:33 PM (20 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
To me it seems obvious that championing the rights of the individual to the point where they are able to affect other individuals negatively is an idea that does not hold up to close logical scrutiny.
Indeed. My right to swing my fist ends at your face.
--------------------
  "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: Annapurna1]
#2135081 - 11/25/03 01:47 PM (20 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Annapurna1 writes:
I cant answer specifically which rights have been affected.
That's because none have been.
However, all of the examples you gave are very large MNCs that hold considerable political influence.
Which is why I advocate Laissez-faire Capitalism -- the complete separation of economy and state. In a free market the government has no influence on transactions, so being best buddies with a legislator gains you no business advantage.
Again, i cant give you any real specifics, but in the case of GM, they bought out many public transportation systems in the early 1950s (direct involvement in municipal politics) to make ppl buy cars, which in turn greatly increased our dependance on oil.
GM bought out public transportation companies in some cities? Which cities? What did they do with the companies once they bought them? If they continued to run them (using GM buses), what's the problem? If they closed them, why didn't someone else start a new one?
And without going into detail, that eventually led to 9/11 and the PATRIOT act.
Hogwash. Bin Laden didn't crash planes into buildings because of oil.
But we dont live in a free market.
Correct. We live in an economy that you are in favor of -- one where people are prevented from acquiring as much as they choose.
And its precisely because of monopolies and oligopolies like the ones you named that we dont.
The businesses I named are not monopolies. And the reason we live in a less than free market has nothing to do with GM or Hyundai and everything to do with government.
[In a free market, "intellectual property" (which forbids one from producing and selling certain items) could not exist.
Incorrect. You are confusing Capitalism with Anarchy. Intellectual property laws are not only permitted by a free market, they are required by a free market.
And you could buy cocaine and heroin in a supermarket (and again, its because of large pharmaceutical companies that you cant).
Incorrect. It is because of government that you can't.
So without getting into specifics, thats a prime example of how such corporations have impeded our freedoms.
Nope. It is a prime example of how government has impeded our freedoms. If cocaine and heroin were legal, you can bet that Roche and Sandoz and Bayer would be selling them.
Sure, no one company or consortium owns the entire world (yet), but a relatively tiny number of them together come pretty close.
Nonsense. Name one and explain which part of the world they "own".
Silver might not compare to oil; but it is still a vital commodity with a wide range of applications. So if that did happen, that entity would hold considerable influence; although maybe not to the extent of Exxon.
And I ask you yet again -- if it were possible (and it isn't) for a single corporation to own every scrap of silver not already in private hands in the US, what freedom would you lose that you hold today? Would you be unable to buy food or a car or a book or a television? Would you be unable to go jogging? Would you be unable to get married? Would you be unable to attend school?
What specific action that you are allowed to perform today would you be unable to perform tomorrow if all the available silver (a resource) in the US were to be bought up by a single entity?
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: GazzBut]
#2135298 - 11/25/03 03:15 PM (20 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
GazzBut writes:
I feel that the pursuit of limitless wealth will arrive at a situation where few have much more than they need and many will have less than they need, which in effect is where we are right now. To me this is a system which allows certain parties to restrict, impinge upon, and eliminate the freedoms of others.
HOW, specifically are they restricting, impinging upon, and eliminating the freedom of others?
You keep saying that this is your belief. You've said it countless times in various posts of yours here, but you have never given us any specifics. Specifically HOW does my owning two shipyards, three auto plants, eight farms, three mansions, a yacht, a private jet, and two Ferraris prevent you from doing something you want to do? If I didn't own those things, what other things would you be allowed to do that you aren't allowed to do when I own them?
To me it seems obvious that championing the rights of the individual to the point where they are able to affect other individuals negatively is an idea that does not hold up to close logical scrutiny.
HOW does my owning all these things affect other individuals negatively?
See, this is the where your belief doesn't hold up to close logical scrutiny. You seem to feel it is axiomatic that if the above things are owned by a single person rather than by a group of many people it is automatically a bad thing. Yet in all our many many conversations on this subject, you have never yet explained why it makes such a difference. The things aren't yours -- what possible difference does it make if they are owned by a single individual or several thousand shareholders or a hippy commune? How would the change in ownership increase your freedom?
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: silversoul7]
#2135307 - 11/25/03 03:16 PM (20 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
silversoul7 writes:
My right to swing my fist ends at your face.
Correct.
pinky
--------------------
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy

Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: Phred]
#2135407 - 11/25/03 04:13 PM (20 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Hogwash. Bin Laden didn't crash planes into buildings because of oil.
Can you prove that it was bin Laden and not the junta? And if so, how do you know it wasnt because of oil (directly or indirectly)?
Quote:
In a free market, "intellectual property" (which forbids one from producing and selling certain items) could not exist.
Incorrect. You are confusing Capitalism with Anarchy. Intellectual property laws are not only permitted by a free market, they are required by a free market.
Free markets are by definition anarchic. Intellectual property laws create artificial conditions of scarcity and must be backed by the govt with the threat of armed force. As such, "the complete separation of economy and state" which you claim to advocate is impossible under such conditions. "Capitalism" and "free market" are two different things.
Quote:
And I ask you yet again -- if it were possible (and it isn't) for a single corporation to own every scrap of silver not already in private hands in the US, what freedom would you lose that you hold today? Would you be unable to buy food or a car or a book or a television? Would you be unable to go jogging? Would you be unable to get married? Would you be unable to attend school?
What specific action that you are allowed to perform today would you be unable to perform tomorrow if all the available silver (a resource) in the US were to be bought up by a single entity?
To repeat: it is impossible to give a direct answer to that question, except that such an entity will necessarily become politically involved and that involvement will affect our rights. Just because theres no specific answer doesnt make it wrong.
--------------------
"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: Annapurna1]
#2136443 - 11/25/03 10:59 PM (20 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Annapurna1 writes:
Can you prove that it was bin Laden and not the junta?
Burden of proof. You are the one saying that it was GM's purported buying of pubic transportation that led to increased dependence on oil, leading to 9/11. I don't need to prove it was bin Laden, you need to prove your assertion that it was "the Junta".
Free markets are by definition anarchic.
Incorrect. Free markets involve contracts and mechanisms by which those contracts are to be enforced. Anarchy has no such mechanism.
Intellectual property laws create artificial conditions of scarcity...
Incorrect. There is nothing artificial about the "scarcity" you mention. Until Rubik's Cube, for example, was invented, Rubik's Cubes were not just scarce, they were non-existent. Once they were invented, it was Rubik, the inventor, who decided how many were to be produced. He had every right to do so, just as Dickens had every right to decide how many copies of "Oliver Twist" were to be produced.
...and must be backed by the govt with the threat of armed force.
Of course.
As such, "the complete separation of economy and state" which you claim to advocate is impossible under such conditions.
Incorrect. The government is not regulating the economy by enforcing contracts, it is protecting the rights of those who have had their property seized from them.
"Capitalism" and "free market" are two different things.
Only in that Capitalism covers more areas than solely economics. A free market is a "subset" of the concept of Capitalism.
To repeat: it is impossible to give a direct answer to that question, except that such an entity will necessarily become politically involved...
Incorrect. Such an entity need not become politically involved at all -- it need do nothing more than buy up all the silver in the US.
... and that involvement will affect our rights.
In what way? What right will you lose?
Just because theres no specific answer doesnt make it wrong.
The reason you can't give a specific answer is because your assertion is baseless. Admit it and move on.
pinky
--------------------
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy

Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: Phred]
#2136970 - 11/26/03 07:02 AM (20 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Burden of proof. You are the one saying that it was GM's purported buying of pubic transportation that led to increased dependence on oil, leading to 9/11. I don't need to prove it was bin Laden, you need to prove your assertion that it was "the Junta".
Your the one thats assuming bin Laden is guilty when he hasnt been proven so in a court-of-law. The junta, OTOH, does not presume innocence before guilt if they suspect someone of "terrorism", so its not unreasonable at all to apply that same standard to them.
Quote:
Incorrect. There is nothing artificial about the "scarcity" you mention. Until Rubik's Cube, for example, was invented, Rubik's Cubes were not just scarce, they were non-existent. Once they were invented, it was Rubik, the inventor, who decided how many were to be produced. He had every right to do so, just as Dickens had every right to decide how many copies of "Oliver Twist" were to be produced.
That may be the theory; but the reality is that the government enforces contracts on behalf of corporations and not individuals ("Fascism should be called corporatism, because it is a merger of state and corporate interests" [Benito Mussolini]). And even in the latter case, that contract would still allow the individual to gain enough money to buy out legislators if (s)he chose to do so. You might try to blame it on the politicians in both cases but thats the reality nonetheless. Again without going into detail, one could imagine scenarios where the need to enforce contracts (especially when ownership of contracts is centralized) could easily conflict against civil liberties, etc.
Quote:
To repeat: it is impossible to give a direct answer to that question, except that such an entity will necessarily become politically involved... Incorrect. Such an entity need not become politically involved at all -- it need do nothing more than buy up all the silver in the US. ... and that involvement will affect our rights. In what way? What right will you lose?
If you want a specific example of how corporate involvement in politics has robbed us of our rights, read The Elkhorn Manifesto. Now, in the case of your supposed silver monopoly, can you honestly deny that such a corporation would not become politically involved after they have bought up all the silver?? If so, you are an idiot.
--------------------
"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: Annapurna1]
#2138196 - 11/26/03 02:49 PM (20 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Annapurna1 writes:
Your the one thats assuming bin Laden is guilty when he hasnt been proven so in a court-of-law.
Oh, please. Al Qaeda planned and carried out the attack. Captured Al Qaeda operatives have confirmed that. This is no longer speculation. As for the court of law crack, Ted Bundy was guilty of murdering thirty women. Whether he had ever been captured and brought to trial wouldn't change that fact.
That may be the theory; but the reality is that the government enforces contracts on behalf of corporations and not individuals.
Incorrect. Government does both.
And even in the latter case, that contract would still allow the individual to gain enough money to buy out legislators if (s)he chose to do so.
Legislators don't decide contract disputes. Juries and judges do.
Again without going into detail, one could imagine scenarios where the need to enforce contracts (especially when ownership of contracts is centralized) could easily conflict against civil liberties, etc.
You keep claiming this, but you remain unable to describe such a scenario. Describe one or admit you are wrong and move on.
Now, in the case of your supposed silver monopoly, can you honestly deny that such a corporation would not become politically involved after they have bought up all the silver??
Why would they need to get politically involved? They've already achieved their goal -- they own all the raw silver in the United States. What do they need politicians for?
I ask again, let's pretend that such a corporation exists -- one which owns all the raw silver resources in the United States. They use some of that silver to bribe a legislator or a bunch of legislators to do.... what? What civil right that you currently hold today would the silver corporation bribe legislators to remove from you?
pinky
--------------------
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy

Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: Phred]
#2138283 - 11/26/03 03:29 PM (20 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Again without going into detail, one could imagine scenarios where the need to enforce contracts (especially when ownership of contracts is centralized) could easily conflict against civil liberties, etc. You keep claiming this, but you remain unable to describe such a scenario. Describe one or admit you are wrong and move on.
Fortunately, TrueBrode has found just such a case to prove that you are indeed an idiot:
Quote:
TrueBrode said: You are not going to win this. A) As mentioned before, the life liberty and pursuit of happiness statement is mentioned in the declaration of Independence, thus it has no bearing on any court argument. Nor does the constitution have anything to do with this, as the constitution has absolutely nothing to do with current statutory law codes, so that should not be drawn upon either in substantiating your argument. B) You are a sub-corporation of the United States; you abide by a contract imposed upon you when you are born. This means that you are not a sovereign man, meaning you concede to the rules of the contract of the United States of America Corporation. There was a recent case in regards to marijuana, the name escapes now, but the man tried to win his case against the government by claming he was a sovereign man that had inalienable rights. So why did he fail to win? Because the judges knew that when you are a citizen of this country, you are no longer a sovereign person. Had the man withdrawn his U.S. citizenship, he may have beaten the charges. This facet of American Government overwrites your argument that picking a mushroom for personal usage is a right. You have no right that the NEW sovereign (the United Sates Corporation) has not agreed upon, thus your rights fall into the hands of the easily swayed populous which elects politicians to make the laws for them. I suggest you read John Jacque Rousseau's The Social Contract and John Stuart Mill's On Representative Government, to better comprehend the principles of representative government and the sovereign. Then look into what the statutory court actually entails (why it was set up, how it differs from common court etc.), as well as its relationship to the American Bar Association and the Federal Reserve. It is an odd (and rather suspicious) relationship that many people do not know about, and thus do not understand why they cannot smoke a joint and claim it is a right. C) Now to your actual argument that you could document finding a mushroom, and keeping it with the sole intention of personal usage. Well if that were the case, you probably would not encounter police. If you keep your drug usage personal, at home and responsible, chances are you are not going to encounter the police unless you are black, under suspicion or you get a nosey pig on you hands. Nevertheless, the government agents/police that you are getting your information from are telling you a flat out lie/fairy tale that they feed the masses. Gang drug wars have always started DUE TO the illegal status of the contraband in question. Just look at the prohibition era and the violence that was spurred on between rival booze smuggling gangs- this violence was so great that it was one of the major factors in repealing prohibition. Furthermore, besides those lies, the truth is that the drug laws have nothing to do with ending gang violence; if that were the case then LSD and psilocybins would be legal seeing as they have never really been a "gang commodity";. The laws clearly state that the possession of these substances IS illegal, so if you find a mushroom; you are supposed to destroy it, leave it, or turn it into the police since it is considered illegal contraband. The fact that you could even recognize a psilocybin mushroom will hurt your case in court because it will suggest that you in fact have a knowledge of illegal psychedelic mushrooms- so you just did not stumble upon this mushroom blindly, you intended to seek it out and use it (illegally) to intoxicate yourself, or sell/distribute the mushroom. As the above posters said, the laws clearly state that possession is illegal. The possession laws are tricky, and quite ridiculous because they predetermine intent, but as I said before, when you live under the rule of a corporation you are bound to whatever laws are written into your contract. Therefore, in the end, you have no case. You have an illegal mushroom that you kept. You may get off once with a small fine, or possibly the charges dropped if you can convince the court (which may be fairly easy) that you picked the one single mushroom, and did not know it was a hallucinogen, but that will only work once. In that case, documentation is superfluous anyway.
As such, the mere existence of these "contracts" and the priveledges they confer to certain individuals and/or entities automatically nullifies whatever freedoms you might claim, especially the ones that your not even allowed to read let alone choose not to sign. That makes you not only a moron but a hippocryte as well... Anyway, i think i will move on without admitting im wrong..because im not.
--------------------
"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: Annapurna1]
#2138848 - 11/26/03 08:41 PM (20 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Annapurna1 writes: Fortunately, TrueBrode has found just such a case to prove that you are indeed an idiot:
Quote:
Blah blah blah... a lengthy and detailed explanation of a metaphorical "social contract" the US government claims applies to you by nature of being born in the United States -- which has nothing whatsoever to do with the principle of business contracts formed between two or more parties to determine the terms under which goods are voluntarily exchanged among them.
As such, the mere existence of these "contracts" and the priveledges they confer to certain individuals and/or entities automatically nullifies whatever freedoms you might claim, especially the ones that your not even allowed to read let alone choose not to sign. That makes you not only a moron but a hippocryte as well... Re-read the Forum rules post by Rono. It is a sticky at the top of the first page. Next, try to grasp the very clear distinction between the metaphorical (and many argue invalid) "social contract" TrueBrode describes and an actual business contract voluntarily entered into by two or more parties with their eyes wide open, then ask yourself who here is the moron. Let's go back to the beginning of this exchange: Your assertion is that if people are allowed to accumulate as much wealth as they are able, our freedoms and/or rights would be reduced. As yet you have given no specific example of which rights or freedoms would be reduced, nor any hint of how they would be reduced. Instead, with each post you attempt to pull the discussion further afield. Even when I simplified it as much as possible, breaking it down into an easy to grasp hypothetical (albeit impossible) situation of a corporation managing to corner the market on a single resource, and asking very clearly-worded, direct questions devoid of jargon, you have failed to answer. Anyway, i think i will move on without admitting im wrong..because im not. Here's the thing -- anyone can make unsupported assertions, then walk off in a huff claiming they are right. If you find it odd I remain unconvinced you are right, so be it. pinky
--------------------
|
GazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: Phred]
#2144150 - 11/29/03 10:47 AM (20 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
HOW, specifically are they restricting, impinging upon, and eliminating the freedom of others?
By pursuing unlimited wealth people are hoarding more than they need. It is inefficient. This kind of wealth should be spread more evenly about. I realise that humans are a subsection of a larger organism, not just a group of individuals competing blindly against each other to accumulate ferraris and mansions. You woulnt like it if certain parts of your body started to take resources they didnt really need at the expense of other parts of your body because eventually you would die. Try actually taking some mushrooms, and give the matter some serious thought.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: GazzBut]
#2145191 - 11/29/03 06:59 PM (20 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
GazzBut writes:
By pursuing unlimited wealth people are hoarding more than they need.
In some cases it is undeniable that certain people end up with more than they and their family need. How does their possessing things restrict your freedom? Which rights of yours have they violated?
It is inefficient.
Inefficiency is not equivalent to restricting freedom.
This kind of wealth should be spread more evenly about.
Why? By whom?
I realize you have convinced yourself it is moral to seize the belongings of others by force. You have yet to explain the process by which you arrived at this belief. How is restricting the freedom of people and violating their rights correct?
I realise that humans are a subsection of a larger organism, not just a group of individuals competing blindly against each other to accumulate ferraris and mansions.
Your realization is faulty. Humans are not bees or ants, they are individuals.
I ask again, how does your owning a mansion and a Ferrari infringe upon my freedom? How does your owning of a mansion and a Ferrari violate my rights?
You woulnt like it if certain parts of your body started to take resources they didnt really need at the expense of other parts of your body because eventually you would die.
To repeat, humans are not colonial entities such as ants or bees or coral polyps or jellyfish. Your purchase of a computer didn't take rice out of the mouth of a Laotian peasant. You took no resources from him at all. The computer you don't really need didn't come at his expense and is not hastening his death.
And I really do hate to be tedious about this, but you still haven't demonstrated to us how your ownership of a mansion and a Ferrari prevents me from owning a cottage and a Rover.
No one is dying because Bill Gates owns a gigantic mansion. His mansion didn't come at the expense of my rented rooms. The champagne the Rockefellers drink at dinner didn't come at the expense of the Guiness the shop clerk drinks with his mates at the pub.
Your hyperbole would be amusing if it weren't for the fact that you actually seem to believe it.
Try actually taking some mushrooms, and give the matter some serious thought.
Ah. The standard Libbie lament. The reason I believe what I do must not be because I have spent more than three decades thinking about things like this, reading about this, having endless discussions with people from all walks of life -- no, it must be because I am too rational. "Take some mushrooms and you will see the light". Sorry, but I have probably done more entheogens in my time on this planet than you have.
Since you have spent some time on this board, you must be aware that many beliefs commonly held by those who oppose drugs are dead wrong. For example, these people believe that mushrooms fry your brain.
I can assure you these people are wrong on that point.
pinky
--------------------
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The Twelve Myths of Hunger [Re: GazzBut]
#2145752 - 11/30/03 01:58 AM (20 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Try actually taking some mushrooms, and give the matter some serious thought.
Mushrooms only stimulate thought in those predisposed to thinking.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
|