-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?
- Thread starter SacredBreh
- Start date
- Status
The black market is the ultimate free market...
If you have a lot of money to pay off the authorities it is. Once again, the little guys get fucked.
It is important to realize that ALL black markets are dangerous to the public health, damaging to the economy, corrupting to officials, and create a basis for crime. Honest democratic governments must never knowingly act to create situations which will allow black markets to develop, no matter how reasonable the impulse to do so seems at the time. It is also important to understand that legalizing the use of drugs will not encourage more people to use drugs, nor will it, as many have proclaimed, "send a message" to youth that drug use of any kind is approved of by society.
Educational, detox and rehabilitation facilities must be well funded, staffed and available to anyone who needs them. A drug-user's equivalent of "driving licenses" could be required for the Cat. B (and perhaps also for Cat. A users). This license would take the form of a required course in the effects, dosage, hazards and health risks, followed by a test and the issuance of an ID card similar to that issued to road vehicle operators. The user is then informed of all the pertinent facts. Both categories would require that the user be an adult.
These two categories would then be dealt with in the following fashion.
Those in Category A:
The plants and materials in this category would be permitted freely to be grown, processed, possessed, and used by an individual for the personal use of that person and immediate family, but cannot be sold. A small fee must be paid on a yearly basis by those exercising this right.
Individuals may, however apply and be granted a license to produce these materials for sale to others, provided they are of good character, and pay a licensing fee. All the sales made under this provision will have a small fee attached at the point of sale. These fees are not tax, and cannot be transferred to general revenue. All such revenue derived from this fee must be used in the following manner by government: A portion of all fees collected under this rule will be set aside for education, detoxification and rehabilitation, and the remainder will be passed on to the health service to help with defraying the costs of treatment of the increased number of ailments which are the result of such drug use. In this way the system is prepared to deal with any problems, by making it "pay its own way".
Those in Category B:
The material in this category may only be bought and used under the supervision and/or authority (prescription) of a medical practitioner, but otherwise are not restricted. The same licensing and fees for producers and sales as in Cat. A will apply.
Category A
This category includes all plants and crude plant derivatives including tobacco, opium and hashish, alcohol and (although not a drug per se) gambling. Including, but not limited to all plants containing the substances psilocybin, ergoline alkaloids, mescaline, cannabinoids, opioids, nicotine, caffeine, ecgonines (coca alkaloids) and ethanol. Although it is not a "drug", I believe the costly, socially disruptive and frequently addictive practice of gambling should also be grouped in this category, since "problem gamblers" often require counselling and rehabilitation, which is similar to that needed by people with problems controlling their use of drugs. Here too, advertising never mentions the odds against winning.
Category B
This includes all the chemical and highly purified products, whether derived from natural materials, or synthetic. Whether currently used in medicine, or not.
From zerohedge.com..
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest...t-we-nominate-our-own-president-we-can-we-are
Guest Post: Presidents Day - Why Can't We Nominate Our Own President? We Can, We Are
Submitted by Charles Hugh Smith from Of Two Minds
Presidents Day: Why Can't We Nominate Our Own President? We Can, We Are
Why can't the American public nominate their own candidate for president? It turns out we can, and are doing so for the first time in American history.
If the last 12 years have revealed anything, they have shown beyond reasonable doubt that both Status Quo political parties in the U.S. are hopelessly, ruinously corrupt and thus beyond any reform or redemption. We all know why: it now takes millions of dollars to run costly mainstream media election campaigns, and the only source for contributions of that scale is the financial/corporate Elite.
It doesn't matter how you arrange the taxonomy of the financial aristocracy that rules the nation or how you subdivide it--old money, new money, family money, corporate money, etc.-- the bottom line is these campaign contributions are viewed by the aristocratic donors as investments that yield gargantuan returns in tax breaks, subsidies, bailouts, sweetheart contracts, "get out of jail free" cards for the shadow banking system, and so on.
In Social Fractals and the Corruption of America (February 8, 2012) I wrote:
This neofeudal, systemic corruption raises a simple question: why can't the American people nominate a candidate for president themselves, directly, rather than being left a false choice of whatever lackeys the corrupt, neofeudal parties have nominated? Answer: we can, and even better, we are.
Correspondent Cris V. alerted me to the existence of AmericansElect.org, the first national online primary. "Americans Elect lets you choose a leader that puts country before party. Americans Elect is a secure, online nominating process that combines our oldest values with our newest technologies."
In essence, voters register online and can draft a candidate of their choice, or review the candidates drafted by other citizens. There will be an online primary process where candidates will be pared down by a series of online votes by delegates (you, me, and anyone else who registered to participate). The final candidate will be entered on ballots nationwide as the candidate of Americans Elect.
Here is the Wikipedia entry: Americans Elect:
As Cris V. observed:
In their view, debt-serfs must only be allowed the false choice of voting for Tweedledum or Tweedledee, both of whom are bought and paid for.
If you are a member of the Upper Caste benefitting from serving the Aristocracy, then you will be serving your best interests by voting for one of corrupt parties candidates, Tweedledum or Tweedledee. Nothing will change in any meaningful way because the entire power structure is devoted to one cause and one cause only: suppressing or destroying any and all challenges to their power and perquisites.
Can an independent president change a corrupt aristocracy single-handedly? Of course not. But a single voice of independent reason and truth would provide a beacon of hope in a nation blanketed by ceaseless self-serving propaganda, looting, fraud, devaluation of our currency, debauchery of credit and the corruption of our system of governance.
I see no way to "reform" this base corruption except to ban all contributions from campaigns and fund elections from taxpayer funds. Is that a perfect solution? Of course not; but it is a solution. Eliminate all contributions of any kind and ban those leaving office from working for the government, or any lobbyist or government contractor for five years, and you will have a system which is less easily corruptable than the present neofeudal one.
Here are a few choice quotes from presidents of the past: Oh, how far we have fallen when Soaring Rhetoric (TM) has become the chief qualification to assume the Imperial Presidency.
Lincoln likened the case to that of the boy who, when asked how many legs his calf would have if he called its tail a leg, replied, "Five," to which the prompt response was made that calling the tail a leg would not make it a leg. (source, Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln)
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." (George Washington)
Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder." (George Washington)
"I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell." (Harry S. Truman)
"If you could kick the person in the pants responsible for most of your trouble, you wouldn’t sit for a month." (Theodore Roosevelt)
"Remember you are just an extra in everyone else’s play." (Franklin D. Roosevelt)
Interviews with CHS and Zeus Y. are now available:
My recent interview with Max Keiser (I appear via Skype about halfway)
Zeus Y. interview with Dennis Fetcho (MP3 file)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest...t-we-nominate-our-own-president-we-can-we-are
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest...t-we-nominate-our-own-president-we-can-we-are
Guest Post: Presidents Day - Why Can't We Nominate Our Own President? We Can, We Are
Submitted by Charles Hugh Smith from Of Two Minds
Presidents Day: Why Can't We Nominate Our Own President? We Can, We Are
Why can't the American public nominate their own candidate for president? It turns out we can, and are doing so for the first time in American history.
If the last 12 years have revealed anything, they have shown beyond reasonable doubt that both Status Quo political parties in the U.S. are hopelessly, ruinously corrupt and thus beyond any reform or redemption. We all know why: it now takes millions of dollars to run costly mainstream media election campaigns, and the only source for contributions of that scale is the financial/corporate Elite.
It doesn't matter how you arrange the taxonomy of the financial aristocracy that rules the nation or how you subdivide it--old money, new money, family money, corporate money, etc.-- the bottom line is these campaign contributions are viewed by the aristocratic donors as investments that yield gargantuan returns in tax breaks, subsidies, bailouts, sweetheart contracts, "get out of jail free" cards for the shadow banking system, and so on.
In Social Fractals and the Corruption of America (February 8, 2012) I wrote:
Longtime correspondent Kevin K. described the reality from personal knowledge:
By the mid 90's there was no better "investment" out there with a better return than "giving perfectly legal campaign contributions". Because of this, his "contributions" kept getting bigger and bigger (they are huge now, with much of the "perfectly legal campaign contributions" hidden by giving to PACs (political action committees) and funding things the politician wants funded rather than writing checks to a re-election fund that has a paper trail.
This neofeudal, systemic corruption raises a simple question: why can't the American people nominate a candidate for president themselves, directly, rather than being left a false choice of whatever lackeys the corrupt, neofeudal parties have nominated? Answer: we can, and even better, we are.
Correspondent Cris V. alerted me to the existence of AmericansElect.org, the first national online primary. "Americans Elect lets you choose a leader that puts country before party. Americans Elect is a secure, online nominating process that combines our oldest values with our newest technologies."
In essence, voters register online and can draft a candidate of their choice, or review the candidates drafted by other citizens. There will be an online primary process where candidates will be pared down by a series of online votes by delegates (you, me, and anyone else who registered to participate). The final candidate will be entered on ballots nationwide as the candidate of Americans Elect.
Here is the Wikipedia entry: Americans Elect:
It's not too difficult to see Americans Elect as the means by which Americans who want to opt out of the corrupt party system could nominate Ron Paul or another independent.
As Cris V. observed:
Clearly, the Status Quo parties fear and loathe anyone who isn't dependent on their power with every fiber of their rotting, corrupt, neofeudal being. It is also clear that there can be no real reform of anything as long as the two corrupt parties remain in control of the political Elite, which is funded and controlled by the financial Elite. In this sense they are partners in the larger project of looting the republic, transferring private losses to the taxpayers and snuffing out any challenges to their neofeudal power.
In their view, debt-serfs must only be allowed the false choice of voting for Tweedledum or Tweedledee, both of whom are bought and paid for.
If you are a member of the Upper Caste benefitting from serving the Aristocracy, then you will be serving your best interests by voting for one of corrupt parties candidates, Tweedledum or Tweedledee. Nothing will change in any meaningful way because the entire power structure is devoted to one cause and one cause only: suppressing or destroying any and all challenges to their power and perquisites.
Can an independent president change a corrupt aristocracy single-handedly? Of course not. But a single voice of independent reason and truth would provide a beacon of hope in a nation blanketed by ceaseless self-serving propaganda, looting, fraud, devaluation of our currency, debauchery of credit and the corruption of our system of governance.
I see no way to "reform" this base corruption except to ban all contributions from campaigns and fund elections from taxpayer funds. Is that a perfect solution? Of course not; but it is a solution. Eliminate all contributions of any kind and ban those leaving office from working for the government, or any lobbyist or government contractor for five years, and you will have a system which is less easily corruptable than the present neofeudal one.
Here are a few choice quotes from presidents of the past: Oh, how far we have fallen when Soaring Rhetoric (TM) has become the chief qualification to assume the Imperial Presidency.
Lincoln likened the case to that of the boy who, when asked how many legs his calf would have if he called its tail a leg, replied, "Five," to which the prompt response was made that calling the tail a leg would not make it a leg. (source, Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln)
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." (George Washington)
Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder." (George Washington)
"I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell." (Harry S. Truman)
"If you could kick the person in the pants responsible for most of your trouble, you wouldn’t sit for a month." (Theodore Roosevelt)
"Remember you are just an extra in everyone else’s play." (Franklin D. Roosevelt)
Interviews with CHS and Zeus Y. are now available:
My recent interview with Max Keiser (I appear via Skype about halfway)
Zeus Y. interview with Dennis Fetcho (MP3 file)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest...t-we-nominate-our-own-president-we-can-we-are
The use of draconian legal laws as deterrents, to attempt to eliminate ("control") drug use has already led to the widespread development of a powerful and dangerous black market, and in fact, any further movement in this direction will have the following inevitable results:
1. The use and distribution of drugs of all kinds will increase in direct relation to the increase in penalties. The penalties represent the "degree of risk" to the supplier.
2. The price on the street will also increase, removing ever larger amounts of money from the legitimate economy.
3. The number of dealers on the street will increase, especially those targeting the most vulnerable of our society- in particular, children.
4. Dangerous infectious diseases such as AIDS and hepatitis will increase, perhaps to epidemic proportions. At the same time, many more users will die of overdoses and blood infections due to the unknown purity and concentration of the drugs as furnished.
5. Crimes will increase, especially property crimes like burglary and armed robbery.
6. The increased flow of money into the criminal element will increase the likelihood of police corruption to the point where it will become the norm.
7. All political systems will be placed under great corrupting influence as the elements profiting from the money-for--nothing drug trade use their funds to buy influence to maintain the level of prohibition.
8. Our systems of taxation, already stretched to the limit to provide services will be threatened with collapse in the attempt to imprison all the people who will be convicted and require incarceration.
9. The lure of "easy money" will entice many perfectly ordinary citizens to become criminal cultivators in order to make ends meet (interested persons are urged to examine the American Broadcast Company News Special "Pot of Gold", Peter Jennings, reporter, on marijuana cultivation in the USA. Aired on 13 March 1997. and available on video from the ABC).
10. The money paid for drugs is not based on the real value of the drugs themselves, but is based on the risk of delivery, which in turn is the result only of the law. This presents us with an economic crisis of enormous impact, wherein a person with no skills, experience or education can have an income (tax-exempt), greater than the highest paid individual in the entire industrial world. Such a situation destroys the mutually agreed upon basis of modern society, which is the assumption that a person is rewarded, or remunerated in direct relation to their contribution to the economic whole.
1. The use and distribution of drugs of all kinds will increase in direct relation to the increase in penalties. The penalties represent the "degree of risk" to the supplier.
2. The price on the street will also increase, removing ever larger amounts of money from the legitimate economy.
3. The number of dealers on the street will increase, especially those targeting the most vulnerable of our society- in particular, children.
4. Dangerous infectious diseases such as AIDS and hepatitis will increase, perhaps to epidemic proportions. At the same time, many more users will die of overdoses and blood infections due to the unknown purity and concentration of the drugs as furnished.
5. Crimes will increase, especially property crimes like burglary and armed robbery.
6. The increased flow of money into the criminal element will increase the likelihood of police corruption to the point where it will become the norm.
7. All political systems will be placed under great corrupting influence as the elements profiting from the money-for--nothing drug trade use their funds to buy influence to maintain the level of prohibition.
8. Our systems of taxation, already stretched to the limit to provide services will be threatened with collapse in the attempt to imprison all the people who will be convicted and require incarceration.
9. The lure of "easy money" will entice many perfectly ordinary citizens to become criminal cultivators in order to make ends meet (interested persons are urged to examine the American Broadcast Company News Special "Pot of Gold", Peter Jennings, reporter, on marijuana cultivation in the USA. Aired on 13 March 1997. and available on video from the ABC).
10. The money paid for drugs is not based on the real value of the drugs themselves, but is based on the risk of delivery, which in turn is the result only of the law. This presents us with an economic crisis of enormous impact, wherein a person with no skills, experience or education can have an income (tax-exempt), greater than the highest paid individual in the entire industrial world. Such a situation destroys the mutually agreed upon basis of modern society, which is the assumption that a person is rewarded, or remunerated in direct relation to their contribution to the economic whole.
Yep, which is why income tax ruins a free market.
All the others taxes that don't go to defending our Nation, what the Federal Gov't main job is and shoud be. That does not include nation building.
RUKIND knocks it out the park again. Nice post.
That one post is the DELPHI TECNIQUE for dummys http://www.americanselect.org/ How they narrow the choices and you really don't have one. There are many more concepts and applications to it....They mock you on internet sites, never reveal their real views, hide in plain site and call you crazy as they boo you out of town meetings....or maybe drag you out of the Univ of FL screaming, "DON'T TAZE ME BRO." Meanwhile 10 cops drag you out and taze you in front of all the sheep.
Last edited:
I don't care about other folks being rich. I care about greed and 30 years of promise it'll work (if we just get it right.) Right will be a steady progression - father to the right. Money will further pool in fewer hands, just like the last 30 years.
Less ours, they have all the opportunity on the planet. It's not enough. We have about ~$74 trillion they want their hands on. Even they know they can't have it all but 30 years of stagnant wages hasn't changed minds. They still think we have too much.
In the last 30 years, the top has progressed 275x more than us. How small does our opportunity have to become before folks realize that fluffing the top doesn't generate macro economy? The Fortune 1000 workforce is smaller, not bigger than it was 30 years ago. So where do virtually all our Small Business Administration loans go, year-after-year? You guessed it, Fortune 1000 companies.
Ron Paul might not be a fan of bailouts. But IMO, he's a fan of feudalism.
I dont care if they are greedy as long as they have the same regulations as I do. I want them to be taxed the same way I am.
I also think only new items should have a sales tax and no used item should be taxed. such as buying a used vehicle.
I want an even playing field. I want corporations to hit rock bottom if they fucked up. same goes for the banks.
I want a say so in my gov't and our laws. Thats not going to happen on a federal level. This is the united states.. not the north american union.
I honestly love the idea of a socialism, but it is currently too corrupt. We need a change and ron paul is it and thats who gets my vote.
Ending the drug war alone will save many lives. I am not afraid of making some changes and taking some risk. I believe in a solid currency as well.
I want to opt out of social security as well.
I think you may be insane based on this post.
please stop with the name calling. I highly doubt disco is insane. we need to have open discussions about this without name calling..
I like your post a lot so dont think I am being negative. I just want to see people have respect for each other. that is all.
Just go to a website like reddit. Everyone there always resorts to name calling if you done see things the way they do. If you aren't atheist and vote for obama then you are insane.. or so they say.
I also have people telling me im crazy for only eating high fat carnivore diet and telling me that I will just get sick and die. The complete opposite has happened. most people just tell me I am crazy but I know better.
His "hardcore" interpretation is that we are already feudalistic.
I don't discount that he's a DC lifer whose son is enjoying the fruits of nepotism either.
Possible upsetting tin foil hat in there. Just sayin'
Yeah man, (natural) property rights!
Especially in one particular state.Who's that standing outside my door? Bang!
Cleetus, you just shot the Avon Lady!
I agree, but saying that Dr. Paul is a fan of feudalism is just absolutely ridiculous.
Yeah, but instead explain why ron paul isn't a fan of feudalism. its how you go about it that matters.
i agree with you, though.
Who is this they that you speak of? It sounds just like somebody describing the Illiminati to me. I actaully agree with nearly100% of this seaction. Some say the 1%, Some say the Elite, others that fight it say they are the Tea Party.....They try to divide us however they can. The they you speak of may not be who you think they are.....I admit I could be wrong.
On the surface it is the corporations, bankers, and Gov't but if you dig deeper it gets crazy. So I have a lot of people call me that
This one has a shark and a ramp
Owe, I think the shark jump was attempted but it was an epic fail. I see this one as complete nonsense.
I wasn't aware there's more than one. Do you imagine Ron Paul doing anything differently than the keepers of the time he wishes to return?
Broad yes, but is not their underlying message Mutually Assured Destruction?
Vote or Perish; the 2012 global rallying cry?
Lose, lose IMO. The illusion of choice.
Are there different interpeations of progressive theory? Rhetorical question.....
I don't see how he even makes a connection I can argue against. It seems like a futile to attempt to disprove a negative.
How does he think it applies. He just made a labeling statement and didn't provide an example or a "for instance"
- Status
