• Here is a link to the full explanation: https://rollitup.org/t/welcome-back-did-you-try-turning-it-off-and-on-again.1104810/

Legal to grow and possess illegal to sell

Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
One possible way of resolving disputes is listed below, as far as the rest of your post, I'm not sure where to begin, it's sort of ripe with opportunity to be refuted. I'll consider doing that in another post later...maybe today, but I have lots of work to do today. Enjoy your day..

You should note when arbitration via the free market really begins to catch on, the anachronistic government courts will be further exposed as biased and incompetent. (like most people don't already know that)



Excerpted from an article in Reason Magazine -

My TV show on "market magic" this week looks at other things markets do that we're always told only government can do—like run courts.

People frustrated by legal bureaucracy and tired of waiting endlessly for government courts to make decisions now have alternatives. They can go to private arbitration companies and have their day in court without ever entering a government courtroom. An ABA survey of lawyers found 78 percent said arbitration was more efficient than government.

"But maybe the for-profit arbitrator is not fair or your opponent bribes the judge!" say market skeptics. That can happen. But if an arbitration firm gets a reputation for making flaky decisions or taking bribes, customers just don't use it. It goes out of business. That's how the free market works.

By contrast, badly run government courts, like other government agencies, never go away. When they fail, they just claim to be "underfunded" and demand more money. Congress usually gives it to them.
Click to expand...
That's a non-starter. This assumes willing participation by the plaintiff. DuPont refuses to acknowledge harm even when evidence to the contrary is presented. What non-coercive means would bring DuPont to an arbitrator or the courts for that matter? What non-coercive means would get them to pay when damages are levied? What self defensive force can be used when a family and a community has been unknowingly poisoned and their land rendered unusable by the activities of their large corporation-neighbor?

Article reference: http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/welcome-to-beautiful-parkersburg/

You assume some fantasy world where cooperative farmers just get along. Also you assume that people will not act in their own interests even though their activity harms others. You are a simpleton.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
That's a non-starter. This assumes willing participation by the plaintiff. DuPont refuses to acknowledge harm even when evidence to the contrary is presented. What non-coercive means would bring DuPont to an arbitrator or the courts for that matter? What non-coercive means would get them to pay when damages are levied? What self defensive force can be used when a family and a community has been unknowingly poisoned and their land rendered unusable by the activities of their large corporation-neighbor?

Article reference: http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/welcome-to-beautiful-parkersburg/

You assume some fantasy world where cooperative farmers just get along. Also you assume that people will not act in their own interests even though their activity harms others. You are a simpleton.
Click to expand...

I've been a lot of things, simpleton isn't one of them. Here let me help you with your poor word comprehension, "genius" (smirk).

COERCIVE is what the government is, from the get go. They operate a monopoly on the use of force over a given geographic area and deny anyone within it, the option of not being encompassed or obeying them. If you don't acquiesce they use or threaten harm until you do submit or you are dead. Even after you are dead they usually take a portion of your stuff.

OFFENSIVE FORCE is the kind you should already be familiar with ALREADY as you regularly endorse it thru your proxy; government, it's the kind of force where a person or group initiates aggression but not in a defensive way. Nobody has the right to use offensive force.

DEFENSIVE FORCE is a kind of response to offensive force and usually doesn't involve coercion or the initiation of aggression, it can be a response to aggression initiated upon another though and is justifiable. Everybody has the right to use defensive force if they are repelling offensive force.


Also, you are assuming that I assume something. Your assertion is false.

People generally DO act in their self interest that's one reason why government will always be corrupt, the people that hold the leash have no check on their power as they COERCIVELY forbid people from seeking alternative measures of mediating or existing without them. In a free market if you don't like the way somebody provides a given service you go elsewhere, that option isn't permitted with government, so they are immune from any market feedback and have no incentive to improve.

I could teach you some things, but I think your bad manners will need improvement before I can get anywhere with you, plus you seem a little close minded and sychophantic when it comes to sucking the giant schlong of the state. Would you like a towel to wipe up with?
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
Most people who strive for either all or nothing



End up with nothing
Click to expand...
Actually its the other way around. Not risking anything in life is a great waste of an entire life, after all, no one makes it out alive.
Better to have lived a short life doing what you love than a long life not worth living.

Just like worrying about the future is a terrible waste of an imagination.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
I've been a lot of things, simpleton isn't one of them. Here let me help you with your poor word comprehension, "genius" (smirk).

COERCIVE is what the government is, from the get go. They operate a monopoly on the use of force over a given geographic area and deny anyone within it, the option of not being encompassed or obeying them. If you don't acquiesce they use or threaten harm until you do submit or you are dead. Even after you are dead they usually take a portion of your stuff.

OFFENSIVE FORCE is the kind you should already be familiar with ALREADY as you regularly endorse it thru your proxy; government, it's the kind of force where a person or group initiates aggression but not in a defensive way. Nobody has the right to use offensive force.

DEFENSIVE FORCE is a kind of response to offensive force and usually doesn't involve coercion or the initiation of aggression, it can be a response to aggression initiated upon another though and is justifiable. Everybody has the right to use defensive force if they are repelling offensive force.


Also, you are assuming that I assume something. Your assertion is false.

People generally DO act in their self interest that's one reason why government will always be corrupt, the people that hold the leash have no check on their power as they COERCIVELY forbid people from seeking alternative measures of mediating or existing without them. In a free market if you don't like the way somebody provides a given service you go elsewhere, that option isn't permitted with government, so they are immune from any market feedback and have no incentive to improve.

I could teach you some things, but I think your bad manners will need improvement before I can get anywhere with you, plus you seem a little close minded and sychophantic when it comes to sucking the giant schlong of the state. Would you like a towel to wipe up with?
Click to expand...
Rob Roy said:
Some people wear their chains well, others do not.
Click to expand...
spandy said:
Strive for half assed, at best you get half assed.

But go ahead and sell yourself short. Makes those who reach farther worth more.
Click to expand...
So it's better to have full prohibition vs. Having the ability to legally grow and possess?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
I've been a lot of things, simpleton isn't one of them. Here let me help you with your poor word comprehension, "genius" (smirk).

COERCIVE is what the government is, from the get go. They operate a monopoly on the use of force over a given geographic area and deny anyone within it, the option of not being encompassed or obeying them. If you don't acquiesce they use or threaten harm until you do submit or you are dead. Even after you are dead they usually take a portion of your stuff.

OFFENSIVE FORCE is the kind you should already be familiar with ALREADY as you regularly endorse it thru your proxy; government, it's the kind of force where a person or group initiates aggression but not in a defensive way. Nobody has the right to use offensive force.

DEFENSIVE FORCE is a kind of response to offensive force and usually doesn't involve coercion or the initiation of aggression, it can be a response to aggression initiated upon another though and is justifiable. Everybody has the right to use defensive force if they are repelling offensive force.


Also, you are assuming that I assume something. Your assertion is false.

People generally DO act in their self interest that's one reason why government will always be corrupt, the people that hold the leash have no check on their power as they COERCIVELY forbid people from seeking alternative measures of mediating or existing without them. In a free market if you don't like the way somebody provides a given service you go elsewhere, that option isn't permitted with government, so they are immune from any market feedback and have no incentive to improve.

I could teach you some things, but I think your bad manners will need improvement before I can get anywhere with you, plus you seem a little close minded and sychophantic when it comes to sucking the giant schlong of the state. Would you like a towel to wipe up with?
Click to expand...
I was calling you a simpleton because you advocate simple positions that are not realistic. You are indeed a genius (smirk)

Please be specific how you would apply defensive force after DuPont poisoned your family and rendered your farm unusable by polluting the air, surface water and well water. I don't believe that there is one but you say there is. Specifically tell me what non coercive means can be used to seek restitution from an uncooperative DuPont? Run away if like. I don't believe you have a response other than general platitudes.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I was calling you a simpleton because you advocate simple positions that are not realistic. You are a very bright person (smirk)

Please be specific how you would apply defensive force after DuPont poisoned your family and rendered your farm unusable by polluting the air, surface water and well water. I don't believe that there is one but you say there is. Run away if like.
Click to expand...
You won't get an answer.
He Is only here to harass people
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
It's legal to possess tomatoes
The cops dint care because it is Legal to possess
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily agree with you 100%, I'd like a system where I can buy some and grow it aswell, using your tomatoes example, I don't want to have to always need to have some ready to go if I want to make a spaghetti bolognase tonight.

BUT to throw you a bone, if you want to support your idea I'd recommend you read up on the Spanish system.

Essentially you can grow a "reasonable" amount of plants on your property for personal consumption on private property.

You can also join a club and pay a "subscription" and recieve free weed as a benefit to "subscription" tho, so there is a legal loophole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top