DEA:Cannabis to remain classified

[Rob Roy]

OK, but you don't recognize governmental authority. So if some government stakes some claim of land, then you come along and claim it as your own, you're automatically right in that scenario because the other guy is illegitimate in your mind

I'd love to hang out and chat, but I've got to get up early tomorrow. I'll leave you with this...

In order to have a productive conversation about this in the future I'd say it would be a good idea to establish some common understandings first. Humor me and give my questions a thought?

Who can delegate a right they do not possess ?

What is property and who can own it ?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Who can delegate a right they do not possess ?

This is an illegitimate question

"Who can give X when they don't have X?"

It's leading. In a representative democracy, elected officials are delegated said rights once they're publicly elected. Before that, they do not have that right.

So, nobody can delegate a right they do not possess (me/you), but publicly elected officials are delegated said rights by power of election

What is property and who can own it ?

Property is something owned by someone

Anyone can own property

 

[UncleBuck]

What exactly do you define as "offensive force"?

civil rights laws.

 

[ttystikk]

Totally agree. Only way to stop falling into the trap of fighting each other, is to focus on the people setting the trap.

PRECISELY.

 

[Rob Roy]

This is an illegitimate question

"Who can give X when they don't have X?"

It's leading. In a representative democracy, elected officials are delegated said rights once they're publicly elected. Before that, they do not have that right.

So, nobody can delegate a right they do not possess (me/you), but publicly elected officials are delegated said rights by power of election

Property is something owned by someone

Anyone can own property

No, the question is not illegitimate, but your answer is, since it lacks any logical foundation or consistency with the meanings of words.

If a person doesn't possess something and they join with many others who also don't possess that something as well, the aggregate of all of their zeroes remains at zero. That doesn't change simply because, "government".

The existence of individual people precedes government, therefore individual people would have to at some point possess a particular right in order to create an entity which they endow with that same right.

What you are really trying to prove (and failing at it) is that "government rights" (oxymoronic) can be conjured up from nothing and that because government is involved that logic can magically be suspended. Sounds a lot like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

Individual people have rights, only THAT person can delegate their rights, on a voluntary and consenting basis, if another person or group of persons has the ability to delegate your rights without your consent, how can they still be rights?


If property is something owned by someone, then the characteristics of ownership would apply correct? Meaning, the owner would have the right to determine the use / nonuse of the subject property.

Would you agree that characteristic is what makes owned property, property and not something else ?

 

[Rob Roy]

This is an illegitimate question

"Who can give X when they don't have X?"

It's leading. In a representative democracy, elected officials are delegated said rights once they're publicly elected. Before that, they do not have that right.

So, nobody can delegate a right they do not possess (me/you), but publicly elected officials are delegated said rights by power of election

Property is something owned by someone

Anyone can own property

If people are legitimately "being represented" wouldn't you agree that those individual people would have to expressly seek representation as individuals ?

If you don't agree with that, then all I need to do to become your representative is to declare myself a government and claim I represent you, right?

 

[Rob Roy]

Those mother fuckers..

Dude, my blood is fucking boiling right now..

Holding onto anger is like taking poison and expecting the other person to die. - Buddha


Here, let me show you how to let it go, take a giant hit from your best weed and as you blow the smoke out repeat after me like it is a mantra ....fuuuuuccckkk thhhhe DDDDEEEEAAAA !

I hope that helps.

 

[londonfog]

No, the question is not illegitimate, but your answer is, since it lacks any logical foundation or consistency with the meanings of words.

If a person doesn't possess something and they join with many others who also don't possess that something as well, the aggregate of all of their zeroes remains at zero. That doesn't change simply because, "government".

What you are really trying to prove (and failing at it) is that "government rights" (oxymoronic) can be conjured up from nothing and that because government is involved that logic can magically be suspended. Sounds a lot like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

Individual people have rights, only THAT person can delegate their rights, on a voluntary and consenting basis, if another person or group of persons has the ability to delegate your rights without your consent, how can they still be rights?


If property is something owned by someone, then the characteristics of ownership would apply correct? Meaning, the owner would have the right to determine the use / nonuse of the subject property.

Would you agree that characteristic is what makes owned property, property and not something else ?

Why did you send you children to public schools ? Do you vote ? Have you ever voted ? Do you pay taxes or do you refuse to do so. Do you take long trips using highways or fly in aircrafts ? Have you ever used the emergency room without insurance ? Have you ever mailed something or received mail ? Do you make long distance phone calls with the usage of communications satellites. Are you against hydroelectric dams ? Do you buy meats, produce, or diary from a store with expiration dates ? Have you ever called 911 ? Have you ever used the National Weather Service to plan what you are going to do the next day ? Are you against services that feed the poor ? Have you ever used the internet ?

 

[Rob Roy]

Why did you send you children to public schools ? Do you vote ? Have you ever voted ? Do you pay taxes or do you refuse to do so. Do you take long trips using highways or fly in aircrafts ? Have you ever used the emergency room without insurance ? Have you ever mailed something or received mail ? Do you make long distance phone calls with the usage of communications satellites. Are you against hydroelectric dams ? Do you buy meats, produce, or diary from a store with expiration dates ? Have you ever called 911 ? Have you ever used the National Weather Service to plan what you are going to do the next day ? Are you against services that feed the poor ? Have you ever used the internet ?

My children are adults, I hadn't connected the dots yet when they attended government schools years ago. A thoughtful person when exposed to new information (better or more logical) is open to changing their mind, so that's what happened in my case.

I do not plan to vote for anything / anyone unless it increases freedom. So I would possibly vote in a town to eliminate the police dept. or for an ordinance to cease theft of peoples homes by government etc.

The rest of the answers to your questions vary. However I assume there is a point to them, which you'd like to explain to me?



A question for you, are voluntary human interactions generally preferable to involuntary ones?

 

[Az-uar Iam]

Why did you send you children to public schools ? Do you vote ? Have you ever voted ? Do you pay taxes or do you refuse to do so. Do you take long trips using highways or fly in aircrafts ? Have you ever used the emergency room without insurance ? Have you ever mailed something or received mail ? Do you make long distance phone calls with the usage of communications satellites. Are you against hydroelectric dams ? Do you buy meats, produce, or diary from a store with expiration dates ? Have you ever called 911 ? Have you ever used the National Weather Service to plan what you are going to do the next day ? Are you against services that feed the poor ? Have you ever used the internet ?

All in moderation. Those are laws which most must abide by, but what right should the government have to regulate citizens who abide by the same laws that allow them to govern. You're right... But it can't be fixed cold turkey.

 

[Padawanbater2]

If a person doesn't possess something and they join with many others who also don't possess that something as well, the aggregate of all of their zeroes remains at zero. That doesn't change simply because, "government".

Police have the legal authority to enforce the law once they become police officers. Similarly, publicly elected officials have the legal authority to create the law once they become publicly elected officials.

You're assuming that since you don't have the power to create laws and I don't have the power to create laws, then nobody else does either. The power to create laws is granted to people once they are publicly elected to office.

You can disagree with that all you want and say that you don't think it should be that way, but that's how it works, that's the way it is

The existence of individual people precedes government, therefore individual people would have to at some point possess a particular right in order to create an entity which they endow with that same right.

What you are really trying to prove (and failing at it) is that "government rights" (oxymoronic) can be conjured up from nothing and that because government is involved that logic can magically be suspended. Sounds a lot like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

The power to delegate rights is granted to publicly elected individuals by the people that elect them

Individual people have rights, only THAT person can delegate their rights, on a voluntary and consenting basis, if another person or group of persons has the ability to delegate your rights without your consent, how can they still be rights?

You give your consent to be represented by a representative of the government by living in one of the districts owned by the government. Nothing is stopping you from moving outside said district and voluntarily removing yourself from representation. By choosing to live where you live, you are choosing to give your consent to be governed.

If property is something owned by someone, then the characteristics of ownership would apply correct? Meaning, the owner would have the right to determine the use / nonuse of the subject property.

Would you agree that characteristic is what makes owned property, property and not something else ?

The owner would have the right to determine the use/nonuse of the subject property so long as it follows the law. For example, it's illegal to discriminate against people based on the color of their skin, so if you owned a public establishment, you would not be allowed to discriminate against a group of people based on things the law protects against (race, color, religion, etc.). That wouldn't make the public establishment any less your property

Sure, I would agree being able to do what you want with your own property so long as it follows the law is what makes owned property, property and not something else

 

[Padawanbater2]

If people are legitimately "being represented" wouldn't you agree that those individual people would have to expressly seek representation as individuals ?

No, all you have to do is live in a district represented by one of the publicly elected representatives of the government

If you don't agree with that, then all I need to do to become your representative is to declare myself a government and claim I represent you, right?

No, you would need to hold a public election and win said public election with a majority of the votes

 

[ttystikk]

I was absolutely 100% shocked to read that our government has refused to reclassify marijuana.

Our fucking idiot DEA is not serving us well.

Couldn't Obama reclassify marijuana of his own accord?

I'm thinking we don't need a DEA at all anymore. Disband the entire fucking department, let that serve notice to all the rest of the Federal Government bureaucracies that if they don't serve the REAL will of We the People, they will be next.

 

[SneekyNinja]

I'm thinking we don't need a DEA at all anymore. Disband the entire fucking department, let that serve notice to all the rest of the Federal Government bureaucracies that if they don't serve the REAL will of We the People, they will be next.

Can't even get them to reclassify cannabis and yet you talk about somehow disbanding them?

Cool story, but back here in reality we'll keep legalising state by state and eventually the Fed's hand will be forced.

 

[ttystikk]

Can't even get them to reclassify cannabis and yet you talk about somehow disbanding them?

Cool story, but back here in reality we'll keep legalising state by state and eventually the Fed's hand will be forced.

By any means necessary.

 

[captainmorgan]

It needs to be de-scheduled not lowered and remaining unchanged is probably a good thing here in Michigan,if it drops to schedule II that means PPS will kick in and I believe they will try to take away personal grow rights if that happens.

 

[squarepush3r]

This is disgusting that Barack "Choom Gang" Obama let his DEA make this decision. Truly a sell out for big interests! Hillary is basically Obama part 3 so this is probably what we will see for the next 4 years also once she wins.

 

[schuylaar]

By any means necessary.

If only we had Bernie..

Bernie Says Get Some Chutzpah And Reclassify Already!!!

http://uproxx.com/news/bernie-sanders-criticizes-dea-reclassify-marijuana/

 

[Rob Roy]

Police have the legal authority to enforce the law once they become police officers. Similarly, publicly elected officials have the legal authority to create the law once they become publicly elected officials.

You're assuming that since you don't have the power to create laws and I don't have the power to create laws, then nobody else does either. The power to create laws is granted to people once they are publicly elected to office.

You can disagree with that all you want and say that you don't think it should be that way, but that's how it works, that's the way it is

The power to delegate rights is granted to publicly elected individuals by the people that elect them

You give your consent to be represented by a representative of the government by living in one of the districts owned by the government. Nothing is stopping you from moving outside said district and voluntarily removing yourself from representation. By choosing to live where you live, you are choosing to give your consent to be governed.

The owner would have the right to determine the use/nonuse of the subject property so long as it follows the law. For example, it's illegal to discriminate against people based on the color of their skin, so if you owned a public establishment, you would not be allowed to discriminate against a group of people based on things the law protects against (race, color, religion, etc.). That wouldn't make the public establishment any less your property

Sure, I would agree being able to do what you want with your own property so long as it follows the law is what makes owned property, property and not something else

Do public officials have the power to create laws which violate other peoples rights?

If they don't, wouldn't all of their laws then necessarily be in compliance with natural law ?

In that case their edicts are redundant to natural law and they and their institution would be unnecessary and superfluous. (not to mention an attractive place for power hungry shit heads to gravitate to)


If public officials do have the power to create laws which violate peoples natural rights, how and why are people obligated to follow them ?

 

[Rob Roy]

If only we had Bernie..

Bernie Says Get Some Chutzpah And Reclassify Already!!!

http://uproxx.com/news/bernie-sanders-criticizes-dea-reclassify-marijuana/

Right now Hillary is "having" Bernie in her dungeon with an 11" strap on.