Skip to comments.Is It Okay to Steal if You’re from the Government?
Posted on 02/13/2013 10:06:09 AM PST by Kaslin
In early January, I shared a libertarian purity test based on 64 questions.
I was a bit disappointed that I only scored a 94 out of a possible 160, but my excuse is that it was really a test of anarcho-capitalism. And as I explained when sharing this amusing video, Im only in favor of getting rid of 90 percent of government.
But maybe the simplest test of libertarianism (and also the simplest test of whether youre a decent human being) is to see whether youre upset by the following story.
It combines the lunacy of the drug war with the evil of asset forfeiture.
Here are some of the truly disgusting details from the OC Weekly. First we learn about the victims of this government abuse.
he and his wife purchased the Anaheim building, which has suites for up to 12 offices, in 2003 and that her dental practice was located there. Over the years, theyve rented to a variety of tenants, from insurance companies to an immigration service.
This unfortunate couple rented space to a group that seemed to comply with federal and state legal requirements.
on June 11, 2011, he began renting to a club called ReLeaf Health & Wellness. Because of the Ogden memo, because medical marijuana was legal under state law, and because his tenants held business permits from the city, he figured he wasnt doing anything illegal. I am a law-abiding citizen, he says. I didnt think I was doing anything wrong.
But the city of Anaheim and the jackboots at the Drug Enforcement Administration targeted the tenant, and then decided to try and steal the property of the landlord!
On Dec. 2, 2011, an undercover officer posing as a patient with a legitimate doctors recommendation for cannabissomething required of all entrants to the collectivepurchased 4.2 net grams of marijuana for $37. The investigation ended there, but the single sale was enough evidence for the DEA to argue that the otherwise-harmless computer engineer and dentist should lose their retirement-investment property. The lawyer for the engineer and dentist who may be in the process of losing their nest egg is Matthew Pappas. The only evidence in this case is a $37 purchase of medical marijuana and an anonymous comment on a website that anybody could have written, Pappas says. For this, they want to take a $1.5 million building.
You may be thinking that you missed something, that certainly the federal government wouldnt steal an entire building simply because a tenant may have broken a silly drug law. Especially when its very ambiguous whether a crime actually took place.
But you didnt miss a thing. This is pure, unadulterated, evil government.
And if youre not already feeling some libertarian blood flowing through your veins, here are some additional examples of government thuggery.
Yes, this is why were paying taxes. And Obama just got one tax increase and now hes asking for another tax increase!
The ONLY thing that gives me comfort is the FACT that ALL Leaders and World Goverments throughout History will have to give Account to ALMIGHTY G*D at the “Great White Throne” Judgement and I will be there to watch.
King James Version (KJV)
10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Want to see some lunacy? Legalize drugs. You'll think you're living in hell ... or an insane asylum.
Or a crack house.
Take your pick.
Or a crack house.
You expect drug use to explode if they're legalized? Why - do YOU plan to use drugs if they're legalized?
NOAA requested a video of the episode, which Black sent after editing it slightly to highlight the whistling.
Ummm...I do not side with the Gubmint on this one but...
...what was her motive for enhancing the video? To make the incident more egregious than it was to highlight her outrage and indignation in defense of a whale's fine sensibilities?
NOAA apparently saw it this way and Ms. Black got her smack down. What she did, at the very least, was morally wrong. What other reason would she have for doing what she did?
78 here. "51-90 points: You are a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much." LOL!
I doubt there would be that many more users, as it is, they just congregate where the rules are more lenient, or where they can make the most money (where the rules are strict). We didn't have those laws before 1900 and the country just fell apart, right?
Your score is...98.
You have entered the heady realm of hard-core libertarianism. Now doesn't that make you feel worse that you didn't get a perfect score?
Yes. And no. Remove the prohibitions and its partaaaay time! Yes, people will go nuts -- and if they screw with crank or crack or horse, they're very possibly going to get hooked very quickly.
Yes. And no.
So you're part of an enlightened elite that's above such things, but the unwashed masses won't live up to your high standards. Gee, where <cough>liberals!</cough> have I heard that sort of thinking before?
It's likelier that those who are undeterred by the inherent negative consequences of drug use are also undeterred by their illegality - so legalization won't make a lot of difference.
Then there's no reason to expect an increase in use with legalization.
One of the fundamental problems with drug-laws is that they are attractive to the sort of tyrant that CS Lewis talks about when he said this:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.This is completely ignoring the fact that we do have forfeiture-laws which make it profitable for the enforcement agencies to aggressively [and unaccountably] enforce these laws, or the fact that they are incompatible with the Constitution itself.
The interstate regulation that the judiciary uses to justify the War on Drugs [AKA the commerce clause], is inapplicable: for the 'States' is in the midst of 'foreign nations' and 'Indian tribes', and to assert the [right to the] sort of control that the federal-government does upon a foreign nation is to declare war upon them, and to exercise that control is to wage war upon them... it is thus that the War on Drugs is noting less than treason as defined by the Constitution, the waging of war upon the several States.
“Yes. And no. Remove the prohibitions and its partaaaay time! Yes, people will go nuts — and if they screw with crank or crack or horse, they’re very possibly going to get hooked very quickly.”
Actual facts dispute this notion. Consider the Portugese and Dutch experiences with quasi-legalization. In both cases, marajuana use pretty much stayed the same while hard drug use actually decreased.
Let me add, I did answer yes or no where there might see a need to do so although on some things, I’d try other options before exercising the options given by the test. No test is perfect but they can come close.
Do we have statistics on countries that have fully legalized drugs? What were the effects on crime and people?
Also, what drugs were easily available in early America? I know that alcohol use was very popular in the early 19th century America.
You tell me. (Hint: opiates were available OTC, as was cocaine).
And while the lot here debate the pros vs. cons, the question(s) that never gets brought up:
Why does gov’t need power/law XYZ?
What area of the Constitution grants power/law XYZ?
Would this not be better handled or legal at the State level?
What further Rights, Liberty and/or Freedom be impacted by law XYZ?
IMHO, these are the true test of all (L) doctrine.
(Take the EPA as a shining example).
IMHO, this is not just surrendering power by the legislature, it is passing the buck so the legislators can be reelected despite the insanity of some of the regulations which will (predictably) result. Checks and balances are damaged as a result, and the agencies get to write their own ticket.
I rank that up there with the Separation of Powers that should be reigned in by the courts, or We the People as a last resort.
My thoughts are: We the People gave gov’t SOME power to do a limited amount of ‘things’. We did NOT give them the authority to delegate the same, nor to shirk their duties. (Fed, EPA, Dept. of XYZ).
Unfortunately, voting them out is the only ‘punishment’, there is no teeth to any instance of when they go outside those responsibilities. Especially not when the Justice system is paid by the same (outlaws) group.