Addicted to the Drug War

Ludwig von Mises Institute ^ | December 28, 2001 | Ilana Mercer

[clamper1797]

If your talking about the Emperor Norton event ... where we commemorate Wyatt Earps grave ... that's Jan 17 BUT it is NOT an initiation event. Are you coming in Yerba Buena chapter 1 ... if so private response me who your sponser is as I probably know him and he WOULD know who I am. I think it is totally way cool that your coming into the Clampers. If you don't have a sponser ... I'll sponser you.

[dcwusmc]

After you get your head out of your butt, answer this question: How is refusing to do business with someone initiating an act of either force or fraud? If I do not want you coming into my business, for whatever reason I may or may NOT have, it is surely my right to do business that way. I may not properly throw you out bodily unless you refuse to leave on your own, but I may not be compelled to do business with ANYONE, just as I may not COMPEL someone to do business with me. THAT COMPULSION is the initiation of force. Not that I expect you to see the difference until you take off your state-worshipping blinders, of course.

[tpaine]

Your zealotry for prohibitions has been well documented here. - Thanks

1480 posted by tpaine

Shrill? -- Do you deny that this thread is rife with your posts asserting the unconstitutional & absurd theory that the taxing power includes the power to prohibit?

I have no need to document this fact. -- Anyone here can read your words.

[tpaine]

Your zealotry for prohibitions has been well documented here. - Thanks

1480 posted by tpaine

Documentation involves more than shrill assertion.

Shrill? -- Do you deny that this thread is rife with your posts asserting the unconstitutional & absurd theory that the taxing power includes the power to prohibit?

I have no need to document this fact. -- Anyone here can read your words.

[Roscoe]

I have no need to document

Ah.

[tpaine]

Ah indeed.

- roscoe concedes.

[Zon]

One post right after another. Roscoe's dishonesty shows through ever clearer.

 

Shrill? -- Do you deny that this thread is rife with your posts asserting the unconstitutional & absurd theory that the taxing power includes the power to prohibit?

I have no need to document this fact. -- Anyone here can read your words.

1504 posted on 1/2/02 1:13 PM Pacific by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1483 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

To: tpaine

I have no need to document

Ah.

1505 posted on 1/2/02 1:18 PM Pacific by Roscoe

[Roscoe]

...be imprisoned for life, those who WRITE the illegitimate claptrap...

Quite the freedom lover.

[dcwusmc]

Except roscoe is so blinded to everything but HIS version of reality he actually seems to believe his own spewings.

[Zon]

He know's exactly what he's doing.

[dcwusmc]

Sure am. It's the legislators who write laws that imprison and/or steal the property of millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens AND their jackbooted lackies, such as your less than honorable self, that initiate force on a monumental scale such that all the Mafia, the drug-lords, all the "private" gangs in the WORLD look like Sunday-schoolers in comparison. So, yes, prison is letting you off EASY.

[Roscoe]

So, yes, prison is letting you off EASY.

You would burn the First Amendment in the name of freedom?

Orwellian.

[dcwusmc]

I wouldn't be surprised, but I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. Sadly, he leaves little doubt, though.

[VA Advogado]

Maybe instead, - we can make arrangements for your welfare family to get them at that point. I'll check with my lawyer to see if this can be set up.

If you contributed to social security half of what you contribute here in terms of wisdom, insight and intelligence (which is zero) it won't be worth your while or mine for you to contact legal aid.

[VA Advogado]

It was silly enough the first time. Ptaine.

[tacticalogic]

He's not so blind that he doesn't know his entire argument hinges on the liberal/socialist interpretation of the Commerce Clause that was forced down our throat by FDR. Why else would he go to such great lenghts to avoid any direct comparison of his position to the plain language and original intent of the Constitution? He sees, he just doesn't care.

[dcwusmc]

Oh, no. You always have the right to speak your piece. It's when you start taking action, like enacting unConstitutional garbage and calling it law or going out and ENFORCING such garbage and calling it Law enforcement that you get into trouble. It's when you break down folks' doors because they MIGHT have a substance you disapprove of, such as weed or (a BATFag favorite) fender washers, with blank or unsigned or non-existent warrants and wind up, often as not, killing innocent people or getting the FeeBees involved and having a barbeque. It's when you blame the victim of YOUR actions for resisting an already unlawful arrest and getting hurt or killed. Has nothing to do with free speech and you know it, thug. You know it well.

[Roscoe]

"Subdue by terror the enemies of liberty, and you will be right, as founders of the Republic. The government of the revolution is liberty's despotism against tyranny. Is force made only to protect crime? And is the thunderbolt not destined to strike the heads of the proud?" --Robespierre

Your role model?

[tpaine]

"He [roscoe] know's exactly what he's doing."

Needs repeating, 'boldly'.

Roscoe thinks his methods are 'cute', thus, I discount the cop/prision guard theories. - I envision him as a mousey little bureaucrat, stuck in his dreary job, playing the witty tough 'roscoe', as he sucks at the public sugar teat.