what u talkin bout rights?

DNAprotection · Dec 31, 2013

see4 said:
I think this is where I and many of you disagree. I don't think the best plan is to discard the entire system, rather focus on what is broken and fix it. And just because there is no demonstrable affect you can observe does not mean there is none. If that were the case, we'd all be smoking cigarettes in our offices and local Wal-Marts. But what we need to be careful of is government using that as an excuse to create laws that constrict. And I agree the government can and has done that.

imo there is much could be scrapped and much to keep...but we wont know which is which because we are not willing to do and have not done the hard work in court it takes to achieve both at the same time...

DNAprotection · Dec 31, 2013

tokeprep said:
How are you going to make individuals responsible for the harm they cause...?

when people are allowed to truly be responsible for themselves and other humans, that is when they will start acting like such...
slowly erode their personal responsibilities for themselves and the world around them and u will see what we are seeing these days and as it continues it will only get worse...
we can start with:
where do your essentials come from?
what part of that responsibility do u bare?

Jack Harer · Dec 31, 2013

The constitution cannot convey or assign rights, but it doesn't try to either, it merely outlines what the drafters considered our rights. In the preamble of the constitution we see that all men are created equal, and endowed with certain inalienable rights.....Which tells me that the drafters of the constitution had in mind that our civil rights were really basic human rights, and applied to all men regardless of Flag.

tokeprep · Dec 31, 2013

DNAprotection said:
when people are allowed to truly be responsible for themselves and other humans, that is when they will start acting like such...
slowly erode their personal responsibilities for themselves and the world around them and u will see what we are seeing these days and as it continues it will only get worse...
we can start with:
where do your essentials come from?
what part of that responsibility do u bare?

Except humans have never behaved that way. We got laws and regulations precisely because people refused to be responsible for themselves.

DNAprotection · Dec 31, 2013

tokeprep said:
Except humans have never behaved that way. We got laws and regulations precisely because people refused to be responsible for themselves.

actually there was a model here on this continent from about 500 to 800+ years ago who acted in such responsible ways to themselves and to each other, and at the root of those cultures was a knowledge that all else that exists was their relative and should be respected as such etc and round and round...of course such cultures were rubbed out into extinction by those who had their own ideas of what humans were and weren't and how to force compliance etc...

DNAprotection · Dec 31, 2013

Jack Harer said:
The constitution cannot convey or assign rights, but it doesn't try to either, it merely outlines what the drafters considered our rights. In the preamble of the constitution we see that all men are created equal, and endowed with certain inalienable rights.....Which tells me that the drafters of the constitution had in mind that our civil rights were really basic human rights, and applied to all men regardless of Flag.

Jack the prob is that none of that works unless the court room is regularly exercised in efforts to check and balance...
when u were still walkin round in your ol bag'o bones u and i would go round and round on this and you always instead chose the path of legislation...now that your in the gr8 beyond can u see finally that if an issue is based in fact and rooted in human rights that it belongs in the court rooms, not opinion forums like elections etc...

cannabineer · Dec 31, 2013

DNAprotection said:
when people are allowed to truly be responsible for themselves and other humans, that is when they will start acting like such...
slowly erode their personal responsibilities for themselves and the world around them and u will see what we are seeing these days and as it continues it will only get worse...
we can start with:
where do your essentials come from?
what part of that responsibility do u bare?

The bolded is a common feature of utopian thought, and I disagree with it.

tokeprep · Dec 31, 2013

DNAprotection said:
actually there was a model here on this continent from about 500 to 800+ years ago who acted in such responsible ways to themselves and to each other, and at the root of those cultures was a knowledge that all else that exists was their relative and should be respected as such etc and round and round...of course such cultures were rubbed out into extinction by those who had their own ideas of what humans were and weren't and how to force compliance etc...

The model you're speaking of has existed all over the world (to an extent--some cultures have been more responsible and less selfish than others, but irresponsibility and selfishness have certainly existed in all cultures everywhere to some extent). The move from subsistence agriculture, vast increases in human population, and the concentration of that population onto fixed land areas permanently eroded and destroyed that model.

There wasn't much of a pollution problem when people were busy hunting animals and gathering fruit, we can agree on that! People aren't content with that today. They want houses, they want cars, they want technology, and they don't know or care about where any of those things come from or the negative impacts they might cause on the environment or other people. You don't like my car spewing pollution? Fuck you, I need to get around! I assure you people in the past would have been just as selfish and irresponsible if they had access to the same lifestyle. That they didn't makes the comparison totally unfair.

DNAprotection · Dec 31, 2013

cannabineer said:
The bolded is a common feature of utopian thought, and I disagree with it.

i've no doubt of that bro, but some folks do

http://www.oneworld-cafe.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_World_Cafe

DNAprotection · Dec 31, 2013

tokeprep said:
The model you're speaking of has existed all over the world (to an extent--some cultures have been more responsible and less selfish than others, but irresponsibility and selfishness have certainly existed in all cultures everywhere to some extent). The move from subsistence agriculture, vast increases in human population, and the concentration of that population onto fixed land areas permanently eroded and destroyed that model.

There wasn't much of a pollution problem when people were busy hunting animals and gathering fruit, we can agree on that! People aren't content with that today. They want houses, they want cars, they want technology, and they don't know or care about where any of those things come from or the negative impacts they might cause on the environment or other people. You don't like my car spewing pollution? Fuck you, I need to get around! I assure you people in the past would have been just as selfish and irresponsible if they had access to the same lifestyle. That they didn't makes the comparison totally unfair.

i think it might truly b helpful at this point to reread your statement above against the dialog here...

[video=youtube;LJRs2TnP9H8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJRs2TnP9H8[/video]

tokeprep · Dec 31, 2013

DNAprotection said:
i think it might truly b helpful at this point to reread your statement above against the dialog here...

[video=youtube;LJRs2TnP9H8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJRs2TnP9H8[/video]

First of all, it's problematic to try to combine the distinct beliefs of myriad cultures into one belief. I guarantee we can identify Native American cultures that did not share the views espoused in your video. Second, how many people have chosen to live within this culture in the modern day versus embracing something else? Doesn't the answer to that make my point?

Rob Roy · Dec 31, 2013

see4 said:
I think this is where I and many of you disagree. I don't think the best plan is to discard the entire system, rather focus on what is broken and fix it. And just because there is no demonstrable affect you can observe does not mean there is none. If that were the case, we'd all be smoking cigarettes in our offices and local Wal-Marts. But what we need to be careful of is government using that as an excuse to create laws that constrict. And I agree the government can and has done that.

The owner of the business should decide if smoking is allowed. The consumer that doesn't like smoking should speak with their feet. It's called choice. I'm glad you agree that there are things wrong with the system. I consider the problem to be systemic, as the system relies upon violating the non-aggression principle. So tinkering with any system that doesn't get to the root cause is like wishing mites will go away rather than exterminating them.

Rob Roy · Dec 31, 2013

tokeprep said:
Except humans have never behaved that way. We got laws and regulations precisely because people refused to be responsible for themselves.

It is important to distinguish between "good" laws that restitute a real victim and laws that protect privileged dick wads. Mala prohibitum etc.

Your point about human behavior could also be taken that some people that love and seek control use bad laws to their advantage and to the disadvantage of harmless people. That's why a crime must have an actual victim or it is a bullshit law and should be ignored.

Good people should ignore bad laws and fight to get on juries to acquit people charged with victim less crimes.

It could just as easily be said we got laws so some people can control others or legally steal from them.

DNAprotection · Dec 31, 2013

Rob Roy said:
It is important to distinguish between "good" laws that restitute a real victim and laws that protect privileged dick wads. Mala prohibitum etc.

Your point about human behavior could also be taken that some people that love and seek control use bad laws to their advantage and to the disadvantage of harmless people. That's why a crime must have an actual victim or it is a bullshit law and should be ignored.

Good people should ignore bad laws and fight to get on juries to acquit people charged with victim less crimes.

It could just as easily be said we got laws so some people can control others or legally steal from them.

definitely is something we should all be doing, but it must go hand in hand with stepping up 2b plaintiffs in human rights actions...law by litigating will serve us all, jury nullification without civil action will only end in more opinionated legislation that will 4sure serve a few but may not serve us all...
example:
alcohol prohibition in relation to jury nullification and the resulting legislation etc...

DNAprotection · Dec 31, 2013

tokeprep said:
First of all, it's problematic to try to combine the distinct beliefs of myriad cultures into one belief. I guarantee we can identify Native American cultures that did not share the views espoused in your video. Second, how many people have chosen to live within this culture in the modern day versus embracing something else? Doesn't the answer to that make my point?

how many people realistically have that choice? i'm not saying that people wouldn't choose your way, but many might choose otherwise if they realistically had a choice...
our style of democracy is to limit choices through the illusion that you have every choice possible lol...been in a market lately?
also i would like to see some evidence of your 'grantee' because i think the basic animistic view was held across the board in the cultures i referenced...

cannabineer · Dec 31, 2013

DNAprotection said:
i've no doubt of that bro, but some folks do

http://www.oneworld-cafe.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_World_Cafe

This is a negligible niche within a much larger society/economy. It does nothing to impede my point.

DNAprotection · Jan 1, 2014

cannabineer said:
This is a negligible niche within a much larger society/economy. It does nothing to impede my point.

everything is relative bro and that which u state as fact is really just a matter of opinion imo lol...but it did give u pinwom

i hear aloe or better yet concentrated oil from the cannabis flower will clear that right up

happy new year, u can thank me latter

DNAprotection · Jan 1, 2014

who asks the most relevant question pertaining to this thread and imo the most relevant question we should all be asking ourselves in this 'happy new year'...

[video=youtube;5modnIBpqTQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5modnIBpqTQ[/video]

DNAprotection · Jan 1, 2014

answer that question honestly and youll know what time it is...who knows...

[video=youtube;a4xjr9v5ehk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4xjr9v5ehk[/video]

DNAprotection · Jan 3, 2014

question...is anyone here interested in being involved (in whatever capacity) in helping to file a civil suit in fed court going to the effort to reestablishing our human rights in the area of possessing seeds and growing plants for your own use/needs outside of commerce etc?
a small window of opportunity still exists with regards to 'standing' but that window will be effectively closed when feds pass a law granting access through regulation etc...
the time to file is now...
theres some good folks here imo (not all lol) that i think could truly help to make a big difference...
a shot heard round the world is the idea, no mater the outcome of the litigation...
thanks, gooday'

what u talkin bout rights?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ursus marijanus

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ursus marijanus

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads