Calif. pot dispensaries told by feds to shut down

[tenthirty]

So the answer is giving absolute power to the corporations by removing the gov from the equation, to do whatever they please? You think they are just going to go away and we'll all be living off the sweat of our own brows? The rugged individual indeed. Hopefully everyone has their own oil/gas wells drilled, enough land to provide food for their families, enough education to treat their own medical conditions etc. Or do you propose that the US population would be content living a hunter gatherer lifestyle?

You've got it backwards. Large corporations buy favors from the government! The government has the ultimate power of who is successful and who fails... As long as large corporations are allowed to give money to politicians, they will be able to rig the game.

We need a very small government that is is not allowed to take money from corporations or unions for that matter.

What would be the outcome of a football game if the referees were allowed to take money from the team owners and players?

 

[tenthirty]

I see a lot of closeted fascism in some of these posts. but one thing I see is out right fascism in the government the repubs in particular, and a complete lack of understanding by the public at large what that means for a country that sent a bunch of folks to die to stop the spread of it.

Fascism, Socialism, Communism, the outcome is always the same, ultimately a dictator calling the shots and the common people nearly slaves.

What we need is less government, not more!!

 

[cobcoop]

You've got it backwards. Large corporations buy favors from the government! The government has the ultimate power of who is successful and who fails... As long as large corporations are allowed to give money to politicians, they will be able to rig the game.

We need a very small government that is is not allowed to take money from corporations or unions for that matter.

What would be the outcome of a football game if the referees were allowed to take money from the team owners and players?

Then who checks the power of said corporations? I agree that regulation in certain areas should be curtailed. I also stated that we need to remove corporate/purchased influence from government, so not sure how thats backward. My point was that under Ron Paul's ideals EVERYTHING would be privatized (privatized is code for corporate-run FYI), which would be disastrous for this country. People get wrapped up in this ideal of having the government out of our daily lives, which in some circumstances is appropriate, but the reality is that there are aspects of our culture which require that we as a nation work together.

 

[Rukind]

The gov't is just as easily corrupted as the corporations. With the gov't in control, corporations have more power if they have more money. Which ever corporation has the most money has the most power and influences who is in charge of our gov't.

I feel we should minimize the gov't and let the free market decide. It will work itself out. Nothing is perfect, but I will choose being free any day.

The united states is based off of this idea. The united states of america is not just 1 big country, it is a group of states. The states work just like the free market and gives more power to the individuals.

In a free market, you cannot be too big to fail. If you fuck up, move out of the way, you lose. Even if it is your bank that fails, tough luck. You should have chose another bank. Not everything in life is perfect and sometimes you just got to suck it up. Maybe we shouldn't be using "legal tender" as money anyways. It is a lot like evolution and natural selection. Nature always works itself out.

If anything, corporations will have less power to do as they want if we reduced our gov't.
You dont have to give your money to any corporation, that is your option in a free market. In this society we dont have much of a choice anymore.

This country is not about socialism and big government. People died for what we have now and its being taken away from us. Nothing last forever, but we need to do our best to stay free. Why does it matter what I put in my own body if i dont harm another person on this planet? its all bullshit and anyone that smokes weed or has done a psychedelic knows this. That is one of the reasons why we aren't allowed to use them. Besides the pharmaceutical companies.

My own body makes dmt but I cant use it.. we have thc receptors in our body but we cant use this?

this is a war on personal freedom.. bill hicks said it best.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

... I feel we should minimize the gov't and let the free market decide.

Been there and done that, was called the 'guilded age'.

 

[Rukind]

Been there and done that, was called the 'guilded age'.

do you mean the gilded age?

"The Gilded Age is most famous for the creation of a modern industrial economy. During the 1870s and 1880s, the U.S. economy grew at the fastest rate in its history, with real wages, wealth, GDP, and capital formation all increasing rapidly"

or maybe you are talking about something else. or maybe you are just agreeing with me.

There is no perfect world, not even in nature. At least in a free market, anything is possible and has a chance.

After we fix this shit, then we need to start thinking about our social structure and the point of living. since our current social structure is based off of Parkinson's law. which is, only to continue. it doesn't really give us much of a purpose does it? If we keep this mindset we will destroy ourselves. One thing at a time I guess. It really doesn't matter what we choose. Eventually we will find out what works and what doesn't. Hopefully it wont be too late.

I think with the help of the internet, we are becoming a lot like mycelium. which is awesome. maybe things will change somdeay.

 

[Kitana]

sad news for cali

 

[GOT DANK]

it already started in SoCal Pomona. dea and local cops raided a shop. took all meds but didn't charge anyone yet.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

... At least in a free market, anything is possible and has a chance.

Like carpetbaggers and robber barons.

 

[Rukind]

Like carpetbaggers and robber barons.

Sorry, man. I am not familiar with carpetbaggers or robber barons.

what is your point of view? i am interested in everyone's idea's. if we aren't open to all idea',s then we can never find out what is true.

I guess that is why i am agnostic.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Are you familiar with Alan Greenspan? He's the lifelong free marketeer who painfully confessed before congressional committee that free markets don't govern good business practices.

There are many areas and aspects that don't require regulation. But honesty, morality and ethics aren't universally inherent. It goes against the tenants of law and order to assume we don't need it.

 

[Rukind]

Are you familiar with Alan Greenspan? He's the lifelong free marketeer who painfully confessed before congressional committee that free markets don't govern good business practices.

There are many areas and aspects that don't require regulation. But honesty, morality and ethics aren't universally inherent. It goes against the tenants of law and order to assume we don't need it.

I have heard of Alan Greenspan, but I didn't know too much about him. I will read more about him. maybe he is greedy. The federal (private) reserve is a piece of shit in my opinion anyways. I dont see how he can support a free market when he admitted later that there was no free market with the federal reserve. It is regulation. It not like he just woke up one day and said "now that i think about it, this isn't a free market". He has always known this since he was chairman.

What does govern good business practices?

No matter what, there will always be corruption. nothing will ever stop that. Who regulates the people that regulate? If things were more open, there would be more competition. I think competition is the most important part of an economy. If there is too many regulations (controlled by the gov't and not the citizens), only the ones with wealth will succeed and no one else has a chance. Regulations should be left up to the states. For example, if Michigan has more regulations and it works out for that state, then people in other states could vote for the same type of regulations. it works itself out. I try to view it like evolution I guess.

Maybe my logic is wrong. One day we will find out. Hopefully sooner than later. Lots of things are changing, dots are connecting, and faster than ever before.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I have heard of Alan Greenspan, but I didn't know too much about him. I will read more about him. maybe he is greedy. The federal (private) reserve is a piece of shit in my opinion anyways. I dont see how he can support a free market when he admitted later that there was no free market with the federal reserve. It is regulation. It not like he just woke up one day and said "now that i think about it, this isn't a free market". He has always known this since he was chairman.

Greenspan didn't pontificate whether a cloud exists. He acknowledged that people can and will corrupt the system.

What does govern good business practices?

Ever thought about a business curriculum?

No matter what, there will always be corruption. nothing will ever stop that.

Nothing ever stopped the need for law enforcement. Yours is no argument to start now.

Who regulates the people that regulate?

Not who. What regulates regulators? Laws and their enforcement.

If things were more open, there would be more competition. I think competition is the most important part of an economy. If there is too many regulations (controlled by the gov't and not the citizens), only the ones with wealth will succeed and no one else has a chance. Regulations should be left up to the states. For example, if Michigan has more regulations and it works out for that state, then people in other states could vote for the same type of regulations. it works itself out. I try to view it like evolution I guess.

Check out the interstate commerce clause.

 

[Rukind]

Greenspan didn't pontificate whether a cloud exists. He acknowledged that people can and will corrupt the system.

Ever thought about a business curriculum?

Nothing ever stopped the need for law enforcement. Yours is no argument to start now.

Not who. What regulates regulators? Laws and their enforcement.

Check out the interstate commerce clause.

I dont disagree that we need law enforcement. I just think regulations and most laws (besides basic human rights) should be up to the states so there is more competition with what laws work and which ones dont. I am not an anarchist or anything like that. There should be regulations, but i just feel they should be up to the states to allow more people to have a say so in it.

Laws and their enforcement should have competition as well. People need more power over what laws we have. Most we have now are made to benefit someone's pockets and screw over everyone else. Whoever has the most cash is obviously gonna have the bigger hand in large government instead of states.

I will check out the interstate commerce clause.

edit: after reading about it, It seems like it can be easily abused if it can regulate anything that has anything to do with regulating interstate commerce. I dont really see it as a big deal as long as it isn't regulating anything within the state, though. That makes sense to me. I think it mite need to be revised.

It is not like I think there should be no federal government at all, I just think the majority of issues should be left up to the state. I dont agree with socialized programs for example. I think things like that can be left up to the state.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Articles of Confederation - weak central government - states couldn't arbitrate amongst themselves.

Constitution - established federal powers to arbitrate interstate commerce.

Today - people want less federal power - would rediscover what commerce was like under the AoC.

 

[Rukind]

Articles of Confederation - weak central government - states couldn't arbitrate amongst themselves.

Constitution - established federal powers to arbitrate interstate commerce.

Today - people want less federal power - would rediscover what commerce was like under the AoC.

I dont see how wanting more power of the states does away with the constitution or even changes interstate commerce much. I think there can be laws about commerce that happens from state to state. that makes sense to me, but not within that state. I mostly agree with the constitution. I think it could be revised every so often as we progress through history, though. Things change. The idea of the constitution and the united states is brilliant, though.

I enjoy these discussions

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Let's say you want to buy an insurance policy from another state, something conservatives suggest will lower the cost of health care.

If you're defrauded on the policy, you're not a legal resident of the issuing state. Your legal rights to mitigate may not exist. Your state AG 's authority may stop at the state line.

This is an example of interstate commerce with no arbitrating authority. If by chance a few bad apples run a particular state, the opportunity to rip off your state may exist.

 

[Rukind]

Let's say you want to buy an insurance policy from another state, something conservatives suggest will lower the cost of health care.

If you're defrauded on the policy, you're not a legal resident of the issuing state. Your legal rights to mitigate may not exist. Your state AG 's authority may stop at the state line.

This is an example of interstate commerce with no arbitrating authority. If by chance a few bad apples run a particular state, the opportunity to rip off your state may exist.

But the few bad apples would not work out in the long run and the other states will be more successful by working out that bad apples. When the states make mistakes they will learn and make the changes faster with more competition. The chance of corruption would be less when more people have a say so in it. In time, our country will just keep getting better. At least faster.

We still need a government for anything related to how one state deals with another state (but this can be worked out by letting the states vote on these interstate issues and figure it out that way. the government can enforce it). Also the government is important for any basic human rights and the constitution.

Foreign relations and trade is another thing the government should enforce. The states should play a big role in those decisions as well. Whatever the majority of the states thinks is best.

 

[dagnabit]

lets say you open a legal dispensary in your state...

the federal government says drugs and medicine fall under the auspices of "interstate commerce"

and the drug warriors close the dispensaries.

HOORAY FOR A STRONG FED!!!!

Articles of Confederation - weak central government - states couldn't arbitrate amongst themselves.

Constitution - established federal powers to arbitrate interstate commerce.

Today - people want less federal power - would rediscover what commerce was like under the AoC.

is about as hyperbolic as someone else suggesting if we followed your ideas we would end up in Stalingrad...

truth is we need less market regulation. but we need effective and enforceable market regulation.
right now we have laws written by and for the very corporations.
it would be akin to allowing NAMBLA determine age of consent.

many partisan cheerleaders try to represent Dr. Paul as an anarchist.
these are the same people who still think obama is somehow different/better than bush.

as we can see with the latest all out attack on sick and dying people he is even worse.

if you want more of the same shit you have had thrown at you for several decades by all means vote O.

if you truly want something better.....
Dr. Paul is the only shot.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

... We still need a government for anything related to how one state deals with another state (but this can be worked out by letting the states vote on these interstate issues and figure it out that way. the government can enforce it).

That's basically what we have with representative government. Even though we consider national lawmakers as federal, state voters decide who's elected.

Also the government is important for any basic human rights and the constitution.

Foreign relations and trade is another thing the government should enforce. The states should play a big role in those decisions as well. Whatever the majority of the states thinks is best.

States do play roles in those decisions. The fact they act in concert is indicative of problems associated with no arbitrating authority.

The commerce clause is where most 'states rights' debates focus. But 'states rights' has a ceiling and we found out the hard way.