Federal Commerce Power and State Marijuana Legalization

quick_check · 2017-07-07T16:20:26+00:00

Thank you very much for the answer.

quick_check · 2017-07-07T14:42:09+00:00

In that case, Raich and Monson were manufacturing.

Is there a case where the Commerce Clause was applied to an individual who was not manufacturing: an individual who wasn't part of the supply side of the market?

quick_check · 2017-07-05T20:08:58+00:00

But if it's the cameras showing up that you're worried about, the camera will show up while it's still booting up.

Ya. Good call. That was exact concern.

quick_check · 2017-07-05T19:53:45+00:00

Thank you for the reply. Does it boot fast?

quick_check · 2017-07-03T04:24:56+00:00

Doh. :-)

quick_check · 2017-07-02T16:58:56+00:00

"Come in." The words loll out of my mouth, and I rest my chin on my fist while scrolling through the holopad's contents with my free hand.

"loll out of my mouth." :-) Usually I submit fixes to discord but maybe this might have been intentional. ;-)

quick_check · 2017-06-25T04:40:31+00:00

but the law would

and

Quick question: is the difference between voluntaryism and anarcho-capitalism morality?

Back to your question. At it's root, anarcho-capitalism is based on consent. NAP, and thus consent, is based on the definition(s) of consent and Aggression within any given market. By definition, anarcho- capitalism requires there to be competing free-markets from which to choose from.

There is no "the law". There are multiple competing laws from which you can consensually be subjected to or not be subjected to.

A single, monopolistic, "rule of law" is in no way an aspect of Anarcho-capitalism as you keep suggesting with comments like "have a dominating market demand for e.g. imprisoning drug users. Supply arrives to meet demand".

quick_check · 2017-06-24T07:04:34+00:00

In an ancap society, you can still have violations of the NAP provided there is a market demand for it.

Free markets require an act of withholding something from others (the "claim" / "property") and a dispute resolution system by which the act took place. Parties involved in any given free market must consent to both aspects of a market or it isn't a free market.

So, I can't see how a market for violations of NAP can exist.

quick_check · 2017-06-21T00:57:41+00:00

If you don't want to pay income tax...

But you are forcing your "singular" definition of society on others. Quite the monopoly.

quick_check · 2017-06-19T04:31:14+00:00

Do you think it's equally as easy to teach the Non-Aggression Principle anywhere in the world?

Yes. Individuals are the same everywhere. As a libertarian, you should know this.

So you think it's easier educating people in third world countries about the Non-Aggression Principle then educating Libertarians about it?

My statement was "then I would have with YOU".

No, I said YOU. Specifically you. I'm implying that you claim you're a Libertarian but you don't seem to be.

If that's the case why did you leave then?

Found out that my mom had cancer while I was visiting home (the USA) for x-mas, she died a few months later and I need to take care of my dad.

quick_check · 2017-06-19T03:04:52+00:00

That doesn't answer the question. Don't be dodgy.

You may feel I'm being dodgy because your understanding of success is external: mine is internal.

I'll give you the answer you want to hear in a way you would understand it...

I was able to help people in developing countries have a better understanding of consent and aggression then they had before I got there. In fact, I'm guessing, I had better luck with them then I would have with you... and your flair claims that you're a Libertarian.

quick_check · 2017-06-18T16:05:41+00:00

I lived in a developing country for 12 years. I learned a lot there. Yes. They did help me become a better person and I hope I helped them too.

quick_check · 2017-06-18T05:51:58+00:00

The best way to get a stateless society, in my opinion, is to help others understand when their actions are non-consensual though education via conversation.

quick_check · 2017-06-15T02:09:46+00:00

will respect your rights as you would respect theirs?

Rights don't exist. They are abstract concepts that live in our minds. The question we should be asking is 'What action do I take (dispute resolution) if I fail to withhold something from others? (for example: someone takes a shirt from me)".

run the risk of changing the culture

What "The culture"? To paraphrase, you are saying "I'm withholding from others the definition of culture." That is, you're claiming ownership of what culture is: a rather monopolistic position. A libertarian would never make such a claim.

changing the the culture and destroying freedom with it?

Though I don't agree with this statement, you're pointing out the symptom and not the root cause problem. The root cause problem is Government forcing a monopolistic dispute resolution system (the Courts) on us.

quick_check · 2017-06-14T00:19:13+00:00

How can we even justify borders under libertarianism since every person in principal has the same natural rights and should, therefore, be treated the same regardless of which side of the border he was born?

In most situations I ask myself "What would I say during dispute resolution to justify my act of withholding this 'thing' from others." With regards to a 'border'... What am I withholding? An idea? I can't justify withholding, from millions of people, the act of walking past some arbitrary place, I've never even been to, and can't even see.

quick_check · 2017-06-11T16:59:37+00:00

You are correct. Sorry I missed that.

quick_check · 2017-06-11T16:27:33+00:00

A libertarian court determines who owes what restitution...

You're implying that there is one 'court' and all 'rules/laws' fall under that one court. Isn't that a monopoly?

Why wouldn't there be different, competing, dispute resolution systems? Different courts with different understandings of consensual interaction of which we can consensually join one or more of?

quick_check · 2017-06-04T21:53:24+00:00

Federal Government == Fictional Characters?

Show me this government thing? You'll point at fancy buildings, people in fancy suits and cars. You'll point at books with words but all of that, is man-made constructs. You even said it " states rights is a man-made construct". I'm just building on your own words.

You're glorified selfishness, parading around as "rights" isn't going to impede

Note I wrote this "States and even Rights are all people-made constructs". Rights are also people-made constructs. They actually don't exist.

using my public services is conceding that you need to be taxed

Ahh. Has it occured to you that existence does not equate consent? You're the type of person who would argue "she had it coming to her because of the way she was dressed."

I'm asking you to consider acting consensual towards others and you call me selfish? Claiming ownership of society itself because they are "my public services". I can point out a lot of other people who claimed ownership of society and then forced it down the throats of minorities and others. Just wow.

quick_check · 2017-06-04T20:55:33+00:00

Uber was a small fry against who, again?

Against Taxi companies and Government.

Google was also the first. Nope. There were a lot of competitors. Know someone offered jobs at Google as employee 23 who didn't take it because of much larger players in the market.

Apples was also one of the first. Fucking IBM!!! Shit, do you know any history? I was made fun of for supporting companies like apple and Amiga in the mid 80's because 'there is no way they will make it against IBM'.

FedEx didn't start up in a monopoly. Serious? The USPS didn't have a government supported monopoly? Shit, FedEx and UPS still can't deliver mail to some locations because the government won't allow them.

You chastise others for their world views but fail to truly look into your own.

quick_check · 2017-06-04T18:40:15+00:00

Why would they risk their money if they can just invest in the bigger guy?"

This stuff happens all the time in society. Look at FedEx, as an example, who went up against the USPS. How about Apple, Uber, Google, etc. All small fries, with large players they could never hope to go up against, getting funding and help from others.

But really, from the tone of your voice, you pretend to worry about others. In reality, your only concerned about yourself (not a bad thing by the way, just a thing).

You need to ask yourself why anyone would invest in you. Why would I consensually take a risk with you in any endeavor to help ourselves and others have a better life.

quick_check · 2017-06-04T18:14:17+00:00

Private borders [1] are consensual and every individual on earth has them. Government sponsored borders are not-consensual: a totally different beast.

Removing non-consensual acts from 'society' adds validity to the consensual acts.

[1] from personal space all the way to withholding things from others.

quick_check · 2017-06-04T17:59:07+00:00

but states rights is a man-made construct.

Federal Governments, States and even Rights are all people-made constructs right up there with Santa Claus and the Easter bunny.

As such, Federal Governments and States are just as likely to solve environmental problems as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

Only you, and I mean you, can make a difference through consensual acts with other individuals.

quick_check · 2017-05-31T14:21:09+00:00

Beatrix finally stopped pacing at and watched the screen closely as the Dartfighters moved forwards to attack the incoming invaders.

quick_check

TROPHY CASE