On forfeiture of life

[Grizzly]

It is on the forfeiture of our lives that we obey laws. In other words, the goverment is a giant bully. It uses its might to subjugate the weak. It says, in essence, "you do this or I'll beat you up."

On the surface this may seem a bit harsh. However, a slightly deeper investigation reveals this to be the case. Let's say I go home tonight to find gov't agents in my house because I ordered some gear and I got a CD. It is their law that I can't posess said substances, though I disagree with it. My ordering and using it is a form of civil disobedience.

On the surface, it looks like the penalty is nothing more than a fine or some jail time. This is only if I decide to capitulate to their whims. Let's say I assert my reason and explain to them how my usage of AS hurts no one, arguably not even myself, thus there is nothing wrong with it and they can subsequently kiss my ass and get the fuck out of my house.

The next step is them trying to forcefully arrest me. I assert my right to sovereignty of my own body and I resist arrest on the aforementioned grounds. The inevitable result of this is that I get shot to death. Shot to death for asserting my rights.

Goddamned bullies!

 

[Beefy]

Another point to make is how the gov't is on such a power trip that it is perfectly legal for them to kill you (as you just proved in the post above), yet it is illegal for you to kill yourself. It's not like they can take you to jail after you kill yourself, but that Jack Kevorkian guy got in deep shit for helping sick and severely handicapped people commit suicide.

 

[J DUB]

Again, I beg of all of you to please go to lp.org and order some of the Libertarian Party books. They argue for the same things we believe in. I have read "Libertarianism in One Lesson" and it was truly life-changing. There is also a good list of recommended reading in the back of it.

Grizz, you are right it is a shame that one's morals and beliefs do not have any factor in the law. If you told those agents how you believed that you control your own body and that you were doing noone harm by using AAS, they would not care and still arrest or kill you. Basically, the law prevents us from forming an extensive set of morals and beliefs for if what we believe in is illegal then we risk our most important thing in life, namely our freedom. It is not right that when we engage in peaceful activity that men with guns can storm into our homes and take our property, ruin our lives and our families, but it happens everyday to peaceful, personal users of things such as marijuana and anabolic steroids.

It is just amazing to me that our own bodies and consciousness are regulated by the government. If we were homeless and owned nothing else, we would at least own out body and mind right? So how can the government regulate our most personal, private property, namely our bodies and consciousness?

Still on topic, Beefy it is amazing that it is illegal to commit suicide. How can the government regulate your life in such a manner? If one is suffering from terminal illness, then why can he or she not choose to end the inevitable? Did those kevorkian cases not go to the Supreme Court? If so, I would really like to hear what they had to say on this matter.

 

[Grizzly]

OH, now you bastards got me going! The fact that gov't thinks they own me(obviously since they say I can't kill myself) really, reallly, really pisses me off. That's like the most fundamental of all rights; the right to life or death. It's my goddamned life! Nevermind, I'm not getting into it, you damn instigators.

 

[joeycrabcakes]

damn! am I the only right-wing ultra-conservative republican on this site? Say it aint so. Laws are there for a reason, you make your own bed, deal with it, or move to France.

 

[Grizzly]

And what's the reason? You come up with a good reason.

 

[Beefy]

I love this shit.

 

[joeycrabcakes]

it's so easy to fire you up, grizz. I'm not the intellectual type, so i'll try my best. Thats the state we live in. Laws are for the good of the people, the majority of the people, and were supposedly made in a fair and balanced way. They werent made by just one person expressing his opinion, and they werent made overnight. No, believe it or not, i dont believe in EVERY law on the books, but i do my best to respect and obey...most..of them. I really dont need to explain to you what would happen if a lot of these laws werent on the books, do I? I just heard a quick editorial on the news stating a big number of crimes were commited by people under the influence of drugs, or by people trying to support their habit. The commentator stated something to the effect of legalizing a lot of these drugs so people wouldnt commit crimes in order to get their fix. Are you F'ing kidding me? I was raised to do good and obey the laws set in place, like it or not. There are many countries where it is legal to use steroids, if this is your utmost priority in life, hop on a plane. We all know whether what we do is right or wrong, and we made our own decision to partake or not to. Yet when someone gets in trouble with the law, we say, awww, thats messed up. You know whats messed up?--the decision you made to do something illegal on your own free will. Now, i only wish good intentions for all of us here, whether we know each other or not, but if i break the law, its nobodies fault but my own, and same goes for you.

 

[gyno_ghost]

C'mon, Joey

I respect your opinion, JCC, but I'm not sure I believe that you can't see the holes in your own argument. You're basically saying that a law is a law, and whether one likes it or not, he needs to obey it or accept the consequences. Would you make that argument regardless of what regime the individual is living under?

For example, if you lived in Stalin's Russia, would you just keep your hands in your pockets and do everything the secret police said, because, after all, the law was the law? Even though farmers were being deliberately starved by the government and dissidents were being shot in the streets? The powers that be said that was OK, so I guess one would be better off just going along with it instead of speaking out or doing something about it.

You might suggest someone living in these conditions move if they didn't like their surroundings. But what if the laws didn't allow emigration? What if you couldn't afford to move, or bring your family with you? Would it be right to just sit back and watch the innocent murdered and the rights of citizens squelched, just because the law dictated it was OK?

Regime change is what America is all about. I haven't picked up a history book in a while, but I'm pretty sure the founding fathers had a problem with the laws imposed upon them from across the pond. They didn't pack up out of the thirteen colonies and move somewhere else, carrying their tails between their legs all the way. They stood up to the government and said, "Nope, we're doing it our way." And they won their freedom and the right to set the laws as they saw fit.

(For the record, I'm not suggesting that such an approach would be effective today. In fact, I'm not sure America can be saved at this point. But the "like it or leave" attitude really sells America short and goes against the ideals of freedom and liberty this country was founded on.)

GG

 

[Grizzly]

Hell of a post, bro!

Joey- Which business was it again that Al Capone was in? Oh yeah, it was bootlegging. It was the prohibition of alcohol that began large scale organized crime. Which business is it that the Crips and Bloods are in? Oh yeah, it's the distribution of illegal narcotics. I don't see the mob running moonshine anymore. In fact, I think they've taken to sell illegal narcotics. Hmmmmmm, I wonder if there is a correlation. I also wonder if that guy on the radio might have been on to something.