The weak anti-pot argument of Barry Young

Barry Young, self-proclaimed "conservatarian" made an argument against marijuana this morning. The crux of his argument was that since there is no way to "control" marijuana (in the manner that pharmaceuticals are controlled), it cannot be considered "medicine". There is some truth to that-marijuana cannot be called a medicine by his definition. However, it is well understood that the broad definition of a "drug" is any substance that, when absorbed into the body of a living organism, alters normal bodily function.

The latter definition is far more accurate. Even food can be considered a drug (and rightly so) because when absorbed, it alters the body's chemistry.

To be fair, later in the monologue, Young said that it should be either legalized or not. This is a reasonable stance. At this point, the evidence, as well as ethical, economic, and moral concerns, seem to show that the "war on drugs" should be ended.

Powerful quotes

We have a choice to make once and for all: between the empire and the spiritual and physical salvation of our people. No road for the people will ever be open unless the government completely gives up control over us or any aspect of our lives. It has led the country into an abyss and it does not know the way out.

~ Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, as quoted by Pravda (1986)

types of contracts

It is important to understand contracts as we discuss voluntary systems of government. Contracts will play a role in our daily life. There are many other types of contracts possible, but the following will serve to help the reader understand.

Types of contracts

Commodatum-this is a real contract made in good faith, by which one person-the lender-entrusts to another-the borrower or commodatary-a specific item to be used for free for a certain period of time, at the end of which the item must be restored to its owner; that is, the very thing loaned must be returned. It is called “real” because the article must be given over.

Mutuum-a contract by which the lender entrusts the borrower or mutuary with a certain quanity of fungible goods, and the borrower is obliged, at the end of a specified term, to return and equal quantity of goods of the same type and quality. Without the explicit or implicit establishment of a fixed therm, the mutuum contract/loan cannot exist.

Deposit-a contract made in good faith by which one person-the depositor-entrusts to another-the depository-a movable good for that person to guard, protect, and return at any moment the depositor should ask for it. This contract is always carried out in the interest of the depositor. The fundamental purpose of the deposit contract is the custody of safe-keeping of the good and it implies, for the duration of the contract, that the complete availability of the good remain in favor of the depositor, who may request its return at any moment. The obligation of the depositor, apart from delivering the good, is to compensate the depositary for the costs of the deposit (if such compensation has been agreed upon; if not, the deposit is free of charge). The obligation of the depositary is to guard and protect the good with the extreme diligence typical of a good parent, and to return it immediately to the depositor as soon as he asks for it.

The deposit of fungible goods (“irregular“ deposit contract)

There are many times in life in which we wish to deposit not specific things (such as painting, jewlry, etc), but fungible goods (dollars, oil, gas, etc). The deposit of fungible goods is a real deposit like any other, in that the main element is the complete availability of the deposited goods in favor of the depositor, as well as the obligation on the part of the depositary to conscientiously guard and protect the goods. The only difference between the deposit of fungible goods and the regular deposit is that when the former takes place, the goods deposited become indiscernably mixed with others of the same type and quality. Due to this indistinguishable mixture of different deposited units of the same type and quality, the depositor effectively transfers ownershsip to the depository. The fungible nature of these goods makes them impossible to treat individually, and thus the deposit of fungible goods is called an “irregular deposit”.

The State is not The Government (and vice versa)

I find that one of the commonest misunderstandings in modern political discourse is the conflation of the State and the government. Mass media and popular speakers like Stefan Molyneux have only added to the confusion.

Randolf Borne explains in his 1918 essay "The State":

"The State is the country acting as a political unit, it is the group acting as a repository of force, determiner of law, arbiter of justice. International politics is a power politics because it is a relation of States and that is what States infallibly and calamitously are, huge aggregations of human and industrial force that may be hurled against each other in war. When a country acts as a whole in relation to another country, or in imposing laws on its own inhabitants, or in coercing or punishing individuals or minorities, it is acting as a State. The history of America as a country is quite different from that of America as a State. In one case it is the drama of the pioneering conquest of the land, of the growth of wealth and the ways in which it was used, of the enterprise of education, and the carrying out of spiritual ideals, of the struggle of economic classes. But as a State, its history is that of playing a part in the world, making war, obstructing international trade, preventing itself from being split to pieces, punishing those citizens whom society agrees are offensive, and collecting money to pay for all."

Rothbard makes this even more clear in his Lengthy essay, "The Anatomy Of The State". I would encourage my readers to read both the Bourne and Rothbard essays in full. Neither of these men were purely Voluntaryist, but they give us a clear understanding of the State, which is useful to anyone interested in understanding the nature of the beast.

A Voluntaryist on Voting

Voting: A Sacred Rite Of The State Religion

“Democracy too, is a religion. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses.” -H.L. Mencken

I am often asked by laypersons and hyperactive activists why I do not vote. How dare I not particpate in this ritual? Do I not know that voting is my civic duty? That brave men fought and died that I might have the “privelige” to partake in this collectivist ceremony? Why, even the great saints of American history (Adams, Madison, and whoever elese my persecutor can think of) were all for voting!

To the contrary. I am well aware of the arguments forwarded by worshipers of the State Religion. I simply don't believe in such fairy tales.

Samuel Adams, for example, wrote: Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual--or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.

Here, even in the earliest stages of American-style democratic republicanism, we see that the system itself and its participants therein are absurdly deified. The western democracies, as you see, have simply traded the monotheistic religion of monarchy for the polytheistic religion of democracy.

I know many Republicans have a fit when I refer to the American State as a “democracy”-their holy scriptures (the Federalist, etc) proclaim that the holy land is a Republic. This may be so in theory, but in practice (especially since the passage of the 17th ammendment) this distinction is practically irrelevant. Both systems are equally absurd, just in different ways.

In “Democracy: The God That Failed”, Hoppe correctly points out that democracy and related systems are very new in human history. They are also massive failures. If modern State-worshipers were interested in successful models, they would be wise to look to monarchy or Voluntaryism.

The Hot Air of the neocon media

Today, Rush Limbaugh made the theme of his rant an article by Angelo Codevilla called America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution

The pathetic irony here is that Mr Limbaugh has long been a cheerleader for what Codevilla calls the "Republican Ruling Class", from his buddy-buddy relationship with neocon Newt Gingrich to his almost incessant worship of the Bush regime.

If Limbaugh is serious about opposing the Obama regime in the political sense, he should pay attention to the likes of Ron Paul.