Thursday, June 16, 2011
The State’s Borders, Our Cage
The State's Borders, Our Cage
Posted by David S. D'Amato on Jun 15, 2011
Through a referendum in January the southern region of Sudan resolved to separate and form its own, independent political entity. Already largely autonomous, nearly 99 percent of the region's population favored secession, and the Republic of South Sudan is to ascend to full and distinct statehood in a matter of weeks.
With Sudan's President Omar Hassan al-Bashir accepting the results of the referendum and the birth of the new state, the country seemed to be prepared for a smooth and peaceful transition. But, alas, when the nebulous border territory between the country's stands on a plentiful oil well, a seamless transition is probably too much to ask for.
For decades, the areas now disputed by the north and south, in particular the small region of Abyei, have been seedbeds for violent conflict, putting them at the center of various peace deals devised to put an end to long-running wars. Now, BBC News reports, "The UN has accused the Sudanese government of carrying out an 'intensive bombing campaign' near the north-south border."
In the unified Sudan, wealth and political power were concentrated almost exclusively in the Arab, Muslim north, and Bashir has insisted that Abyei "is northern and will remain northern," adding that northern recognition of the new southern republic turns on Abyei's status. For market anarchists, who urge an end to systematized violence within society, Sudan's present state is a foreseeable repercussion of the state's introduction of capricious, aggressive authority.
"[T]he present-day boundaries of nations," wrote Murray Rothbard "are purely historical and arbitrary, and there is no more need for a monopoly government over the citizens of one country than there is for one between the citizens of two different nations." The political system, one of borders and coercive rather than consensual bonds, is necessarily divisive, rooted in the idea that we need the rules of masters to delineate our relationships.
But all the time, every single day, we deal with our neighbors without oversight, in nonviolent, mutually beneficial relationships governed by nothing but our agreements. If you've ever so much as sold something at a yard sale, you've seen what market anarchists mean by "anarchy."
To counsel a society without masters and their borders, then, is not to invite mayhem or injustice, but is simply to turn both the geographic and social cartography over to the aggregate of individual judgments. Over the centuries, political leaders have refined the oratorical wiles used to persuade us to fight their battles, to regard the perimeters they have drawn amongst themselves as a source of unity and pride in society.
So instead of looking on the "nationality" of the state as it really is as something opposite true community we have been trained to identify with our captors. Where language and culture have evolved freely and spontaneously without central, hierarchical direction, the state is an inorganic power structure manufactured by the ruling class out of a desire to loot and exploit.
The flags of governments should not motivate us toward the battlefield, but instead should fill us with a deep, moral indignation. Quite contrary to the prattle of the corporate media, the starting point of the conflict between Sudan and Southern Sudan is not ethnicity in and of itself.
Instead, the very existence of the state, as a mechanism for aggressively gaining control over valuable resources, inescapably pits neighbors against one other. Even if most are naturally inclined to trade peacefully, for some the opportunity to brandish the power to despoil society of its natural wealth proves alluring.
A small, warlike few has, under the aegis of the sacred state, been able to condemn the vast, productive majority to an unbroken civil war; that war is made conspicuous by inter-state armed conflicts and situations like that in Sudan, but it rages everywhere, even intra-state.
It is the war that the state wages on its own citizens, and it won't and can't draw to a close until the natural harmony of the marketplace succeeds the alienating aggression of government. No new borderlines can solve the underlying problem in Sudan because political solutions are the problem.
Only work and free, equal exchange, a stateless system of market anarchy, can decide who owns scarce resources. When the world realizes that fact and loses faith in the state, it won't matter what we call it we'll have anarchy.
http://c4ss.org/content/7492
Re: Impeach Obama
At 06:06 PM 6/15/2011, you wrote:
War hasn't been declared since December 8, 1941.
But, there is no provision in the constitution that war must be
declared in order for CinC to use the military.
ROTFLMAO!
Here is the (actual) Constitution: http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.txt
Which article, section and clause or amendment do you imagine provides the President with power to send troops to "use the military".
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The President is Commander in Chef ONLY when called into actual service.
The US is NOT supposed to have a standing army ... the Founders understood all too well.
Regard$,
--MJ
Where is it written in the Constitution, in what section or clause is it contained, that you may take children from their parents and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battle in any war in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it? -- Daniel Webster
Re: Impeach Obama
War hasn't been declared since December 8, 1941.
But, there is no provision in the constitution that war must be
declared in order for CinC to use the military.
On Jun 15, 5:01 pm, Sharon Fuentes <oneforentr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> MJ...Can you please remind me if Congress voted to declare war on Iraq
> during the second invasion? I think I remember them voting. But did not
> Clinton do the same when he attacked the camps in Lebanon trying to squelch
> hisbola and Bin Laden? Thanks S.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:45 PM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > *"So, I say: Impeach him. In fact, I can't see any reason why he shouldn't
> > be impeached. He has broken the law -- the people's law -- the law of the
> > Constitution, and he has done so knowingly, intentionally, and willfully."
>
> > *Wednesday, June 15, 2011
> > *Impeach Obama
> > *by Jacob G. Hornberger
>
> > Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution states in part:
>
> > "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States,
> > shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason,
> > Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."
>
> > Article I, Section 8, states in part:
>
> > "The Congress shall have Power To Declare War…."
>
> > The Constitution is the highest law of the land. It is the law that the
> > citizenry of the United States imposed on federal officials as a condition
> > to calling the federal government into existence.
>
> > Since the Framers delegated the power to declare war to Congress, the
> > Constitution prohibits the president from waging war without first securing
> > a declaration of war from Congress.
>
> > Everyone acknowledges that President Obama has waged war against Libya
> > without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war. By
> > ordering U.S. armed forces to attack Libya, Obama intentionally, knowingly,
> > and willingly violated the law the law of the Constitution.
>
> > Obama's war on Libya has resulted in the deaths of untold number of people
> > who have never attacked the United States. His war of aggression has also
> > exposed the American people to the increased threat of terrorism, which
> > federal officials commonly cite as the justification for further
> > infringements on the civil liberties of the American people.
>
> > Obama's war on Libya clearly falls within the category of a "high crime or
> > misdemeanor." In fact, given the death and destruction and the real and
> > potential harm to the safety and freedom of the American people, Obama's war
> > is akin to a political felony.
>
> > So, I say: Impeach him. In fact, I can't see any reason why he shouldn't be
> > impeached. He has broken the law -- the people's law -- the law of the
> > Constitution, and he has done so knowingly, intentionally, and willfully.
>
> > What would be Obama's defense at his impeachment trial? Unable to deny the
> > charge, his only claim would be that since other presidents have violated
> > the same law and nothing was done to them, he should be let off the hook
> > too.
>
> > But is that a valid defense? It certainly isn't permitted in criminal cases
> > in which the feds charge citizens with violations of their laws. If a
> > citizen is charged with illegal possession of drugs, for example, he isn't
> > permitted to defend against the charge by claiming that others similarly
> > situated weren't charged.
>
> > So, why should Obama's "defense" be treated any differently?
>
> > Even if Obama were to be acquitted, wouldn't it be constructive to finally
> > bring a president to account for his willful violation of this particular
> > provision of the Constitution? At the very least, a powerful message would
> > be sent to Obama and all future presidents: Try this again and you will be
> > removed from office.
>
> > Given that the U.S. Supreme Court long ago signaled that it would not
> > enforce this particular provision of the Constitution no matter how
> > important it was, it's up to Congress to do so. If presidents can ignore the
> > law, then what's the point of having a Constitution?
>
> > It's time for Congress to enforce our law -- the law of the Constitution --
> > the law that we the people have imposed on federal officials. What better
> > way to do that than by impeaching President Obama for the high crime or
> > misdemeanor of waging war on Libya without the congressional declaration of
> > war required by the Constitution?
>
> >http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-06-15.asp
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: The 40-Year War on Freedom
There is a percentage of EVERY population that will be addicted to
something....This is simple fact and hardcore human nature.
something....This is simple fact and hardcore human nature.
On Jun 15, 3:08 pm, Sharon Fuentes <oneforentr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I always love this argument....I would much rather be smoking pot and paying
> taxes on it than pissing away billions of dollars to keep up this futile
> effort. Can you see the coffee houses all set up like Starbucks? They
> could be called "CannibusHuts" and equipped with drive thrus. Then we can
> be the United States of Americadam and follow the lead of the Dutch. The
> redlight district can be placed in Weiner's district so we will have Vegas
> on the West, and Weinerworld on the East. Everyone will be a little calmer
> and the men that like to venture out can get the fixes legally rather than
> compromising thier politcal stature and sending photos to strange women.
>
> S
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:45 PM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > *"The war on drugs costs American taxpayers over $40 billion a year. For
> > the first half of our nation's history there were no prohibitions against
> > any drug. The war on drugs is not authorized by the Constitution. Tobacco
> > kills more people every year than all of the people killed by all illegal
> > drugs in the twentieth century. The war on drugs has done nothing to reduce
> > the demand for illicit drugs. Numerous studies have shown that smoking
> > marijuana is less dangerous than drinking alcohol. The war on drugs is the
> > cause of our unnecessarily swelled prison populations. Alcohol abuse, not
> > drug abuse, is one of the leading causes of premature deaths in the United
> > States. The war on drugs has ruined more lives than drugs themselves. More
> > people in America die every year from drugs prescribed and administered by
> > physicians than from illegal drugs."
>
> > **The 40-Year War on Freedom
> > *by Laurence M. Vance, June 15, 2011
>
> > Although the U.S. government's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have taken
> > center stage for the better part of the last ten years, there is another
> > failed war that has been waged by the federal government for the past forty
> > years.
>
> > The war on drugs was declared by President Richard Nixon on June 17, 1971.
>
> > Speaking at a press conference<http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=3047&st=&st1=>in the Briefing Room at the White House, Nixon announced his plan:
>
> > I would like to summarize for you the meeting that I have just had with
> > the bipartisan leaders which began at 8 o'clock and was completed 2 hours
> > later. I began the meeting by making this statement, which I think needs to
> > be made to the Nation: America's public enemy number one in the United
> > States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is
> > necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive.
>
> > Nixon left no doubt as to the scope of his offensive:
>
> > This will be a worldwide offensive dealing with the problems of sources
> > of supply, as well as Americans who may be stationed abroad, wherever they
> > are in the world. It will be government wide, pulling together the nine
> > different fragmented areas within the government in which this problem is
> > now being handled, and it will be nationwide in terms of a new educational
> > program that we trust will result from the discussions that we have had.
>
> > He went on to say how "essential it was for the American people to be
> > alerted to this danger."
>
> > In a special message <http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=3048> to the
> > Congress on Drug Abuse Prevention and Control on the same day, Nixon
> > declared drug use to be a "menace," an "increasing grave threat," and a
> > "national emergency."
>
> > He also continued his military rhetoric:
>
> > I am transmitting legislation to the Congress to consolidate at the
> > highest level a full-scale attack on the problem of drug abuse in America.
> > The problems of drug abuse must be faced on many fronts.
> > To wage an effective war against heroin addiction, we must have
> > international cooperation. In order to secure such cooperation, I am
> > initiating a worldwide escalation in our existing programs for the control
> > of narcotics traffic, and I am proposing a number of new steps for this
> > purpose.
> > The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 provides a
> > sound base for the attack on the problem of the availability of narcotics in
> > America.
>
> > Nixon then issued Executive Order No. 11599 establishing the Special Action
> > Office of Drug Abuse Prevention (SAODAP) in the Executive Office of the
> > President. He also appointed the first drug czar, Dr. Jerome H. Jaffe, as
> > Special Consultant to the President for Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.
>
> > Nixon's war on drugs really took off after the formation of the Drug
> > Enforcement Agency (DEA) in 1973 and the declaration of an "all-out global
> > war on the drug menace."
>
> > This does not mean that the federal government didn't fight against drugs
> > before Nixon declared his war. To the contrary, the feds have waged war on
> > personal freedom via the drug war since the passage in 1905 of the first
> > federal anti-narcotics law aimed at ending the opium trade in the
> > Philippines.
>
> > This was followed by the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, the Opium
> > Exclusion Act of 1909, the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914, the Marijuana
> > Tax Act of 1937, the Narcotic Control Act of 1956, and the Comprehensive
> > Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.
>
> > And since the beginning of Nixon's war, we have had the Anti-Drug Abuse Act
> > of 1986, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, the Chemical Diversion and
> > Trafficking Act of 1988, the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003,
> > and the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005.
>
> > And who can forget the D.A.R.E. school-lecture program, "Just Say No"
> > clubs, and the Partnership for a Drug-Free America's television ad featuring
> > a hot skillet, an egg, and the phrase, "This is your brain on drugs."
>
> > The case against the drug war has been made so many times that, at the risk
> > of sounding like a broken record, I will limit myself to ten key points:
>
> > The war on drugs costs American taxpayers over $40 billion a year. For the
> > first half of our nation's history there were no prohibitions against any
> > drug. The war on drugs is not authorized by the Constitution. Tobacco kills
> > more people every year than all of the people killed by all illegal drugs in
> > the twentieth century. The war on drugs has done nothing to reduce the
> > demand for illicit drugs. Numerous studies have shown that smoking marijuana
> > is less dangerous than drinking alcohol. The war on drugs is the cause of
> > our unnecessarily swelled prison populations. Alcohol abuse, not drug abuse,
> > is one of the leading causes of premature deaths in the United States. The
> > war on drugs has ruined more lives than drugs themselves. More people in
> > America die every year from drugs prescribed and administered by physicians
> > than from illegal drugs.
>
> > To drug warriors, these things don't matter: Because taking drugs is bad
> > for one's health and morally corrupting, the state has the duty to regulate
> > and ban them.
>
> > But as true and important as these things are, the drug-warrior statists
> > are right about dismissing them for in the end they really don't matter. And
> > there are many other things that don't matter as well.
>
> > It doesn't matter if the drug war can or can't be "won." It doesn't matter
> > if drug addiction destroys or doesn't destroy lives and families. It doesn't
> > matter if marijuana is or isn't a gateway drug. It doesn't matter if the
> > majority of Americans support or don't support the drug war. It doesn't
> > matter if marijuana is or isn't beneficial for pain management. It doesn't
> > matter if fighting the drug war is or isn't a bipartisan issue. It doesn't
> > matter if cocaine and heroin are or aren't addictive. It doesn't matter if
> > drug use would or wouldn't increase if drugs were legalized. It doesn't
> > matter if advocates for drug decriminalization want or don't want to get
> > high. It doesn't matter if smoking crack is or isn't dangerous. It doesn't
> > matter if drug use is or isn't immoral. It doesn't matter if the war on
> > drugs is or isn't "worth it."
>
> > What matters is personal freedom, private property, personal
> > responsibility, individual liberty, personal and financial privacy, free
> > markets, limited government, and the natural right to be left alone if one
> > is not aggressing against his someone and is doing "anything that's
> > peaceful."
>
> > Ending the war on drugs is not an esoteric issue of libertarians or a pet
> > issue of those who want to get high. Once the government claims control over
> > what a man smokes, snorts, sniffs, inhales, or otherwise ingests into his
> > body, there is no limit to its power. As the economist Ludwig von Mises so
> > eloquently said: "As soon as we surrender the principle that the state
> > should not interfere in any questions touching on the individual's mode of
> > life, we end by regulating and restricting the latter down to the smallest
> > detail." The war on drugs is incompatible with a free society.
>
> >http://www.fff.org/comment/com1106o.asp
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)