Satan has no power over me because he doesn't exist in my reality. Throw off your shackles and join me, shiny. It's all in your head.

Did you know that music and religious ecstasy both activate the same pleasure centers in the brain? I believe the reason that religion is so often anti-music is that on some subconscious level, they know it is a spiritual competitor. Dancing, drugs and sex also activate these pleasure centers, and all 3 of these things are also frequently demonized by religion.

It seems like music and sex would be the superior choice for stimulating that part of the brain, but then again, I've never experienced religious ecstasy. For all I know it may be better than heroin, and I'm the one who is really missing out on the ultimate trip. Is the opiate of the masses literally as good as opium?

The drug war DEFINITELY costs money and DEFINITELY harms society by harassing and locking people up who would otherwise be working and paying taxes. All to keep substances that range from beneficial to highly addictive from MAYBE causing problems and MAYBE costing money. All while encroaching on our freedoms and rights. I think it would be hard for any reasonable person to argue that substances cause more harm than the "war" on the substances does.

Plus keeping addicts hidden is a great way for a youngster to grow up without realizing how shitty some drugs really are. The more crackheads my kids are exposed to the less likely that they will ever want to try crack, guaranteed. Maybe we could have a drug license (like driver license). You have to take a course and pass a test and be of age and then you can partake of whatever substances float your boat. Plants and plant derivatives could be sold like alcoholic beverages are and pharmacies could sell the rest. Growing your own should be fine just like you can make your own beer or wine. MDMA, LSD-25, opium, and cannabis would be popular while pretty much no-one would buy crack or meth or huff paint or huff gasoline. If you can get safer and better substances easily why would you turn to the shittiest stuff?

-Karl

Its not a lack of police to fight drug cartels which is the cause of the violence. That analysis is hollow. You are leaving out the devastating consequences of NAFTA and imperialism on these countries.

Poverty and unemployment have only worsened as a result of subsidies going towards big agrobussiness instead of local farmers. This is what leads to crime. Its a reaction by the working class getting even more fucked. When you can't get any $ by growing corn and instead have the chance to make $ selling drugs, yeah, you do it.

It isn't a coincidence that the majority of immigrants come from countries that have had dictators and death squads with the support of the US. Guatamala, El Salvador, Mexico. Destroyed economies create migrants which are CHEAP LABOR. Add to this the criminalization of immigrants with AZ's SB1070 and GA's copycat HB87. The AZ bill was pretty much written by Corrections Corporation of America, a private prison corporation which gets $200 per bed a night.

Its all part of the imperative of profit, the inherent violence of capitalism, duh
----
Additional reading:

http://blog.sojo.net/2010/10/28/prison-and-profits-the-politics-of-az%E2%80%99s-sb1070-bill-revealed/

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/25/harvest_of_empire_new_book_exposes
"And then there's this from independent journalist Zafar Bangash:

"The CIA, as Cockburn and (Jeffrey) St Clair reveal, had been in this business right from the beginning. In fact, even before it came into existence, its predecessors, the OSS and the Office of Naval Intelligence, were involved with criminals. One such criminal was Lucky Luciano, the most notorious gangster and drug trafficker in America in the forties."

The CIA's involvement in drug trafficking closely dovetails America's adventures overseas - from Indo-China in the sixties to Afghanistan in the eighties....As Alfred McCoy states in his book: Politics of Heroin: CIA complicity in the Global Drug Trade, beginning with CIA raids from Burma into China in the early fifties, the agency found that 'ruthless drug lords made effective anti-communists." ("CIA peddles drugs while US Media act as cheerleaders", Zafar Bangash, Muslimedia, January 16-31, 1999)

And, this from author William Blum:

"ClA-supported Mujahedeen rebels ... engaged heavily in drug trafficking while fighting against the Soviet-supported government," writes historian William Blum. "The Agency's principal client was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, one of the leading druglords and a leading heroin refiner. CIA-supplied trucks and mules, which had carried arms into Afghanistan, were used to transport opium to laboratories along the Afghan/Pakistan border. The output provided up to one half of the heroin used annually in the United States and three-quarters of that used in Western Europe....""


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18877

>> ^Payback:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/rychan" title="member since June 20th, 2007" class="profilelink">rychan "Ron Paul could make the same argument about child abuse. "How many of you are going to go beat your children unless the government tells you not to? See! We don't need those laws"."
Equating child abuse and self-destructive behaviour is a reach, don't you think? A junkie getting his fix is hardly violence against a child. Granted, it might be a cause and effect, but until the person raises their hand to the child, they are only hurting themselves. To equate a violent act against a child with a substance addiction diminshes the violence.


I wasn't trying to compare the crimes but rather the enforcement mechanisms -- the idea that because a reasonable person wouldn't do it, we don't need law enforcement of it. That's clearly not a compelling argument.

Child abuse is obviously terrible. So is heroin use, though. It kills 100,000 people every year according to this article: http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-21/world/un.heroin.trade_1_afghan-opium-heroin-fund-attacks?_s=PM:WORLD

I happen to have an opinion, unpopular on sites like VideoSift or Reddit, that it is not possible to responsibly use certain drugs and that it is in society's clear interest to suppress their usage. If you want to go off to a remote island and get high as a kite then obviously that doesn't impact me. But if you're in my community, trying to raise children, using my roads and public spaces, creating problems for my police department, why should I acquiesce to your horribly destructive addiction? I think drugs like heroin should be illegal and mandatory treatment should be required of those who use them.

@GeeSussFreeK

I didn't say GDP, I said GDP per capita. Both Finland and the US have roughly the same GDP per capita.

My assertion is that crimes are more likely to be committed by criminals who are empowered by guns. Suicide has nothing to do with this and that's why I didn't address it.

Murder rates are the only universally comparable measure when you consider various violent offenses are classified differently and with varying degrees of tolerance in difference countries.

I think it would hardly be a stretch to assert that guns allow criminals and delinquents to dish out far more death per violent incident - being a reason why crime is average/above average, but murder (especially by firearms) is astronomical.

Either way, I want to address murder singlehandedly as I think it's certainly still an important (and far less finnicky) topic to argue in and of itself, not crime generally.

Crimes again are classified and reported to varying degrees in different countries.

Again, I want to point out that my argument isn't about gun legislation but about gun ownership rates. I have no doubt that if you were to ban guns immediately in one state, there'll not be a chasm of a decline in gun murder rates. Arguments that look at gun laws ignore the blatant fact that US borders are very porous as far as I understand, and that even then, gun laws take years, decades perhaps to have meaningful effects on ownership rates and as a result, general availability at above minimal cost to criminals. Looking at the wikipedia page for California's gun laws, the only meaningful law I see is a 2005 ban in San Fransisco on all firearms and ammunition. Something like this would take at least a decade to have any meaningful effect though, I'm sure I would agree with you here when I say that smuggling guns into simply a city of all places (not a country with customs, or even a state) and selling them on the black market would hardly be difficult - where surrounding areas have no such ban.

I agree that no legislation will prevent a determined terrorist or capable individual from inflicting massive damage if nuclear weapons were readily available and manufactured in large amounts in one area of the world. A concerted and enforced gun ban on the other hand (with restrictions for hunting in some areas, target shooting, and potentially eased laws for protection in remote areas with low police presence) would do a great deal to reduce availability and reduce the incidence of gun murder by petty criminals which makes up the majority of gun deaths in the US.

Take for example our legislation in Australia. There's nothing exceptional about it, I'm just most familiar with it:

"State laws govern the possession and use of firearms in Australia. These laws were largely aligned under the 1996 National Agreement on Firearms. Anyone wishing to possess or use a firearm must have a Firearms Licence and, with some exceptions, be over the age of 18. Owners must have secure storage for their firearms.

Before someone can buy a firearm, he or she must obtain a Permit To Acquire. The first permit has a mandatory 28-day delay before it is first issued. In some states (e.g. Queensland, Victoria, and New South Wales), this is waived for second and subsequent firearms of the same class. For each firearm a "Genuine Reason" must be given, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. Self-defense is not accepted as a reason for issuing a licence, even though it may be legal under certain circumstances to use a legally held firearm for self-defense.[2]

Each firearm in Australia must be registered to the owner by serial number. Some states allow an owner to store or borrow another person's registered firearm of the same category."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

There is a very good reason why this has led to a 5.2% ownership rate among citizens and a murder rate by guns of between 29% and 19% that of the US per capita depending on which numbers you use from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

If you want to come back to saying that people simply murder in different ways, then look at purely the murder rate - the number goes up just slightly to 35% (the rate of murder per capita in Australia of that in the US).

Gun laws aren't punishment. Just like nuclear weapon bans aren't punishment. Or Sarin Gas bans. They're good policy.

Just like making everyone buy basic health insurance to reduce risk among consumers and lower prices, where the poorest are subsidised. If you insist on using analogies, I think this compares incredibly well to a gun ban which makes allowance for recreation and hunting (and at least in my view, allowances of 'for protection' licenses in remote areas with limited quantity and strict restriction to avoid smuggling).

Just like the compulsory third party car insurance we have here, that ensures that if you are at fault and damage another car, the innocent party is guaranteed to have their car repaired.

What I hope you understand coming from a libertarian position (and this is repeating the first thing I said in this whole discussion to blankfist) is that libertarianism is not a flat and universal position on individual rights. You, just like anyone I would imagine, have limits to how far you go with individual rights. You recognize the validity of a system of laws to limit the impact of one's individual's actions on another, and the retribution they should receive for violating it. You simply draw the metaphorical line on rights further right on the ideological spectrum than I do.

Therefore you can't simply justify gun ownership by claiming individual rights and the notion that everyone's entitled to them as they are not presumed guilty. You have to consider whether it does harm in society or not, just like the rest of us.

I hope I've laid out a pretty convincing arguments based on the statistics (speculative of course, I have neither the time nor resources to do a rigorous analysis controlling for a multitude of variables) that gun ownership does lead to more (gun) murders. If we were taking about a 10-20% difference, sure it would be debatable, but we're talking about a 2 to 3 fold increase. Let's not kid around about what causes this.

If you think that individual rights are so incredibly important that they trump this palpably gargantuan increase in death (and suffering) then that is certainly a position you can take, but let's be honest about this if that's the position you want to take.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't think they are. I think the opportunities for self defense, the willingness to use a gun of most people, the willingness of normal and ration people to risk death for losing their property are small. The sheer empowerment and impetus a gun (easily available from a nearby store at a price anyone can pay) can give a criminal on the other hand is huge.

---

Just a quick recap on things I didn't cover.

If you want to demonstrate guns are less devastating than drugs then kindly provide data to support this. If you are referencing the drug war or even if you are not, this is totally irrelevant to the question I posed to you.

Comparing guns to drugs and referencing the opium war is just not a good analogy. Colonialism. Colonialism. Colonialism.

Yes cars kill people, so do airplanes. So do pretzels. In fact, just about everything kills people (although yes car accidents are far more significant than pretzels). We do have a plethora of legislation that increases car safety. Guns are of course unique in that supposedly (if you would believe people in the US), more guns and LESS gun legislation protects you from the more guns you now have and so on. Let's look at this objectionably just as I compared the benefits to defenders versus aggressors for gun ownership. Cars provide an obvious benefit and are fundamental to commerce and modern life (unlike guns 99.9% of the time for private defenders of civil liberty). More legislation and safety requirements can obviously reduce death rates. To me it seems pretty obvious how to proceed here.

It's also 39'th for suicide, below Switzerland, Sweden, and Canada; and France by nearly x2. Your fabled Finland is over twice as high. And WTH does GDP have to do with anything? And frankly, no single nation comes even remotely close to our GDP, like by a factor of 3x, not that it is even relevant. Plus, murder rates doesn't even tell the whole story, we haven't even included violent crimes, or the distinction in the ways different countries report crimes. Looking at may different statistics, it is easy to show that America is the first in gun crimes, but average/above average in violent crime in general. We sure like to lock people up though, as we do have a majority of prisoner per capital vrs the world.

Crime was around LONG before guns, like from the start. America stands on about the high/average mark for total crime per capital which is actually pretty impressively low considering how much moral legislation we have (it's illegal to buy beer on a Sunday in most places).

Here in Texas, we have the highest rate of accidence related gun deaths in the union. We also have considerably lower murder rates than other states, currently 12th. California is 8th, they have much tighter bans on guns, it has not had a positive affect vs Texas as to murder rates.

Fact of the matter is, the nuclear option is an inevitable. There will be a time when going down the local hardware store will net you with world smashing possibilities. No matter of laws will protect you. Most assuredly, the Oklahoma city bombers bomb was illegal...and to little effect. The nature of technology is to become more lethal, and more pervasive. Controls will only subdue those who do not have criminal intent.

You may be fine with punishing non-criminals. I, for one, think this is the highest offence. The foundation of the most immoral of acts. Analogies are proper, and all cases of punishing people whom have done no wrong to their fellow man are applicable.

Guns are less devastating than drugs can be on a country. Drugs can cause countries to use guns in self defense, ask the Chinese about the opium wars.

Cars also fail the fake test you propose, cars kill magnitudes more people than guns, every year without fail. Guns aren't even fractionally comparative. Really, cars should be outlawed by all the logic you have laid out.

And in spite of all that, it still begs the question...who has the right to punish those guilty of no crimes other than possessing something. Next up, thought police, you possessed the idea of crime, guilty as charged.

EDIT: After all, death isn't the highest order of what the government is in charge of protecting, it's liberty. North Korea and Saudi Arabia might have low murder rates...but are hardly models of government to follow. If you want perfect safety, go the the moon...not many people there. If you are around other humans, you are inherently not safe...thems the rules.

Double edit: Also, I have not know anyone directly to ever of been killed by a gun...in my whole life. That is completely anecdotal...but you talk about it likes it rampant. Out of the 4 people on vent now, only 1 has known people to have been killed by a gun.

Agreed, but religion is a special consideration because it claims to know of a divine, metaphysical truth of enormous importance. Being an atheist, I've no issue with people subscribing to religion - not at all. I take issue with religion being imposed on children, inserted into the wrong canals of education and being so significantly involved in politics and government.

You've just said, in so many words, that you have no problems with religion, as long as it's invisible and has no effect on society. Children are incapable of making rational, informed decisions (same with a lot of "adults"). While Bertrand Rusell is correct that children's religious beliefs is installed at the mother's knee, there's not a better way. The State has no morality.

Like Karl Marx said, religion is a drug. But what I would add is that instead of being opium, it's a mild performance enhancing drug. At least that's what religious people think. But it's simply a placebo: religious people think that by believing in god they are protected/doing good/gaining eternal afterlife/etc. and so they feel better. Classic self-fulfilling prophecy type of thing. The problem of course is that this changes their mental balance, and if something comes that challenge their world view they will get angry, like the addict you try to reason with. If something happens to make their religious worldview crumble, they get depressed, i.e. withdrawal syndrome.

You've also just described liberalism. Liberals believe they are doing only good and that liberalism is altruistic. Who's going to argue against caring for the poor? But when the latest social program not only fails to reduce an evil but instead legitimizes and expands it, it's depressing. It has to be the fault of The Other. It's the Republican/Devils' fault--or lack of money--when the real answer is flawed human nature.

On the other hand atheists are always on neutral. If new scientific evidence challenge their worldview, they'll just say "well, my experience of the world is the same, but my understanding of that experience must change". This is exactly to the contrary of the religious, who always thinks that his experience of the world itself is at stake. Religious people think their experience of the world includes a god, when in fact only their understanding of the world - gotten from the Bible or whatever source of authority - includes a god to explain Everything Else. This is why, I think, the theological debate hasn't advanced in two thousand years: religious types try to prove or disprove the experience of a god - which with the way they usually define god is impossible either way - whereas scientific types say with Laplace that a god is a superfluous hypothesis in the understanding of the experience we have of the world.

Atheism is not neutral. It is a declaration that there are no deities and no supernatural influences, because they have never been scientifically proven. Yes, the religious are 'dependent' on their God/s, but the idea that atheists are Vulcan geniuses is equally absurd. Man remains a vicious animal with only a thin veneer of reason. If a stranger struck your child for no reason, rare is the fellow who would stop and say, "This stranger is obviously mentally unbalanced or just having a bad day, that's why he did that." The other 999 out of a thousand would have to be restrained to keep from killing the SOB.

So atheists are more mentally stable and view the world and our experience of it in a more reasonable, detached manner. These, I think, are two things needed for humankind to not destroy itself with its own technological marvels. With this in min, it is no wonder that fundamentalists think global warming and weapons of mass destruction are "necessary" : they think the world is ok as it is and all is well with their god's plan, whereas they must also protect themselves against the guys that do not believe in their own god (the atheist commies and the islamic terrorists).

There has never been a successful State sans religion. Remove God and the State becomes god, and the results of that are never good. Put another way, "As long as there is poverty, there will be gods."

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^mizila:
In fact, I think atheists tend to appreciate life more and just plain be happier.
Actually, David Sloan Wilson in an amazing experiment using the "Experience Sampling Method" pioneered by Csikszentmihalyi (the guy who investigated psychological "flow" experiences) found the following:
"On average, religious believers are more prosocial than non-believers, feel better about themselves, use their time more constructively, and engage in long-term planning rather than gratifying their impulsive desires. On a moment-by-moment basis, they report being more happy, active, sociable, involved and excited. Some of these differences remain even when religious and non-religious believers are matched for their degree of prosociality." (From this article in which Sloan takes issues with some of Dawkins' statements in The God Delusion.)
So technically, your statement just hasn't been borne out by scientific investigation. That's not to say ALL religious people are happier than atheists. We're talking in the aggregate: on average, religious people tend to be happier (along with having other benefits). This should, of course, in no way interfere with your happiness as an atheist. You personally might be happier than everyone else that Wilson studied. But that doesn't mean everybody in the world besides you is better off without religion.
EDIT: What I would say, I guess, is that some people are happier and more productive being religious and others are happier and more productive being atheist. Depends on the individual.


Like Karl Marx said, religion is a drug. But what I would add is that instead of being opium, it's a mild performance enhancing drug. At least that's what religious people think. But it's simply a placebo: religious people think that by believing in god they are protected/doing good/gaining eternal afterlife/etc. and so they feel better. Classic self-fulfilling prophecy type of thing. The problem of course is that this changes their mental balance, and if something comes that challenge their world view they will get angry, like the addict you try to reason with. If something happens to make their religious worldview crumble, they get depressed, i.e. withdrawal syndrome.

On the other hand atheists are always on neutral. If new scientific evidence challenge their worldview, they'll just say "well, my experience of the world is the same, but my understanding of that experience must change". This is exactly to the contrary of the religious, who always thinks that his experience of the world itself is at stake. Religious people think their experience of the world includes a god, when in fact only their understanding of the world - gotten from the Bible or whatever source of authority - includes a god to explain Everything Else. This is why, I think, the theological debate hasn't advanced in two thousand years: religious types try to prove or disprove the experience of a god - which with the way they usually define god is impossible either way - whereas scientific types say with Laplace that a god is a superfluous hypothesis in the understanding of the experience we have of the world.

So atheists are more mentally stable and view the world and our experience of it in a more reasonable, detached manner. These, I think, are two things needed for humankind to not destroy itself with its own technological marvels. With this in min, it is no wonder that fundamentalists think global warming and weapons of mass destruction are "necessary" : they think the world is ok as it is and all is well with their god's plan, whereas they must also protect themselves against the guys that do not believe in their own god (the atheist commies and the islamic terrorists).

Dirac on religion:

I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions.

I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit.

Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards—in heaven if not on earth—all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins.

The real issue is that once we leave, heroin prices will go back down! Daddy needs to feed the smack whores. Opium for the masses is the opium for the masses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War



When I was younger I had an interest in wars. One war that caught my attention was the Vietnam War. One battle that caught my I was Ia Drang which was the first battle directly with uniformed combat troops. Immortalized in the movie We Were Soldiers.

But soon the war began to take on a different tone, moving from rice paddy to rice paddy, village to village. Where one village worked with the US Troops and another didn't. Where one village ended up burned to the ground by US Troops, and one village killed by the Viet Cong. The use of Firebases.

Here are some photos of the firebases in Vietnam. http://www.landscaper.net/lzpics.htm#FSB%20Aries

Turn to Afghanistan. Moving from opium field to opium field, village to village. The use of Fire Bases.

http://www.google.com/images?q=Photos+of+Afghanistan+firebases&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=M
qEoTOa4AYH68AafrIi6Dw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CB0QsAQwAA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_support_base

There were some good reasons to be in Afghanistan, just like there were good reasons to be in Vietnam. But the bad reasons always out weigh the good reasons, on bad reason is Civilian Death, on both sides. Would these people be better off left alone? One can argue that Afghanistan is not vietnam because there is no Communist Influence there, some argue that there are only 100 Al Qaeda there. Another large difference is the casualty difference between Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Here's the big difference. Vietnam was about Communism, and Afghanistan is about Terrorism. Wait, doesn't seem that different.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/president-obamas-secret-100-al-qaeda-now-afghanistan/story?id=9227861

The fat cat "straight arrows" love the fact that drugs are illegal for purely monetary reasons.

More invisible, free money for them to launder.

Hell, the CIA couldn't afford to do half of the shit it does if they couldn't sell drugs.

Who do you think is pushing those bumper crops of opium coming out of Afghanistan?

>> ^Gallowflak:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Wow, this hatred must be religion induced! After all, by mostly everyone's standards on the sift, all bad comes from religion. Can someone tag this as such? (Sarcasm!)

Dude, what was the point of that? It's obvious that you're bitter about religion being treated as the opium (or rabies) of the masses, but why is that relevant to this video?


Agreed.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Wow, this hatred must be religion induced! After all, by mostly everyone's standards on the sift, all bad comes from religion. Can someone tag this as such? (Sarcasm!)


Dude, what was the point of that? It's obvious that you're bitter about religion being treated as the opium (or rabies) of the masses, but why is that relevant to this video?

>> ^cybrbeast:
I thought choggie was a radical free market person, I guess not.
I really see no big problem with there being fast food. It's the responsibility of parents to eat well and feed their children well. But I guess most people are just to lazy, poor or uneducated.


I am radical free-market cyberbeast-the world of the now resembles nothing akin to a free market economy, the definition most wankers understand it as is a theoretical concept at best, as every country on the planet has been groomed to march in lock-step to something completely removed from such a noble idea. Supply and demand can only work when masses of monkeys are not constantly indoctrinated by corporate fucks and bombarded with lies and deceit by a geopolitical machine which works to concentrate resources and labor to benefit the few-The so-called new world order or future of mankind or whatever the fuck you wanna call being herded into cattle cars involves a few people controlling the vast majority of well-groomed imbeciles, who have been taught from the cradle to follow orders-The only country who is not willing to necessarily follow the European Aristocratic/Corporate model is China, but they have a small group of criminals there who would that they be worshiped as gods as well-it's simply not occidental.

In an actual "free market", there is no bullshit-I give you a "dollar" or some service, entertainment, or product, you compensate me in-kind. I can deal in arms, cocoa, opium, cotton-candy, pussy, or whatever the fuck I care to taking whatever risk or leisure there is is involved, and I answer to no-one but natural law-more of a free-market anarchist if you will.

By all means, make as many laws as you care to regarding commerce or the exchange of goods and services: The wise man will prosper who is willing to risk all or nothing to accomplish his will within any system-only abrupt changes from outside of contrived systems will help the individual at this point in history...like maybe a comet or some worldwide upheaval.