Message to the Voting Cattle - Larken Rose

Sandi's picture
Submitted by Sandi on Sun, 2012-08-12 20:57

"What you hear in this video is from the audiobook of "The Iron Web," a novel I wrote years ago. (The printed book and audiobook are at LarkenRose.com). These are the words of a fictional character in the book, and he says quite a bit more. And yes, the character is rather harsh in his condemnation of state-worship, but for a reason. If you have the story context of who is saying it, where, when, and why, some of it makes more sense. Many thanks to FreiwilligFrei for making this video." Larken Rose

Perhaps his "Masterpiece."

 


I see some contradictory

gregster's picture

I see some contradictory ideas Sandi. 

"I see no justice or morality in a capitalistic involvement of law."

Versus

"Or should there be COMPETITION."

By "capitalistic involvement of law" I take it you mean voluntary contributions being the capitalist aspect. 

"If buying into the government is an option then there should be an option to get out"

If voluntary contribution [etc] was "buying in" then that would imply that no-one had to "get out," they would be "out" already. 

It isn't correct to apply "competition" to the agency enforcing law as if that was introducing capitalism. It is a misunderstanding of what capitalism is, in that it rests on property rights. These are impossible under the "competing" enforcer monstrosity. Which would be a series of groups aping the government oh-so-hated by anarchists.

sent from iPhone
a product of real competition

Upon further thought - the option of whether to buy into govt

Sandi's picture

The government being the "mob" so to speak. Do you buy into it? Or should there be COMPETITION.
If buying into the government is an option then there should be an option to get out. What if you do not buy into the law of government? Then you would be an "outlaw" meaning you are outside the boundary of law. This would also mean that the government has no claim on you and those that have bought into the government system have no legal claim on your practises. In order to trade with an outlaw, one must recognise the risks because they are not backed up by the rule of law. Perhaps there is a legitimate reason for anarchy. Given that anarchists have the option of understanding the "laws of the land" or refusing to acknowledge them. Buying into government must therefore be voluntary.

That is a great question Greg

Sandi's picture

I have been chewing it over for quite some time now. I'm not quite an anarchist, but I do respect a lot of anarchists views. Needless to say I, remain in the Ayn Rand camp, but I do lean more favourably towards the warming flame anarchy. Government arbitration is the capstone which binds me toward Rand, however the philosophy of anarchism pulls me otherwise. I see merits on both sides, but I see security in the sense that I would choose the Rand side of camp. That said. I do not agree with voluntary taxation in the sense that a business does not operate with a donation jar. That is where I question Rand and that is where I meet anarchy. I go with a government in the defence of private property, perhaps more so than I would hire a mob. The rule of law is so very important as with the transparency of the arbitrators. I see no justice or morality in a capitalistic involvement of law.

The video

gregster's picture

Makes many good points.

Is a just small state evil?

"I am going to defend what I believe is right

Sandi's picture

If I have to go to jail for 20 years, then so be it."

"This is a Constitutional battle, and we're going to defend our rights," says Aaron Sandusky, the owner of a medical marijuana dispensary in Upland, California who now faces federal drug trafficking charges even though he was operating within California state law.

REASON TV first profiled Sandusky in late 2011 in the midst of a federal crackdown on marijuana dispensaries across California, which occurred despite repeated promises from the Obama administration to lay off operators compliant with state law (Incidentally, the city of Upland, which initiated the legal action against G3, admitted in court that Sandusky was operating within state law). During the production of that video, Sandusky's storefront and grow house were raided, his assets seized and his product destroyed. But Sandusky was undeterred and joined a lawsuit with several other dispensary owners, challenging the right of city governments to outright ban dispensaries. After a favorable ruling from an appellate court, Sandusky re-opened, and the city of Upland was powerless to stop him. But the Feds were not happy with this outcome.

Sandusky was arrested and charged with six counts of drug trafficking, some of which could carry a life sentence. He's spent the last seven weeks in a county prison, just awaiting a bond hearing. He finally was granted bail last Friday and is now out on house arrest, where he awaits an October trial to decide his fate. He agreed to sit down with Reason.tv for an interview to discuss his case, the state of medical marijuana in this country, and why this is a cause for which he's willing to risk it all.

"If I have to go to jail for 20 years defending this, then so be it," says Sandusky.

About 6 minutes

Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Camera by Tracy Oppenheimer.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.