Log in

View Full Version : Shit is hard - or why reformism is shit



whore
9th January 2010, 11:23
Shit is hard - or why reformism is shit

first i'll suggest that folks have a look at this blog post: steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legalized-marijuana.html

then i'll quote it:


Think about it. What kinds of laws do we have about alcohol and tobacco? Is it just one law each, saying "it's legal" or "it's illegal?" Of course not, and you're insulted that I asked such an obviously rhetorical question, yet intrigued by my line of reasoning. Admit it! How is marijuana similar to alcohol? How is it different? How is it similar and different to tobacco?

Let's let the little angel ask a few preliminary questions, just to see where it takes us, shall we?



Is it legal to drink alcohol in a TV commercial? No? OK, what about marijuana, then? Can you smoke it in a commercial? Can you SHOW it? Can you talk about it? Can you show marijuana smoke at a party, without anyone actually being seen smoking it? Can you recommend its use to children under the age of 9? What exactly are the laws going to be around advertising and marijuana?
Do we let everyone out of prison who was incarcerated for possession and/or sale of marijuana? If not, then what do we tell them when they start rioting? If so, what do we do with them? Do we subsidize halfway houses? Do we give them their pot back? How much pot, exactly, do they need to have possessed in order to effect their judicial reversal and subsequent amnesty? A bud? An ounce? A cargo ship full?
Is it legal to sell, or just possess? If the latter, then how do we integrate the illegality of selling it into the advertising campaigns that tell us it's legal to own it?
If it's legal to sell it, WHO can sell it? Who can they sell it to? Where can they sell it? Where can they purchase it? Are we simply going to relax all the border laws, all the policies, all the local, state and federal laws and statutes that govern how we prioritize policing it? All at once? Is there a grandfather clause? On what _exact_ date, GMT, does it become legal, and what happens to pending litigation at that time?
Are we going to license it? Like state alcohol liquor licenses, of which there are a fixed number? What department does the licensing? How do you regulate it? Who inspects the premises looking for license violations, and how often? What, exactly, are they looking for?
Is it OK to smoke marijuana at home? At work? In a restaurant? In a designated Pot Bar? On the street? Can you pull out a seventeen-foot-long water bong and take a big hit in the middle of a shopping mall, and ask everyone near you to take a hit with you, since it's totally awesome skunkweed that you, like, can't get in the local vending machine? If it's not OK, then why not?
Can you drive when you're stoned? What's the legal blood-THC level? Is it state-regulated or federal-regulated? For that matter, what is the jurisdiction for ALL marijuana-related laws? Can states override federal rulings? Provinces? Counties? Cities? Homeowners associations?
What exactly is the Coast Guard supposed to do now? Can illegal drug smugglers just land and start selling on the docks? Are consumers supposed to buy their marijuana on the street? What happens to the existing supply-chain operations? How are they taxed? Who oversees it?
Can you smoke marijuana on airplanes? Can airplanes offer it to their customers in-flight? Is it regulated in-flight more like tobacco (don't get the smoke in other peoples' faces) or alcohol (imbibe as you will, as long as you don't "appear intoxicated"?) What about marijuana brownies? Are you allowed to eat it in areas where you're not allowed to smoke it?
Can an airplane captain smoke pot? A ship captain? A train conductor? The driver of a car? An attendee at a Broadway musical? A politician in a legislative session? What is the comprehensive list of occupations, positions and scenarios in which smoking pot is legal? What about eating pot? What about holding it? What about holding a pot plant? What about the seeds?
Speaking of the seeds, are there different laws governing distribution, sale and possession of seeds vs. plants vs. buds vs. joints? If so, why? If not, why not?
What laws govern the transportation of marijuana in any form into or out of countries where it is still illegal? What policies are states able to enact? Is it OK under any circumstances for a person to go to jail over the possession or use of marijuana? If so, what are those circumstances?
Are there any laws governing the use of marijuana by atheletes? U.S. military personnel? Government employees? Government contractors? U.S. ambassadors, in title or in spirit? What are our extradition laws? What do we do about citizens who are subject to the death penalty in countries like Singapore for the possession of sufficient quantities of what we now consider to be legal substances?
What about derivatives? Are the laws the same for hashish? How do we tell the difference? What if someone engineers a super-powerful plant? How do the new laws extend to a potential spectrum of new drugs similar to THC?
For driving and operating machinery, do we have legal definitions that are equivalent of blood-alcohol percentage, and if so, what are these definitions? How do we establish them? How do we figure out what is actually dangerous? How do we test for these levels? When they are established, do we we put up signs on all roadways? Do we update the Driver's Education materials? How do we communicate this change to the public?
How does legalization impact our public health education programs? Do they have to immediately retract all campaigning, advertising and distributed literature that mentions marijuana? How does legalization interact with the "Say no to drugs" programs? Do we need extra education to differentiate between a drug that is now legal (but wasn't before) and drugs that are still illegal? What's our story here? What about other drugs that are even less addictive and/or less intrusive than marijuana?
Monsanto is eventually going to sue the living shit out of someone for using genetically-engineered pot seeds. Can they sue individuals with a single plant in their windowsill? (answer: yes) Will Oprah step in and help that beleaguered individual? (answer: we'll see!)



the point being, is that things are complicated, and things are hard. legalising weed is just one example (yes, many of the examples of problems listed above are factitious, whatever). what about other victim-less crimes? here's a list for prostitution:

are condoms required?
is street-walking legal? if so where?
are brothals legal? if so where?
can brothals be treated similar to massage parlours work place wise?
can a person be charged with rape if they rape someone (who says, "NO!") in the context of the victim being a prostitute? (perhaps not according to a court case recently, dailytelegraph.com.au/news/us-navy-officer-timothy-davis-found-not-guilty-of-raping-prostitute-in-sydney-brothel/story-e6freuy9-1225802085601 )
what's the legal age for being and visiting prostitutes?
will it be legal to discriminate against a person based on their occupation?
can a person be forced to be a prostitute by the dole agency? (i think i heard something about this recently)
are people who have been convicted of being (or visiting in some places) a prostitute given automatic pardons? will they be released from prison or have their fines paid back? what if they are in prison for a related crime?

sure, many of these questions are really easy to answer, but considering that there are such a large number of victimless crimes, the questions start getting bigger and bigger.

is it possible that an elected revolutionary government (if such a thing is not a contradiction in terms, but people suggest that the venezuelan government is one such) could simply release all non-violent offenders? or even all "criminals"? well, of course it is possible, the question should be, is it desirable?

considering it would be one of the first moves of a true revolution, of course it is desirable!

for a reformist government, it has to decide what is important in the scheme of things, what is most, and what is less. it will have to run through the list of victimless crimes, decide on the various issues raised (for example the two lists above), and so on.

in other words, reformism is shit, things are too hard for a truly revolutionary government to do things properly. the best option is to scrap it all and start from scratch.

Havet
9th January 2010, 13:17
in other words, reformism is shit, things are too hard for a truly revolutionary government to do things properly. the best option is to scrap it all and start from scratch.

My thoughts exactly. Most people here will remember me shouting that reformism is pointless, and if something was indeed to get done it will not tackle the fundamental issues (it will just end up being a sort of band-aid)

Bud Struggle
9th January 2010, 15:03
What in the world make you think pot would be legal after the Revolution? Before it's demise they tried to outlaw alcohol in the Soviet Union. That may be the way things would go.

Seriously, before you scrap anything you had better recognize that whatever "new" programs come in may not be to your liking. As an example--here in the USA the keep putting "gay marriage" up to open democratic votes in state plebiscites--and it LOOSES each and every time.

Maybe after the Revolution people might get the feeling things are going to far and get very conservative in their democratic voting.

Once everything is up for grabs--you never know who is going to do the grabbing first and best. It just may be the people that have always been the first and best at grabbing. :)

RedAnarchist
9th January 2010, 15:30
Seriously, before you scrap anything you had better recognize that whatever "new" programs come in may not be to your liking. As an example--here in the USA the keep putting "gay marriage" up to open democratic votes in state plebiscites--and it LOSES each and every time.

Slightly offtopic, but it's usually because of the word "marriage" that it gets defeated, rather than opposition to gay unions (although I do recognise that a large number of Americans are against any form of homosexual union and/or are homophobic anyway).

Bud Struggle
9th January 2010, 15:46
Slightly offtopic, but it's usually because of the word "marriage" that it gets defeated, rather than opposition to gay unions (although I do recognise that a large number of Americans are against any form of homosexual union and/or are homophobic anyway).

Oh, I agree about "the word"--but realistically people here in the US are a lot more conservative on certain topics--especially the social ones than most people recognize.

Once you start scrubbing away the old order too quickly you might find a lot of things you might now want to find below.

Skooma Addict
9th January 2010, 19:02
I think this doesn't really address many of the arguments for reformism. For now, a contemporary democracy is what we have to work with. I think many of today's problems can be solved if we just slightly "update" our political democracy. One idea is that all citizens must pass a test in order to vote. Or maybe some people could be given two votes instead of one if they have the right credentials. There are other things that could be tried as well. I think Caplan is correct in this regard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTxYn8kCJ7o
(http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=RTxYn8kCJ7o#t=49)

Antiks72
9th January 2010, 19:25
I think this doesn't really address many of the arguments for reformism. For now, a contemporary democracy is what we have to work with. I think many of today's problems can be solved if we just slightly "update" our political democracy. One idea is that all citizens must pass a test in order to vote. Or maybe some people could be given two votes instead of one if they have the right credentials. There are other things that could be tried as well. I think Caplan is correct in this regard.


The problem with that is it leaves the source of the infection (bourgeoisie) present, and there's nothing guaranteeing it won't come back. Reformism leaves the door wide open for it to be overturned.

This is what we've seen in America with the destruction of FDR's banking policies. Result: the whole world economy in ruins. Neoliberal insanity isn't done there either, they have their eyes on social security and medicare.

Havet
9th January 2010, 22:49
This is what we've seen in America with the destruction of FDR's banking policies. Result: the whole world economy in ruins. Neoliberal insanity isn't done there either, they have their eyes on social security and medicare.

FDR's banking policies contributed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_ex0sTsb_I) to the current economic problem as well.

Antiks72
9th January 2010, 23:00
FDR's banking policies to the current economic problem as well.

Sorry, but I don't buy that Mises/free market/Ron Paulbot gold standard bullshit.

Havet
9th January 2010, 23:09
Sorry, but I don't buy that Mises/free market/Ron Paulbot gold standard bullshit.

Well you don't have to be a misean, or a free marketeer, or a ronpaulbot to believe that.

Just look at these basic videos about how money is created (http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-7-money-creation), what is inflation (http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-9-brief-history-us-money) and a brief history of the monetary system in america (http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-9-brief-history-us-money) to understand what i'm talking about.

BTW, im not saying that FDR is the only one whos to blame. Many before and after (including reagan) only worsened the problem.

IcarusAngel
9th January 2010, 23:29
"I'm not an economist. I'm a trained research scientist, and a former Fortune 300 VP. Most importantly, though, I'm a concerned citizen."

So we're supposed to listen to a business man's expertise? We have Olaf for that.

More likely it had to do with pure neo-liberalism (dismantling of bretton woods, etc.), deregulation, etc., and these things could have existed even with a "Gold Standard."

whore
10th January 2010, 02:22
What in the world make you think pot would be legal after the Revolution? Before it's demise they tried to outlaw alcohol in the Soviet Union. That may be the way things would go.

Seriously, before you scrap anything you had better recognize that whatever "new" programs come in may not be to your liking. As an example--here in the USA the keep putting "gay marriage" up to open democratic votes in state plebiscites--and it LOOSES each and every time.

Maybe after the Revolution people might get the feeling things are going to far and get very conservative in their democratic voting.

Once everything is up for grabs--you never know who is going to do the grabbing first and best. It just may be the people that have always been the first and best at grabbing. :)
after the revolution there ain't going to be some state or another to enforce laws, and so there isn't going to be 'legal' and 'illegal'. the soviet union wasn't any sort of good shit from my perspective, i hate government and state.

it sure is true though that today many people are a bit blind to freedom, and support reactionary shit. (and maybe people vote against gay marraige because they think the government should be doing anything with any marriage. )

anyway, the point of the post is, there are all sorts of things that a reformist "revolutionary" government would have to change, inheritence laws, taxation, family law etc. (not to mention all the other property related laws). forget the various victimless crimes, they were just an example. let's look at inheritence for a moment and some of the tough questions that would need to be answered:


will all wills automatically rendered null and void?
is all inheritence, or only above a certain monetary value disallowed?
who decides what that monetary value is, what is it going to be?
who gets everything that otherwise would have been inherited?
what about heirlooms? who decides what a heirloom is?
is a house a heirloom?
is this legislation going to be retroactive?

just some of the questions that would need to be answered.
and what about the interaction with other laws? the communist manifesto says


Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.



does this mean that a person can't inherit a house? (yes I guess)

the point is, reformism is far too complicated, and doesn't work! (look cuba and venezualla).

whore
10th January 2010, 02:28
I think this doesn't really address many of the arguments for reformism. For now, a contemporary democracy is what we have to work with. I think many of today's problems can be solved if we just slightly "update" our political democracy. One idea is that all citizens must pass a test in order to vote. Or maybe some people could be given two votes instead of one if they have the right credentials. There are other things that could be tried as well. I think Caplan is correct in this regard.
oh that's a good idea, let's abolish our "democracy"!


who decides what is going to be on the test?
who decides who gets two votes?



don't you think that this would just entrench the current political system even more, because it is the current rulers who get to decided this shit?!

it doesn't fix the problem of the people in power now are quite happy in power, and your "solution" isn't going to change a fucking thing!

actually, no, i like this idea. i get to write the fucking test, and i get to have six billion votes. good idea!

i bet you would think that you could pass any test, because you are so smart and intelligent. you are one of the few people who aren't sheep (sheeple?), and so can see that this is a good idea. fascists also think that they would be one of the ones in power as well in a fascist system.

face it, you aren't as smart as you think you are. if you were, you would realise that this sort of system would disenfranshise you even more than you already are. why? because you are less than special, you aren't rich, or well connected. and that's the important thing.

Antiks72
10th January 2010, 03:44
Well you don't have to be a misean, or a free marketeer, or a ronpaulbot to believe that.

Just look at these basic videos about how money is created (http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-7-money-creation), what is inflation (http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-9-brief-history-us-money) and a brief history of the monetary system in america (http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-9-brief-history-us-money) to understand what i'm talking about.

BTW, im not saying that FDR is the only one whos to blame. Many before and after (including reagan) only worsened the problem.

It just so happens that those groups are all yammering about it, and the Fed. Blah.

I looked at Chris's site and it just so happens he's selling stuff. Surprise, surprise. He's one of these peak oil guys too?

Havet
11th January 2010, 16:54
It just so happens that those groups are all yammering about it, and the Fed. Blah.

I looked at Chris's site and it just so happens he's selling stuff. Surprise, surprise. He's one of these peak oil guys too?

What's wrong with selling shit? Even RevLeft sells shit:


Also, you surely have noticed the advertisements on the board, Please be aware that the advertisements are a necessary evil to cover the monthly running costs for our server. But you can easily remove it from your screens by donating $10 or more to RevLeft, learn more here

Skooma Addict
11th January 2010, 17:54
oh that's a good idea, let's abolish our "democracy"!


who decides what is going to be on the test?
who decides who gets two votes?



don't you think that this would just entrench the current political system even more, because it is the current rulers who get to decided this shit?!

it doesn't fix the problem of the people in power now are quite happy in power, and your "solution" isn't going to change a fucking thing!

actually, no, i like this idea. i get to write the fucking test, and i get to have six billion votes. good idea!

i bet you would think that you could pass any test, because you are so smart and intelligent. you are one of the few people who aren't sheep (sheeple?), and so can see that this is a good idea. fascists also think that they would be one of the ones in power as well in a fascist system.

face it, you aren't as smart as you think you are. if you were, you would realise that this sort of system would disenfranshise you even more than you already are. why? because you are less than special, you aren't rich, or well connected. and that's the important thing.

I get the impression that your yelling and very angry when I read this. The fact is that many voters just don't know what is even going on. The people I am referring to are not just people I disagree with. I am not saying that socialists should not be allowed to vote. The issue is dealt with in greater detail in Caplan's book: The Myth of the Rational Voter.