On June 22, 2016 12:43:13 PM EDT, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:

   From: Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net>
   To: cypherpunks <cypherpunks@cpunks.org>
   Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 5:39 AM
   Subject: tools for enrollment
   [...]
   >2) One foundation of any sane community is the right of a human to
   >   grow his own food and any other plant, for medicinal or other
   >   purposes (personal enjoyment, to trade with others, etc)
   >3) A document called the King James Bible (one random example), speaks
   >   to this fundamental human right, in a way which certain adult
   humans
   >  can receive as, well let's just call it "the gospel truth."
   However, see 1943 Supreme Court case Wickard v. Filburn.  Wikipedia:
   [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
   In what had to have been the high-water mark for justification of
   Federal Government powers, from Wikipedia:
   "An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for use to feed
   animals on his own farm. The U.S. government had established limits on
   wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to
   stabilize wheat prices and supplies. In 1941 Filburn grew more than the
   limits permitted and he was ordered to pay a penalty of $117.11. He
   claimed his wheat was not sold in interstate commerce and so the
   penalty could not apply to him. The Supreme Court stated "The intended
   disposition of the crop here involved has not been expressly stated..."
   and later "Whether the subject of the regulation in question was
   "production," "consumption," or "marketing" is, therefore, not material
   for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us [...]
   [b]ut even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be
   regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by
   Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate
   commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at
   some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"^[2][4]"
   "The Supreme Court interpreted the [3]United States
   Constitution's [4]Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which
   permits the [5]United States Congress "to regulate Commerce with
   foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian
   Tribes." The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities
   reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open
   market, which is traded nationally (interstate), and is therefore
   within the purview of the [6]Commerce Clause. Although Filburn's
   relatively small amount of production of more wheat than he was
   allotted would not affect interstate commerce itself, the cumulative
   actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn would certainly
   become substantial. Therefore, according to the court, Filburn's
   production could be regulated by the federal government."
   I consider the Supreme Court's 'reasoning' in this case to be insane.
                        Jim Bell

   We live in an absurd police state (police world, largely), where
   jackbooted thugs regulate what you put into your own body. What fucking
   right does any government have to say about what drug I want to eat,
   smoke or shoot? Is it my body or isn't it?
   Fuck cops, fuck the judicial system, and fuck all the politicians out
   there who think they are doing important work, so many foul cogs in a
   disgusting, suffocating, broken machine.
   --
   John
   Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

References

   1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
   2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn#cite_note-4
   3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution
   4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
   5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress
   6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause