tools for enrollment
Trigger warning and Punk anarchist apostasy alert: the following question may be considered entirely blasphemous to punk tradition! Prior attempts to put the following concept have been downright clumsy, thus the following: 1) A significant portion of the adult humans in America might be considered part of the so-called "bible belt". 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." The question: Ought we reject outright all passages in such a document on any grounds of personal preferred vehemence such as including but not limited to the grounds of superstition, historical abuse, unnecessary externalization of authority, or any and other such grounds, or ought we, for the purposes of communicating with certain of our fellow adult humans regarding such a fundamental human right (which right must be upheld for any community or society to call itself just, righteous, sane and etc) ought we highlight those particular passages in said document, in support of said fundamental human right? (If the latter, humorous slogans give rise to themselves such as for example "Be truly punk, get down and rock it with the King James Bible!")
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: 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.'"[4]""The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the 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 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
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: 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.'"[4]""The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the 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 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.
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.
Yes, but John, you are mistaking media bullshit for reality. If you ever get busted for drugs, tell the court what you just said and that they'd have to outlaw prime-rib and cheesecake because they are also bad for you. I no longer believe in media. I've seen the Court from the inside. What's happening is far stranger and has to do with the intimidating power of the all-seeing-eye and how it controls everything with Latin: medical system, legal system, and commerce. Twain was right. No one's competent enough to be this malicious. Mark
participants (4)
-
jim bell -
John -
Xer0Dynamite -
Zenaan Harkness