Again, I’m not hearing any sort of actual proposal of how things would play out. I’m just hearing “engage people’s minds. The real world is for old fogeys and useless token exhibitions. The real world is where corpses litter the ground, but in the battleground of ideas, the ground is clean, as the fire of conviction has cleansed the soil and the seeds of truth have grown strong roots…watered by the rain of wisdom from our forefathers of yore..”
Can you actually offer an idea as to how exactly government is rolled back after you “disseminate the truth” and then just sit back? Do you see this as just another form of “spreading awareness” where you just raise awareness to an acceptable, aribtrary level, you can just back off and say “Bam! did my part. Now it’s your turn. Fix it.”
Even if that’s your argument, I’m still waiting to hear an actual explanation of how anything would actually change. As I said in the other thread, of course people’s attitudes and minds have to be changed first. Ron Paul says that all the time. It’s a given. I’m interested in (a) the most efficient and effective and fastest way to do that, and (b) what happens after that.
Simply spouting ridiculous platitudes and laughable metaphors that basically say nothing at all doesn’t interest me and it doesn’t offer anything to a discussion.
People simply thinking something doesn’t get anything done. And until you find a way to give everyone telekinetic or magical Jeannie abilities, that’s going to remain the case.
Well you go ahead and “change the culture” one “average person off the street” conversation at a time, and everyone else who cares about seeing more liberty in their own lifetime will put themselves in positions with ability to dismantle that government power directly and we’ll see who gets more done.
You say people trust government more than their neighbors. Wouldn’t it be much easier if their neighbors were the ones in government? Is that not a much faster way to move the process forward?
As Gary North outlines, you “take a long view of the battle” and a cadre must target the actual crucial battlefield [you know, one that actually exists in the real world]: the public schools:
“Local Ron Paul fanatics need to do the groundwork for the next 8 years: mastering the basics of winning elections, dealing with entrenched bureaucrats, cutting budgets, and running local school boards. They must gain experience in preparation for their takeover of the national Republican party when the federal government is forced to default. When Washington becomes Athens – and it will – this new leadership will emerge at the national level. It will have this message: Ron Paul was right.”
You see Gary North doesn’t disagree with the notion that the public attitude toward government needs to change. (Nor do I). As far as I can tell, he and I both consider that a given. It’s obvious. What we’re concerned about is (a) the best way to go about doing that, and (b) what these right-thinking people do.
Again, useless platitudes and metaphors are great when you want to sound intelligent and refined on an Internet forum, but as I said they’re basically useless in actually getting things done. Which is why they don’t interest me.
As an example of what does interest me (and what I would think would interest anyone else interested in rolling back government), see that article. He offers an actual proposal for things that would actually be done…a method for the change. He doesn’t just say utterly useless fluff like “I don’t put my faith in politicians. I prefer the battleground of ideas.”
In fact he even gets farther into it and in that very article links to an actual recommended strategy for accomplishing the public school reform he brings up.
Again, if anyone has any ideas that are better than this kind of thing, and can offer a proposal for how government would be more quickly, effectively, and efficiently rolled back with little to no activity to that end taking place inside the government itself, I’m all ears. But again, so far I’ve heard nothing but “tell people the truth and then sit back and watch what happens.”
No problem. Here is where I think I shared my “profound wisdom” with “the rest of the class”.
I think you’re lying, John, and rather transparently at that. All too often (if you ask me), you point people to things that have already been said elsewhere (typically by you yourself) and do so in ways that readily appear to be condescending. The point behind condescension is to make the target feel inferior. Of course, how the target feels is actually up to him, which is why condescension doesn’t always work as intended.
In other words, I have no problem being “overly sensitive” to your douchebaggery. I think it’s unethical and it goes against the rules of this forum. The fact that you continue to engage in such behavior - and, at times, escalate it - belies desperation. What could be the source of this desperation? I’d say it’s a desire to feel like “the audience” is still with you and not with anyone else.
So, after I made the post I linked to above, you replied, “Yes I already addressed this. You should see my big surprised face in reaction to you not coming up with anything new or refutative.” After you pointed out (in a highly condescending way) where you already addressed it, I took it upon myself to read over that and respond to it here. Now you come back and try to deny that you made any such argument in the first place! This again seems like a transparent example of lying on your part, John.
Furthermore, what are you so afraid of that’s preventing you from reading it, let alone responding to it? Do you really think that, by ignoring it, it will simply go away? I wouldn’t hold your breath there, if I were you.
Translation: “Lurkers reading this thread, don’t listen to people like Clayton and Autolykos. Listen to me.”
But yes, we’ll see who gets more done. We’ll see which group of people make proverbial deals with the devil, become entrenched bureaucrats themselves, and elect new politicians who are just as psychopathic/narcissistic/whatever as the vast majority of those currently in office.
As I said before (but which you’re apparently afraid to face), this strategy has been tried for over 30 years by places like the Cato Institute. Where has it gotten them?
That’s it? “as more people roll back the state in their own minds, the power of the state to enforce its edicts will gradually weaken.” That’s your profound wisdom? Are you joking?
The Cato Institute has tried for 30 years to get onto a local school board?
I never said it was profound wisdom. You said that, obviously out of mockery.
I was speaking in general terms of “playing the political game”, of course. Cato has certainly been working to influence the political process at the federal level, if not also the state level.
You said you had an alternative approach to rolling back government that didn’t involve any sort of involvment or action within government or the political process.
I asked what that might be, and instead of sharing it you dodged around it and basically said nothing you offered would suffice for me, so you won’t offer your alleged alternative approach. (As if whether I thought it was a valid idea or not was even relevant.) You either place a much greater weight on my opinion than I thought (and certainly than you’d like to admit), or you’re simply relying on the common Leftist tactic of focusing something that is completely irrelevant and using it as an excuse to avoid having to offer any sort of argument of your own.
I pointed this out and insinuated that you actually had no real alternative, and you again reverted to your “yeah I have one, but it won’t change your mind, so I don’t need to share it” nonsense. So I again asked about you actually putting something forth, and you [I’m not even kidding] claimed that you already did offer your alternative.
I asked where in the hell you have done this, and you [again, I’m not even joking] actually pointed me to a previous post in this very thread in which you literally said “I don’t see the need to provide examples.”
So as a recap:
you claim you have an alternative
I ask what that is
You say no matter what you say it won’t change my mind, so you won’t offer anything
I suggest that the real reason you won’t share your alternative is because you don’t actually have an alternative to offer
You insist you do, but again, it won’t change my mind, so you won’t share it.
I again ask what this alternative is.
You tell me you’ve already shared it.
I ask where
You point me to a post in which you say “I don’t see the need to provide examples.”
And I’m the one who’s afraid to face something?
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed the other part of that post where you said “as more people roll back the state in their own minds, the power of the state to enforce its edicts will gradually weaken” was the “alternative approach” you were talking about. Of course, this doesn’t exactly sound like an actual “alternative approach” so much as a explication of your previous nonsense platitude about remaining in “the battleground of ideas”, this one being only slightly longer. So I asked if you were joking.
Evidently you weren’t.
So that’s your “alternative approach.” I ask for an actual practical pragmatic proposal for how government would be more quickly, effectively, and efficiently rolled back with little to no activity to that end taking place inside the government itself, and your response is basically the same thing Clayton just said: “disseminate the truth and then [sit back and watch what happens]”. Except you basically come out and state that the State will somehow actually be rolled back because people have changed their mind about it.
So again, if you actually have some method that is better than something like what North describes in those writings, and can offer an actual proposal for how government would be more quickly, effectively, and efficiently rolled back with little to no activity to that end taking place inside the government itself, I’m all ears.
…Unless of course you’re banking on the everyone gaining telekinetic or magical Jeannie abilities thing and you want to stick with the “changed minds automatically means changed reality.” But if not, it would be nice to get an explanation of the in-between part.
Speaking for myself, I’m more of an idea guy, less of an action guy. I’m taking action in my own ways that I see are in line with my own interests. For example, I’m in the process of writing my own programming language whose ultimate purpose is to enable easy access to cryptographic data stored on online servers in a way that is streamlined, yet open source. My primary purpose for the language (how it benefits me) is to act as a resume item that I hope will one day set me apart from the pack.
I’m a big believer that the individual’s interests and the interests of society naturally align. If the “action items” that we devise are incongruous with the simple pursuit of self-interest, they’re obviously doomed to failure from the outset. So, the key is understanding what individual interests people could be pursuing but aren’t either due to lack of insight, mental blocks, lack of organization or capital support, etc. and then fill in what is missing.
In terms of direct action towards political change, I don’t see how a person can do better than donating to the LvMI, popularizing Austrian economics, popularizing Ron Paul, and devising money-making ways to do these things (e.g. bitbutter’s crowd-funded animations are a perfect illustration). Haven’t you been watching the news for the last couple years? Haven’t you seen people shaking protest signs that say “END THE FED” on them, in mass numbers, all around the country? You don’t think that the LvMI is the single entity most responsible for this?
Also, I think it’s important to note that just because something doesn’t superficially appear to lend support to the liberty movement, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t support it anyway. This is the invisible hand. And I think that there are a lot of commercial or semi-commercial activities - web programming for cash, DJing and mixing in night clubs for cash payment and tips, even Bitcoin mining - that are chipping away at the cracks in the dam.
Granted, we’re not yet to critical mass but the only route to real change is through the masses changing the minds and attitudes. Politics is a hopeless game. It’s been played a million different ways and always with the same result: “Send me to Washington so I can clean house!” “Sorry, I had to compromise in order to get things done.” “We need this bill in order to protect American workers from greedy capitalists sending our jobs overseas.”
So, we just need to keep building toward critical mass (changing hearts and minds). 10% is not enough. 16% is supposed to be the magic number but I don’t think it would hurt to try get 20% of the American public at least aware of the problems with the Federal Reserve system and get them - after the famous Aaron Russo documentary - Mad As Hell about it. Perhaps we could use an End the Fed PAC toward this end, a group whose sole purpose is to raise money, get anti-Fed people elected and twist the arms of the remaining members of Congress to end the legal tender status of FRNs (and any other regulatory favors given to FRNs) and free gold and silver of capital gains taxes.
One of the things that might also be good is an educational outreach specifically directed toward the wealthy - I think there are more individuals who could become “libertarian angels” like Peter Thiel is - they just haven’t given any thought to the matter. I know that charity organizations will sponsor programs to go to social galas and attempt to glad hand the wealthy and attempt to attract their attention to donating to various kinds of charity. Promoting liberty doesn’t sound like charity but it really is the most philanthropic thing that I think a person could spend their money on, so perhaps we just need people to go out and create a message that explains liberty in terms of philanthropy.
And so on. I’m not opposed to political action, I am just firmly convinced that there’s no way in hell we’re going to elect ourselves out of this mess. Sooner or later, the system will have to undergo something at least as upending to the present social order as perestroika was to Soviet Russia.
I guess as long as you’re willing to admit it, that’s a start. But I guess a big part of my point is that everyone can’t be “idea people and not action people”, or nothing would ever get done. I’m still interested in proposals for how government would be rolled back. And if no one has any, then I don’t see the use in simply claiming what I, North, and Holland, (and I’m sure plenty others) have said is essentially not the way to go. Again, simply criticizing without offering any actual reasoned critique, let alone an alternative, is just another Leftist tactic (this one of course being the famous “Critical Theory” method).
Sounds awesome.
I doubt you’ll be able to find many things higher on the list of priorities for the majority of the electorate than a quality education for their children…which includes one in which the knowledge and values the parents wish to instill in their children is nurtured…as opposed to whitewashed and erased and replaced with indoctrination. In other words, I think plenty of people would consider having more control over their local education system to be “in their self interest”.
Popularizing Ron Paul? Why?
And my larger point is (and has been) that there has to be a connection between these people with changed minds and actual action within government…the rubber has to meet the road at some point, so to speak. Yes it’s great that people are standing around holding signs. That helps popularize the idea and show the opposition…but holding signs is not going to make the Fed go away. Again I’m interested in the application of all this knowledge. What is going to be done to roll back this government. And for probably the fifth time, I haven’t heard anything other than “popularize the freedom message…change people’s minds…”
In my earlier post I said it: 10% people’s minds are changed. Now what. All those people should dedicate 100% of their efforts in changing more minds? Is that really the most effective, efficient and fastest way to see rollback? I don’t buy it. And I’m not seeing any arguments as to why it is…let alone convincing arguments.
I never said that wasn’t the case. I’m not the one saying “I don’t see how a person can do better than donating to the LvMI…” You just did.
Then why are you so concerned about Ron Paul? If it’s such a useless and effectless venue, why does virtually everyone I’ve ever heard of who promotes liberty say something along the lines of “Paul’s done more for libertarianism than all of his critics, [like Stefan Molyneux] put together.” (That one was Walter Block, by the way.)
Why don’t regular people know the name “Stefan Molyneux”…or “Walter Block”, for that matter? I had probably been making the rounds in the libertarian sphere and even spending time on this very forum for probably a year before I even figured out who “Stefan Molyneux” was. And the only reason I did find out the douchebag was is (coincidentally) because he attacked Ron Paul and the affectiveness of political action…and the backlash was so loud that I ended up hearing it. And again, coincidentally enough, one of the loudest (i.e. most prominent) pieces of backlash was from Block.
If simply “spreading the word” and philosophizing is so much more effective, why aren’t these people at the head of a revolution?
Again, a large part of my point is that one of the most effective, efficient and fastest ways of “the masses changing the minds and attitudes” is through a platform in the public sphere. And yes, politics is a big part of that. And yes, I realize that is basically anathema and sacrilege to anarchists, but it’s reality. Believe me, I’m well aware of the “too cool, above the fray, non-conformist” bullshit perpetuated by a lot of supposed anti-statists. “The political game is a merry-go-round, bro. A pool of corruption. That’s not real anarchism. We need a revolution in the battleground of ideas, man. Like, free people’s minds from the chains of the matrix, you know? Baptize the public in the fire of real principle and truth. Then, when they’re unplugged from the system, and the blackness is washed out of their eyes with the pure water of freedom (not that tainted flouride crap that comes out of the public tap), then things will change. Once we hit that critical mass bro, just sit back and watch what happens.”
Fluff. Nonsense. No substance. Bullshit.
My argument is (a) being active in the arena means you’re more visible. You’ve got a bigger microphone. And you’ve got more respect. People will listen to a Congressman over some Joe. Like it or not, that’s how it is. Even lowly House Representatives get on television. Therefore, it makes it more likely that people will not only listen to what you have to say, but consider it. More people will hear what you say, and they are more likely to take it with greater and more serious weight…and therefore you have a greater ability to reach people with those ideas.
That’s number one. You’re in a better position to spread the ideas in the first place. Number two is, (b) you are actually in a position to actively change something with those ideas in mind.
If you’re a local county clerk, or a mayor, or a legislator…your actions can directly influence the growth of government…and as an extention of that, (c) you have a better chance of influencing public opinion of less government in a positive way…by creating the conditions of less and less intervention and (1) proving it’s possible…that is, that things will still get done and people won’t be dying in the streets if government spending doesn’t break records every year, and (2) showing the positive results that come from it.
If you want to see what I’m talking about, Reason.tv does a great job of highlighting a lot of these local cases (from volunteer law enforcement to privatizing “public” services). They serve not only as examples of what can be done to improve life in a very realistic way that effects the daily lives of individuals (even if in just a small local area), but also they serve as examples to everyone else outside of that area of (1) & (2)…namely that it can be done, and that it produces desirable results.
Again, I’m still waiting to hear of any sort of method that would be more effective, more efficient, or faster, that does not include action in the public/government sphere.
Everyone here seems so eager to discount it, but I’m not hearing any other ideas…let alone better ones.
Okie dokie. Take away Ron Paul and any influence he was able to achieve through being involved in politics and government, make sure no one else interested in liberty gets involved in politics or government, and tell me how you’re going to get anywhere near that 20% in your lifetime.
Hmm. An “End the Fed” Politcial Action Committee? That sounds like political action to me.
You mean educating rich people on liberty so that they will donate to organizations that educate people on liberty?
In the same way that I don’t think we can “think” ourselves or “change our minds” out of this mess, I never said anything about “electing ourselves” out of this mess.
You’re just trying to argue effectiveness at being a “squeaky wheel”. Even if I grant you that, I don’t see why it even matters. I don’t consider a “squeaky wheel” very good at affecting change so much as just being a small nuisance that doesn’t even really need to be dealt with, and can easily be ignored, or silenced with just a little grease.
lol, good ananlogy - but I was actually using squeaky wheel as a synonym and way to sum up your concept with “Irate, tireless, minority”.
Ex: I think (?) the radical Republicans in the reconstruction era may not have held the majority of the Party’s interest - but due to being an irate, tireless , minority they were effective…I happen to use squeaky wheel in this manor.
Anyway, unless you want me to expound on anything I think I’ve said my piece in this thread.
Well as I’ve said a number of times, I’m definitely interested in hearing any theories or proposals as to how exactly government would be rolled back. Again the only thing I’ve heard so far is “change the minds of people”. That doesn’t even oppose my argument, let alone provide any sort of alternative concrete framework or explanation as to how government would be rolled back.
It sounded like you were opposing the general argument I made (or at least attempting to offer a counter argument), but I’m really still not quite sure what that is.
Well, I think the main idea behind changing the minds of people is to expect civil disobedience. Now, I understand that there is no necessary reason why it should lead to should lead to civil disobedience, but I can say that it tends to lead towards it. And civil disobedience is a very important factor in reducing/eliminating the state. I pointed this out in a discussion with Minarchist, but I’ll just touch on it a little here: alcohol prohibition. So many people just ignored the prohibition. Eventually, it was just too much for the state and the law was repealed. This particular scenario would seem to suggest that not only civil disobedience was involved, but also there was some politicking involved too. Maybe the state was just trying to save face, maybe not. But civil disobedience was undoubtedly the main reason why the law was repealed. This happened primarily due to people’s attitudes, and not to politics.
Re Ron Paul: His importance primarily, in my opinion, has to do with the fact that he spreads the idea of liberty more than engaging in politics.
If you’re impatient for progress towards liberty in your own life, I think your best bet is to follow Doug Casey and move to Argentina - work to get multiple residency, spread your bank accounts, open up holding corporations in Panama or whatever, etc. But that’s a game for the upper-middle class and above, a status I haven’t yet attained but I can’t speak for others.
Well, of course not, the change is in the doing. But human action resides entirely within the mind. The physical consequences of human action are just the unfolding of what has already happened in the mind. So, the entrepreneur who invests in Widget X and builds a fortune already acted the moment he committed in his mind to follow this course of action.
This fact has immense consequences to social action. Political reality is determined by what people do, that is, by the culture. If you want to bring about political change, you have to change what people do, and to change what people do, you have to first change their minds because the human mind is where human action occurs.
Changing how people think is changing how they act. It is the only way to change how they act. The point is that you cannot change the status quo by simply adopting a different political strategy. The political structure is already “finely tuned” to what the people will bear. We have income taxes because the people are not strongly opposed to them. We have a social security tax because people are not strongly opposed to it. We have a central bank because people are not strongly opposed to it (though, hopefully this one is beginning to change).
As far as your ranking of most important political problems, I do not believe that education is the most important political problem. That’s a long-run strategy anyway, you’re talking a full generation until changes in the education system can begin to matter. And even your preferred strategy (putting people on school boards) is wrong-headed. Better to advocate for parental choice, including home-schooling. I was home-schooled. It’s a big part of the reason that I was able to make the journey to liberty. I can see that most of my public-schooled friends will never make it out of the Matrix, so to speak.
The biggest problem is the central bank and it is also a political jugular. It is extremely difficult to paint a central bank in populist colors. They constantly handle trillions of dollars of transactions with fat-cat capitalists and they are just a banking cartel/monopoly. Opening up currency competition anywhere in the world spells disaster for the entire global central banking complex. So, we don’t even need to succeed in the US per se, any country that is reasonably independent and can keep from being bullied over by the world powers and who chooses to go the Utah route and allow gold and silver to be legal tender could potentially ignite a global domino collapse of the central banking system. How’s that for action?
I suppose that just happened through the sheer will power in that idea battleground, eh?
Ya don’t say?
That’s like saying “the plane crashed primarily due to the pilot’s wreckless manuvering, and not gravity.”
And now tell me why exactly he would have been just as effective in spreading the idea of liberty if he hadn’t engaged in politics, and you’ll have the start of a refutation of anything I’ve argued here.
Actually, that’s exactly the point - civil disobedience, black markets, agitation for secession, tax evasion, production and use of illicit substances, will necessarily increase as a result of a change in people’s minds regarding the legitimacy of the State order. The criminal and poor underclass in the inner city - apart from whatever vices they may exhibit and virtues they may lack - at least understand the simple truth that the State is our enemy, the cops are not our friends. Philosophical anarchism comes very easy to these people because many of them have had the State’s boot on the back of their neck on more than one occasion.
The middle class, on the other hand, is easily distracted from this ugly reality and finds it easy to pretend that such things can never happen to them because they’re wrapped up cheering their favorite college football team. Nor do I think that this is necessarily a vice - human culture is freest when it is blithe. But in order to secure this carefree existence, someone must “guard the cultural borders” so to speak. In older cultures, the elders played this role. They told the old stories, sang the old songs, observed the traditions, festivals and holidays and passed on religious and metaphysical beliefs. For a variety of reasons (one of the most important being Social Security, yes you heard me right), we don’t have this anymore.
So, here’s an action item: start respecting and caring for your elders, that is, your parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents, mentors, and so on. “Caring for” means monetary obligation. Keep them at home, don’t send them off to rot in nursing homes. Have them teach your children and teach you. You’ll have the hassle of having more people in the house and the extra rent and grocery money but so what? What you get in return is priceless.
We should target the poor for education in the philosophy of liberty, perhaps by combining it with charity as religious institutions do. Can you imagine opening a brick and mortar Mises library in an area accessible to inner-city people, donation-funded, where people can come to read and hear lectures? I consider this a dream scenario. I can’t imagine how to bring it about but if you want to stir me to action, John James, you find me a plan to do that. I will gladly donate copious amounts of time to such a venture. The impact would be immense. Now you have a city with poor people who understand in 1080p HD resolution precisely how their rights are being trampled by the police, the prosecutors, the judges and the whole system. All of a sudden, that welfare check starts to look like hush money, and a paltry sum at that. How’s that for force-multiplied action?
What does that have to do with rolling back government in the U.S. in the most effective, efficient, and fastest manner?
Then I guess it’s a good thing we’re not all “more idea guys, and less of action guys”, eh?
I already stated it starts with the attitude and ideas toward government. But if everyone is admittedly “more of an idea guy, and less of an action guy”, such that everything they “do” actually takes place in this invisible “battleground of ideas”, then nothing will ever actually get done. You can have all the greatest ideas in the world, but until action takes place, what’s in your head is completely useless, irrelevant, and inconsequential.
Bingo.
I said that already. In the other thread. That I linked to. In the second sentence of the OP. (and in this thread as well). For probably the fifth time, I’m not arguing that. I never argued that. I don’t know why there is such a hang up on it. It’s like people are so holed up in this “battleground of ideas” that they can’t get outside of it and talk about anything that would happens outside the walls of their head.
Again, you’re just still saying the same thing.
Depends on your definition of “important” and “political problem”. You made the argument that people will act on their self interest. I didn’t argue that. All I suggested was that having more control over their local education system is “in the self interest” of a hell of a lot of people, and it is something that they would be motivated to do something about. Even people whom you probably wouldn’t think that would be the case. If you’d like examples of this, see the film The Lottery, or this clip from Stossel. Usually people don’t get that upset about something they don’t care a pretty decent amount about. But maybe these people don’t really have an interest in their children’s education and are just all on drugs, and that’s why they’re spending all their time waiting in lines and sitting in crowded auditoriums and crying, I don’t know.
Very few parents have the option of home-schooling their children. And like it or not, there are government laws in place that prevent choice and competition in education. So again, I’m sorry to say, there will have to be political action of some kind.
And here again, you’re telling me it will take “a full generation until changes matter”. Do you have some faster alternative? Because I’m pretty sure I’ve been asking for one since about the third post of this thread. Could you provide it please?
I’ve been dying to hear this faster, more effective, more efficient method of rolling back government that involves virtually no activity to that end taking place inside the government itself, again, since about that third post.
Could you name some such “reasonably independent” country that “can keep from being bullied over by the world powers”? And could you please explain how exactly this country would “allow gold and silver to be legal tender” through some non-political means?
Exactly. Voluntary abdication of de jure power often follows the involuntary loss of de facto power in order to save face. “Oh yeah, we were planning to stop enforcing and repeal those laws all along, they’re outdated anyway.” The only thing worse for the State than looking impotent is looking clownish and attempting to impose authority on a point where the society has already rejected the State’s authority risks both. The REAL ID fiasco is an example of this, where the Feds passed the law, the States said “no f—ing way” (mainly due to funding, only slightly due to any principles) and then the Feds said “Oh, just kidding, we didn’t even mean that.” Now they’re holding PASS ID in the wings for some future date and they’ll pull one of their usual tricks to pass that and they’ll probably succeed but it’s nice to see power retract when confronted with opposition. I can’t find a link but back at the end of the Bush reign, the Feds suspended medical marijuana raids in California after having vowed up and down that they would enforce Federal law over California law. They largely had to back down and they’ve resorted to other tactics such as getting local municipalities to ban MM dispensaries and raiding college campuses and busting unsuspecting college kids and slapping them with felony convictions.
This is the Nullification strategy. The formal aspect is just window dressing and the politicians will handle that automatically, we don’t even need to do anything.
Action item: lobbying for increased marijuana liberalization in CA (ultimate goal: completely de-criminalization and de-regulation). I’m sure there are already PACs for this in CA, so just call one of them or email them and ask them what you can do to help. The same goes for the 10th amendment resolutions regarding gun control and Virginia’s heroic law nullifying NDAA arrests within VA borders. We probably only need to get 10 States to pass Virginia-style nullification bills in order to get the Feds to go back on it. That’s the power of “Hell No!”
