Is this really Trudeau?

[WLJ]

Because the Soviet model has worked so well every time it's been tried.

[MillCreek]

When Washington legalized marijuana for medical and then recreational use, the state really cracked down on people growing marijuana for their own consumption.  The state wants you to buy it in the pot stores so they get the tax revenue.

[Nick1911]

Because the Soviet model has worked so well every time it's been tried.

I'm certainly not advocating it.  I just find it interesting how that particular marxist regime dealt with home gardeners.

[cordex]

Yea, they certainly didn't want people to be capitalist with their home grown foodstuff.  I also recall reading once that the dachas were specifically sized small enough that people couldn't just grow all their own food and drop out.

No.  No, that's not quite it.  I mean, you're absolutely right, but it wasn't simply about trying to prevent capitalism, it was literally liquidating a group of people who Stalin felt were insufficiently committed to his cause.  The goal wasn't just to keep them from selling their food, it was to keep them from even eating it.  They would execute people for keeping back even enough food to just feed themselves.  Not appearing starved unto death was proof enough.

Which I think goes back to Warren's point.  If the government wanted you to eat, you had food.  And yes, they'd give folks they liked dachas on which to grow their gardens and so forth. 

But if the State didn't want you to eat, you didn't eat ... at all.  Because they had that control.

But here in the US, they'd never tell us what we can and can't grow for consumption on our own property, right?  I mean, how could you justifiably regulate that under commerce if nothing is bought or sold?

The ICC has been abused in ways it was clearly not intended and continues to be used for horrific overreach.  Totally with you.  It will continue to be a prime tool in the toolbox of people who seek to expand the government without actually having to worry about changing the Constitution.

[WLJ]

I'm certainly not advocating it.  I just find it interesting how that particular marxist regime dealt with home gardeners.

My post had to do with the previous post. The page turn I guess made that not so clear

[230RN]

^ I've been stung by that, too.  I sometimes use carats to indicate reference to a previous post.

I agree that the Commerce Clause has been horribly abused, and I sometimes  use that as an example of how the "intent of the legislature" can be "interpreted" in different ways to the detriment of free commerce and indeed to freedom itself.   In the case of the Commerce Clause, there would seem to be nothing "intrastate" which cannot ultimately be seen as "interstate."

Where was the iron mined for the "intrastate" firearm you are building for personal use?

Can a case be made legally (as opposed to rationally) that your puny little efforts to build a firearm, legally under NFA, be interpreted to affect interstate commerce?

It would seem so.

Terry, "Yee-haw," 230RN

[cordex]

The fact that the calories you used up while thinking about that post either came from food that crossed state lines, or came from a completely native plant/animal that was harvested on your own property and never crossed state lines which means that you didn't buy food that did cross state lines, so in writing that post you have done something that impacted interstate commerce.

[Nick1911]

^ I've been stung by that, too.  I sometimes use carats to indicate reference to a previous post.

I agree that the Commerce Clause has been horribly abused, and I sometimes  use that as an example of how the "intent of the legislature" can be "interpreted" in different ways to the detriment of free commerce and indeed to freedom itself.   In the case of the Commerce Clause, there would seem to be nothing "intrastate" which cannot ultimately be seen as "interstate."

Where was the iron mined for the "intrastate" firearm you are building for personal use?

Can a case be made legally (as opposed to rationally) that your puny little efforts to build a firearm, legally under NFA, be interpreted to affect interstate commerce?

It would seem so.

Terry, "Yee-haw," 230RN

This is playing out now, with several states having adopted various legislation stating federal firearm laws have no jurisdiction over firearms that do not leave the state.

http://firearmsfreedomact.com/

People are still being arrested and tried in federal court, of course.  But, this is pretty much what happened with marijuana.  While it remains to be seen how that will play out, signs are good that the federal government will relent under the significant public pressure and lobbying money produced by the budding qusi-legal cannabis industry.

[230RN]

^ I'll rejoice over that "state's rights" issue when I see use of pot (either habitually or otherwise) being removed as a federal bar to firearms ownership and possession.

Note I do not use any pot or other mind expanding "drugs," but I am passionately interested in defending the "infringed" clause in this respect.

Yee-haw, 230RN

[just Warren]

The below is a bit of a ramble, you've been warned.

It occurred to me that the "You'll-Own-Nothing" concept is a version of Roko's Basilisk.

In that the humans who control the platforms that people will rely on to survive are going to thoroughly investigate people to find those that did not share the excitement of this concept. The will go through all of your social media history, your forum posts, texts if they can get them, any professional publications and so forth to find a reason why you cannot be trusted and then use that as a reason to de-platform you.

Just like the Basilisk will know that you did not do enough to being it into existence earlier. They will know you were not a True Believer.

This won't be a Day One event but in time they will run back-checks on everybody and separate them into various groups.

The lower the rank of your group, the less options you will get until you are removed from society. In short you will be slowly tortured to death for not doing more to support the concept. Even if you turn into a slavish devotee of the concept you will rank behind those that were on the train before you.

And this will carry on to your family, like in the North Korean prison camps where families are imprisoned for three generations for the political failings of the first generation.

If they want to live they will have no choice but to denounce you.



Please note that I am not a believer in the Basilisk but I am a believer in the potential for depravity in mankind because of the overwhelming evidence of such.

I also do not believe they'll be able to get the entire population enrolled in this concept. There will be significant push-back, including outright armed resistance if it becomes necessary. 

But it will capture a lot of the blue-city technophiles who love their gadgetry and their being hyper-connected to everything all the time, and the disruptive business models of the Silicon Valley elite. And everything that comes with it.

Go go go into the future!

They won't realize that until it's too late that they aren't consumers of this concept, rather, they are it's prey. But then, what to do? Rebel? How?

There is a novel called We by Zamyatin that lays out what such a society might look like.

This novel influenced Orwell and other dystopian writers. Orwell is certainly better known but I think the city in We is much closer to the reality of the You'll Own Nothing concept than is 1984.

In We people ate together in shifts, and went from home to work and back in shifts, lived together as work groups, had virtually no privacy, and you had to get permission to do anything, even to have sex. 1984's Oceania wasn't as tightly regimented as I recall. Still a nightmare, though. 

That's how it will eventually become in the Y-O-N society. It has to, if it is going to work at all. And by "work" I mean for those at the top. Everyone must comply as any deviation will risk fracturing the society. The society will be very brittle and fragile if people start having doubts then the whole is at risk of coming apart and the people at the top will not survive that. Not only are they at risk for retribution, if the services go off-line they will have no skills to provide for themselves. They will be a pampered elite that will not be able to survive outside of their gilded cage.

There was a rebellion in We, but whether it worked or not is up to the reader.

[230RN]

Very interesting, just Warren. I'm pretty sure it will not play out exactly as outlined, but the framework seems sound.  I forgot which historian said it, but "All governmnents trend toward tyranny."

Terry scratches chin, stares at ceiling for a moment... actually, I think the concept may go back to Plato.

The fact that the calories you used up while thinking about that post either came from food that crossed state lines, or came from a completely native plant/animal that was harvested on your own property and never crossed state lines which means that you didn't buy food that did cross state lines, so in writing that post you have done something that impacted interstate commerce.

Well, exactly my point. And considering that both the power and information lines / channels  involved in the post cross state lines, there's no escaping the broad authority that can be taken by da goobermink with its salaried silver-tongued attorneys and statist judges in "regulating" my post.  Because "interstate," doncha know?

Viz, just Warren's post above.  (And thanks for the "groundwork" behind Orwell's "1984.")

Terry, 230RN