Feds vs Farmer

[Hygro]

Weed man has an unregulated potentially unsafe and definitely uninspected agricultural product for your consumption.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

If I was to come up to you with a gun and say if you do not do what I tell you I shall kidnap you and hold you in my basement I am being violent even if you do what you are told.

Yes, but your actions are illegal and as an individual so not a valid comparison here.

 

[Hygro]

How does that change whether it is violence?

I suppose a deeper question is, do you believe a state’s existence largely rests on its violent force, as a matter of definition?

 

[Farm Boy]

No, because I don't blindly support laws just because they're there.

So it's caprice?

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

Weed man has an unregulated potentially unsafe and definitely uninspected agricultural product for your consumption.

Weed in its natural state is not imo a Risk. This farmer was producing something that I feel is dangerous, yet can be made not so.

You are trying to align the issues, but it is possible to have opposing views as they are not truely connected.

 

[Farm Boy]

The application to grow legal weed in IL costs $100,000. And almost certainly will be rejected. If I start growing weed and selling it commercially, the government will storm me with ar-15s and take all my stuff then throw me in a cage. My options for resisting will include simply going all the way home.

We live in a society.

 

[Lexicus]

Weed man has an unregulated potentially unsafe and definitely uninspected agricultural product for your consumption.

Yeah but if weed were legal I would be fine with the government enforcing weed safety regulations. Moldy/laced weed ain't it

So it's caprice?

It's about whether public safety is being meaningfully advanced

 

[Lexicus]

The application to grow legal weed in IL costs $100,000. And almost certainly will be rejected. If I start growing weed and selling it commercially, the government will storm me with ar-15s and take all my stuff then throw me in a cage. My options for resisting will include simply going all the way home.

We live in a society.

Seemingly, reasonable people would be capable of debating whether a law meaningfully advances public safety rather than deciding that because some laws do not the federal government shouldn't enforce any

 

[Farm Boy]

We're debating if the government is violence. It is. It's government.

 

[Lexicus]

We're debating if the government is violence. It is. It's government.

I'm not debating that because of course it is.
I'm debating whether the violence is justified or not.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, I guess some is. Then again, there is trust. I wouldn't even need to sell to elicit that response from the great state of Illinois. Failure to pay taxes on something I made myself deprives the government of my wonderfulness. So rests the seat of government power in the Commerce Clause.

 

[El_Machinae]

I could pose that you are suggesting all law abiding actions are the result of the threat of violence.. and that all actions at all are merely supine to the police state. Which is clearly a bit daft.

Yes, that would be daft. You're just suffering some dissonance when it comes to a concept. No one here believes that state violence is inherently bad, but to refuse to label the violence as violence merely because we approve is some type of gaslighting.

Yes, all illegal actions that people don't do merely because they don't want to risk punishment by the state are examples of state violence. Given that we cede much of the Monopoly on Violence to the State, we can't be surprised that this violence is used. Ideally in a liberal and democratic society with proper Rule of Law, but that doesn't change what it is. It's better than various forms of anarchy, where the inherent violence is more sudden and arbitrary.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

No one here believes that state violence is inherently bad

I feel several times people have stated this belief.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

Between your smoking comment and your gun comment you are dodging the issue.

What issue am I dodging?

 

[Samson]

Yes, but your actions are illegal and as an individual so not a valid comparison here.

That would mean that whether an action is violent or not is determined by the legislation. I would say that violence is one of those things that exists independent of the justice system. If the law says something is legal that does not stop it being violent. The main thing states are is the monopoly on violence within their borders.

I feel several times people have stated this belief.

I think state violence can be good, but still be violence.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Define your terms please.

 

[El_Machinae]

I feel several times people have stated this belief.

They think it's capable of being misapplied, and those instances can be bad. But that's true of any violence. If I toss a rock at a person, we don't know if it's 'wrong' until we know more about the story. But it's still violence.

Describing this case as a type of state violence is very standard, we're more interested in whether it's a misapplication of violence.

Don't get me wrong, some people believe that all state violence is presumed to be unwanted and then we carve out exceptions one-by-one. But this is just a framing. We still all know that some types of state violence are 'appropriate'. We just disagree on specifics.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

We just disagree on specifics

Isn't that this thread in a nutshell?

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

Define your terms please.

Pistols at dawn, on the hill that overlooks the Vale.

 

[Narz]

We live in a Society.

I like my health and safety of modern society. Businesses should not be allowed to profit by skirting these rules.. be it due to greed, or systemic belief.

You never bought anything off a black market?