Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/politics
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Tay Zonday
@tayzonday
SOME things, like neoliberalism, you can blame on BOTH American political parties. But the “War On Drugs” is a Republican child. Richard Nixon’s domestic policy advisor confessed in 1994 that it targeted rights-seeking blacks and anti-war hippies, their political enemies: https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/ Should Jimmy Carter have done more with his supermajority to end the drug war? Sure. Carter’s key legacy is actually neoliberal deregulation. Reagan caught the drug culture-war pass from Nixon and the neoliberal pass from Carter like a champion wide receiver. I grew up in the 1980s. Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” campaign was ubiquitous. Drug abuse has *never* varied with race or income-level. Reagan’s super-severe crack VS powder cocaine punishment caused decades of black family separation and federal handouts to corporate prisons. Marijuana prosecution also depopulated disproportionately black areas. This is partly why today’s black family wealth 1/8 that of whites.
16 replies
13 recasts
93 reactions
thoughtcrimeboss
@thoughtcrimeboss
I know what Nixon said. The war on drugs began decades before Nixon as a way to target minorities, it just picked up that name (war on drugs) later.The war has usually been bipartisan, even 2day with new fentanyl legislation.Biden sponsored Reagan's mand. minimums in 86' and don't forget the democrat's 94' crime bill. Both parties have a lot of work to do to even began to atone for the massive amount of suffering and death they have directly caused and continue to cause through prohibition.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Tay Zonday
@tayzonday
One great book documenting the use of all types of selectively enforced laws, not just drug prohibition, to re-enslave blacks is “Slavery By Another Name” by Douglas A. Blackmon: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_by_Another_Namei
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
thoughtcrimeboss
@thoughtcrimeboss
Just one more reason to eliminate the state. Have you read Frederick Douglass's autobiography? His insights into the mindset of a slave should make everyone think long and hard about their belief in the legitimacy of the state's authority. No matter how much mental gymnastics you do, violence and theft is still immoral no matter if it's legal or not. Implied consent is a myth, all governance without consent is violence. Just because the master let Douglass go out and earn his own money, so that the master could pretend he was being benevolent while he still controlled how much of the money Douglass could keep. Douglass viewed this semi freedom as more degrading than regular slavery. Free range slavery is still slavery, the plantation is just bigger.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Tay Zonday
@tayzonday
What articulates your post-state vision? We have not had contemporary nation states for more than around 500 years, nor verifiable organized society for more than around 9000 years, all very brief on a cosmic timescale. What’s next in your utopian aspiration?
3 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
thoughtcrimeboss
@thoughtcrimeboss
1) It's not a utopian aspiration, I doubt we will ever have a utopia. A voluntaryist society would not be perfect but it would be both moral and much better than the system we have now. The only vision I have is a world in which we have no rulers, consent is sacred, the only crimes are those with victims, and the only legitimate violence is done in self defense. There is no service that can't be provided on a private voluntary basis rather than through forced taxation. But what about the environment? Who would protect the planet without the state? The state and the limited liability corporations, which are both an invention of the state and protected by the state, are responsible for most of the environmental damage. Without the state business owners can actually be held accountable for the actions of their business. Who would help the poor and disabled? Private organizations already do all of these things and I'd imagine people will be even more willing to give to charity if they weren't forcefully taxed.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
