So check your state’s traffic laws. If you’re not required to display a plate, and don’t want automated systems keeping track of you movements (or sending you speeding/red-light tickets), put your plate somewhere else. If nothing else, one can always say “perhaps someone stole it”.

Not an act of war? What are they going to do, hug their way to domination?

I’ve been pretty close to it for a while. The problem with anarchism is being taken seriously. But if the BASIC functions of a government– protection of the citizenry from coercion, ensuring legal equality for politicians and citizens alike– are as completely undermined as they seem to be today, I don’t know what other fucking alternative is practical.

but don’t forget every other civilized, and uncivilized for that matter, country on earth has a prohibition on drugs.

Portugal.

Congratulations on your political evolution. Please consider anarchism your next step.

Yes it is. That’s the entire reason we used to have the Posse Comitatus act, and the reason that the National Guard is divided by state, and is not considered active military. If the President were to send in active military units under “martial law,” that would be an invasion of that state, and if it were by request of that state’s governor, he would be an accomplice. You seem to be forgetting that the entire premise of this country’s founding was individual sovereignty.

No, the reason we have the Posse Comitatus Act was to prevent the abuses that were widespread during Reconstruction. Those abuses were what arises when the military is used as law enforcement, as it was extensively in the South during Reconstruction. Prior to that, the military was used as domestic law enforcement at the federal level from time to time in ways that are blatantly illegal. For example, Jackson told the South Carolina government that if they resisted US Customs’ efforts to collect the tariff, the next wave of tax collectors would be US soldiers. When the Whiskey Rebellion started, Washington federalized the militia (before we had a real standing army of any size) and marched it on the rebels to collect the tax and put down the rebellion.

Your argument about the National Guard is also pure rubbish because the National Guard are actually closer to federal combat units on loan to the states than a state militia. They’re officially part of the Department of Defense and ultimate authority over them is with the DoD chain of command, not the state governor.

That is precisely why we need to restore the official state militias.

Okay, there’s a CBS article about John Pike, the UC Davis pepper spray guy. It talks about how he was once lauded for dealing with a situation in which a crazy woman was holding another cop hostage with a pair of scissors (no mention of the fact he was given an award for that fact that he REFRAINED from using pepper spray against a violent person, claiming that it “wasn’t the right tool”). It also deals with a prior accusation that he used a homophobic slur against somebody on campus, which doesn’t surprise me, but it doesn’t exactly rise to the level of “Oh, shit, did he just douse those guys with a chemical weapon?”

But that’s not the “WTF” part of the article. Oh, no. The part of the article that blows my mind is this little gem:

“Many students, lawmakers and even the university’s chancellor have called the officers’ actions a horrific example of unnecessary force. But some experts on police tactics say, depending on the circumstances, pepper spray can be more effective to de-escalate a tense situation than dragging off protesters or swinging at them with truncheons.”

Emphasis added. Oh, well, in THAT case, I suppose the pepper spray is TOTALLY justified. I mean, if the only options to deal with a bunch of sit-in protesters are pepper spray to the face or swinging at them with truncheons, by all means, use the pepper spray. We won’t question you any further!

Jesus Tapdancing Christ, if this is how the debate is going to be framed– “We can pepper spray them, or we can beat the shit out of them with clubs; which do you prefer?”– then I have to give up. I gave up on cops a while back, but I still had some hope for the rest of the populace. Apparently I was too much of an optimist…

Yes it is. That’s the entire reason we used to have the Posse Comitatus act, and the reason that the National Guard is divided by state, and is not considered active military. If the President were to send in active military units under “martial law,” that would be an invasion of that state, and if it were by request of that state’s governor, he would be an accomplice. You seem to be forgetting that the entire premise of this country’s founding was individual sovereignty.

Where do you think those policies come from?

I am a American citizen, a taxpayer, and a voter, as I think are most regular participants here, including Radley. Our form of government requires citizens to decide what policies we think are good and bad ones, and to vote (and discuss, and organize) in order to get better policies. Spinning those discussions (or the ones you don’t like) as somehow blaming or hating America is deeply stupid–like telling a group of scientists reviewing a medical study that they hate medicine and love cancer, when they conclude that some new chemotherapy agent doesn’t really do any good.

Using any amount of military for any purpose is an act of war. For anyone to say otherwise is dishonest.

That just shows your ignorance, then. When the military is sent in under martial law to restore law and order by the request of a state governor, that’s not an act of war. When the military is ordered to respond to the border to prevent a flood of civilians or foreign troops, it’s not an act of war. When the Navy responds to a U.S. or allied ship under attack by pirates, that’s not an act of war. Those obvious exceptions only took a few seconds to list. Need I go on in the ways you are wrong about the Constitution on this matter?

An act of war is an act of aggression against a sovereign state or its proxies. At the time of our founding, none of the things I mentioned above were considered under the rubrik of a declaration of war. Washington even put down the Whiskey Rebellion without a declaration of war.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/10415249/

A 61-year-old Halifax County man died Tuesday, a day after police shocked him with a stun gun while he was riding his bike, family members said.

Once again, I have to wonder how the country that was supposed
to be a brave experiment in self-governance turned into a bunch
of gov’t spies watching what everyone does and where everyone goes.
On taxpayer money.

Another point: The existence of something just as bad or worse somewhere else doesn’t excuse something that is bad. Just because other countries have crappy drug prohibitions doesn’t make US drug prohibitions good or right. It just means that other places have F-d up laws as well. Why should anyone be proud of that? “Hey, we might have F-d up laws that contribute to the pain and suffering of thousands, if not millions of people here, but it’s ok because other countries have them too!”

This may be a revolutionary concept to you, but people are generally more concerned with the goings on of their own countries than they are with others. Especially when they view their own countries policies as unjust. If you honestly establish your ethics on some international lowest common denominator, then I think that would make you a pretty terrible person.

The sad thing is its not even a blame American first thing. The primary blame goes to the actual people in Afgahnistan commiting these injustices against women. The secondary blame goes to America for putting into place a repressive regime of religious fundamentilsts decades ago. Another degree of blame goes to America, who after occupying and “liberating” the country has placed virtually no pressure on the new Afghan government to protect the rights of women and religous minorities in the county.

If we are to go galavanting around the world playing at nation building we have an ethical obligation to build just nations. That or leave we’ll enough alone.