Stacy Litz, The Liberty Snitch

[MichaelWDean]

It hit the front page, so hopefully that means they'll see it and possibly talk about it on the show.  It would certainly be an interesting topic, and I think it just goes to show that you should never trust the police, especially when that involves selling out your friends.

If you don't want to wait, Freedom Feens did about a half hour on Stacy Litz in our new episode, "Libertarian Snitch!"
 
 Stacy talk starts about 28 and a half minutes in:
 http://www.freedomfeens.com/2012/05/16/libertarian-snitch/

MWD

[kidx]

She bought the drugs she sold off of the Internet? Too bad she didnt look into it more carefully, because I would have gotten those charges dismissed. But it appears that she would rather snitch out her friends than expose her online connections. I cant wait until the cases have beem tried, because the extra case law involving drug convictions doesnt have this sort of precident. It would great to have a Supreme Court ruling established, but this chick is too worried about preserving her image, so it is unlikely that she would want the addiotional exposure.

That aside, this woman is pathetic. She needs to quit posting messages online, quit blogging about being a victim, and quit giving interviews. She lost the ablility to claim that she was a victim the moment she decided to turn informant. She became so caught up in her own ideology that she seemed to think that the drug laws have already been overturned.

Regardless of what her resume boasts, people who display her type of character do it in every facet of their lives. She had no problem with stepping on other people in an attempt to avoid her own responsibility, so I am positive that she exhibited the same behavior pretending to be an activist.

And what's with this obsession with posting every detail of her life all over the Intermet? At some point, even she would have to realize that it would probably be in her best interest to shut her mouth and quit putting information about drug shit over the Internet. In a self-serving, one sided "interview" (i'll get to that next) Litz states that one of the charges stemmed from her using her cell phone to deal drugs, and I'll bet any amount of money that she sent text messages.

But this interview made me sick to my stomach, even worse than her "I'm a victim" blog (probably because I could stop reading the blog). The "host" of whatever poor excuse for a program sounded like he thought he was playing some liberty activism video game, and that Litz could just restart her life like she had never snitched out her friends or was facing prison time. The third caller and the host then have this strange conversation about how Litz should "theoretically" be handled within the activist community, focusing on how Litz should try to transfer all of her emotional and physical pain to the others (through using the force, I guess) somthat they could understand how bad she feels, and decide if that was punishment enough, or if they should openly condemn her actions...as if any of that is worse than prison. But to think that she could ever go back to holding positions of power within the activist community is ridiculous, because she has no sense of honor, loyalty, or self-sacrifice, and can simply not be trusted.

She actuallymsaid that she thought people were mad at her because they e
ere jealous of her, so they were using this as a reason to attack her. Now, i'm not a violent person, but that made me wanna choke a bitch.

Am I the only one that thinks she's not done snitching? A person like her wouldnt stop snitching so easily. I've defended felons with more integrity than this woman. In a few weeks, she'll comvince herself that since nobody wants to be around her anymor, she'll con her way into some other people's lives (probably men), claiming to be someone she isnt, and get right back to ratting everyone out. She'll probably be the one to show them how to find drigs on the Internet in the first place.

But to anyone who reads this and may be confused, please dont sell drugs if you are prepared to do some time in prison. If you're in college trying to do make a difference through those channels, leave the drug dealing to the underground community.

[Cognitive Dissident]

It hit the front page, so hopefully that means they'll see it and possibly talk about it on the show.  It would certainly be an interesting topic, and I think it just goes to show that you should never trust the police, especially when that involves selling out your friends.

If you don't want to wait, Freedom Feens did about a half hour on Stacy Litz in our new episode, "Libertarian Snitch!"
 
 Stacy talk starts about 28 and a half minutes in:
 http://www.freedomfeens.com/2012/05/16/libertarian-snitch/

MWD

I get a web browser full of gibberish when I click that link or try to go to www.freedomfeens.com.

[Sussex County Angel]

http://www.spreaker.com/user/angelclark/liberty_panel_on_the_angel_clark_show_5

I said my piece here - starts at 61 minutes in.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

As a libertarian, voluntarist, we do not have the right to coerce, de-fraud, aggress, or harm anyone offensively.

When you "deal" destructive drugs such as Cocaine, MMDA, and LSD, that result in proven degenerative effects to cells and organs you harm people.

Offensively harming people by giving them easy and plentiful access to organ destroying drugs is not libertarian.

If the Liberty movement wants to survive in the long term, we had better follow the lead of Ron Paul, and not follow Liberty's drug addict wing.

I get where you're coming from, and I know there is bad PR in supporting this, but libertarian philosophy is largely built on Enlightenment era philosophies that claim self-ownership.

For good, and for bad.

[Cognitive Dissident]

As a libertarian, voluntarist, we do not have the right to coerce, de-fraud, aggress, or harm anyone offensively.

When you "deal" destructive drugs such as Cocaine, MMDA, and LSD, that result in proven degenerative effects to cells and organs you harm people.

Offensively harming people by giving them easy and plentiful access to organ destroying drugs is not libertarian.

If the Liberty movement wants to survive in the long term, we had better follow the lead of Ron Paul, and not follow Liberty's drug addict wing.

I don't know how one decides whether that's "libertarian," but a libertarian should never support coercing someone not to do such a thing.  The vendor doesn't harm anyone unless he misrepresents what he's selling.  It's not your place and it's not my place to accuse him of harming anyone unless he's using force, fraud or coercion.

[freeAgent]

It's not your place and it's not my place to accuse him of harming anyone unless he's using force, fraud or coercion.

Yes it is my place, here's why.

We can all agree the cornerstone of liberty firmly revolves around the Non-aggression principle...(no force fraud aggression against other people etc)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Lets examine the aggression aspect. The ultimate aggression against another person is murder, correct? That would then make suicide, the ultimate aggression against ones self. Right?

If I intentionally drink undiluted bleach I am committing a form of aggression against myself. In a free society, you would have that right to aggress against yourself.  You can eat harmful foods, you can breath carcinogens from a cigarette etc. Using the NAP above, in a free society however, you would not have the right to knowingly aggress against someone else with these poisons, carcinogens, etc.

How does this relate to drug dealing.

The drug dealer, as a peddler in harmful chemicals, becomes a "partner" in the self-aggression and violates the NAP.

Its as simple as that.

This is what separates Randians from Paulites. A Randian would sell a gun to someone suicidal where a Paulite would have much better judgement as to not harm the patient.

So are males violating the NAP when they make females pregnant?  Childbirth certainly causes harm to vaginas.  Do piercing and tattoo parlors also violate the NAP?  MDMA, LSD, marijuana, and cocaine (and perhaps others) all appear to have legitimate medical uses while other prescription drugs can also be abused.  Are doctors and pharmacists violating the NAP?  How and where do you draw the line?

[moustachefart]

"The drug dealer, as a peddler in harmful chemicals, becomes a "partner" in the self-aggression and violates the NAP."

You seem to be missing a pretty elemental aspect of the philosophy of liberty.. that you are 100% responsible for your actions. You cannot share or transfer responsibility. Therefore you cannot be responsible for anyone else's actions. I think Sartre (not libertarian but an french philosopher) did the best work on this topic in "Essays in Existentialism" which I definitely suggest you pick up because it deals in depth with the logic of responsibility and seems to be right in line with the ideals of liberty.

A drug dealer isn't responsible for the outcomes of a drug users chemical abuses any more than the guy that sold me the burger at McDonald's is responsible for the heart attack I'm likely to incur.

"Yes it is my place, here's why."

This is unsettling.

If I intentionally drink undiluted bleach I am committing a form of aggression against myself.

Suicide isn't aggression.. unless you have multiple personalities in which one wants to commit suicide and the other doesn't and the both magically control one side of your body and there is a struggle to get to a gun. Maybe then. Maybe.

The slop is in your misuse of the term.

Aggression is "Hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront."

I could easily off myself without being hostile.
It could possibly be an "attack" but if you're consenting to your own actions.. who's the aggressor?
Still, it has to be "toward another."

You're free. That means free to fuck up as well as to succeed. You have to suffer or enjoy the consequences of your actions. You can't cry fowl and try to penalize others when your actions lead to bad outcomes and you shouldn't try to engineer society to conform to what you arbitrarily define 'harm' to be.

[kidx]

A point has been touched on briefly that I have been thinking about, but I have been hesitent to domso, because I'm relatively new here and I dont want to start offending everyone, and I'm also not a libertarian, so I dont want to start talking around libertarian principles.

But, let me just first say that I dont have any problem with people who use illegal drugs, whether it be medical cannibis, MDMA, LSD, or otherwise. The hypocrisy of the drug war has been established many times over, and I believe support to wnd the drug war has made a lot of progress.

My problem with Litz AND her group of friends and "activists," whether they label themselves "agorists," "left libertarians," "voluntaryists," etc., is that they seem to feel like they had to sell drugs in order to be a legitimate part of the war on drugs and/or their other activist affiliations. Why would Litz, a student who's resume was overflowing with proof of her hard work a pnd dedication to her beliefs, be selling MDMA and LSD? We arent talking about a few hits here and there to friends over a couple of weekends, Litz apparently sold serious weight. Her frinds have blogged and written statements in various social media sites indicating that they werent strangers to being involved with hundreds and even thousands of MDMA pills and doses of LSD, and I find this astonishing.

I'm not a naive person either. I used drugs in college. I've done MDMA and LSD, and most other drugs to, and had pounds of weed in my apartment at times while I was in college. I had friends that were drug dealers, some of whom went to prison ahpnd had to deal with the decision regarding becoming an informant, but we werent pillars of thenactivist community.

Although activism was a bid different when I was in college, I was no stranger to the type of political activism and open dissent that Litz was involved with. We didnt have all the fancy terms to throw around, but we were pushing for the same freedoms Litz and her groups were somoutspoken about. But the leaders if these movements were the ones that kept their noses clean. I still have a hard time believing that Litz even did any significant amount if the drugs that she has been caught selling because she wouldn't have been able to function to the extent that she did if she had been using MDMA and LSD regularly.

I understand that times have changed, but I hope that our young people dont feel like they have to deal drugs to be an activist. I hope they dont feelmthat they have to use drugs in order to be a legitimate leader in ending the war in drugs. I also hope that they have people who they look up to that arent heavily involved in drug use, because it's clear that thpe of thing isnt working.

[Cognitive Dissident]

It's not your place and it's not my place to accuse him of harming anyone unless he's using force, fraud or coercion.

Yes it is my place, here's why.

We can all agree the cornerstone of liberty firmly revolves around the Non-aggression principle...(no force fraud aggression against other people etc)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Lets examine the aggression aspect. The ultimate aggression against another person is murder, correct? That would then make suicide, the ultimate aggression against ones self. Right?

If I intentionally drink undiluted bleach I am committing a form of aggression against myself. In a free society, you would have that right to aggress against yourself.  You can eat harmful foods, you can breath carcinogens from a cigarette etc. Using the NAP above, in a free society however, you would not have the right to knowingly aggress against someone else with these poisons, carcinogens, etc.

How does this relate to drug dealing.

The drug dealer, as a peddler in harmful chemicals, becomes a "partner" in the self-aggression and violates the NAP.

Its as simple as that.

This is what separates Randians from Paulites. A Randian would sell a gun to someone suicidal where a Paulite would have much better judgement as to not harm the patient.

I don't agree that suicide is aggression against one's self.  I'm not even sure the idea makes any sense.  What if life is unbearably painful?  Having tasted severe and enduring pain, I can understand such a desire.  In a free society, you would be free to commit suicide because you own yourself.  You are presumed to know what's best for you, and to be responsible for yourself, including your life's termination.  So I see no connection whatsoever.

You still haven't indicated how selling or giving a substance to someone else is in any way an aggression, regardless of whether you administered it (with permission or by request.)

You use derisive terms like "peddler" and "harmful."  It is up to the individual to make qualitative judgments about voluntary acts he may participate in and various substances he may ingest.  It is not up to a third party.  THIS is the basis of individual liberty.  I get to choose for myself what is right FOR ME or wrong FOR ME.

So no, I cannot agree at all.

As for what separates objectivists from libertarians, it's that objectivists dwell on "enlightened self interest," where libertarians don't sweat the "enlightened" part and recognize the futility of coercing others to behave as you/I/we/all decide is best.  This is why libertarians (principled ones) tend to have a problem with ALL war, where objectivists believe there are "good" wars, or at least "good" sides of wars.  Somehow the belief that there is an objective truth (which I have no problem with) leads them to the belief that someone is qualified to act on the truth on behalf of others (which assumes that the truth is always knowable.)  I consider that a logical fallacy.

By the way, Rand defined morality in terms of life, so I'm pretty sure she would be against giving someone the gun to kill himself--though she might be sensitive to the pain angle.  Ironically, she might be more inclined to preserve life in hope of a heroic fight to overcome whatever would lead someone to be suicidal, whereas the principled libertarian would want someone to have his own control over himself--including assisting in euthanasia.  This is why I believe the movie "You Don't Know Jack" is popular in libertarian circles.  It would be interesting to conduct a survey comparing the attitudes impressions of libertarians and objectivists have toward the film.

Finally, there is something to be said for abstaining from activity which encourages others to be harmful to themselves--but this is also a judgment call, and the righteousness of such decisions is always within the context of voluntary association and participation.  Objectivist philosophy can be applied here, it seems; again, solely in a voluntary context.

[alaric89]

Stacy Litz

Fun fact: you can't see it but I was drinking and feeling anti marriage so I was heckling her on the chat.