The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: Sluggers on May 13, 2012, 05:06:15 AM
-
Meet Stacy Litz, https://www.facebook.com/stacylitz (https://www.facebook.com/stacylitz)
Stacy was a member of Students for Liberty, the Drexel Student Liberty Front, Center for a Stateless Society, and presumably numerous other activist outlets. She has been to Porcfest. Lot's of people know and (used to) trust her, as a well liked member of the liberty community.
I should say ahead of time, I don't know Stacy personally. The following is my opinion of the multiple accounts I've read on her from the following sources.
Stacy's Blog http://drugwarvictim.blogspot.com/ (http://drugwarvictim.blogspot.com/)
C4SS Statement http://c4ss.org/content/10305 (http://c4ss.org/content/10305)
Mike Moceri of the Student Liberty Front Statement https://www.facebook.com/groups/studentlibertyfront/permalink/10150825778480772/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/studentlibertyfront/permalink/10150825778480772/)
A C&P of Stacy's Facebook note http://freeconcord.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/2012_05_09_slitznote.pdf (http://freeconcord.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/2012_05_09_slitznote.pdf)
And another note I read from her friend which has since been made private.
Apparently the basic story goes like this, and I'm going to make this very brief because the details are published elsewhere and I wish to address priniples, not rehash a single drug sting. While attending Drexel University, Stacy and her friends buy a whole bunch of MDMA off of Silk Road to use and sell. Stacy sees a great money making opportunity and goes into business selling numerous different drugs. One of Stacy's customers gets busted. He rats out Stacy, introducing her to an undercover cop who procedes to make 13 buys off of her before busting her for 13 felony drug sale charges.
Thus far, as anybody who has ever been involved in drugs can tell you, this is a pretty typical day in the world of drug dealers, as terrible as it is, it happens all the time. Any liberty activist can tell you that this is wrong, The State is victimizing innocent people and caging them and depriving them of property, it is a horrible consequence of an out of control government abusing its citizenry. It is the perfect example of why statism is dangerous, immoral, and must end once and for all.
What happens next is also all too common. Having 13 felony charges over ones head can weigh on a person in a way few of us can really comprehend. The police know this, and use it to their advantage. Out comes the sunnier side of Stacy's aggressors, as they offer her exactly what she's been hoping for, a way out. That way out being, to put others in her place, by working as an informant.
What is one to do? You face decades in prison, you're a young, attractive, ambitious, politically active woman who had a bright future ahead of you just a few hours ago, and these armed men tell you that you have moments to decide if you will throw it all away, or let others take your place. You weigh your life against that of other people, you imagine growing old in a cage, being assaulted, raped perhaps, everything you've ever worked for being destroyed, forgetting aout the person you used to be, getting out of prison and being unfamiliar with the world around you, unable to cope with how much things have changed since you went in so many years ago, your friends and family forgetting about you, unable to get a job because you're a convicted felon, poverty, loneliness, depression, desolation, and it will last for the rest of your life.
A difficult predicament indeed, and according to the people who kidnapped you, all you need to do to get out of it, is bring this misery to others. Think about it, your narcissism is kicking in, you start thinking about how you are more valuable than others, how if you just do this one thing, you can learn your lesson and make a difference for the future. You think "If it were them in this position, they would do it me, right?", and chances are, you're absolutely right about that part. Almost anybody would, we know that because that's exactly how Stacy was caught, it happens all the time. If not for drug informants, the drug war would end inside of a year. Somebody gets caught, flips on someone else, and so the cycle continues in perpetuity.
I know these thoughts because I have processed them ahead of time. I have no respect for The State, I think they are vicious and immoral individuals acting out absurd fantasies that hurt all of us. I have decided they are the enemy of free humanity, that this makes them my enemies, and I have dedicated my life to seeing them fall. I have made this decision knowing that it may well get me caged (again) or even murdered, and before I made this decision, I had to process that information. I will serve no cause by ratting out my friends, I have to decide each time I defy The State, not what the odds of my getting caught are, but if I have the will to withstand their aggressions should I be caught. And so I don't break policies unless I have decided ahead of time that I have the will to withstand their response.
Before you read on, make your choice. Really think about this, do you keep your mouth shut and take your chances, or do you turn on your people? Chances are you've decided to turn on your people, self preservation instincts are a powerful thing, in a lot of ways, I understand where you're coming from. Nobody wants to go to prison.
But chances are, you know the answer to this problem is to stay out of the drug trade and avoid its dangers, if you are in the drug trade, and your decision was to to turn on your people, today should probably be your last day in that business, because what happened to Stacy next should be a lesson to all of us.
So Stacy, understandably shook from her encounter with armed men in costumes, decided to take the deal. She gave names, she made buys, her friends home was raided by men armed with machine guns, and to date at least 3 people have been arrested on felony charges stemming from her work with The State. She confesses to trying to give up others unsuccessfully. Her victims face years in prison, lifetime disarmament, and other consequences that may well follow them to their graves, not to mention the property stolen and damaged in the raid.
Then there is the fact that we still may not know the full extent of this problem yet. How many other investigations are presently ongoing? How many busts are to come down the road? How many of the people busted as a result of her actions will flip and rat out more people?
There is no argument to be made that Stacy was in any way justified for her actions. Being a libertarian means being responsible for ones own actions, you have to think ahead of time, and cannot pawn off the consequences of your actions on others simply because you failed to weigh the consequences of your actions ahead of time. Stacy was an activist against the drug war, she knew full well what The State would do to her if they found out. She just irresponsibly thought "Well, it's never going to happen to ME. I'm special". No Stacy, you're not special.
Stacy has labeled her blog "Drug War Victim", but Stacy was only a victim of the drug war until she decided to turn on her people, once that happened, Stacy become an enemy combatant in the drug war, on the side of the aggressors.
But to this point in the story, Stacy's problems have only just begun. In the search warrant used in the raid, police intentionally gave very specific information about their "confidential" informant, that lead to Stacy being outed as a snitch. Her friends confronted her about it, and she acted like she had no idea what they were talking about. She later showed up to a party, where she was made aware that they knew what she had done, and she left a short time later.
Stacy wrote a facebook note confessing to her collaboration with The State, she explained her motives, she described herself as a victim, she said she was sorry, she claimed she didn't understand what she had done. But she did understand, she wrote about it, in detail, she sacrificed others for her own best interests. Stacy violated the non-aggression principle by sending agents of The State after her people.
Word quickly got out. Stacy was a public figure, so her actions became of interest to a worldwide community of liberty activists who, whether they engage in illegal activities or not, have no tolerance for collaboration with The State. She is being ostracized from her community, people are threatening her, she is desperate, plagued with guilt, and uncertain of her future.
Now that she has been outed as an informant, she is unable to bust anybody else, and The State dose'nt think she's given them enough victims yet, so they are proceeding against her, apparently, as if she never even cooperated.
The Police used Stacy, and when they were done with her, they fed her to the wolves. Even police don't respect informants, they use them like they use everyone else, until they are no longer of use. Now Stacy faces the worst of both worlds, The State is coming for her, her friends ostracize her, she faces threats of violence from individuals, she'll likely wind up serving a lengthy prison sentence, and doing time in prison is even worse when you're an internationally known snitch.
Whatever your opinions of Stacy, whatever you decide your relationship with her will be in the future, learn from this. Snitching doesn't work. If you are captured by The State, your only options are to suffer their wrath, or to fight back. Collaborating with them will only make matters worse. The agents of The State work in the best interests of The State, they have no interest in honesty or contracts, they lie, and steal, and assault, and kidnap, and murder. There can be no moral argument to be made for collaboration with them, no matter what threats or promises they make, they are not worthy of our trust. Nor can you trust lawyers simply because you find them listed on a particular website, lawyers are trained to speak the language of The State, that is to say, they speak deceit. If a lawyer can extract $2500 from you, and all he has to do is help you negotiate a plea arrangement, then that lawyer just got $2500 for doing next to nothing. If you intend to defy The State, read up on their laws, and be involved in your defense, taking a lawyers word for it is certain to lead to catastrophe.
Do not tell me that Stacy was without options. She had several very viable ones.
1. Do your time
You knew the danger you put yourself in, it was that danger that allowed you the profit margins that provided for the large sum of FRN's and silver that was confiscated. Do not pretend to me that you sold drugs to further the cause of liberty, you sold drugs to enrich yourself, and it was the war on drugs that allowed you to profit as you did, and while I have no problem with a person profiting from drugs, you have no right to be surprised when you get caught, as so many others have. Nor should you pretend that going to jail "simply wasn't into the cards" for you, as you said in your note. You dealt your own hand, do not blame your cards on anyone but the dealer. Going to jail is an option, I know that because it is an option that I myself have exercised, I know that because my friends are in jail right now, I know that because I fully expect to be in jail in the future, that is what happens when you defy The State in a statist society, and that is why we are activists. If it were possible to stand in open defiance of The State and NOT go to jail, we're not having this conversation.
2. Go to trial
You wouldn't be the first to do it. Weed-a-Claus comes to mind. You could have outed your informant, and shot for jury nullification, even if you didn't take it all the way you could have...
3. Plead it out
The State does not seek to sentence you to the max on 13 felony drug sales, they seek to gain your compliance, this is the business of The State. You were a sympathetic defendant, that is, before you turned snitch. The State hates to take a sympathetic defendant before a jury. For all I read about your case, I heard nothing of a plea offer. You very well might have wound up on probation if you had kept your mouth shut, instead you turned on your people, which amounted to a confession. You never challenged the warrant or the circumstances of your arrest, and now you'll never have the chance, because you flipped witihin 6 hours of your arrest.
4. RUN! You had a global network of liberty activists at your disposal, many of us would have helped you to hide, myself included, given the proper introduction. Perhaps the liberty movement needs to organize a modern day "Underground Railroad" to hide victimless "criminals", that we could offer as an alternative to the coercion that Stacy faced.
There are those who say that they appreciate Stacy's honesty after the fact, but the truth is, Stacy only came clean after she was outed by The State. Had Stacy come clean before ratting out her friends, then her honesty would be worthy of praise and a global network of activists has her back. If Stacy hadn't been outed, she would still be working as an informant, she might well be at some public event we hold trying to do buy busts, she would have done this for as long as she could maintain her cover and had these cases hanging over her head. She could have, and may well already have, introduced undercover agents into the movement, they may well be reading the same message as you, they may well be commenting on it in full agreement, they may well make inroads with you by talking about this very scenario.
In the end, Stacy is still indignant towards those who condemn her actions, she seems to think the people she hurt are wrong for sounding the alarm to the rest of the community. She writes on May 3rd that she is not sorry about "Being mad that the people who know are telling every Tom, Dick and Harry about this. Maybe respect my privacy a little bit and, again, put yourself in my shoes and realize it is a really complex situation that is hard to grasp when you're only telling people the bad parts.". This sort of cognitive dissonance is amazing to me, asking people to respect her privacy after she gets a friends home raided by the police. She says that the people who ostracize her are "their own version of the state" and repeatedly makes mention of them "becoming the state", when in fact, the only libertarian in this equation who acted as an agent of The State, was Stacy Litz. On April 19th she writes "This "right libertarian" thing doesn't work because it lacks human emotion, so stop claiming to be so much of a tight ass principled libertarian for five seconds and realize it doesn't work."
I am a principled libertarian Stacy, it does work. Initiatory force, and fraud are what fail, and your willingness to engage in both is why you are now the enemy of both sides of the law. It is a shame that others had to be harmed so you could be exposed for what you are, a dangerous, irresponsible, unprincipled fraud, but I say good riddance to you nonetheless. I do however thank you, for serving as a a powerful example to the rest of the community that collaboration with The State leads to nothing but anguish.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/christopher-cantwell/stacy-litz-the-liberty-snitch/10150873433034231 (https://www.facebook.com/notes/christopher-cantwell/stacy-litz-the-liberty-snitch/10150873433034231)
-
This is pretty terrible all around. That sounds like good advice regarding trusting the police and informing on friends. I've luckily never been in that situation, but I've heard about plenty of examples where the police have made promises which they promptly broke and screwed over everyone involved.
-
*Shrug*
People who don't follow Rule #1 of Fight Club in a world where Fight Club is illegal are gonna get busted.
If someone talks too much, stay away from them. Bitch be having almost 4,000 FB friends.
I saw what happened and quietly unfriended her without posting anything directly to her FB wall. Chatted about among more trustworthy people.
I don't partake in drugs but I'm not interested in being seen fraternizing with a dirty fucking snitch at worst or drinking from a poisoned well at best.
This is the exact shit I ranted about years ago right here in regards to people getting raided/busted etc. It's not gonna be some random person who nails you, it's gonna be a friend, or at least someone you know to a non-zero degree who has been flipped or intimidated into rolling over on you. Work out a code phrase to let your friends know you've been compromised. Discuss it openly with your close friends. Tell them - If I ever contact you and say "X", tell all of our mutual friends to avoid me until further notice."
The funniest part of all of it is that she flat out tells people how to avoid the whole problem by admitting where she bought her stuff from.
She might as well have said "Yeah buy from Silk Road because if you buy from someone like me who's nearby you're gonna get a hard pegging by a 300lb home girl with a DEA jacket and painted nails."
-
Thats some pretty hairy shit.
-
I'd head south of the border and never come back. Thats what I would do. Sure, it wouldn't be a picnic right away, but weighing all options, thats about the only sensible answer I can come up with.
-
Michael Collins had an effective way of getting rid of people like her from his organization.
Too bad his methods wouldn't be suited for the liberty minded.
-
If this isn't posted on the regular site for discussion on the air, I think maybe it should be.
-
If this isn't posted on the regular site for discussion on the air, I think maybe it should be.
http://www.freetalklive.com/content/liberty_activist_turned_police_informant (http://www.freetalklive.com/content/liberty_activist_turned_police_informant)
There you go.
-
*Shrug*
I saw what happened and quietly unfriended her without posting anything directly to her FB wall.
Ditto...
-
If this isn't posted on the regular site for discussion on the air, I think maybe it should be.
http://www.freetalklive.com/content/liberty_activist_turned_police_informant (http://www.freetalklive.com/content/liberty_activist_turned_police_informant)
There you go.
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.
-
I saw what happened and quietly unfriended her without posting anything directly to her FB wall. Chatted about among more trustworthy people.
NOT ENUFF DRAMA!!!
-
I don't think the public unfriending is about the drama, it's about publicly acknowledging that you will no longer have a voluntary association with that person. I talk a lot about ostracizing people instead of the threat of force. How can you ostracize if you do it quietly?
-
True, but I would think that if a Fed or something like that was actually looking at that kind of activity, they would see through such a feeble attempt at at disassociating yourself. As a matter of fact, it might even draw more attention to you if you made a big whoopty-doo about it. Kinda like "Ahh, this dude sure is going out of his way to advertise he is disassociaing himself to this person. I wonder what HE'S got to hide?"
If thats not your concern though, what im saying here doesn't really mean anything.
I'd just do it low key myself. Just saying.
-
True, but I would think that if a Fed or something like that was actually looking at that kind of activity, they would see through such a feeble attempt at at disassociating yourself. As a matter of fact, it might even draw more attention to you if you made a big whoopty-doo about it. Kinda like "Ahh, this dude sure is going out of his way to advertise he is disassociaing himself to this person. I wonder what HE'S got to hide?"
If thats not your concern though, what im saying here doesn't really mean anything.
I'd just do it low key myself. Just saying.
Totally not my concern. I'm a pretty open activist.
-
This is a helpful discussion I think. I don't see a way of contacting her currently except by being FB friends. So I'll post this here in hopes that she'll read it. Probably the thing to to is start trying to make good. It would be a long hard slog, but that is where humanity is often at its best. A decent person in her situation could for instance make some sort of statement outlining an initial "atonement plan." If not atonement to the direct victims than at least toward society in general and the movement more specifically. For instance, something like "I will write 20 liberty-oriented letters to the editor this year, and 30 letters to unrelated political prisoners, to undo 1 percent of the damage that I've done. I will have the first 5 of each finished this month." Then at the end of the month post proof of what you've done.
The world is full of people who made bad snap decisions, but some of those have enough character to try and make good afterward. She can still be one of those...or she can make some more decisions that cement her position as a perceived traitor to freedom.
-
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/ (http://www.freedomfeens.com/2012/05/16/libertarian-snitch/)
MWD
-
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.
-
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/ (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 (http://www.freedomfeens.com).
-
http://www.spreaker.com/user/angelclark/liberty_panel_on_the_angel_clark_show_5 (http://www.spreaker.com/user/angelclark/liberty_panel_on_the_angel_clark_show_5)
I said my piece here - starts at 61 minutes in.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (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?
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
Stacy Litz (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81HzaZ2wZnc#)
Fun fact: you can't see it but I was drinking and feeling anti marriage so I was heckling her on the chat.