TomAiello

BASE 283 is definitely not US military. He's what might be called a conscientious objector. I believe he left the US over a decade ago, because he was tired of some US government policies (or perhaps just bored). He took the classic advice of so many (some of whom appear to want to offer it to him in this thread) to "leave if you don't like it." I'm not sure of his current citizenship, but I think he might accurately be described, in a philosophical sense, as a citizen of the world. He's a fun guy to party with, too. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Would you like to put this in English for us? In plain english that translates to: In many rural places, young people get bored enough to shoot street signs. I know I've done it. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

That one. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

If anyone hasn't seen it you might also check out the GPS stuff at Flybirdman. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Have a look at Jason's posting on the ABA forum. He goes into depth there. I'll try to chip into this discussion some more later this weekend. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Again, I agree. The problem would be that we would be "abandoning" people who had only started their own "drug wars" at our insistence. My major concern would be not penalizing people who were only trying to be friends to us. Handled carefully, I don't think it would be much of an issue. We also need to consider the fact that much of the drug production industry is currently in the hands of ruthless criminals, so there will be some major cultural shifts needed there to transform them into legitimate businesses. I'd expect that once things got rolling legally, their would be a leadership change in the industry, as law abiding businessmen got into the act and made things more efficient. Still, while the foreign hurdles are generally larger than those in the US, I don't think they are insurmountable by any means. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Heck yeah. What an incredible waste of taxpayers money and time. Still, decriminalization also probably ought to start in targeted areas (say, Marijuana for starters), then proceed to others, only eventually ending at the drugs that tend to scare people. But in general, I'm for decriminalization all the way. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Actually, rum-running (and beer-running, etc) was a decent-sized industry, and many mobsters and others (including, reportedly, Joseph Kennedy) got their start by importing and/or controlling the flow of alcohol. Yes, but they often had legal foreign sources to provide them with supply. Here, we have a problem where the foreign sources are illegal in their country of origin, and increasing import demand might destabilize other governments historically friendly to the US. I'd think that in the long term, managed carefully, the transition would be just as good at cutting the legs out from criminal syndicates in other countries as it would here at home. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I'd re-task them, probably as part of the FDA, to supervise purity of product and distribution chains. It's a massive culural shift for them, but at least some of the folks there with great expertise in these areas would be very useful for quality control. You would probably also maintain some of the DEA's functions as part of customs, to regulate the flow of foreign-produced pharmaceuticals into the country. In general, though, I'm not opposed to just wholesale disbanding government agencies. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Hmmm. The huge percentage of the Marijuana consumed in the US is "homegrown" (i.e. produced within our borders). The same is true for much of the LSD and a good portion of the Psilocybin, as well as most of the Methamphetamine. Ok, I see where you are coming from. The worry is that the initial shock would be huge, with a year or more of massive experimentation, where pretty much everyone would be on drugs, and society would creak and groan (perhaps to a standstill). Or am I reading that wrong? I'm guessing that the majority of people wouldn't experiment any more heavily than the experimenters among us do now. They'd be reasonable, responsible folks with jobs and families and mortgages, and they'd keep their experimentation to the times and places that they now keep their consumption of alcohol. A couple ideas for gradual re-introduction of prohibited recreational substances: 1) Start with "coffee shops". People have to go to (reasonably healthy, clean) establishments that serve various substances, and consume them there. Then proceed, later, to a system where people can purchase things there and take them home. Only much later proceed to allowing sale in other establishments, or public intoxication. 2) Start with only some (probably the home grown ones) substances. So start with Marijuana (you live in California, don't you?), then after a few years add LSD, or Psilocybin, and progress gradually through other "harder" substances. 3) Start with fairly strict regulation of the substances themselves. Require strict FDA inspections of production and distribution, as well as purity. You'd probably want to keep this for a longish time, at least until the market had a chance to establish branding, and the other methods we currently use for guiding us to our personal preferences in other areas. At a guess, I'd say this would be a 20-30 year process, beginning immediately, and progressing quickly (5 years or so) through most of the "soft stuff", but with government regulation of quality and distribution continuing (much as we have now for alcohol or tobacco) for the long term, and introduction of harder and foreign substances (like Heroine, Cocaine or Opium) delayed and staggered to allow time to analyze the effects and deal with the adjustment shocks. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Shameless plug: If anyone is interested in learning more about Libertarian ideas, check out the Institute for Humane Studies. They offer free seminars exploring Libertarian ideas to students (undergrad and grad), as well as scholarships and prizes for Libertarians. You may also meet your soul mate at one of their seminars.

I understand. I read your previous posts, and I bet you and I agree about 99% more than I agree with the average person. What I was saying is that the execution at the end of alcohol prohibition was incredibly simple. There are some structural barriers here that didn't exist there (primarily related to how long and widespread this prohibition has been), but I'd bet that simply declaring the end of prohibition would actually be remarkably effective, and raise surprisingly few problems. What issues do you see with the execution? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

In the 30's many prohibitionists predicted that the repeal of prohibition would lead to the collapse of society, and the beginning of rule by organized crime. It actually worked the other way. While there were some initial shocks to the immediate repeal of prohibition, they were actually incredibly limited. Basically, as soon as the laws creating the problem went away, so did the problem. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Your underlying premise, which is unstated, is that drugs are illegal. In a Libertarian system, the acquisition of recreational substances would be no more difficult than the acquisition of beer is now. So there wouldn't be any need to hurt, rob, or kill anyone to get them. This type of legalized drug system works very well to contain crime (and reduce side effects from poor quality drugs or dangerous distribution systems) in many places in the real world. Amsterdam is perhaps the best known example. In other words, it is not recreational substances that beget violence. As we learned in the US in the 1930's, it is the prohibition of recreational substances that begets violence, by putting a huge cash cow into the hands of criminals, rather than law abiding citizens. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

That's kind of the idea. People ought to be allowed to whatever they want, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. I disagree. Libertarianism is fundamentally centered around taking responsibility for your own actions. You must, individually, take responsibility for yourself, rather than letting the government (or whoever else) take responsibility for you. The key to this is the idea that you _can_ do whatever you want, up until the point that it hurts someone else (i.e. infringes their rights to do the whatever _they_ want). Have you read the Declaration of the Rights of Man? It's a pretty good summary. Presumably, your sex life only affects consenting adults who have _chosen_ to be effected by it. I disagree. The actions you take while under the influence may effect other people. If they do, I believe you should be held responsible for those effects. What influences you had chosen to allow on yourself at the time you took the actions is irrelevant--and should not be considered (good or bad) in determining the consequences you face. I completely disagree. Personal responsibility and individual rights act as stabilizing influences on society. It is when people feel that they as individuals are unimportant that society begins to decay.

Houston is one of the original BASE towns. There are plenty of people there to help. Try PMing Zennie for starters. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Interesting spelling of "flick"... I guess you're a BR guy, then? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I didn't say that at all. If anything, I implied she was a gold-digger, or perhaps a power-digger. I do think it's valid to examine the wife of a candidate. Marriage is the most comitting relationship that most of us embark upon. And the president's wife is likely to exert more influence upon him than almost any other unelected person. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Wife of a school board chairman is just a tad different than wife of two successive United States Senators. Perhaps she found "Advise and Consent" extremely erotic? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Basically, Libertarians believe that the government shouldn't tell you what to do in any aspect of your life. What you do in your bedroom, what you do with your money, what you do in your faith--these are all up to you, and government should stay out. There is an excellent book called Libertarianism in One Lesson available here that sums up the basic underpinnings of Libertarianism in one sentence: You own yourself. No one else owns you--not your community, not the government, no one. You one no one else--not your family, not your friends, not your spouse. I've been a practicing Libertarian for about 12 years. I've been to Libertarian seminars, read Libertarian books, donated to Libertarian causes--I even met my wife at a Libertarian event. I can write at more length later, but just now I've got to run. P.S. If you go to the LP website you can take the political quiz there--that ought to give you a pretty good idea of what Libertarians generally believe. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I got it. I remember, the first time Rick posted calling for applications for Night BASE numbers, thinking "dang, I got night first--I'd think day BASE would be harder to come by." On the other hand, I also recall seeing a BLiNC post in which a puzzled Euro asked "is it possible to make BASE jumps at night?" A matter of perspective, I suppose. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Adding a smiley doesn't always make something nice. I frequently see people putting smiley's after full on personal attacks. What I was really commenting on is a rather silly tendency amongst some in this forum to dissect the grammar of opposing arguments, rather than their position. The fact someone can't write/spell/articulate as well as you does not mean their views ought to be dismissed. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Why not play the ball, instead of the player? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Bill, I don't think the Pentagon is in control of _all_ the photos. Just the ones in question here. I don't know what they'd do if they were in control of all of them, I'm just pointing out that they're not. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I actually like Brin's short stories a bit more than his novels. "Senses Three and Six" was, in my opinion, simply brilliant. And if you consider the parameters, "Toujours Voir" was pretty striking, as well. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com