> If you think locking up people who like 'shrooms is "The Right Thing", then we have a disagreement. Just shrooms? Probably not, as long as they don't hurt an

> If you think locking up people who like 'shrooms is "The Right Thing", then we have a disagreement. Just shrooms? Probably not, as long as they don't hurt anyone else. > Over here in USA we honor a Revolution worthy of the name. Our founding fathers didn't pull that shit. They also didn't install anarchy, either before, during, or the 2 times they tried after the American Revolution. I'm not saying that "The State" is always the answer to an issue either. Certainly there are issues which can and should be properly resolved at the lowest possible level (believe me, I'm familiar with those too as a former Navy division officer... a lot of what I did was have to make decisions to avoid getting involved in minor spats between sailors that they should figure out themselves). But when directed action on the part of the people is necessary, either to protect the public welfare, avoid being abused by Big Business, etc., there is no substitute for the state, and it must be empowered accordingly. Witness the collective societies that succeed in nature. They don't succeed based on "what's best for the individual", they succeed based on "what's best for the colony". E.g. the example of Japanese honey bees vs. giant hornets. And don't mistake the apparent lack of overseers as each one working for itself and just happening to develop the needed emergent action. They're working by the rules alright... it's just that their rules are 'baked in'.