|
<$Project P.E.A.C.E. -- Planet Ecology Advancing Conscious Economics$>
|
I received feedback from a person whose opinion I respect greatly and agree with, normally. On the subject of coorinated tax-revolt, I respectfully disagree with him.
Subject: A broad attack or a specific defense?
To: "Ethan Nadelmann"
Hi Ethan,
Thanks for your reply.
Tax revolt isn't a broad attack. It's actually the opposite.
Tax revolt is a very specific and personal defense against conscription. Prohibition is a
lynch-pin issue in a much broader attack. Essential resource scarcity,induced by prohibition of
Cannabis, is a fundamentally strategic device, being employed by the attack which was warned
against by President Eisenhower.
The war being waged against agricultural sustainability by the military-industrial complex is much
broader, with a predictable and ultimately consequential result. Under such conditions, even just
identifying and discussing the concept of tax revolt as a final, non-violent measure to protect
against government conscription would be a determinate step in the right direction.
On a purely individual level, if I recognize that future generations and my own spiritual
integrity are being violated by the viciously immoral and fundamentally degenerative
prohibitionist policies of the U.S. government, then I understand that it is my individual
responsibility to the truest spirit of that government, to global society, my loved ones and
myself, to refuse openly, to work for the extinctionistic regime that has usurped control of our
government.
Quite obviously, the United States must change from the "bottom", up. Before the internet, and
people's ability to communicate globally, electronically, instantaneously, this wasn't possible.
Now it is.
I'll tell you honestly, I agree with everything I've heard or read that you have said, except for
one thing. You've said that ending prohibition is going to take a long time. Perhaps you're right,
though certainly this is a self-fulfilling prophecy, which implies that we have a lot of time.
I feel it is important to recognize the fact that we really don't know how much time we've got
before degenerative synergy becomes irreversible. We must necessarily be prudent in assuming that
we don't have as much time as we think we have.
If we are to avoid diverging further down unaffordably expensive, unnecessarily tragic and
wasteful avenues of social evolution, then the time-frame for change needs to be realistically
contained. A target-date for ending public support for Cannabis prohibition could be set, by
coordinating a months-long, electronic "Town Hall Meeting", broadcasting a panel of respected
authorities and public debate, to achieve informed consensus.
I haven't heard if you ever saw any part of the tape I sent. Essentially "Return to Reason" is a
film being built to end prohibition through artful repetition of an urgent message. It magnifies
what's being said all over the world, in a way that could establish a common basis for
understanding, making tax revolt unnecessary.
for peace and health,
PvH
--- Ethan Nadelmann wrote:
> Paul
> Good to hear from you.
> Re funds, sorry. Not able to help with that.
> Re tax revolts, I understand the motivation, and empathize, but it's too
> broad an attack for me to justify it on dp reform grounds.
>
> Take care
>
> e
>
> Ethan Nadelmann
> Executive Director
> Drug Policy Alliance
> 70 West 36th Street, 16th floor
> New York City 10018
> www.drugpolicy.org
> enadelmann@drugpolicy.org
>
> 212 613-8061 - work
> 212 613-8021 - fax
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PAUL VON HARTMANN
> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 2:49 PM
> To: Ethan Nadelmann
> Subject: "Return to Reason" & a dot-com-plaint
>
> Hi Ethan,
>
> I'm back in France, editing film shot in Swizerland at Chanvre Info and
> working on the screenplay
> for "Return to Reason". If possible, I would like to be able to shoot
> harvest and processing at
> Hempflax in Holland. In November I can interview Valerie and Michael
> Corral at the Cannabis Cup if
> I can raise the expenses. Can you help me with any of that? Have you
> been able to see the trailer
> and rough-cuts from the film?
>
> Also, any thoughts you have about the complaint blog I am publishing at
>
> http://www.formalcomplaint.blogspot.com
>
> would be much appreciated.
>
> I believe that essential resource scarcity has twisted mankind's
> dominant social evolution out of
> balance to the realised extremes of cultural insanity. Certainly the
> condition of the planet seems
> to indicate this. I think that the individual decision to finacially
> support the tax system which
> feeds this extreme is where the rubber meets the road, functionally,
> morally and ethically. That's
> why I was proud to be convicted in '96 and remain tax-free to this day.
>
> I am intending that the rationale and weight of legal process built into
> in this blog may serve as
> a prerequisite for an individual's conscientious objection to payment of
> Federal income taxes.
> Wouldn't you agree, that as the true nature of the current
> administration becomes ever more
> apparent, a coordinated tax revolt to disqualify support for an
> extinctionistic public policy, is
> the most effective, non-violent, individual expression of meaningful
> refusal to participate?
>
> I welcome your insights or other practical support that you might be
> able to lend, much
> appreciated now and forever after.
>
> for peace and health,
>
> Paul
>
posted by projectpeace @
11:18 PM
|
Wednesday, September 10, 2003  |
|
|
