Ban on alcohol and cigarettes in South Africa remains

lexity

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
849
dude, this is how people talk about Jesus. it's not how people talk about state bureaucracy.
Are you kidding?

Have you never heard about the concept of central economic planning?

I mean, sure, I don't expect advocates of every variant of Collectivism to explicitly use the term in state-licensed Western universities and colleges... you know, some people are old enough to recall the failed Soviet experiments. Some of us can see what has been imported to the West. They can't afford to be that explicit, yet. After all, there are still some laws remaining in the West which are protective of individual primacy.

Central economic planning is all about planning to eliminate competition. Of course, they're not going to admit that openly. Instead, they institute so-called 'competition commissions', ostensibly to relieve the consumer of the burden of responsibility for choosing winners. That kind of responsibility(power) more properly rests with those of superior breeding.

Anyone who is doing this dirty work, of undermining individual freedom & responsibility for mitigating risk, in the front-line i.e. politicians, you can be sure is a lower-down. The real influencers are not so stupid as to make their goals and intentions known openly. They prefer to operate at arms length. They are detached and callous enough to crash world economies, and - so far - smart enough to transfer the blame onto some group or something else, in a way that goes largely undetected.

I suspect this smoking ban, as I mentioned before, will have far-reaching consequences, as a precedent, for anyone who has been held in check by laws protecting individual primacy. The question being perpetually asked is what can be done during this or that emergency that can't usually be done? As Churchill and others, like Emanuel, have said, never let a crisis go to waste('And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.'). They could, for example, use (lifting)it as a bone to throw to 11 million citizens, when introducing some other legislation that otherwise would have encountered too much resistance. These are the kinds of stunts they are constantly trying to pull off through modern states.

Without the state, they would be powerless to conduct the level of societal damage we are currently looking at, globally.
 

lexity

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
849
Corporate SA finally growing some balls. Took you lot long enough.
"We humbly request that you put an end to this painful prohibition"

Does this sound like ballsy language to you?

It doesn't to me. That's not how you talk to self-professed civil servants, lording it over you, let alone criminals and terrorists. They're just going to think to themselves pff, what a bunch of p*ssies.
 

IndigoIdentity

Expert Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
1,016
Understand what? That your inane ramblings are rooted in childish sci-fi fantasies about dystopian Narnia futures?

And the only response you could come up with are the by now very stale "are you upset/triggered/drunk/sad/angry...blablabla...." response?

You're a child, babbling on and on about schit you don't even understand, but it sounds rebellious and cool ( or so you think ).

Rather go do you homework, so you don't end up living with your parents until they die, and you can eventually move into the main bedroom with your fantasy "girlfriend".
Which part hurt you the most?

Was it the part where I quoted Wikipedia, the part where I asked Lexi a question or is the the part where I made a comical response to someone stating I’d have a micro nation in my screen name?

Yeah okay, offer for smoke is still available mate, don’t feel bad if you need to take me up on that, I know everyone is struggling right now.
 

IndigoIdentity

Expert Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
1,016
don't tell IndigoTwat that. he thinks that a guy who made a personal fortune by leveraging his union credentials and CODESA position to bargain away public assets and then moved to the private sector as a fixer, where he hid behind boards and asked the police to kill striking miners, and who has literally never created a single thing in his life is the equivalent of Steve Jobs resuscitating Apple the second time.
lol, it’s easy to discredit people who have reached a point in life which is further than you could ever dream of getting yourself, obviously a blithering idiot making dumb decisions daily.

I guess you believe bill gates is going to vaccinate everyone too?
 

MightyQuin

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
17,338
Which part hurt you the most?

Was it the part where I quoted Wikipedia, the part where I asked Lexi a question or is the the part where I made a comical response to someone stating I’d have a micro nation in my screen name?

Yeah okay, offer for smoke is still available mate, don’t feel bad if you need to take me up on that, I know everyone is struggling right now.
The same old schit responses as I mentioned before...bla bla bla ..."are you uspet, let me help"...bla bla bla...

Moditude....gif
 

IndigoIdentity

Expert Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
1,016
The question being perpetually asked is what can be done during this or that emergency that can't usually be done?
It is an interesting question, hence my asking in the first placeby use of example whether or not secession would be a viable way to stay apart from certain policies which may be placed on its citizens by a government.

Hypothetically speaking, what if the cigarette ban were to stay in place for good by law written in by persons who are hard headed to the actual facts? What does one actually even do if you are on the side which disagrees with that decision?

Take it to court? Hope for an order which suits your own opinion? If not too bad I guess. Seems like a somewhat futile system to be honest, one that is prone to various issues...
 

IndigoIdentity

Expert Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
1,016
The same old schit responses as I mentioned before...bla bla bla ..."are you uspet, let me help"...bla bla bla...

View attachment 870121
Nah, just wondering why you’re raging over a petty conversion being had by two individuals, I assume it must be the lack of nicotine as you are in fact hanging out on a cigarette ban related forum, am I wrong or do you just have senselessness and memes?
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
90,617
Corporate SA finally growing some balls. Took you lot long enough.
Its the start of the process... For now they're still just asking... I'll say they've grown a pair of balls when they actively do something to reverse this nonsensical ban
 

lexity

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
849
It is an interesting question, hence my asking in the first placeby use of example whether or not secession would be a viable way to stay apart from certain policies which may be placed on its citizens by a government.

Hypothetically speaking, what if the cigarette ban were to stay in place for good by law written in by persons who are hard headed to the actual facts? What does one actually even do if you are on the side which disagrees with that decision?

Take it to court? Hope for an order which suits your own opinion? If not too bad I guess. Seems like a somewhat futile system to be honest, one that is prone to various issues...
I think secession is an all or nothing kind of thing. As far as I know, anyway.

What I mean is that if you really can't stand living under rule X or Y, you could secede and then your new legal system would be different, only in the policy/policies to which you strongly objected but were found to be in the minority over.

If it is simply one policy, as opposed to the possibility that if they can justify overriding your preferred laws in one case they will almost certainly continue in future, then you might find it better to wait for more support i.e. a campaign to secede on principle, rather than merely an instance or two of a principle.

For example, I'm opposed to the smoking ban, even though I no longer smoke, on the principle that I own my body, not the state. And that I know if the state gets the green light on banning smoking they will certainly push the boundary to the next level(in their protectionist favor). Therefore I'm likely to find more support for my campaign because opposition to violation of self-ownership would include other violations not specific to smoking. Like who I hang-out with or marry, whether I can say no to medical practice A or B, what colour my girlfriend can dye her hair (I have personal experience of police threatening individuals with arrest if they did not dye their hair back to its original colour), which restaurant I choose to patronize etc. etc.

In terms of what can be done.... in the face of refusal to permit you to leave a jurisdiction (under threats of violence), I think what may end up happening before many an actual secession is that the state in question begins to straighten out its act. As soon as many of the people begin to learn what is completely reasonable to expect, in terms of choosing the rules you are bound by, legally, the state will automatically shift to try to keep their support. This is the power of the idea.

But one would have to be serious about following through on any threat to secede. If there is a nonchalant attitude and they suspect it's only one or two laws that you oppose, well, they will probably push you beyond your limit to prove you are a nothing-burger to them.

Most people would, once they are introduced to what is really a very old idea, happily claim the right to secede as a minority group. Perhaps unless they were already on the receiving end of a hugely-subsidized standard of living. But even then, the most they could do would be to distract others, from a very powerful argument.
 

Grant

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
49,194
I think secession is an all or nothing kind of thing. As far as I know, anyway.

What I mean is that if you really can't stand living under rule X or Y, you could secede and then your new legal system would be different, only in the policy/policies to which you strongly objected but were found to be in the minority over.

If it is simply one policy, as opposed to the possibility that if they can justify overriding your preferred laws in one case they will almost certainly continue in future, then you might find it better to wait for more support i.e. a campaign to secede on principle, rather than merely an instance or two of a principle.

For example, I'm opposed to the smoking ban, even though I no longer smoke, on the principle that I own my body, not the state. And that I know if the state gets the green light on banning smoking they will certainly push the boundary to the next level(in their protectionist favor). Therefore I'm likely to find more support for my campaign because opposition to violation of self-ownership would include other violations not specific to smoking. Like who I hang-out with or marry, whether I can say no to medical practice A or B, what colour my girlfriend can dye her hair (I have personal experience of police threatening individuals with arrest if they did not dye their hair back to its original colour), which restaurant I choose to patronize etc. etc.

In terms of what can be done.... in the face of refusal to permit you to leave a jurisdiction (under threats of violence), I think what may end up happening before many an actual secession is that the state in question begins to straighten out its act. As soon as many of the people begin to learn what is completely reasonable to expect, in terms of choosing the rules you are bound by, legally, the state will automatically shift to try to keep their support. This is the power of the idea.

But one would have to be serious about following through on any threat to secede. If there is a nonchalant attitude and they suspect it's only one or two laws that you oppose, well, they will probably push you beyond your limit to prove you are a nothing-burger to them.

Most people would, once they are introduced to what is really a very old idea, happily claim the right to secede as a minority group. Perhaps unless they were already on the receiving end of a hugely-subsidized standard of living. But even then, the most they could do would be to distract others, from a very powerful argument.
Wtf dude.!!!!!
This is not some hare brained secession thread.
Take your schit elsewhere
 

Grant

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
49,194
I think secession is an all or nothing kind of thing. As far as I know, anyway.

What I mean is that if you really can't stand living under rule X or Y, you could secede and then your new legal system would be different, only in the policy/policies to which you strongly objected but were found to be in the minority over.

If it is simply one policy, as opposed to the possibility that if they can justify overriding your preferred laws in one case they will almost certainly continue in future, then you might find it better to wait for more support i.e. a campaign to secede on principle, rather than merely an instance or two of a principle.

For example, I'm opposed to the smoking ban, even though I no longer smoke, on the principle that I own my body, not the state. And that I know if the state gets the green light on banning smoking they will certainly push the boundary to the next level(in their protectionist favor). Therefore I'm likely to find more support for my campaign because opposition to violation of self-ownership would include other violations not specific to smoking. Like who I hang-out with or marry, whether I can say no to medical practice A or B, what colour my girlfriend can dye her hair (I have personal experience of police threatening individuals with arrest if they did not dye their hair back to its original colour), which restaurant I choose to patronize etc. etc.

In terms of what can be done.... in the face of refusal to permit you to leave a jurisdiction (under threats of violence), I think what may end up happening before many an actual secession is that the state in question begins to straighten out its act. As soon as many of the people begin to learn what is completely reasonable to expect, in terms of choosing the rules you are bound by, legally, the state will automatically shift to try to keep their support. This is the power of the idea.

But one would have to be serious about following through on any threat to secede. If there is a nonchalant attitude and they suspect it's only one or two laws that you oppose, well, they will probably push you beyond your limit to prove you are a nothing-burger to them.

Most people would, once they are introduced to what is really a very old idea, happily claim the right to secede as a minority group. Perhaps unless they were already on the receiving end of a hugely-subsidized standard of living. But even then, the most they could do would be to distract others, from a very powerful argument.
 

Grant

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
49,194
I think secession is an all or nothing kind of thing. As far as I know, anyway.

What I mean is that if you really can't stand living under rule X or Y, you could secede and then your new legal system would be different, only in the policy/policies to which you strongly objected but were found to be in the minority over.

If it is simply one policy, as opposed to the possibility that if they can justify overriding your preferred laws in one case they will almost certainly continue in future, then you might find it better to wait for more support i.e. a campaign to secede on principle, rather than merely an instance or two of a principle.

For example, I'm opposed to the smoking ban, even though I no longer smoke, on the principle that I own my body, not the state. And that I know if the state gets the green light on banning smoking they will certainly push the boundary to the next level(in their protectionist favor). Therefore I'm likely to find more support for my campaign because opposition to violation of self-ownership would include other violations not specific to smoking. Like who I hang-out with or marry, whether I can say no to medical practice A or B, what colour my girlfriend can dye her hair (I have personal experience of police threatening individuals with arrest if they did not dye their hair back to its original colour), which restaurant I choose to patronize etc. etc.

In terms of what can be done.... in the face of refusal to permit you to leave a jurisdiction (under threats of violence), I think what may end up happening before many an actual secession is that the state in question begins to straighten out its act. As soon as many of the people begin to learn what is completely reasonable to expect, in terms of choosing the rules you are bound by, legally, the state will automatically shift to try to keep their support. This is the power of the idea.

But one would have to be serious about following through on any threat to secede. If there is a nonchalant attitude and they suspect it's only one or two laws that you oppose, well, they will probably push you beyond your limit to prove you are a nothing-burger to them.

Most people would, once they are introduced to what is really a very old idea, happily claim the right to secede as a minority group. Perhaps unless they were already on the receiving end of a hugely-subsidized standard of living. But even then, the most they could do would be to distract others, from a very powerful argument.
 

Grant

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
49,194
I think secession is an all or nothing kind of thing. As far as I know, anyway.

What I mean is that if you really can't stand living under rule X or Y, you could secede and then your new legal system would be different, only in the policy/policies to which you strongly objected but were found to be in the minority over.

If it is simply one policy, as opposed to the possibility that if they can justify overriding your preferred laws in one case they will almost certainly continue in future, then you might find it better to wait for more support i.e. a campaign to secede on principle, rather than merely an instance or two of a principle.

For example, I'm opposed to the smoking ban, even though I no longer smoke, on the principle that I own my body, not the state. And that I know if the state gets the green light on banning smoking they will certainly push the boundary to the next level(in their protectionist favor). Therefore I'm likely to find more support for my campaign because opposition to violation of self-ownership would include other violations not specific to smoking. Like who I hang-out with or marry, whether I can say no to medical practice A or B, what colour my girlfriend can dye her hair (I have personal experience of police threatening individuals with arrest if they did not dye their hair back to its original colour), which restaurant I choose to patronize etc. etc.

In terms of what can be done.... in the face of refusal to permit you to leave a jurisdiction (under threats of violence), I think what may end up happening before many an actual secession is that the state in question begins to straighten out its act. As soon as many of the people begin to learn what is completely reasonable to expect, in terms of choosing the rules you are bound by, legally, the state will automatically shift to try to keep their support. This is the power of the idea.

But one would have to be serious about following through on any threat to secede. If there is a nonchalant attitude and they suspect it's only one or two laws that you oppose, well, they will probably push you beyond your limit to prove you are a nothing-burger to them.

Most people would, once they are introduced to what is really a very old idea, happily claim the right to secede as a minority group. Perhaps unless they were already on the receiving end of a hugely-subsidized standard of living. But even then, the most they could do would be to distract others, from a very powerful argument.
IMG_20200705_145514.jpg
 

Grant

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
49,194
@Grant

Are you for? Or against the Tobacco ban?
I am against any ban that fails rationality testing.
That does not mean I should declare the property my home sits on as independant sovereign territory and deem various areas of the home as separate states.

Apropos the ban on the sale of tobacco products, there are 2 approaches:
1) civil disobedience - with it's consequences.
2) overturning by seeking relief via the judiciary.

Succession is not an option.

Are you one of those lobbying for the western cape to become independent from the rest of the country?
I gain the distinct impression you are trying to sell this idea on various platforms, and are now reaching for the low hanging fruit by way of discussion of the cigarette ban on this particular forum, as a means to further your cause.
 
Top