So what, dude voluntarily bought them, the state has no right to interfere with his stupidity.
He didin't manage to kill himself with it until he was trying to hide it from people who would imprison him for it.
I think that's the right interpretation. Jordan Peterson brings up this quote a lot and seems to have a similar view of it as well.
Yes and no, he swallowed a lethal dose fentanyl to avoid drug charges. Laws against what one may put in ones own body (no matter how dangerous/ridiculous) are fundamentally immoral. The State did have a role in his death as a result.
Counterfeiting is not something I can support, but Walter Williams would say he was just "conducting monetary policy"
I can understand the skepticism but I think there is plenty of evidence that the general trend of humanity has been towards more liberty and less aggression and my hope is that it will continue. I think the only thing we can really do to move that forward is to point out the aggression inherent in the State, and make sound moral arguments for Liberty. Utilitarian arguments can help as well but mainly as a means of assuaging doubts among those who place more emphasis on expected results.
Based on your comment I think a book you might enjoy is "A Conflict of Visions" by Thomas Sowell.
Also I'm reminded of a quote:
If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
To be an anarchist simply means you oppose aggression, and you realize the state necessarily commits aggression. If you are not an anarchist, it means you either condone aggression, or think the state does not necessarily commit aggression. ... Are you in favor of aggression (like socialists and criminals are)? Or, do you think the state does not commit aggression (like children brainwashed by government schools think)?
― Stephan Kinsella
I think that would potentially be an improvement, but the same people who would be in charge of such a class are those currently in charge of our education curriculums, they wouldn't teach stuff like what is found in these videos.
And this is the argument used by communists and socialists. The soviets etc... were doing it wrong and the greedy citizens were participating in black markets.
There are aggressive individuals, it's why all should have the right to arm themselves in self-defense.
He knows that, here are a couple of videos produced by Malice and Tom Woods on exactly that topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5qYTV6B1pY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEgdAxA2T1A
[The Constitution] has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.
― Lysander Spooner
Collectivism in itself is not evil, collectivism as a justification for aggression is.
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.
― James Madison
I'm not suggesting that either was an anarchist society (though aside from slavery the colonies were by far the closest society has ever come to such)
I'm simply pointing out that defense is orders of magnitude more achievable than attempts at offensive subjugation.
The 9th and 10th amendment are as strict and explicit as you could hope for a constitution for be.
They just get ignored. Paper doesn't restrain power.
We are all individuals. Individualism does not preclude cooperation.
Every taxpayer is a government mule.
These leftists need to listen to some Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell
The government is the means by which migrants and the left destroy what we have made.
Anyone coming in should swear allegiance to the new constitution,
You mean like we already have all our politicians do? Fat lot of good that did.
I have no problem with a means of common defense, I oppose violating the rights of those it claims to defend to support it.
only for it to be taken away again when your counties are crushed by the military.
Just like the biggest military in the world at the time crushed guerrilla fighters in Vietnam?
Just like the biggest military in the world at the time crushed the 13 colonies?
They haven't
Of all the numerous forms that governments have taken over the centuries, of all the concepts and institutions that have been tried, none has succeeded in keeping the State in check.
― Murray N. Rothbard
We need to recognize that the entire concept of Political Authority is illegitimate and immoral and stop institutionalizing an inherently corrupt concept.
If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?
― Frédéric Bastiat
It's an interesting idea, I think a better idea is to allow the public to organize to buy the means of their defense on a voluntary basis.
There are also solid arguments in favor of significant de-militarization. There exist many countries without a military at all (though you might argue they are freeloading on neighboring countries/allies) but also the lack of an central system of control means that an invading force would have to subjugate every community individually.
There is also a lot of evidence to point to the strength of guerrilla defensive warfare. If the vietcong could fight off the US military it stands to reason that the heavily armed public could fight off any invading force in the world.
For more detailed analysis on this I recommend:
https://mises.org/library/myth-national-defense-essays-theory-and-history-security-production
Also the second half of Michael Huemer's "The Problem of Political Authority" goes into these arguments in depth as well.
Women gays and transexuals got the freedom to die in our aggressive wars overseas.
Yay for liberty right?
In short forcefully reducing the supply of drugs increases the prices traffickers can charge for them.
The threat of imprisonment for his choices is clearly a form of duress here though.