Gubernatorial candidate Martinez confused about what a 'law' is

Gubernatorial candidate Martinez confused about what a 'law' is

In Albuquerque news: Susana Martinez is showing her ignorance again. The Republican candidate for New Mexico tyrant... er, "governor", says she would repeal the medical marijuana law because "She feels that there are other treatments for patients in need of care that do not break the law." Hey, Genius, because of the current medical marijuana law, it is NOT "breaking the law" to use medical marijuana. That's the whole point of having that particular law. And, according to the Tenth Amendment, state laws trump federal laws every time they deal with something not specifically authorized to the feds by the Constitution (RIP). Like it or not.

This doesn't mean that the state "laws" prohibiting a mere plant to the rest of the people not covered by the medical marijuana law are legitimate, they are not. No one has the right or the authority to control what any other person ingests. Not ever, under any circumstances.

This is getting embarrassing for poor Susana.

As much as I dislike Diane Denish (and I assure you, that's a LOT), at least she isn't opening her mouth as frequently and showing what a fool she is to quite the extent Martinez is lately. I expect that to change soon.

* * * *

Which leads to another lesson in libertarian philosophy.

The people who don't believe rights really exist- that you only have the rights you are willing to fight and kill to assert, and that no one else has any obligation to respect those rights- may have a point. Perhaps rights are all in our minds and are simply a social construct.

Maybe you don't really have property rights that others should respect, and that you can defend if they are violated.

Maybe you don't really have the right to not be attacked, and if you are, to defend yourself from that aggression.

If this is truly the case, how would it change anything?

If you have no rights, then neither do those who claim the right or the authority to control you. Perhaps the true nature of rights really comes down to negatives. Things you do not ever have a right to do. Things such as using coercion against non-violent people. Things such as requiring permits from people just wanting to go about their lives. Things such as forbidding behavior between responsible individuals which harms no third party. Things such as telling any other person what they may ingest, and attacking them if they ignore your demands. This is all a roundabout way of saying there is no right, ever, to rule any other person.

Which leads back to the exact same destination from the opposite direction. This causes me to think, once again, that rights are real, and that we already know what they are, and what they are not.