Topic: News: Norik Vardanian busted for marijuana

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Allowing its use allows those who are exploiting others to continue to do so.

There is nothing exploitative about selling a product to someone who wants to buy it. It is the fact that the State unConstitutionally interferes with free trade by making certain substances illegal which creates situations of exploitation, primarily the State victimizing the citizens by stealing their property and otherwise harassing them. The same applies to sport drug prohibition. It strengthens the criminal and victimizes the innocent.

Except by paying the fine for Norik and not fixing the over arching problem you are in essence funding the problem you are seeking to fight.... So I say instead of sneaking around the system eliminate it for a better one.

Agreed. This is one example of why I have urged non-participation with IWF events for probably close to a decade now. Its a mockery, a dog and pony show, a charade, is fixed, etc. Refusing to pay the fine entirely is a far superior option.

[michael cooley]

Michael, whether or not a rule is public or private does not affect its morality, only its legality and the extent of the injustice involved. It is still aggression,  just as using a performance enhancer is an indirect aggression against one's competitors. Since marijuana is not banned for being performance enhancing but for political reasons (ie., snowboarding gold medal fiasco), it is aggression against the innocent, those who have harmed no one, unlike the proper retaliation for aggression that a steroid positive would represent. If the rule *was* laid out as a $5,000 minimum fine ahead of time then it would not be post de facto, though is still immoral aggression in my view. My understanding was that the fine system was arbitrary and perhaps that was mistaken. If so, I appreciate the correction.

This is a really interesting thread.

The distinction I was drawing wasn't between public and private, but between voluntary and involuntary.  The federal income tax is an involuntary system - participation is based on the threat of punishment.  Thus, under your argument, the imposition of a federal income tax constitutes an immoral aggression against your property.  Competitive weightlifting, on the other hand, is a voluntary system - you are free to choose not to participate.  If the lifter VOLUNTEERS to submit to the rules of competitive weightlifting, where's the immorality in that? 

If lifters can choose not to participate, then the IWF's rules aren't aggressive toward their person or property (they can always walk away).   As long as it doesn't initiate violence or aggression against the person or property of another, isn't the IWF allowed to make such rules for participation as it chooses?  Put another way, isn't it immoral to impose limits on the ability of another organization to impose such nonaggressive rules as it sees fit?

mpc

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

This is a really interesting thread.

Agreed, very enjoyable.

Competitive weightlifting, on the other hand, is a voluntary system - you are free to choose not to participate.  If the lifter VOLUNTEERS to submit to the rules of competitive weightlifting, where's the immorality in that?

Right, there is nothing immoral about mutual consent. But this consent was obtained on the basis of a lie, which is an indirect form of aggression. In this case, the lie is that drug testing is intended/will achieve a level playing field when in fact the banning of pot has nothing to do with that rationale. Thus "they" are attempting to extort property from Norik by force (false pretenses).

Put another way, isn't it immoral to impose limits on the ability of another organization to impose such nonaggressive rules as it sees fit?

Obviously, I do not accept that this is not aggression, but, yes, it would also be aggression to use physical force, laws, to limit the freedom of these organizations to run their own business. On the other hand, this is a business deal with Norik having paid membership dues and entry fees, etc for the product offered by these organizations. Any fraud in that deal nullifies it and makes it proper for the State to punish the aggression via the Courts. In other words, Norik could rightfully fight the requirement to pay in court. Since the American government is the greatest violator of individual rights and greatest perpetrator of aggression in America by far, the aggression argument will fail. If the fine was not an objectively defined minimum and is in fact arbitrarily set like the steroid fines, I do not believe the Courts would uphold it and would likely order the USAW to pay it. Of course, I consider the State to be nothing but a criminal organization and thus the Courts are just a dog and pony show to promote THEIR interest, not that of the citizens. So, the fact the Courts may do this or that is totally irrelevant to my position. :)

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Glad to see Norik took his skills elsewhere where hopefully he will be appreciated (Armenia). Did the USAW get that fine money?

LMAO.

[Matt Erdman]

Glad to see Norik took his skills elsewhere where hopefully he will be appreciated (Armenia). Did the USAW get that fine money?

LMAO.

Where did you see that?

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Another forum...

[Ian Gallimore]

Norik lifted for Armenia at the European U23 Championships last month, did 160/201, 5th overall.

[Shaun Le Conte]

http://www.polska-sztanga.h2.pl/live/26112010/cat-94-kg-m.html