I think the meme is correct, at least in my experience.
It is at the edges of where libertarianism leads us, that distinguishes whether
someone is essentially libertarian or not.

The country can be quite statist, and socialist, and still be lead by people who
are 80% libertarian. But much like coffee or muddy water, each of those are 98%
pure water, what does that teach?

>>I am a right-libertarian (aka a "Barry Goldwater conservative"). I speak
from where I come from, and from where I am comfortable. The left side of
the libertarian spectrum to my mind has big problems with "issues" such as
the right to private ownership and use of certain types of property (i.e.
land and natural resources). They also often slip into cultural relativism,
asserting that not only is America not "exceptional," but that it is the
font of much of what is wrong in and with the world today. I categorically
reject that attitude. America is the most open, free (or at least
historically it has been), generous, and kind country in world. As Dinesh
D'Souza has argued, America is "a gift of history." It's hard to square my
attitude with that of left-libertarians who regularly excoriate our country.
Nor do I believe in cultural diversity. If you come to America, you've got a
blueprint for what you believe in and how you are going to live your life:
That blueprint is included in the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. If you don't want to get with
that program, which essentially consists of capitalism, freedom,
individualism, and anti-statism, you should live somewhere else.
Traditionally this has been the attitude of immigrants...until the latter
part of the 20th century at least. And the problem is showing.

I am not sure if I am particularly left or right libertarian. On some things you
might peg me as leftish, on others rightish; it doesn't translate well when you
are using a different base standard of principles, as libertarians do.

My leftish (a new term?) tendencies might be apparent in my belief that there
are some resources in a common society that are extremely hard to sift private
interests from public interests, although I know that most have been addressed
in some synthetic way to permit private ownership.
However, and I am not immobile on this, I think an arrangement that doesn't
offend libertarianism but still recognizes the unavoidable shared aspects of
some resource or medium, could be set up in a more natural form.

My rightish tendencies might be apparent in my belief that free immigration or
citizenship is not a libertarian right, but rather a privilege that can be
arbitrarily doled out in varying degrees at the citizenry's discretion.

I also don't believe that international relations are constrained by anything
libertarian, except maybe fundamental moral guidelines, like you keep to your
word, don't arbitrarily seek death and destruction, etc.

From the libertarian POV, cultural diversity is a complete non-issue, I don't
even see how you can presume to tell others how to live their lives or how/what
to believe. THAT  I think is a very unlibertarian belief you have.
I might remind you also, that the Constitution is a not a purely libertarian
document, so although it is a great starting point, it is not the gold standard
of how our government should be.

Gary T


Gary T



From: Tim Condon
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:54 AM
To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non FSP posts



Worthy remarks below, Gary. I respond in kind interspersed below. ---Tim
Condon

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:52 AM, GaryT <garyonthenet@...> wrote:

> Hmmm.
>
> A lot I agree with of course.
>
> Although I am not a purist, at least not for the nascent period of
> political ascendency and initial growth, but 80% libertarian is not a
> particularly good number.
> If I remember correctly almost everyone in America is at least 80%
> libertarian; the FSP may have a big net, but I didn't think it was supposed
> to be THAT big. You wouldn't need the FSP if that was your standard, since
> everyone is already there.
>

I think that old meme about "everyone in America agrees with 80% of the
libertarian ideology" is bogus. If that were so, the country wouldn't now be
going down the socialist toilet at all levels of government (from bankrupt
city and county governments, to bankrupt states, to the bankrupt federal
government).

>
> I love your Hong Kong/PR-China analogy, and I think its a good one. I
> always thought that arrangement they had with the UK was weird, the two
> systems being so diametrically opposed, China being the landlord but still
> staying hands off.
> Truly IMO it is the reason China took off in the capitalistic fashion it
> has; eventually that capitalism will subsume the human rights and freedom
> oppression still endemic to the PRofChina.
>

If the Free State Project is successful, America's experience may be
congruent with China's. That is, after the Middle Kingdom took a horrific
historical detour (based upon the stupid ideas of a round-eye named Marx
that they never should have fallen for), tiny little Hong Kong showed them
the way out of the communist wilderness. Just so America: If we are merely
able to keep New Hampshire from turning away from its historical roots of
frugality in government spending, low taxes, and keeping state government
small, then little New Hampshire may show America how to "take off in a
capitalistic fashion" after the damage of today's socialist path has peaked
and pretty much destroyed our standard of living.

> Another tact I always viewed the FSP, was the analogy of a people trying to
> get away from some particular oppression, to start their own land. Like the
> Mormons, or the Pilgrims, or the Israelis. In this scenario we are trying to
> move into an already established infrastructure, so although we don't have
> all the same physical survival challenges, we have to morph the existing
> natives enough not to be ousted or pariahs.
>

Just so. Very true. Fortunately there is a huge cohort of both political
activists and just plain citizens in New Hampshire who still champion the
state's traditions Live Free or Die values. I think everyone who has moved
to the state will vouch for the fact that we have been embraced by them as
allies and reinforcements in the so-far defense fight against the surging
high-tax, irresponsible-spending statism championed by the Democrats over
the past several years.

>
> Finally I note, again, that you don't publically laud or celebrate the
> leftist half of libertarian philosophy; it is at the both ends of political
> sprectrum that we demand freedom, both for our pocketbook and for our
> lifestyle. And again, it needn't be conservative-libertarian, all it needs
> to be is libertarian.
>

I am a right-libertarian (aka a "Barry Goldwater conservative"). I speak
from where I come from, and from where I am comfortable. The left side of
the libertarian spectrum to my mind has big problems with "issues" such as
the right to private ownership and use of certain types of property (i.e.
land and natural resources). They also often slip into cultural relativism,
asserting that not only is America not "exceptional," but that it is the
font of much of what is wrong in and with the world today. I categorically
reject that attitude. America is the most open, free (or at least
historically it has been), generous, and kind country in world. As Dinesh
D'Souza has argued, America is "a gift of history." It's hard to square my
attitude with that of left-libertarians who regularly excoriate our country.
Nor do I believe in cultural diversity. If you come to America, you've got a
blueprint for what you believe in and how you are going to live your life:
That blueprint is included in the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. If you don't want to get with
that program, which essentially consists of capitalism, freedom,
individualism, and anti-statism, you should live somewhere else.
Traditionally this has been the attitude of immigrants...until the latter
part of the 20th century at least. And the problem is showing.

>
> Gary T
>
> PS: It is amusing that the only person who came to your defense on the
> question of chatter on this list, was me ;^). I generally consider my
> oppositional banter principles based, not personal.
>

I have to admit, it *is* amusing, Gary. I salute your commitment to
attacking my ideas and principles rather than me personally. (Although, like
Sarah Palin---whom I think is much smarter, much tougher, and much more
libertarian-ish than most people understand---I can take the licks from
those who get personally nasty. Heh.)

>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tim Condon
> To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 4:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non FSP
> posts
>
>
>
> Absolutely. Glad to, Gary. Hannan put his finger on a question that is
> dogging the entire political right in America (including capitalists,
> objectivists, right-libertarians, free marketeers, classical liberals,
> libertarian-conservatives, live-and-let-live Republicans, etc.). It is
> clear
> in my mind at least that as goes New Hampshire, so will ultimately go
> America. This is because New Hampshire will be to America was Hong Kong
> was
> to China during the Maoist nightmare in the 20th century. That is, in New
> Hampshire we will establish a polity where everyone will not only be free,
> but wealthy. This will be because the increasing number of
> liberty-activists
> (not just Freestaters, but native NH people and others who are moving into
> the state independent of the FSP) will make the state the *only* sovereign
> political entity in North America where such policies will not only be
> supported, but implemented, to the ultimate betterment of all. That is,
> politics in the Free State will not be driven by envy, hatred, and other
> socialist machinations, but rather will be driven by freedom, capitalism,
> individualism, low taxes, small government, entrepreneurial energy, and an
> absence of bureaucratic control over enterprise and other Human Action.
> However, in order to make this happen, there must be formed an alliance of
> "libertarian-types (I don't include Libertarians as a distinct part of the
> proposed alliance, because they are generally most interested in purity
> rather than success) and "conservatives." On the former (libertarian) side
> (and Hannan points some of them out) are social liberals, free market
> activists, some libertarian-conservatives, Objectivists, some anarchists,
> voluntaryists, agorists, classical liberals, and others. On the latter
> (conservative) side are social conservatives, the anti-abortion movement,
> Constitutionalists, Christians and other people of faith, traditional
> conservatives, fusionists, "main streeters" who understand economics, 2nd
> Amendment activists, some libertarian conservatives, entrepreneurs who
> want
> to be left alone to grow the economy, education activists, home-schoolers,
> and others.
>
> If the Free State Project is to be successful, an alliance of all the
> above
> must be welded together in order to wield electoral power. The truth is
> that
> most of the above types of people agree on *most *issues (like 80% or
> more).
> If we can create a fusion of all of the above groups---a process which is
> well underway in NH---then all the surging power of the socialist Left
> will
> be unable to dislodge or defeat us (as long as elections aren't cancelled,
> which is a favorite tactic of the Left once they gain power). So...as I
> said, British MP Daniel Hannan put his finger on an issue that we
> Freestaters should be aware of and discussing. Doubtless there are many
> people on this list who will want to expostulate on how one group or
> another
> could *never* be part of a grand alliance (especially the libertarian
> purists). On the other hand, the rest of us need to be very clear that the
> Free State is a big-tent polity, and that everyone who believes in a few
> basic precepts (low taxes, very small government, individual freedom, free
> enterprise, 2nd Amendment rights, and belief in the Constitution and the
> Bill of Rights should cover it) should be part of that alliance. It's the
> only way we can win in New Hampshire, and keep the flame of capitalism and
> freedom alive as the rest of the United States slide down into the
> cesspool
> of socialism and fascism.
>
> See? ---Tim Condon
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:55 PM, GaryT <garyonthenet@...> wrote:
>
> > Tim:
> >
> > Could you give more detail on this one? Danial Hannan as it relates to
> FSP
> >
> > Gary T
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Tim Condon
> > To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 10:58 AM
> > Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non FSP
> > posts
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes! One way to do that would be to examine and discuss the question of
> > whether both conservatives and libertarians (each in all their varying
> > types) are good fits for the FSP, starting with the Daniel Hannan column
> > applied to the Free State Project. Yes?
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Chris Lawless <dreepa@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe this will incent the 1000 people on this list to come up with
> > ideas:
> > >
> > > 1. How to recruit more people to MOVE to NH ASAP.
> > > 2. How to recruit more people to JOIN the FSP.
> > > 3. How to help spread the word about the FSP.
> > > 4. How we can increase the number of people volunteering for the FSP
> to
> > > help the 3 items above.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ****************************************
> > >
> > > I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no
> vice!
> > And
> > > let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no
> > > virtue!
> > >
> > > --- On Sun, 12/6/09, Ron Helwig <ronhelwig@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Ron Helwig <ronhelwig@...>
> > > Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non
> FSP
> > > posts
> > > To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
> > > Date: Sunday, December 6, 2009, 6:57 AM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 7:43 AM, Tim Condon <tim@timcondon. net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > I must say, this list has gone for months, if not years, with no
> > > discussion.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That's one of the good properties of lists: when there's nothing
> > >
> > > important going on related to it, you aren't having your time wasted
> > >
> > > by maintaining a relationship with it. I vastly prefer that my lists
> > >
> > > remain "moribund" when there isn't anything relevant going on related
> > >
> > > to their topic, so I can concentrate on other stuff. When something
> > >
> > > important and related comes up, the list revives and reenters my
> > >
> > > awareness.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ron Helwig
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I think Gary is pointing out that the Scriptures have been used to passionately
justify widely disparate and mutually exclusive political positions.  After
all, the Bible is not now, nor has it ever been "One Book" - it is a collection
of books, and an objective approach shows that different perspectives can be
gleanded depending on which book or verse is emphasized.
 
ore important are the current cultural and political winds, which tend to
*utilize* religious concepts to buttress their positions, something Christians
have done along a spectrum from pro-segregation Bible Churches to the King's
Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

Thom
"Grabbing the world by the balls since 1959..."
http://www.tullyspage.blogspot.com
http://www.nhbears.org

--- On Thu, 12/10/09, Tim Condon <tim@...> wrote:


From: Tim Condon <tim@...>
Subject: Re: [FSP] Working with non-pure libertarians
To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, December 10, 2009, 11:18 PM


 



Gee Gary. Multiple logical errors in that one posting. I don't really think
it logically follows that "we must thank Judaism for the U.S...." etc. I
also don't think that was what Rothbard had in mind, nor do I think he'd
agree with that kind of solipsism. And where did the Enlightenment
philosophers come from? The same places as the Enlightenment philosophers
that sprang up in central Africa and in the Islamic world in the 17th and
18th centuries, right? Ahem. If you think that Christianity is just a group
with a holy book with "an amalgam of parables and moral stores that say just
about everything at once," I'm afraid you're a *little* bit
misinformed. ..not to mention placing yourself at odds with virtually every
one of the Founding Fathers. But big deal, right? What did they do anyway?
---Tim Condon

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:09 PM, GaryT <garyonthenet@ yahoo.com> wrote:

> And of course we must thank Judaism for the United States, for without that
> there would have been no Christianity.
>
> I tend to think that Christianity just happened to be there; the original
> principles that America was founded upon came about from Enlightenment
> Philosophers, like Locke, Bacon, etc.
> Christianity was there for the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, and
> pogroms and the invasion of South America. Christianity has as its holy
> book, an amalgam of parables and moral stories that say just about
> everything at once, there isn't much there that isn't also contradicted or
> marginalized logically somewhere else within the same book.
>
> The point is, Christianity as a moral or political force can be anything
> and has been, from monarchiesa, to dictatorships, to benign friendly
> nations, to whatever. It is a slippery definition, because it has so many.
>
> Gary T
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tim Condon
> To: freestateproject@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 2:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [FSP] Working with non-pure libertarians
>
>
>
> At the first annual PorcFest, NH state Rep. Henry McElroy gave a speech in
> which he said exactly that (he even had a Bible as a teaching aid). I'm
> not
> much of a Christian (it's hard to get there), but I don't see anything
> wrong
> with recognizing the historical reality that all our freedoms, and Western
> Civilization itself, would never have come about about but for
> Christianity.
> Don't attack me. I'm just quoting anarchist libertarian hero Dr. Murray
> Rothbard.
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:02 AM, wolzybk <phil@boncer. com> wrote:
>
> > The big "if" is the "if it will move the goal forward". Someone might be
> > 80%, or 90%, or 99.44% libertarian in his ideas, but if he's actively
> > pursuing the *other* ideas, then it may not be enough. Conversely,
> someone
> > might be 5% libertarian, but if he is most active on that one
> > freedom-related idea he does have, then he might well advance the goal.
> > It's not necessarily about "purity", but about what it is that person is
> > really trying to accomplish.
> >
> > A good example of this for me is the Constitution Party. They call
> > themselves that, and they sometimes talk a good game of respecting the
> > Constitution. If you issued them a libertarian questionnaire, they'd
> score
> > quite highly on it as a percentage. But if you get down to what they
> really
> > believe and work for, they believe as a party that the Constitution (and
> > everything else) is subordinate to the Bible, and that America is a
> > Christian country and should be governed that way. Which is a profoundly
> > NON-libertarian idea, yet is the rock-bottom basis for their belief
> system.
> >
> > So while I am perfectly happy to work with that party and the members of
> it
> > on common interests, I am very leery of helping them to have enough
> power
> > and influence to pursue their full agenda.
> >
> > These are the sorts of considerations that must be addressed to see if
> > someone is an asset or a barrier to "moving the goal forward", in a
> > practical real-world sense. Not just "what do they say?", or even "what
> do
> > they believe?", but "what are they trying to actually do?"
> >
> > PhilB
> >
> > --- In freestateproject@ yahoogroups. com, "GaryT" <garyonthenet@ ...>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Well then, I guess you will be able to work with 100% of the people
> and
> > politicians, since almost everyone in America is at least 80%
> libertarian.
> > >
> > > I would work with anyone who would help move the libertarian cause
> > forward, the question is, are the 80%'ers willing to work with
> libertarians
> > - mostly I don't think so.
> > >
> > > Gary T
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Chris Lawless
> > > To: freestateproject@ yahoogroups. com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:28 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non
> > FSP posts
> > >
> > > ... I would rather an active 80% ally then a purist who is not active
> > if it will move the goal forward.
> > >
> > > ************ ********* ********* ********* *
> > >
> > > I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no
> vice!
> > And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is
> no
> > virtue!
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------ --------- --------- ------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ok I will directly answer it.

I don't believe it is 80%.
I believe that some study shows it... but I don't believe it at all.

Too many people want handouts or 'other people to do it'.  Or 'there should be
a law'.

My experience makes me believe that it is closer to 20%.

****************************************

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let
me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

--- On Fri, 12/11/09, GaryT <garyonthenet@...> wrote:

From: GaryT <garyonthenet@...>
Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non FSP posts
To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, December 11, 2009, 7:17 AM







 









       Well, you still dodged my point, that everyone, US, is 80% libertarian.

If that is your standard, then what are we all working towards?



So, yes, if you are put into a circumstance where you need to deal with
unlibertarian people, who may be in a position to move forward some policy in a
more libertarian direction, then of course you would do it. Should go w/o
saying.



But with this threshold, everything you are saying are platitudes.



Gary T



From: Chris Lawless

Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:28 AM

To: freestateproject@ yahoogroups. com

Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non FSP posts



If you don't work with the 80% politically then there is not much you are going
to get done politically (not saying that you are).



But on both the left and the right.. many libertarians have been working with
the 80%ers to get things moving at the State House..... with some effect. 
Should those 80% be replaced with 90%ers?  95%ers?  YES but there is not enough
people, money, effort here in NH yet.

So you work with what  you have.



I would rather an active 80% ally then a purist who is not active if it will
move the goal forward.



************ ********* ********* ********* *



I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let
me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!



--- On Tue, 12/8/09, GaryT <garyonthenet@ yahoo.com> wrote:



From: GaryT <garyonthenet@ yahoo.com>

Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non FSP posts

To: freestateproject@ yahoogroups. com

Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 2:52 AM



Hmmm.



A lot I agree with of course.



Although I am not a purist, at least not for the nascent period of political
ascendency and initial growth, but 80% libertarian is not a particularly good
number.



If I remember correctly almost everyone in America is at least 80% libertarian;
the FSP may have a big net, but I didn't think it was supposed to be THAT big.
You wouldn't need the FSP if that was your standard, since everyone is already
there.



I love your Hong Kong/PR-China analogy, and I think its a good one. I always
thought that arrangement they had with the UK was weird, the two systems being
so diametrically opposed, China being the landlord but still staying hands off.



Truly IMO it is the reason China took off in the capitalistic fashion it has;
eventually that capitalism will subsume the human rights and freedom oppression
still endemic to the PRofChina.



Another tact I always viewed the FSP, was the analogy of a people trying to get
away from some particular oppression, to start their own land. Like the Mormons,
or the Pilgrims, or the Israelis. In this scenario we are trying to move into an
already established infrastructure, so although we don't have all the same
physical survival challenges, we have to morph the existing natives enough not
to be ousted or pariahs.



Finally I note, again, that you don't publically laud or celebrate the leftist
half of libertarian philosophy; it is at the both ends of political sprectrum
that we demand freedom, both for our pocketbook and for our lifestyle. And
again, it needn't be conservative- libertarian, all it needs to be is
libertarian.



Gary T



PS: It is amusing that the only person who came to your defense on the question
of chatter on this list, was me ;^).



I generally consider my oppositional banter principles based, not personal.



----- Original Message -----



From: Tim Condon



To: freestateproject@ yahoogroups. com



Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 4:50 PM



Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non FSP posts



Absolutely. Glad to, Gary. Hannan put his finger on a question that is



dogging the entire political right in America (including capitalists,



objectivists, right-libertarians, free marketeers, classical liberals,



libertarian- conservatives, live-and-let- live Republicans, etc.). It is clear



in my mind at least that as goes New Hampshire, so will ultimately go



America. This is because New Hampshire will be to America was Hong Kong was



to China during the Maoist nightmare in the 20th century. That is, in New



Hampshire we will establish a polity where everyone will not only be free,



but wealthy. This will be because the increasing number of liberty-activists



(not just Freestaters, but native NH people and others who are moving into



the state independent of the FSP) will make the state the *only* sovereign



political entity in North America where such policies will not only be



supported, but implemented, to the ultimate betterment of all. That is,



politics in the Free State will not be driven by envy, hatred, and other



socialist machinations, but rather will be driven by freedom, capitalism,



individualism, low taxes, small government, entrepreneurial energy, and an



absence of bureaucratic control over enterprise and other Human Action.



However, in order to make this happen, there must be formed an alliance of



"libertarian- types (I don't include Libertarians as a distinct part of the



proposed alliance, because they are generally most interested in purity



rather than success) and "conservatives. " On the former (libertarian) side



(and Hannan points some of them out) are social liberals, free market



activists, some libertarian- conservatives, Objectivists, some anarchists,



voluntaryists, agorists, classical liberals, and others. On the latter



(conservative) side are social conservatives, the anti-abortion movement,



Constitutionalists, Christians and other people of faith, traditional



conservatives, fusionists, "main streeters" who understand economics, 2nd



Amendment activists, some libertarian conservatives, entrepreneurs who want



to be left alone to grow the economy, education activists, home-schoolers,



and others.



If the Free State Project is to be successful, an alliance of all the above



must be welded together in order to wield electoral power. The truth is that



most of the above types of people agree on *most *issues (like 80% or more).



If we can create a fusion of all of the above groups---a process which is



well underway in NH---then all the surging power of the socialist Left will



be unable to dislodge or defeat us (as long as elections aren't cancelled,



which is a favorite tactic of the Left once they gain power). So...as I



said, British MP Daniel Hannan put his finger on an issue that we



Freestaters should be aware of and discussing. Doubtless there are many



people on this list who will want to expostulate on how one group or another



could *never* be part of a grand alliance (especially the libertarian



purists). On the other hand, the rest of us need to be very clear that the



Free State is a big-tent polity, and that everyone who believes in a few



basic precepts (low taxes, very small government, individual freedom, free



enterprise, 2nd Amendment rights, and belief in the Constitution and the



Bill of Rights should cover it) should be part of that alliance. It's the



only way we can win in New Hampshire, and keep the flame of capitalism and



freedom alive as the rest of the United States slide down into the cesspool



of socialism and fascism.



See? ---Tim Condon



On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:55 PM, GaryT <garyonthenet@ yahoo.com> wrote:



> Tim:



>



> Could you give more detail on this one? Danial Hannan as it relates to FSP



>



> Gary T



>



> ----- Original Message -----



> From: Tim Condon



> To: freestateproject@ yahoogroups. com



> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 10:58 AM



> Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non FSP



> posts



>



>



>



> Yes! One way to do that would be to examine and discuss the question of



> whether both conservatives and libertarians (each in all their varying



> types) are good fits for the FSP, starting with the Daniel Hannan column



> applied to the Free State Project. Yes?



>



> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Chris Lawless <dreepa@yahoo. com> wrote:



>



> > Maybe this will incent the 1000 people on this list to come up with



> ideas:



> >



> > 1. How to recruit more people to MOVE to NH ASAP.



> > 2. How to recruit more people to JOIN the FSP.



> > 3. How to help spread the word about the FSP.



> > 4. How we can increase the number of people volunteering for the FSP to



> > help the 3 items above.



> >



> >



> >



> > ************ ********* ********* ********* *



> >



> > I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!



> And



> > let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no



> > virtue!



> >



> > --- On Sun, 12/6/09, Ron Helwig <ronhelwig@gmail. com> wrote:



> >



> > From: Ron Helwig <ronhelwig@gmail. com>



> > Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non FSP



> > posts



> > To: freestateproject@ yahoogroups. com



> > Date: Sunday, December 6, 2009, 6:57 AM



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> > On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 7:43 AM, Tim Condon <tim@timcondon. net>



> > wrote:



> >



> > >



> >



> > > I must say, this list has gone for months, if not years, with no



> > discussion.



> >



> >



> >



> > That's one of the good properties of lists: when there's nothing



> >



> > important going on related to it, you aren't having your time wasted



> >



> > by maintaining a relationship with it. I vastly prefer that my lists



> >



> > remain "moribund" when there isn't anything relevant going on related



> >



> > to their topic, so I can concentrate on other stuff. When something



> >



> > important and related comes up, the list revives and reenters my



> >



> > awareness.



> >



> >



> >



> > Ron Helwig



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



> >



> >



> >



> > ------------ --------- --------- ------



> >



> > Yahoo! Groups Links



> >



> >



> >



> >



>



> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



>



>



>



>



>



> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



>



>



>



> ------------ --------- --------- ------



>



> Yahoo! Groups Links



>



>



>



>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Well, you still dodged my point, that everyone, US, is 80% libertarian.
If that is your standard, then what are we all working towards?

So, yes, if you are put into a circumstance where you need to deal with
unlibertarian people, who may be in a position to move forward some policy in a
more libertarian direction, then of course you would do it. Should go w/o
saying.

But with this threshold, everything you are saying are platitudes.

Gary T



From: Chris Lawless
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:28 AM
To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non FSP posts



If you don't work with the 80% politically then there is not much you are going
to get done politically (not saying that you are).

But on both the left and the right.. many libertarians have been working with
the 80%ers to get things moving at the State House..... with some effect. 
Should those 80% be replaced with 90%ers?  95%ers?  YES but there is not enough
people, money, effort here in NH yet.
So you work with what  you have.

I would rather an active 80% ally then a purist who is not active if it will
move the goal forward.

****************************************

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let
me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

--- On Tue, 12/8/09, GaryT <garyonthenet@...> wrote:

From: GaryT <garyonthenet@...>
Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non FSP posts
To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 2:52 AM



Hmmm.

A lot I agree with of course.

Although I am not a purist, at least not for the nascent period of political
ascendency and initial growth, but 80% libertarian is not a particularly good
number.

If I remember correctly almost everyone in America is at least 80% libertarian;
the FSP may have a big net, but I didn't think it was supposed to be THAT big.
You wouldn't need the FSP if that was your standard, since everyone is already
there.

I love your Hong Kong/PR-China analogy, and I think its a good one. I always
thought that arrangement they had with the UK was weird, the two systems being
so diametrically opposed, China being the landlord but still staying hands off.

Truly IMO it is the reason China took off in the capitalistic fashion it has;
eventually that capitalism will subsume the human rights and freedom oppression
still endemic to the PRofChina.

Another tact I always viewed the FSP, was the analogy of a people trying to get
away from some particular oppression, to start their own land. Like the Mormons,
or the Pilgrims, or the Israelis. In this scenario we are trying to move into an
already established infrastructure, so although we don't have all the same
physical survival challenges, we have to morph the existing natives enough not
to be ousted or pariahs.

Finally I note, again, that you don't publically laud or celebrate the leftist
half of libertarian philosophy; it is at the both ends of political sprectrum
that we demand freedom, both for our pocketbook and for our lifestyle. And
again, it needn't be conservative- libertarian, all it needs to be is
libertarian.

Gary T

PS: It is amusing that the only person who came to your defense on the question
of chatter on this list, was me ;^).

I generally consider my oppositional banter principles based, not personal.

----- Original Message -----

From: Tim Condon

To: freestateproject@ yahoogroups. com

Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 4:50 PM

Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non FSP posts

Absolutely. Glad to, Gary. Hannan put his finger on a question that is

dogging the entire political right in America (including capitalists,

objectivists, right-libertarians, free marketeers, classical liberals,

libertarian- conservatives, live-and-let- live Republicans, etc.). It is clear

in my mind at least that as goes New Hampshire, so will ultimately go

America. This is because New Hampshire will be to America was Hong Kong was

to China during the Maoist nightmare in the 20th century. That is, in New

Hampshire we will establish a polity where everyone will not only be free,

but wealthy. This will be because the increasing number of liberty-activists

(not just Freestaters, but native NH people and others who are moving into

the state independent of the FSP) will make the state the *only* sovereign

political entity in North America where such policies will not only be

supported, but implemented, to the ultimate betterment of all. That is,

politics in the Free State will not be driven by envy, hatred, and other

socialist machinations, but rather will be driven by freedom, capitalism,

individualism, low taxes, small government, entrepreneurial energy, and an

absence of bureaucratic control over enterprise and other Human Action.

However, in order to make this happen, there must be formed an alliance of

"libertarian- types (I don't include Libertarians as a distinct part of the

proposed alliance, because they are generally most interested in purity

rather than success) and "conservatives. " On the former (libertarian) side

(and Hannan points some of them out) are social liberals, free market

activists, some libertarian- conservatives, Objectivists, some anarchists,

voluntaryists, agorists, classical liberals, and others. On the latter

(conservative) side are social conservatives, the anti-abortion movement,

Constitutionalists, Christians and other people of faith, traditional

conservatives, fusionists, "main streeters" who understand economics, 2nd

Amendment activists, some libertarian conservatives, entrepreneurs who want

to be left alone to grow the economy, education activists, home-schoolers,

and others.

If the Free State Project is to be successful, an alliance of all the above

must be welded together in order to wield electoral power. The truth is that

most of the above types of people agree on *most *issues (like 80% or more).

If we can create a fusion of all of the above groups---a process which is

well underway in NH---then all the surging power of the socialist Left will

be unable to dislodge or defeat us (as long as elections aren't cancelled,

which is a favorite tactic of the Left once they gain power). So...as I

said, British MP Daniel Hannan put his finger on an issue that we

Freestaters should be aware of and discussing. Doubtless there are many

people on this list who will want to expostulate on how one group or another

could *never* be part of a grand alliance (especially the libertarian

purists). On the other hand, the rest of us need to be very clear that the

Free State is a big-tent polity, and that everyone who believes in a few

basic precepts (low taxes, very small government, individual freedom, free

enterprise, 2nd Amendment rights, and belief in the Constitution and the

Bill of Rights should cover it) should be part of that alliance. It's the

only way we can win in New Hampshire, and keep the flame of capitalism and

freedom alive as the rest of the United States slide down into the cesspool

of socialism and fascism.

See? ---Tim Condon

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:55 PM, GaryT <garyonthenet@ yahoo.com> wrote:

> Tim:

>

> Could you give more detail on this one? Danial Hannan as it relates to FSP

>

> Gary T

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: Tim Condon

> To: freestateproject@ yahoogroups. com

> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 10:58 AM

> Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non FSP

> posts

>

>

>

> Yes! One way to do that would be to examine and discuss the question of

> whether both conservatives and libertarians (each in all their varying

> types) are good fits for the FSP, starting with the Daniel Hannan column

> applied to the Free State Project. Yes?

>

> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Chris Lawless <dreepa@yahoo. com> wrote:

>

> > Maybe this will incent the 1000 people on this list to come up with

> ideas:

> >

> > 1. How to recruit more people to MOVE to NH ASAP.

> > 2. How to recruit more people to JOIN the FSP.

> > 3. How to help spread the word about the FSP.

> > 4. How we can increase the number of people volunteering for the FSP to

> > help the 3 items above.

> >

> >

> >

> > ************ ********* ********* ********* *

> >

> > I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!

> And

> > let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no

> > virtue!

> >

> > --- On Sun, 12/6/09, Ron Helwig <ronhelwig@gmail. com> wrote:

> >

> > From: Ron Helwig <ronhelwig@gmail. com>

> > Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non FSP

> > posts

> > To: freestateproject@ yahoogroups. com

> > Date: Sunday, December 6, 2009, 6:57 AM

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 7:43 AM, Tim Condon <tim@timcondon. net>

> > wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > I must say, this list has gone for months, if not years, with no

> > discussion.

> >

> >

> >

> > That's one of the good properties of lists: when there's nothing

> >

> > important going on related to it, you aren't having your time wasted

> >

> > by maintaining a relationship with it. I vastly prefer that my lists

> >

> > remain "moribund" when there isn't anything relevant going on related

> >

> > to their topic, so I can concentrate on other stuff. When something

> >

> > important and related comes up, the list revives and reenters my

> >

> > awareness.

> >

> >

> >

> > Ron Helwig

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> >

> >

> >

> > ------------ --------- --------- ------

> >

> > Yahoo! Groups Links

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>

>

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>

>

>

> ------------ --------- --------- ------

>

> Yahoo! Groups Links

>

>

>

>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Lynne, I must disagree, as I believe you are identifying all of  Christianity
with "Wstern, American , fundamentalist Christianity."  To this day, if you put
three Eastern Orthodox priests in a room and ask a question, you will likely get
6 possible answers - no different than Judaism.  Further, there is no 'correct'
answer, unless a Council is called - which hasn't happend in over 1000 years....
 
Western Christianity, with its emphasis on a sure-fire answer (The Magisterium
for Roman Catholics, the "Bible" for Protestants), its break with Eastern
Christianity by 1200, and the rise of the Schoastic movement created a very
different Christian ethos than that which existed during the first 1000 years of
the Church.
 
thom
 
thom 

"Grabbing the world by the balls since 1959..."
http://www.tullyspage.blogspot.com
http://www.nhbears.org

--- On Thu, 12/10/09, Lynne Masters-Lee <masterspieces@...> wrote:


From: Lynne Masters-Lee <masterspieces@...>
Subject: Re: [FSP] Working with non-pure libertarians
To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, December 10, 2009, 10:31 PM


 



My biggest problem with Christianity is that most people are willing to be
sheep and don't think for themselves. Historically, Jews (and I think
Muslims too) had a higher literacy rate than Christians. All Jews learned to
read so they could properly pray to G-d even when they were alone, and to
discuss the meaning of the words of G-d with others. They also had a
personal relationship with G-d. Christians seem content to let someone else
read and explain to them, are easily swayed by anyone who could come up with
a convincing argument, and are taught answers rather than finding them. (Ask
three Jews in a room a question and you'll have 4 or 5 answers or opinions.
Do that with Christians, and there's only ever one correct answer.)

Lynne

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:09 PM, GaryT <garyonthenet@ yahoo.com> wrote:

> And of course we must thank Judaism for the United States, for without that
> there would have been no Christianity.
>
> I tend to think that Christianity just happened to be there; the original
> principles that America was founded upon came about from Enlightenment
> Philosophers, like Locke, Bacon, etc.
> Christianity was there for the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, and
> pogroms and the invasion of South America. Christianity has as its holy
> book, an amalgam of parables and moral stories that say just about
> everything at once, there isn't much there that isn't also contradicted or
> marginalized logically somewhere else within the same book.
>
> The point is, Christianity as a moral or political force can be anything
> and has been, from monarchiesa, to dictatorships, to benign friendly
> nations, to whatever. It is a slippery definition, because it has so many.
>
> Gary T
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tim Condon
> To: freestateproject@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 2:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [FSP] Working with non-pure libertarians
>
>
>
> At the first annual PorcFest, NH state Rep. Henry McElroy gave a speech in
> which he said exactly that (he even had a Bible as a teaching aid). I'm
> not
> much of a Christian (it's hard to get there), but I don't see anything
> wrong
> with recognizing the historical reality that all our freedoms, and Western
> Civilization itself, would never have come about about but for
> Christianity.
> Don't attack me. I'm just quoting anarchist libertarian hero Dr. Murray
> Rothbard.
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Gee Gary. Multiple logical errors in that one posting. I don't really think
it logically follows that "we must thank Judaism for the U.S...." etc. I
also don't think that was what Rothbard had in mind, nor do I think he'd
agree with that kind of solipsism. And where did the Enlightenment
philosophers come from? The same places as the Enlightenment philosophers
that sprang up in central Africa and in the Islamic world in the 17th and
18th centuries, right? Ahem. If you think that Christianity is just a group
with a holy book with "an amalgam of parables and moral stores that say just
about everything at once," I'm afraid you're a *little* bit
misinformed...not to mention placing yourself at odds with virtually every
one of the Founding Fathers. But big deal, right? What did they do anyway?
---Tim Condon


On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:09 PM, GaryT <garyonthenet@...> wrote:

> And of course we must thank Judaism for the United States, for without that
> there would have been no Christianity.
>
> I tend to think that Christianity just happened to be there; the original
> principles that America was founded upon came about from Enlightenment
> Philosophers, like Locke, Bacon, etc.
> Christianity was there for the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, and
> pogroms and the invasion of South America. Christianity has as its holy
> book, an amalgam of parables and moral stories that say just about
> everything at once, there isn't much there that isn't also contradicted or
> marginalized logically somewhere else within the same book.
>
> The point is, Christianity as a moral or political force can be anything
> and has been, from monarchiesa, to dictatorships, to benign friendly
> nations, to whatever. It is a slippery definition, because it has so many.
>
> Gary T
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: Tim Condon
>  To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
>  Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 2:31 AM
>  Subject: Re: [FSP] Working with non-pure libertarians
>
>
>
>  At the first annual PorcFest, NH state Rep. Henry McElroy gave a speech in
>  which he said exactly that (he even had a Bible as a teaching aid). I'm
> not
>  much of a Christian (it's hard to get there), but I don't see anything
> wrong
>  with recognizing the historical reality that all our freedoms, and Western
>  Civilization itself, would never have come about about but for
> Christianity.
>  Don't attack me. I'm just quoting anarchist libertarian hero Dr. Murray
>  Rothbard.
>
>  On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:02 AM, wolzybk <phil@...> wrote:
>
>  > The big "if" is the "if it will move the goal forward". Someone might be
>  > 80%, or 90%, or 99.44% libertarian in his ideas, but if he's actively
>  > pursuing the *other* ideas, then it may not be enough. Conversely,
> someone
>  > might be 5% libertarian, but if he is most active on that one
>  > freedom-related idea he does have, then he might well advance the goal.
>  > It's not necessarily about "purity", but about what it is that person is
>  > really trying to accomplish.
>  >
>  > A good example of this for me is the Constitution Party. They call
>  > themselves that, and they sometimes talk a good game of respecting the
>  > Constitution. If you issued them a libertarian questionnaire, they'd
> score
>  > quite highly on it as a percentage. But if you get down to what they
> really
>  > believe and work for, they believe as a party that the Constitution (and
>  > everything else) is subordinate to the Bible, and that America is a
>  > Christian country and should be governed that way. Which is a profoundly
>  > NON-libertarian idea, yet is the rock-bottom basis for their belief
> system.
>  >
>  > So while I am perfectly happy to work with that party and the members of
> it
>  > on common interests, I am very leery of helping them to have enough
> power
>  > and influence to pursue their full agenda.
>  >
>  > These are the sorts of considerations that must be addressed to see if
>  > someone is an asset or a barrier to "moving the goal forward", in a
>  > practical real-world sense. Not just "what do they say?", or even "what
> do
>  > they believe?", but "what are they trying to actually do?"
>  >
>  > PhilB
>  >
>  > --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, "GaryT" <garyonthenet@...>
> wrote:
>  > >
>  > > Well then, I guess you will be able to work with 100% of the people
> and
>  > politicians, since almost everyone in America is at least 80%
> libertarian.
>  > >
>  > > I would work with anyone who would help move the libertarian cause
>  > forward, the question is, are the 80%'ers willing to work with
> libertarians
>  > - mostly I don't think so.
>  > >
>  > > Gary T
>  > >
>  > > ----- Original Message -----
>  > > From: Chris Lawless
>  > > To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
>  > > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:28 AM
>  > > Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non
>  > FSP posts
>  > >
>  > > ... I would rather an active 80% ally then a purist who is not active
>  > if it will move the goal forward.
>  > >
>  > > ****************************************
>  > >
>  > > I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no
> vice!
>  > And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is
> no
>  > virtue!
>   >
>  >
>  >
>  > ------------------------------------
>  >
>  > Yahoo! Groups Links
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>
>  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Here is an FSP mover who won his last race for selectmen in Manchester who has a
chance to win in Nov 2010.

He did lots of work in 2008 and just missed.  The climate is right in NH right
now to election a young hard working guy.  Cam just needs some volunteers and
some money.

Help elect ANOTHER Freestater to the NH House:

http://www.camstaterep.com/donate.html

There are 1000 people on this list... let's help the kid out.

****************************************

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let
me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Judeo-christianity is a mess, it is an excuse for incredible travesties. And
yet it is the inspiration for most scientists, philosophers, poets, and
libertarians throughout history. Shifting from our myopic little present and
taking a much longer view of existence, the last century may turn out to be
the most violent, atheist, oppressive century in history, and not more than
a blip in a very religious experience. It's the fashion these days to take
Dawkin's art as "Bible-truth," but truly open-minded people will step
outside that little cocoon and wonder if it was just historic delusion that
inspired the greatest minds throughout history to be fervently religious, or
if it could have been a long-acknowledged wellspring for abolition, art and
scientific investigation.

Gary, if you are ever inclined to read about religion-- a real, robust
religion -- as Dawkins and Hitchens don't dare discuss, pick up Mere
Christianity by C.S. Lewis or Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton.

Jon Isaac

MCG School of Medicine, 2012
404-550-5903  jisaac@...

"...all that has been is but a slight intimation of what is to be." Neuhaus



On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:09 PM, GaryT <garyonthenet@...> wrote:

>
>
> And of course we must thank Judaism for the United States, for without that
> there would have been no Christianity.
>
> I tend to think that Christianity just happened to be there; the original
> principles that America was founded upon came about from Enlightenment
> Philosophers, like Locke, Bacon, etc.
> Christianity was there for the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, and
> pogroms and the invasion of South America. Christianity has as its holy
> book, an amalgam of parables and moral stories that say just about
> everything at once, there isn't much there that isn't also contradicted or
> marginalized logically somewhere else within the same book.
>
> The point is, Christianity as a moral or political force can be anything
> and has been, from monarchiesa, to dictatorships, to benign friendly
> nations, to whatever. It is a slippery definition, because it has so many.
>
> Gary T
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tim Condon
> To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com <freestateproject%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 2:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [FSP] Working with non-pure libertarians
>
> At the first annual PorcFest, NH state Rep. Henry McElroy gave a speech in
> which he said exactly that (he even had a Bible as a teaching aid). I'm not
> much of a Christian (it's hard to get there), but I don't see anything
> wrong
> with recognizing the historical reality that all our freedoms, and Western
> Civilization itself, would never have come about about but for
> Christianity.
> Don't attack me. I'm just quoting anarchist libertarian hero Dr. Murray
> Rothbard.
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:02 AM, wolzybk <phil@...<phil%40boncer.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > The big "if" is the "if it will move the goal forward". Someone might be
> > 80%, or 90%, or 99.44% libertarian in his ideas, but if he's actively
> > pursuing the *other* ideas, then it may not be enough. Conversely,
> someone
> > might be 5% libertarian, but if he is most active on that one
> > freedom-related idea he does have, then he might well advance the goal.
> > It's not necessarily about "purity", but about what it is that person is
> > really trying to accomplish.
> >
> > A good example of this for me is the Constitution Party. They call
> > themselves that, and they sometimes talk a good game of respecting the
> > Constitution. If you issued them a libertarian questionnaire, they'd
> score
> > quite highly on it as a percentage. But if you get down to what they
> really
> > believe and work for, they believe as a party that the Constitution (and
> > everything else) is subordinate to the Bible, and that America is a
> > Christian country and should be governed that way. Which is a profoundly
> > NON-libertarian idea, yet is the rock-bottom basis for their belief
> system.
> >
> > So while I am perfectly happy to work with that party and the members of
> it
> > on common interests, I am very leery of helping them to have enough power
> > and influence to pursue their full agenda.
> >
> > These are the sorts of considerations that must be addressed to see if
> > someone is an asset or a barrier to "moving the goal forward", in a
> > practical real-world sense. Not just "what do they say?", or even "what
> do
> > they believe?", but "what are they trying to actually do?"
> >
> > PhilB
> >
> > --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com<freestateproject%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "GaryT" <garyonthenet@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Well then, I guess you will be able to work with 100% of the people and
> > politicians, since almost everyone in America is at least 80%
> libertarian.
> > >
> > > I would work with anyone who would help move the libertarian cause
> > forward, the question is, are the 80%'ers willing to work with
> libertarians
> > - mostly I don't think so.
> > >
> > > Gary T
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Chris Lawless
> > > To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com<freestateproject%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:28 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non
> > FSP posts
> > >
> > > ... I would rather an active 80% ally then a purist who is not active
> > if it will move the goal forward.
> > >
> > > ****************************************
> > >
> > > I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!
> > And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is
> no
> > virtue!
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

My attitude was always I'd rather have a President screwing an intern rather
than screwing his country, as a happy President seemed to encourage a happy
economy. Uptight people (and many of the born-agains I've met) tend to not
share the wealth.

I'm also happy that we are once again able to collectively mourn all our
fallen brothers and sisters, who have been hidden from our sight for eight
years.

Lynne

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Tim Condon <tim@...> wrote:

> To say that we abhor Democratic fascism is not to say that we don't abhor
> the same thing from the Republicans. Freestaters were at the forefront of
> fighting the PATRIOT Acts in New Hampshire, as well as Real ID during the
> Bush Presidency.
>
> As for President Clinton and the GOP Congress at the time...they'll all
> looking quite a bit better as time goes on. That president and congress
> bequeathed G.W. Bush a budget SURPLUS when Bush took office in 2001. It was
> also the last one, ever since....
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Lynne Masters-Lee <
> masterspieces@...
> > wrote:
>
> > Quick comment (because its after midnight, I need to get some sleep, and
> I
> > hate controversy).
> >
> > The fascists in the Democratic Party are getting brazen. I guess the
> folks
> > in the Republican Party who persecuted anyone disagreeing with them for
> the
> > 8 years of the Bush-Cheney bringing-down-of-America weren't the fascists
> I
> > thought they were. After those 8 years of hearing how Clinton and the
> > Democrats destroyed the country, less than a year into a Democratic
> > administration there isn't a peep about where the Republicans took us.
> >
> > Do I have sympathy for anyone being targeted now? No more than I did for
> > anyone being targeted before. Everyone elected or appointed needs to
> > represent their constituency or the common good, or get the hell of that
> > position. I want to move to NH because I want the government more or less
> > out of my life and business, and I hear that this is the place I want to
> > be.
> > (The Live Free or Die motto doesn't hurt either.) I've had more
> > restrictions
> > placed on my civil liberties in the past decade than in the previous
> four.
> > I
> > chafed against mindless authority in school, in the military, and from
> > employers. Do I think the FSP has the answer? I'm beginning to be unsure,
> > but its still a major improvement on Georgia, where I'm stuck until our
> > finances can be turned around.
> >
> > Lynne
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:42 AM, Tim Condon <tim@...> wrote:
> >
> > > The fascists in the Democratic Party are getting rather brazen these
> > days,
> > > as shown below. Maybe we should invite Mr. Donohue to come to freedom
> and
> > > safety---and political asylum---in the Free State.
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

My biggest problem with Christianity is that most people are willing to be
sheep and don't think for themselves. Historically, Jews (and I think
Muslims too) had a higher literacy rate than Christians. All Jews learned to
read so they could  properly pray to G-d even when they were alone, and to
discuss the meaning of the words of G-d with others. They also had a
personal relationship with G-d. Christians seem content to let someone else
read and explain to them, are easily swayed by anyone who could come up with
a convincing argument, and are taught answers rather than finding them. (Ask
three Jews in a room a question and you'll have 4 or 5 answers or opinions.
Do that with Christians, and there's only ever one correct answer.)

Lynne

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:09 PM, GaryT <garyonthenet@...> wrote:

> And of course we must thank Judaism for the United States, for without that
> there would have been no Christianity.
>
> I tend to think that Christianity just happened to be there; the original
> principles that America was founded upon came about from Enlightenment
> Philosophers, like Locke, Bacon, etc.
> Christianity was there for the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, and
> pogroms and the invasion of South America. Christianity has as its holy
> book, an amalgam of parables and moral stories that say just about
> everything at once, there isn't much there that isn't also contradicted or
> marginalized logically somewhere else within the same book.
>
> The point is, Christianity as a moral or political force can be anything
> and has been, from monarchiesa, to dictatorships, to benign friendly
> nations, to whatever. It is a slippery definition, because it has so many.
>
> Gary T
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: Tim Condon
>  To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 2:31 AM
>  Subject: Re: [FSP] Working with non-pure libertarians
>
>
>
>  At the first annual PorcFest, NH state Rep. Henry McElroy gave a speech in
>  which he said exactly that (he even had a Bible as a teaching aid). I'm
> not
>  much of a Christian (it's hard to get there), but I don't see anything
> wrong
>  with recognizing the historical reality that all our freedoms, and Western
>  Civilization itself, would never have come about about but for
> Christianity.
>  Don't attack me. I'm just quoting anarchist libertarian hero Dr. Murray
>  Rothbard.
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

To say that we abhor Democratic fascism is not to say that we don't abhor
the same thing from the Republicans. Freestaters were at the forefront of
fighting the PATRIOT Acts in New Hampshire, as well as Real ID during the
Bush Presidency.

As for President Clinton and the GOP Congress at the time...they'll all
looking quite a bit better as time goes on. That president and congress
bequeathed G.W. Bush a budget SURPLUS when Bush took office in 2001. It was
also the last one, ever since....




On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Lynne Masters-Lee <masterspieces@...
> wrote:

> Quick comment (because its after midnight, I need to get some sleep, and I
> hate controversy).
>
> The fascists in the Democratic Party are getting brazen. I guess the folks
> in the Republican Party who persecuted anyone disagreeing with them for the
> 8 years of the Bush-Cheney bringing-down-of-America weren't the fascists I
> thought they were. After those 8 years of hearing how Clinton and the
> Democrats destroyed the country, less than a year into a Democratic
> administration there isn't a peep about where the Republicans took us.
>
> Do I have sympathy for anyone being targeted now? No more than I did for
> anyone being targeted before. Everyone elected or appointed needs to
> represent their constituency or the common good, or get the hell of that
> position. I want to move to NH because I want the government more or less
> out of my life and business, and I hear that this is the place I want to
> be.
> (The Live Free or Die motto doesn't hurt either.) I've had more
> restrictions
> placed on my civil liberties in the past decade than in the previous four.
> I
> chafed against mindless authority in school, in the military, and from
> employers. Do I think the FSP has the answer? I'm beginning to be unsure,
> but its still a major improvement on Georgia, where I'm stuck until our
> finances can be turned around.
>
> Lynne
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:42 AM, Tim Condon <tim@...> wrote:
>
> > The fascists in the Democratic Party are getting rather brazen these
> days,
> > as shown below. Maybe we should invite Mr. Donohue to come to freedom and
> > safety---and political asylum---in the Free State.
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

And of course we must thank Judaism for the United States, for without that
there would have been no Christianity.

I tend to think that Christianity just happened to be there; the original
principles that America was founded upon came about from Enlightenment
Philosophers, like Locke, Bacon, etc.
Christianity was there for the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, and pogroms
and the invasion of South America. Christianity has as its holy book, an amalgam
of parables and moral stories that say just about everything at once, there
isn't much there that isn't also contradicted or marginalized logically
somewhere else within the same book.

The point is, Christianity as a moral or political force can be anything and has
been, from monarchiesa, to dictatorships, to benign friendly nations, to
whatever. It is a slippery definition, because it has so many.

Gary T

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Tim Condon
   To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 2:31 AM
   Subject: Re: [FSP] Working with non-pure libertarians



   At the first annual PorcFest, NH state Rep. Henry McElroy gave a speech in
   which he said exactly that (he even had a Bible as a teaching aid). I'm not
   much of a Christian (it's hard to get there), but I don't see anything wrong
   with recognizing the historical reality that all our freedoms, and Western
   Civilization itself, would never have come about about but for Christianity.
   Don't attack me. I'm just quoting anarchist libertarian hero Dr. Murray
   Rothbard.

   On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:02 AM, wolzybk <phil@...> wrote:

   > The big "if" is the "if it will move the goal forward". Someone might be
   > 80%, or 90%, or 99.44% libertarian in his ideas, but if he's actively
   > pursuing the *other* ideas, then it may not be enough. Conversely, someone
   > might be 5% libertarian, but if he is most active on that one
   > freedom-related idea he does have, then he might well advance the goal.
   > It's not necessarily about "purity", but about what it is that person is
   > really trying to accomplish.
   >
   > A good example of this for me is the Constitution Party. They call
   > themselves that, and they sometimes talk a good game of respecting the
   > Constitution. If you issued them a libertarian questionnaire, they'd score
   > quite highly on it as a percentage. But if you get down to what they really
   > believe and work for, they believe as a party that the Constitution (and
   > everything else) is subordinate to the Bible, and that America is a
   > Christian country and should be governed that way. Which is a profoundly
   > NON-libertarian idea, yet is the rock-bottom basis for their belief system.
   >
   > So while I am perfectly happy to work with that party and the members of it
   > on common interests, I am very leery of helping them to have enough power
   > and influence to pursue their full agenda.
   >
   > These are the sorts of considerations that must be addressed to see if
   > someone is an asset or a barrier to "moving the goal forward", in a
   > practical real-world sense. Not just "what do they say?", or even "what do
   > they believe?", but "what are they trying to actually do?"
   >
   > PhilB
   >
   > --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, "GaryT" <garyonthenet@...> wrote:
   > >
   > > Well then, I guess you will be able to work with 100% of the people and
   > politicians, since almost everyone in America is at least 80% libertarian.
   > >
   > > I would work with anyone who would help move the libertarian cause
   > forward, the question is, are the 80%'ers willing to work with libertarians
   > - mostly I don't think so.
   > >
   > > Gary T
   > >
   > > ----- Original Message -----
   > > From: Chris Lawless
   > > To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
   > > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:28 AM
   > > Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non
   > FSP posts
   > >
   > > ... I would rather an active 80% ally then a purist who is not active
   > if it will move the goal forward.
   > >
   > > ****************************************
   > >
   > > I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!
   > And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no
   > virtue!
   >
   >
   >
   > ------------------------------------
   >
   > Yahoo! Groups Links
   >
   >
   >
   >

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It makes me think of Marxist Herbert Marcuse, who proposed similar tactics to
Alinsky in a 1965 essay, "Repressive Tolerance":
http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm The essay
is sick, twisted and painful to read. It is also the intellectual (if it can be
called that) foundation for political correctness. At the end of the essay,
Marcuse gets to his point of silencing dissent by any necessary means. This is a
taste of things to come...
 
"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many
things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking
laws." Ayn Rand
 
 

--- On Wed, 12/9/09, Tim Condon <tim@...> wrote:


From: Tim Condon <tim@...>
Subject: [FSP] Fascist intimidation is growing in America
To: "FS FSP" <freestateproject@yahoogroups.com>, "RLCNH" <RLCNH@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2009, 2:42 AM


 



The fascists in the Democratic Party are getting rather brazen these days,
as shown below. Maybe we should invite Mr. Donohue to come to freedom and
safety---and political asylum---in the Free State.

[image: Investors.com Logo] <http://www.investor s.com/Default. aspx>
Print <http://www.investor s.com/NewsAndAna lysis/ArticlePri nt.aspx?id=
514701#>
Close<http://www.investor s.com/NewsAndAna lysis/ArticlePri nt.aspx?id= 514701#>
IBD EDITORIALS

Thugs In Velvet

Posted 08:08 PM ET

[image: Donohue: A wanted
man.]<http://www.investor s.com/NewsAndAna lysis/PhotoPopup .aspx?path=
ISSb1209_ ph091208_ 640x480.jpg& caption=Donohue% 3a+A+wanted+ man.>

Donohue: A wanted man.View Enlarged
Image<http://www.investor s.com/NewsAndAna lysis/PhotoPopup .aspx?path=
ISSb1209_ ph091208_ 640x480.jpg& caption=Donohue% 3a+A+wanted+ man.>

*Politics:* A pack of leftists has put a $200,000 price on the head of the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Tom Donohue. Oh, it's not a plot to kill him, they
claim, only a bounty to get him arrested. It's one heck of a coarsening of
U.S. politics.

Is it just us, or is this the most despicable act the hipster left has come
up with since MoveOn.org tried to smear General David Petraeus as General
Betray-Us in a New York Times ad last year?

Monday, Fox News reported that a coalition of 120 left-wing groups called
"Velvet Revolution" issued an Old West-style "wanted" poster, complete with
a tip hotline urging anyone connected with the Chamber president to come
forward with information that will get him arrested. It offers guaranteed
anonymity for tipsters.

It's nothing but a fishing expedition, not to investigate a lawbreaker, but
to silence dissent.

Velvet Revolution says its campaign is based on the Chamber's opposition to
the Obama administration' s health care overhaul and cap-and-trade
legislation.

"The Chamber of Commerce, under Tom Donohue, has gone from a well-respected
trade organization to an extremist political organization dedicated to
corrupting American democracy by elevating the profits of big corporations
over the well-being of the citizens they serve," the group's Web site reads.

But unlike real democracy groups, the Velvet Revolution isn't interested in
actually debating Donohue.

"We now seek hard evidence that will stand up in the court of law; i.e.,
documents, affidavits and testimony implicating Donohue in crimes; including
fraud, tax violations, campaign finance violations, money laundering,
insider trading, election tampering, pension fund and stockholder
manipulations. We want to hear from insiders and whistle-blowers posessing
(sic) information not already in the public domain."

How this scheme could be legal is beyond us. Any investigation would be
tainted by the payoff. It amounts to an incentive for someone to cook up
false evidence with implications that the winner of the bounty has corrupt
lawmen on the string waiting to act.

But the biggest problem seems to be the malevolent tone the bounty sets,
something that in the current political climate is only growing worse as the
Obama administration does nothing to rein it in.

For starters, it's a tactic straight out of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for
Radicals," a book of prescriptions for community organizers: "Pick a target,
freeze it, and personalize it."

The second problem is that it's run by a nontransparent group of unknown
funding. What little is known is on the group's Facebook site. It says the
founders are Kevin Zeese and Brad Friedman, a couple of activists long
associated with Democratic causes. Those are the same causes dear to
MoveOn.org and various grass-roots groups funded by billionaire George
Soros. Who the Velvet Revolution really represents is not known, but it's
willing to act as political shock troops.

The Obama political machine has not been pristine in its associations, given
that radicals such as former green czar Van Jones and diversity czar Mark
Lloyd found themselves easily at home in the Obama administration.

Worse still, SEIU President Andy Stern still gets presidential face time
even as thuggish acts out of that union go unpunished. Among these are the
beat-down of political dissident Ken Gladney which still hasn't been
prosecuted.

What's more, the administration has shown little inclination to rein in
out-of-control intimidators caught in the act of breaking the law, such as
the Black Panthers, who frightened voters in Philadelphia in the 2008
election.

That makes the Velvet Revolution threats of prosecution all the more
menacing. If this bounty on Donohue isn't a direct threat on democracy, what
is?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sounds like a neat strategy that activists on this side of the spectrum
could employ just as well.

At 2009-12-09T02:42:13-0500, <tim@...> wrote:

> The fascists in the Democratic Party are getting rather brazen these days,
> as shown below. Maybe we should invite Mr. Donohue to come to freedom and
> safety---and political asylum---in the Free State.
> *Politics:* A pack of leftists has put a $200,000 price on the head of the

[...]

> U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Tom Donohue. Oh, it's not a plot to kill him, they
> claim, only a bounty to get him arrested. It's one heck of a coarsening of
> U.S. politics.
>
> Is it just us, or is this the most despicable act the hipster left has come
> up with since MoveOn.org tried to smear General David Petraeus as General
> Betray-Us in a New York Times ad last year?
>
> Monday, Fox News reported that a coalition of 120 left-wing groups called
> "Velvet Revolution" issued an Old West-style "wanted" poster, complete with
> a tip hotline urging anyone connected with the Chamber president to come
> forward with information that will get him arrested. It offers guaranteed
> anonymity for tipsters.
>
> It's nothing but a fishing expedition, not to investigate a lawbreaker, but
> to silence dissent.
>
> Velvet Revolution says its campaign is based on the Chamber's opposition to
> the Obama administration's health care overhaul and cap-and-trade
> legislation.
>
> "The Chamber of Commerce, under Tom Donohue, has gone from a well-respected
> trade organization to an extremist political organization dedicated to
> corrupting American democracy by elevating the profits of big corporations
> over the well-being of the citizens they serve," the group's Web site reads.
>
> But unlike real democracy groups, the Velvet Revolution isn't interested in
> actually debating Donohue.
>
> "We now seek hard evidence that will stand up in the court of law; i.e.,
> documents, affidavits and testimony implicating Donohue in crimes; including
> fraud, tax violations, campaign finance violations, money laundering,
> insider trading, election tampering, pension fund and stockholder
> manipulations. We want to hear from insiders and whistle-blowers posessing
> (sic) information not already in the public domain."
>
> How this scheme could be legal is beyond us. Any investigation would be
> tainted by the payoff. It amounts to an incentive for someone to cook up
> false evidence with implications that the winner of the bounty has corrupt
> lawmen on the string waiting to act.
>
> But the biggest problem seems to be the malevolent tone the bounty sets,
> something that in the current political climate is only growing worse as the
> Obama administration does nothing to rein it in.
>
> For starters, it's a tactic straight out of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for
> Radicals," a book of prescriptions for community organizers: "Pick a target,
> freeze it, and personalize it."
>
> The second problem is that it's run by a nontransparent group of unknown
> funding. What little is known is on the group's Facebook site. It says the
> founders are Kevin Zeese and Brad Friedman, a couple of activists long
> associated with Democratic causes. Those are the same causes dear to
> MoveOn.org and various grass-roots groups funded by billionaire George
> Soros. Who the Velvet Revolution really represents is not known, but it's
> willing to act as political shock troops.
>
> The Obama political machine has not been pristine in its associations, given
> that radicals such as former green czar Van Jones and diversity czar Mark
> Lloyd found themselves easily at home in the Obama administration.
>
> Worse still, SEIU President Andy Stern still gets presidential face time
> even as thuggish acts out of that union go unpunished. Among these are the
> beat-down of political dissident Ken Gladney which still hasn't been
> prosecuted.
>
> What's more, the administration has shown little inclination to rein in
> out-of-control intimidators caught in the act of breaking the law, such as
> the Black Panthers, who frightened voters in Philadelphia in the 2008
> election.
>
> That makes the Velvet Revolution threats of prosecution all the more
> menacing. If this bounty on Donohue isn't a direct threat on democracy, what
> is?

--
Jeremy J. Olson

Quick comment (because its after midnight, I need to get some sleep, and I
hate controversy).

The fascists in the Democratic Party are getting brazen. I guess the folks
in the Republican Party who persecuted anyone disagreeing with them for the
8 years of the Bush-Cheney bringing-down-of-America weren't the fascists I
thought they were. After those 8 years of hearing how Clinton and the
Democrats destroyed the country, less than a year into a Democratic
administration there isn't a peep about where the Republicans took us.

Do I have sympathy for anyone being targeted now? No more than I did for
anyone being targeted before. Everyone elected or appointed needs to
represent their constituency or the common good, or get the hell of that
position. I want to move to NH because I want the government more or less
out of my life and business, and I hear that this is the place I want to be.
(The Live Free or Die motto doesn't hurt either.) I've had more restrictions
placed on my civil liberties in the past decade than in the previous four. I
chafed against mindless authority in school, in the military, and from
employers. Do I think the FSP has the answer? I'm beginning to be unsure,
but its still a major improvement on Georgia, where I'm stuck until our
finances can be turned around.

Lynne



On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:42 AM, Tim Condon <tim@...> wrote:

> The fascists in the Democratic Party are getting rather brazen these days,
> as shown below. Maybe we should invite Mr. Donohue to come to freedom and
> safety---and political asylum---in the Free State.
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 2009-12-09T09:16:07-0500, <dreepa@...> wrote:

> There have been at least 3 emails asking for someone to 'lead' this
> project on the doers yahoo group.  So far no takers.
> One person is seeing if they can get a party around the event.

Sovereign Curtis? (If you don't mean him, he's planning the same
idea---he might be good to get hold of to help lead this project.)

--
Jeremy J. Olson

The fascists in the Democratic Party are getting rather brazen these days,
as shown below. Maybe we should invite Mr. Donohue to come to freedom and
safety---and political asylum---in the Free State.

  [image: Investors.com Logo] <http://www.investors.com/Default.aspx>
Print <http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/ArticlePrint.aspx?id=514701#>
  Close<http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/ArticlePrint.aspx?id=514701#>
   IBD EDITORIALS

Thugs In Velvet

Posted 08:08 PM ET

[image: Donohue: A wanted
man.]<http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/PhotoPopup.aspx?path=ISSb1209_ph0\
91208_640x480.jpg&caption=Donohue%3a+A+wanted+man.>

Donohue: A wanted man.View Enlarged
Image<http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/PhotoPopup.aspx?path=ISSb1209_ph0\
91208_640x480.jpg&caption=Donohue%3a+A+wanted+man.>

*Politics:* A pack of leftists has put a $200,000 price on the head of the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Tom Donohue. Oh, it's not a plot to kill him, they
claim, only a bounty to get him arrested. It's one heck of a coarsening of
U.S. politics.

Is it just us, or is this the most despicable act the hipster left has come
up with since MoveOn.org tried to smear General David Petraeus as General
Betray-Us in a New York Times ad last year?

Monday, Fox News reported that a coalition of 120 left-wing groups called
"Velvet Revolution" issued an Old West-style "wanted" poster, complete with
a tip hotline urging anyone connected with the Chamber president to come
forward with information that will get him arrested. It offers guaranteed
anonymity for tipsters.

It's nothing but a fishing expedition, not to investigate a lawbreaker, but
to silence dissent.

Velvet Revolution says its campaign is based on the Chamber's opposition to
the Obama administration's health care overhaul and cap-and-trade
legislation.

"The Chamber of Commerce, under Tom Donohue, has gone from a well-respected
trade organization to an extremist political organization dedicated to
corrupting American democracy by elevating the profits of big corporations
over the well-being of the citizens they serve," the group's Web site reads.

But unlike real democracy groups, the Velvet Revolution isn't interested in
actually debating Donohue.

"We now seek hard evidence that will stand up in the court of law; i.e.,
documents, affidavits and testimony implicating Donohue in crimes; including
fraud, tax violations, campaign finance violations, money laundering,
insider trading, election tampering, pension fund and stockholder
manipulations. We want to hear from insiders and whistle-blowers posessing
(sic) information not already in the public domain."

How this scheme could be legal is beyond us. Any investigation would be
tainted by the payoff. It amounts to an incentive for someone to cook up
false evidence with implications that the winner of the bounty has corrupt
lawmen on the string waiting to act.

But the biggest problem seems to be the malevolent tone the bounty sets,
something that in the current political climate is only growing worse as the
Obama administration does nothing to rein it in.

For starters, it's a tactic straight out of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for
Radicals," a book of prescriptions for community organizers: "Pick a target,
freeze it, and personalize it."

The second problem is that it's run by a nontransparent group of unknown
funding. What little is known is on the group's Facebook site. It says the
founders are Kevin Zeese and Brad Friedman, a couple of activists long
associated with Democratic causes. Those are the same causes dear to
MoveOn.org and various grass-roots groups funded by billionaire George
Soros. Who the Velvet Revolution really represents is not known, but it's
willing to act as political shock troops.

The Obama political machine has not been pristine in its associations, given
that radicals such as former green czar Van Jones and diversity czar Mark
Lloyd found themselves easily at home in the Obama administration.

Worse still, SEIU President Andy Stern still gets presidential face time
even as thuggish acts out of that union go unpunished. Among these are the
beat-down of political dissident Ken Gladney which still hasn't been
prosecuted.

What's more, the administration has shown little inclination to rein in
out-of-control intimidators caught in the act of breaking the law, such as
the Black Panthers, who frightened voters in Philadelphia in the 2008
election.

That makes the Velvet Revolution threats of prosecution all the more
menacing. If this bounty on Donohue isn't a direct threat on democracy, what
is?


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

There have been at least 3 emails asking for someone to 'lead' this project on
the doers yahoo group.  So far no takers.
One person is seeing if they can get a party around the event.

It looks like the event might happen around the Liberty Forum... so we might be
turning that into the 'celebration' of the downhill slide.


(Tickets are still available for the Liberty Forum...
www.freestateproject.org/libertyforum )

****************************************

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let
me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

--- On Tue, 12/8/09, Tim Condon <tim@...> wrote:

From: Tim Condon <tim@...>
Subject: Re: [FSP] 1000 people on this list to come up with ideas:
To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 11:05 PM







 









       It sounds like you're as busy as the proverbial one-armed paper-hanger,

Phil. But it's *great* that you and Kristine are going to be able to move to

freedom in New Hampshire! Stay the course, and there will be hundreds---if

not thousands--- of us waiting to welcome you two "home to the Free State.".



As for the theme, how about something like "NYA, NYA, NYA! You thought we

couldn't do it, but we're on the downhill slide and heading toward 20,000

signups! NOW will you join us, and help make Liberty in Our Lifetime a

reality?" No? Too much taunting of the naysayers? Actually, it's something

that the FSP national board of directors should be working on and  making a

reality (where ARE you guys?). Maybe put together a working group, and have

a big press conference like we did when the choice of the Free State was

announced. <http://www.forum. freestateproject .org/taxonomy/ term/78?page= 6>
It

couldn't hurt to create some more national publicity, especially with

America sliding toward socialist destruction, and with states like

California, New York, and New Jersey already in fiscal chaos (while every

other state except two or three are essentially bankrupt).



What does everyone else think? (With apologies to anyone still left on the

list who gets all wee-weed up over excessive discussion.)  ---Tim Condon



On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:09 AM, wolzybk <phil@boncer. com> wrote:



> Well, that's pretty much what I had in mind.  A suggestion, an idea, a

> possible theme.

>

> I hadn't taken it any further than that; I've been absurdly busy.  I have

> started a good new project, about a year in length, that will finally make

> it financially feasible to move to NH, so we're hoping to do so within the

> next year or two now.  It's fulltime+, lots of overtime available, and is 60

> miles from home, so I'm pretty much making that happen right now, and not

> much else.

>

> PhilB

>

> --- In freestateproject@ yahoogroups. com, Tim Condon <tim@...> wrote:

> >

> > I like the idea, Phil, especially "it's downhill all the way from here."

> > What do you have in mind?

> > =====

> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:07 AM, wolzybk <phil@...> wrote:

> >

> > > We're coming up on 10,000 signed up.  I do think that it would be a

> good

> > > milestone and worth some promotion when we hit that halfway mark.  When

> I

> > > did events earlier on, one of the things that many people used as an

> > > objection was that they thought we'd never get near enough signups.  Of

> > > course I always told them that they could help with that by signing up,

> and

> > > if they were right and not enough other people did, then they weren't

> out

> > > anything, or at any risk.  But most of them just weren't willing to

> sign on

> > > to something they didn't see as being likely to ever get anywhere.

> > >

> > > So I think maybe a halfway, on-the-home- stretch,

> > > it's-all-downhill- from-here, sort of campaign might be of some use in

> > > showing people that this is really happening, even if it's taking a

> while.

> > >

> > > PhilB

>

>

>

> ------------ --------- --------- ------

>

> Yahoo! Groups Links

>

>

>

>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yes there are many from both sides of the 'aisle'  who we work with here in
NH... and it is funny because allies on today's issue aren't on tomorrow's
issue...

****************************************

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let
me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

--- On Tue, 12/8/09, GaryT <garyonthenet@...> wrote:

From: GaryT <garyonthenet@...>
Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non FSP posts
To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 10:11 AM







 









       Well then, I guess you will be able to work with 100% of the people and
politicians, since almost everyone in America is at least 80% libertarian.



I would work with anyone who would help move the libertarian cause forward, the
question is, are the 80%'ers willing to work with libertarians - mostly I don't
think so.



Gary T



----- Original Message -----

   From: Chris Lawless

   To: freestateproject@ yahoogroups. com

   Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:28 AM

   Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non FSP posts



If you don't work with the 80% politically then there is not much you are going
to get done politically (not saying that you are).



But on both the left and the right.. many libertarians have been working with
the 80%ers to get things moving at the State House..... with some effect. 
Should those 80% be replaced with 90%ers?  95%ers?  YES but there is not enough
people, money, effort here in NH yet.

   So you work with what  you have.



I would rather an active 80% ally then a purist who is not active if it will
move the goal forward.



************ ********* ********* ********* *



I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let
me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!



--- On Tue, 12/8/09, GaryT <garyonthenet@ yahoo.com> wrote:



From: GaryT <garyonthenet@ yahoo.com>

   Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non FSP posts

   To: freestateproject@ yahoogroups. com

   Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 2:52 AM



Hmmm.



A lot I agree with of course.



Although I am not a purist, at least not for the nascent period of political
ascendency and initial growth, but 80% libertarian is not a particularly good
number.



If I remember correctly almost everyone in America is at least 80% libertarian;
the FSP may have a big net, but I didn't think it was supposed to be THAT big.
You wouldn't need the FSP if that was your standard, since everyone is already
there.



I love your Hong Kong/PR-China analogy, and I think its a good one. I always
thought that arrangement they had with the UK was weird, the two systems being
so diametrically opposed, China being the landlord but still staying hands off.



Truly IMO it is the reason China took off in the capitalistic fashion it has;
eventually that capitalism will subsume the human rights and freedom oppression
still endemic to the PRofChina.



Another tact I always viewed the FSP, was the analogy of a people trying to get
away from some particular oppression, to start their own land. Like the Mormons,
or the Pilgrims, or the Israelis. In this scenario we are trying to move into an
already established infrastructure, so although we don't have all the same
physical survival challenges, we have to morph the existing natives enough not
to be ousted or pariahs.



Finally I note, again, that you don't publically laud or celebrate the leftist
half of libertarian philosophy; it is at the both ends of political sprectrum
that we demand freedom, both for our pocketbook and for our lifestyle. And
again, it needn't be conservative- libertarian, all it needs to be is
libertarian.



Gary T



PS: It is amusing that the only person who came to your defense on the question
of chatter on this list, was me ;^).



I generally consider my oppositional banter principles based, not personal.



----- Original Message -----



From: Tim Condon



To: freestateproject@ yahoogroups. com



Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 4:50 PM



Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non FSP posts



Absolutely. Glad to, Gary. Hannan put his finger on a question that is



dogging the entire political right in America (including capitalists,



objectivists, right-libertarians, free marketeers, classical liberals,



libertarian- conservatives, live-and-let- live Republicans, etc.). It is clear



in my mind at least that as goes New Hampshire, so will ultimately go



America. This is because New Hampshire will be to America was Hong Kong was



to China during the Maoist nightmare in the 20th century. That is, in New



Hampshire we will establish a polity where everyone will not only be free,



but wealthy. This will be because the increasing number of liberty-activists



(not just Freestaters, but native NH people and others who are moving into



the state independent of the FSP) will make the state the *only* sovereign



political entity in North America where such policies will not only be



supported, but implemented, to the ultimate betterment of all. That is,



politics in the Free State will not be driven by envy, hatred, and other



socialist machinations, but rather will be driven by freedom, capitalism,



individualism, low taxes, small government, entrepreneurial energy, and an



absence of bureaucratic control over enterprise and other Human Action.



However, in order to make this happen, there must be formed an alliance of



"libertarian- types (I don't include Libertarians as a distinct part of the



proposed alliance, because they are generally most interested in purity



rather than success) and "conservatives. " On the former (libertarian) side



(and Hannan points some of them out) are social liberals, free market



activists, some libertarian- conservatives, Objectivists, some anarchists,



voluntaryists, agorists, classical liberals, and others. On the latter



(conservative) side are social conservatives, the anti-abortion movement,



Constitutionalists, Christians and other people of faith, traditional



conservatives, fusionists, "main streeters" who understand economics, 2nd



Amendment activists, some libertarian conservatives, entrepreneurs who want



to be left alone to grow the economy, education activists, home-schoolers,



and others.



If the Free State Project is to be successful, an alliance of all the above



must be welded together in order to wield electoral power. The truth is that



most of the above types of people agree on *most *issues (like 80% or more).



If we can create a fusion of all of the above groups---a process which is



well underway in NH---then all the surging power of the socialist Left will



be unable to dislodge or defeat us (as long as elections aren't cancelled,



which is a favorite tactic of the Left once they gain power). So...as I



said, British MP Daniel Hannan put his finger on an issue that we



Freestaters should be aware of and discussing. Doubtless there are many



people on this list who will want to expostulate on how one group or another



could *never* be part of a grand alliance (especially the libertarian



purists). On the other hand, the rest of us need to be very clear that the



Free State is a big-tent polity, and that everyone who believes in a few



basic precepts (low taxes, very small government, individual freedom, free



enterprise, 2nd Amendment rights, and belief in the Constitution and the



Bill of Rights should cover it) should be part of that alliance. It's the



only way we can win in New Hampshire, and keep the flame of capitalism and



freedom alive as the rest of the United States slide down into the cesspool



of socialism and fascism.



See? ---Tim Condon



On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:55 PM, GaryT <garyonthenet@ yahoo.com> wrote:



> Tim:



>



> Could you give more detail on this one? Danial Hannan as it relates to FSP



>



> Gary T



>



> ----- Original Message -----



> From: Tim Condon



> To: freestateproject@ yahoogroups. com



> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 10:58 AM



> Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non FSP



> posts



>



>



>



> Yes! One way to do that would be to examine and discuss the question of



> whether both conservatives and libertarians (each in all their varying



> types) are good fits for the FSP, starting with the Daniel Hannan column



> applied to the Free State Project. Yes?



>



> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Chris Lawless <dreepa@yahoo. com> wrote:



>



> > Maybe this will incent the 1000 people on this list to come up with



> ideas:



> >



> > 1. How to recruit more people to MOVE to NH ASAP.



> > 2. How to recruit more people to JOIN the FSP.



> > 3. How to help spread the word about the FSP.



> > 4. How we can increase the number of people volunteering for the FSP to



> > help the 3 items above.



> >



> >



> >



> > ************ ********* ********* ********* *



> >



> > I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!



> And



> > let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no



> > virtue!



> >



> > --- On Sun, 12/6/09, Ron Helwig <ronhelwig@gmail. com> wrote:



> >



> > From: Ron Helwig <ronhelwig@gmail. com>



> > Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non FSP



> > posts



> > To: freestateproject@ yahoogroups. com



> > Date: Sunday, December 6, 2009, 6:57 AM



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> > On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 7:43 AM, Tim Condon <tim@timcondon. net>



> > wrote:



> >



> > >



> >



> > > I must say, this list has gone for months, if not years, with no



> > discussion.



> >



> >



> >



> > That's one of the good properties of lists: when there's nothing



> >



> > important going on related to it, you aren't having your time wasted



> >



> > by maintaining a relationship with it. I vastly prefer that my lists



> >



> > remain "moribund" when there isn't anything relevant going on related



> >



> > to their topic, so I can concentrate on other stuff. When something



> >



> > important and related comes up, the list revives and reenters my



> >



> > awareness.



> >



> >



> >



> > Ron Helwig



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> >



> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



> >



> >



> >



> > ------------ --------- --------- ------



> >



> > Yahoo! Groups Links



> >



> >



> >



> >



>



> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



>



>



>



>



>



> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



>



>



>



> ------------ --------- --------- ------



>



> Yahoo! Groups Links



>



>



>



>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Saturday is the next Concord Porc meeting...

As usual, an informal gathering of Porcupines (and whomever else
wishes to attend) will take place at the Red Apple Buffet on Loudon Rd
in Concord.

We expect a big crowd, due to the "Tilting at Windmills" event
happening at 11am:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=191678368558

_Please_ RSVP to help ensure we have enough combined table space for
this month...
Right now, I've got 15 yes, 23 maybes on Facebook, meaning that it
could be as little as 20 people, or could be 40, that's a really big
swing size.
To RSVP on Facebook for event:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=231135012024
or email me directly...

Date: Dec 12th
Time: Noon-ish til sometime around 2:00pm (or later) usually
Place: Red Apple Buffet
(corner of Loudon and Rt 132)
161 Loudon Road
Concord, NH 03301
Telephone: 603-226-8866

Directions for those not familiar with Concord:
Take Exit 14 off of 93, onto Loudon Rd and go east/right.
At intersection with 132 (Canterbury Road), it's on the corner.
(alternatively, take Exit 2 off of 393, go south on 132 about 3 blocks,
   it's on the left corner just before you reach Loudon Road.)

Guests and visitors are always welcome! We've been pulling people from
all over the state, usually upwards of 15+, and a good time is had by
all.

Agenda this month: Discuss Holiday plans, parties, and more... ways to
make merry with the Porcupines.
Recap of Tilting, Bill Reviews, and other topics are sure to happen too...

Starts a little bit after noon. We gather together, eat food, and
discuss whatever comes up. This is NOT a formal 'agenda' based Porc
group. Those who don't want to discuss can just eat quietly and listen
to the rest of us ranting. The conversations are always fun,
regardless of the topic.

The buffet provides a wide range of good food choices at a very
reasonable price. While it's mostly a Chinese style buffet, it's got
many other things for those who don't like Chinese such as Pizza,
Pasta, Beef, Chicken, and lots of other goodies. Cost is ~$10
including drink and a small tip.

For those who needs more reasons to get out of bed and drive to Concord:
2 different groups meet that morning....
LPNH Executive Board Meeting at 10:30 A.M., All are welcome to attend.
@Liberty Books, 75 Allison St. Concord NH 03301 http://lpnh.org
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=198988296792
(Should be finishing in time to go to lunch at Concord Porcs)

OR
CNHT @ 9 AM, upstairs in the first room #4 at 8 North Main Street,
Concord, just across from the Pleasant Street intersection
http://cnht.org/events.php

And thirdly, of course, the Tilting at Windmills:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=191678368558

Phil,
 
You have articulated extremely well precisely how I feel. 
 
A similar example is Karen Testerman's recently-announced Gubernatorial
campaign.  She will score well on taxes, home education, second amendment
issues, etc...but the real danger lies in the cabinet appointments and
bureaucracy-meddling (especially in HHS and Education), which I suspect would
carry a heavy dose of "Christianization" of the fundamentalist stripe.  That
aspect of her past activism and potential future actions is a deal-killer for
me.
 
On the other hand, there are those we would never call libertarian who function
to make terrible bills about to pass, 'less terrible' through their moderating
influence, and so there is a role fo them as well. I have said 100 times I would
rather have Olympia Snowe as a Senator from Maine than the likely alternative.
 
Thom
 
Thom

"Grabbing the world by the balls since 1959..."
http://www.tullyspage.blogspot.com
http://www.nhbears.org

--- On Wed, 12/9/09, wolzybk <phil@...> wrote:


From: wolzybk <phil@...>
Subject: [FSP] Working with non-pure libertarians
To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2009, 1:02 AM


 



The big "if" is the "if it will move the goal forward". Someone might be 80%, or
90%, or 99.44% libertarian in his ideas, but if he's actively pursuing the
*other* ideas, then it may not be enough. Conversely, someone might be 5%
libertarian, but if he is most active on that one freedom-related idea he does
have, then he might well advance the goal. It's not necessarily about "purity",
but about what it is that person is really trying to accomplish.

A good example of this for me is the Constitution Party. They call themselves
that, and they sometimes talk a good game of respecting the Constitution. If you
issued them a libertarian questionnaire, they'd score quite highly on it as a
percentage. But if you get down to what they really believe and work for, they
believe as a party that the Constitution (and everything else) is subordinate to
the Bible, and that America is a Christian country and should be governed that
way. Which is a profoundly NON-libertarian idea, yet is the rock-bottom basis
for their belief system.

So while I am perfectly happy to work with that party and the members of it on
common interests, I am very leery of helping them to have enough power and
influence to pursue their full agenda.

These are the sorts of considerations that must be addressed to see if someone
is an asset or a barrier to "moving the goal forward", in a practical real-world
sense. Not just "what do they say?", or even "what do they believe?", but "what
are they trying to actually do?"

PhilB

--- In freestateproject@ yahoogroups. com, "GaryT" <garyonthenet@ ...> wrote:
>
> Well then, I guess you will be able to work with 100% of the people and
politicians, since almost everyone in America is at least 80% libertarian.
>
> I would work with anyone who would help move the libertarian cause forward,
the question is, are the 80%'ers willing to work with libertarians - mostly I
don't think so.
>
> Gary T
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Chris Lawless
> To: freestateproject@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non FSP posts
>
> ... I would rather an active 80% ally then a purist who is not active if it
will move the goal forward.
>
> ************ ********* ********* ********* *
>
> I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And
let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It sounds like you're as busy as the proverbial one-armed paper-hanger,
Phil. But it's *great* that you and Kristine are going to be able to move to
freedom in New Hampshire! Stay the course, and there will be hundreds---if
not thousands---of us waiting to welcome you two "home to the Free State.".

As for the theme, how about something like "NYA, NYA, NYA! You thought we
couldn't do it, but we're on the downhill slide and heading toward 20,000
signups! NOW will you join us, and help make Liberty in Our Lifetime a
reality?" No? Too much taunting of the naysayers? Actually, it's something
that the FSP national board of directors should be working on and  making a
reality (where ARE you guys?). Maybe put together a working group, and have
a big press conference like we did when the choice of the Free State was
announced. <http://www.forum.freestateproject.org/taxonomy/term/78?page=6> It
couldn't hurt to create some more national publicity, especially with
America sliding toward socialist destruction, and with states like
California, New York, and New Jersey already in fiscal chaos (while every
other state except two or three are essentially bankrupt).

What does everyone else think? (With apologies to anyone still left on the
list who gets all wee-weed up over excessive discussion.)  ---Tim Condon



On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:09 AM, wolzybk <phil@...> wrote:

> Well, that's pretty much what I had in mind.  A suggestion, an idea, a
> possible theme.
>
> I hadn't taken it any further than that; I've been absurdly busy.  I have
> started a good new project, about a year in length, that will finally make
> it financially feasible to move to NH, so we're hoping to do so within the
> next year or two now.  It's fulltime+, lots of overtime available, and is 60
> miles from home, so I'm pretty much making that happen right now, and not
> much else.
>
> PhilB
>
> --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, Tim Condon <tim@...> wrote:
> >
> > I like the idea, Phil, especially "it's downhill all the way from here."
> > What do you have in mind?
> > =====
> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:07 AM, wolzybk <phil@...> wrote:
> >
> > > We're coming up on 10,000 signed up.  I do think that it would be a
> good
> > > milestone and worth some promotion when we hit that halfway mark.  When
> I
> > > did events earlier on, one of the things that many people used as an
> > > objection was that they thought we'd never get near enough signups.  Of
> > > course I always told them that they could help with that by signing up,
> and
> > > if they were right and not enough other people did, then they weren't
> out
> > > anything, or at any risk.  But most of them just weren't willing to
> sign on
> > > to something they didn't see as being likely to ever get anywhere.
> > >
> > > So I think maybe a halfway, on-the-home-stretch,
> > > it's-all-downhill-from-here, sort of campaign might be of some use in
> > > showing people that this is really happening, even if it's taking a
> while.
> > >
> > > PhilB
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At the first annual PorcFest, NH state Rep. Henry McElroy gave a speech in
which he said exactly that (he even had a Bible as a teaching aid). I'm not
much of a Christian (it's hard to get there), but I don't see anything wrong
with recognizing the historical reality that all our freedoms, and Western
Civilization itself, would never have come about about but for Christianity.
Don't attack me. I'm just quoting anarchist libertarian hero Dr. Murray
Rothbard.



On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:02 AM, wolzybk <phil@...> wrote:

> The big "if" is the "if it will move the goal forward".  Someone might be
> 80%, or 90%, or 99.44% libertarian in his ideas, but if he's actively
> pursuing the *other* ideas, then it may not be enough.  Conversely, someone
> might be 5% libertarian, but if he is most active on that one
> freedom-related idea he does have, then he might well advance the goal.
>  It's not necessarily about "purity", but about what it is that person is
> really trying to accomplish.
>
> A good example of this for me is the Constitution Party.  They call
> themselves that, and they sometimes talk a good game of respecting the
> Constitution.  If you issued them a libertarian questionnaire, they'd score
> quite highly on it as a percentage.  But if you get down to what they really
> believe and work for, they believe as a party that the Constitution (and
> everything else) is subordinate to the Bible, and that America is a
> Christian country and should be governed that way.  Which is a profoundly
> NON-libertarian idea, yet is the rock-bottom basis for their belief system.
>
> So while I am perfectly happy to work with that party and the members of it
> on common interests, I am very leery of helping them to have enough power
> and influence to pursue their full agenda.
>
> These are the sorts of considerations that must be addressed to see if
> someone is an asset or a barrier to "moving the goal forward", in a
> practical real-world sense.  Not just "what do they say?", or even "what do
> they believe?", but "what are they trying to actually do?"
>
> PhilB
>
> --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, "GaryT" <garyonthenet@...> wrote:
> >
> > Well then, I guess you will be able to work with 100% of the people and
> politicians, since almost everyone in America is at least 80% libertarian.
> >
> > I would work with anyone who would help move the libertarian cause
> forward, the question is, are the 80%'ers willing to work with libertarians
> - mostly I don't think so.
> >
> > Gary T
> >
> >   ----- Original Message -----
> >   From: Chris Lawless
> >   To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
> >   Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:28 AM
> >   Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non
> FSP posts
> >
> >   ... I would rather an active 80% ally then a purist who is not active
> if it will move the goal forward.
> >
> >   ****************************************
> >
> >   I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!
> And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no
> virtue!
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Well, that's pretty much what I had in mind.  A suggestion, an idea, a possible
theme.

I hadn't taken it any further than that; I've been absurdly busy.  I have
started a good new project, about a year in length, that will finally make it
financially feasible to move to NH, so we're hoping to do so within the next
year or two now.  It's fulltime+, lots of overtime available, and is 60 miles
from home, so I'm pretty much making that happen right now, and not much else.

PhilB

--- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, Tim Condon <tim@...> wrote:
>
> I like the idea, Phil, especially "it's downhill all the way from here."
> What do you have in mind?
> =====
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:07 AM, wolzybk <phil@...> wrote:
>
> > We're coming up on 10,000 signed up.  I do think that it would be a good
> > milestone and worth some promotion when we hit that halfway mark.  When I
> > did events earlier on, one of the things that many people used as an
> > objection was that they thought we'd never get near enough signups.  Of
> > course I always told them that they could help with that by signing up, and
> > if they were right and not enough other people did, then they weren't out
> > anything, or at any risk.  But most of them just weren't willing to sign on
> > to something they didn't see as being likely to ever get anywhere.
> >
> > So I think maybe a halfway, on-the-home-stretch,
> > it's-all-downhill-from-here, sort of campaign might be of some use in
> > showing people that this is really happening, even if it's taking a while.
> >
> > PhilB

The big "if" is the "if it will move the goal forward".  Someone might be 80%,
or 90%, or 99.44% libertarian in his ideas, but if he's actively pursuing the
*other* ideas, then it may not be enough.  Conversely, someone might be 5%
libertarian, but if he is most active on that one freedom-related idea he does
have, then he might well advance the goal.  It's not necessarily about "purity",
but about what it is that person is really trying to accomplish.

A good example of this for me is the Constitution Party.  They call themselves
that, and they sometimes talk a good game of respecting the Constitution.  If
you issued them a libertarian questionnaire, they'd score quite highly on it as
a percentage.  But if you get down to what they really believe and work for,
they believe as a party that the Constitution (and everything else) is
subordinate to the Bible, and that America is a Christian country and should be
governed that way.  Which is a profoundly NON-libertarian idea, yet is the
rock-bottom basis for their belief system.

So while I am perfectly happy to work with that party and the members of it on
common interests, I am very leery of helping them to have enough power and
influence to pursue their full agenda.

These are the sorts of considerations that must be addressed to see if someone
is an asset or a barrier to "moving the goal forward", in a practical real-world
sense.  Not just "what do they say?", or even "what do they believe?", but "what
are they trying to actually do?"

PhilB

--- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, "GaryT" <garyonthenet@...> wrote:
>
> Well then, I guess you will be able to work with 100% of the people and
politicians, since almost everyone in America is at least 80% libertarian.
>
> I would work with anyone who would help move the libertarian cause forward,
the question is, are the 80%'ers willing to work with libertarians - mostly I
don't think so.
>
> Gary T
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Chris Lawless
>   To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:28 AM
>   Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non FSP
posts
>
>   ... I would rather an active 80% ally then a purist who is not active if it
will move the goal forward.
>
>   ****************************************
>
>   I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And
let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

I owe apologies to both Seth Hipple and Adam Mackler; I know and have spoken
with both of them, but their names just didn't come to me when I was
writing! Most definitely, if you need a lawyer, put Seth and Adam at the top
of your list also!  ---Tim C.



On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Jeremy J. Olson <yahoogroups@...>wrote:

> At 2009-12-07T16:17:38-0500, <tim@...> wrote:
>
> > LAWYER: (Rep.) Bill O'Brien (A+ NHLA), who has his office in Concord. He
> has
> > about five cases now pending before the NH state supreme court that have
> > been brought by various libertarians, and is defending at least two
> > Freestaters in the criminal system (not real crimes, of course, but
> things
> > like exercising various individual rights). Also Omer Ahern in Plymouth,
> NH.
> > There are several other young lawyers coming up; I'm not sure Adam Rick
> has
> > graduated and joined the bar, and there are at least a couple of others I
> > know of.
>
> Seth Hipple, Adam Mackler, also.
>
> > REAL ESTATE: There are several Freestater particpants and "friends"
> around
> > the state who are in the real estate business.
>
> Mark Warden, David Walthour, also. I think Mackler is an RE lawyer.
>
> > INTERNET SERVICES: Including web hosting and Internet access:
> Wallnet.com,
> > owned by Bob Hull, who lives in Grafton, the Free Town.
>
> I do web hosting, too. http://www.eprci.com/services.
>
> > WEB SITE DESIGN: Andrew Hemingway, in Bristol, NH.
>
> And this. :) And Ron Helwig, whom I usually work with---he does the
> design (Drupal), I do the hosting. Dan Garthwaite and Mike Barskey also
> do some of this, mostly in Drupal. Dale Everett does WordPress sites.
>
> Linda Lagana and Lou Eastman are the graphic designers we frequently
> work with.
>
> > You know, the Free State Project maybe ought to have some kind of index
> of
> > businesses owned and services offered by libertarians, Freestaters, and
> > other freedom-friendly people. We should keep our money in the family,
> and
> > support those who support what we believe in. --Tim Condon
>
> Amy Winters maintains a "Porcupine directory" similar in nature to this.
>
> --
> Jeremy J. Olson
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Mark,

May I suggest that you join the NHLA now before you move so that you can hit the
ground running. (nhliberty.org)

Also the 'southern' districts have some of the best reps in them.  Many of them
are the most 'fiscally conservative' districts as it seems that most of the
fiscal conservatives  from MA are the ones moving to NH.  There was an article
in the Wall Street Journal (or maybe NYT) talking about the southern NH
districts actually being more conservative.

(and the irony is that as the economy in the North of NH gets worse....they vote
for more fiscally liberal people)

****************************************

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let
me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

--- On Tue, 12/8/09, Mark S. <marksm@...> wrote:

From: Mark S. <marksm@...>
Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non FSP posts
To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 7:47 AM







 









       Tim, or anybody else, coming from a Michigan resident hoping to move to

NH as soon as possible,

I hope that your quote shown below really comes true, but what I hear

and fear is happening is

that NH, in the south particularly, that it is getting a bigger

population moving into it from MA.



I presume that most of those would be trying to escape high prices and

taxes especially, but what

that brings with them is their failed philosophies and politics that we

don't want to infest NH

government with, because of course these people will most likely vote

too. I  realize there is nothing

that can be done to stop that kind of "invasion", except to move as many

liberty activists to NH

as possible, and get them into political office from the bottom to the

top, as soon as they get their

required 2 years of residency in so that they can run for public office,

and that perhaps should be

something else that FSP can work on pro-actively and ahead of time

instead of waiting for their

2 years to come up, we should try to identify prospective office seekers

as they move in and get them

involved in the political machine somehow before they are eligible to

run, such as working on other

campaigns, voicing opinions at school board meetings, city council

meetings etc., just to get their

names out there and people used to it, and we shouldnt delay on any

issue that would help our cause.



I will do what I can from here, that is one reason why I joined FSP

early before my move to NH.



-Mark Smith

  Michigan



Tim Condon wrote:



>

>

> That is, in New Hampshire we will establish a polity where everyone

> will not only be free,

> but wealthy. This will be because the increasing number of

> liberty-activists

> (not just Freestaters, but native NH people and others who are moving into

> the state independent of the FSP) will make the state the *only* sovereign

> political entity in North America where such policies will not only be

> supported, but implemented, to the ultimate betterment of all. That is,

> politics in the Free State will not be driven by envy, hatred, and other

> socialist machinations, but rather will be driven by freedom, capitalism,

> individualism, low taxes, small government, entrepreneurial energy, and an

> absence of bureaucratic control over enterprise and other Human Action.

>

>

>

>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Well then, I guess you will be able to work with 100% of the people and
politicians, since almost everyone in America is at least 80% libertarian.

I would work with anyone who would help move the libertarian cause forward, the
question is, are the 80%'ers willing to work with libertarians - mostly I don't
think so.

Gary T

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Chris Lawless
   To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:28 AM
   Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non FSP posts



   If you don't work with the 80% politically then there is not much you are
going to get done politically (not saying that you are).

   But on both the left and the right.. many libertarians have been working with
the 80%ers to get things moving at the State House..... with some effect. 
Should those 80% be replaced with 90%ers?  95%ers?  YES but there is not enough
people, money, effort here in NH yet.
   So you work with what  you have.

   I would rather an active 80% ally then a purist who is not active if it will
move the goal forward.

   ****************************************

   I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And
let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

   --- On Tue, 12/8/09, GaryT <garyonthenet@...> wrote:

   From: GaryT <garyonthenet@...>
   Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non FSP posts
   To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
   Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 2:52 AM



   Hmmm.

   A lot I agree with of course.

   Although I am not a purist, at least not for the nascent period of political
ascendency and initial growth, but 80% libertarian is not a particularly good
number.

   If I remember correctly almost everyone in America is at least 80%
libertarian; the FSP may have a big net, but I didn't think it was supposed to
be THAT big. You wouldn't need the FSP if that was your standard, since everyone
is already there.

   I love your Hong Kong/PR-China analogy, and I think its a good one. I always
thought that arrangement they had with the UK was weird, the two systems being
so diametrically opposed, China being the landlord but still staying hands off.

   Truly IMO it is the reason China took off in the capitalistic fashion it has;
eventually that capitalism will subsume the human rights and freedom oppression
still endemic to the PRofChina.

   Another tact I always viewed the FSP, was the analogy of a people trying to
get away from some particular oppression, to start their own land. Like the
Mormons, or the Pilgrims, or the Israelis. In this scenario we are trying to
move into an already established infrastructure, so although we don't have all
the same physical survival challenges, we have to morph the existing natives
enough not to be ousted or pariahs.

   Finally I note, again, that you don't publically laud or celebrate the leftist
half of libertarian philosophy; it is at the both ends of political sprectrum
that we demand freedom, both for our pocketbook and for our lifestyle. And
again, it needn't be conservative- libertarian, all it needs to be is
libertarian.

   Gary T

   PS: It is amusing that the only person who came to your defense on the
question of chatter on this list, was me ;^).

   I generally consider my oppositional banter principles based, not personal.

   ----- Original Message -----

   From: Tim Condon

   To: freestateproject@ yahoogroups. com

   Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 4:50 PM

   Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non FSP posts

   Absolutely. Glad to, Gary. Hannan put his finger on a question that is

   dogging the entire political right in America (including capitalists,

   objectivists, right-libertarians, free marketeers, classical liberals,

   libertarian- conservatives, live-and-let- live Republicans, etc.). It is clear

   in my mind at least that as goes New Hampshire, so will ultimately go

   America. This is because New Hampshire will be to America was Hong Kong was

   to China during the Maoist nightmare in the 20th century. That is, in New

   Hampshire we will establish a polity where everyone will not only be free,

   but wealthy. This will be because the increasing number of liberty-activists

   (not just Freestaters, but native NH people and others who are moving into

   the state independent of the FSP) will make the state the *only* sovereign

   political entity in North America where such policies will not only be

   supported, but implemented, to the ultimate betterment of all. That is,

   politics in the Free State will not be driven by envy, hatred, and other

   socialist machinations, but rather will be driven by freedom, capitalism,

   individualism, low taxes, small government, entrepreneurial energy, and an

   absence of bureaucratic control over enterprise and other Human Action.

   However, in order to make this happen, there must be formed an alliance of

   "libertarian- types (I don't include Libertarians as a distinct part of the

   proposed alliance, because they are generally most interested in purity

   rather than success) and "conservatives. " On the former (libertarian) side

   (and Hannan points some of them out) are social liberals, free market

   activists, some libertarian- conservatives, Objectivists, some anarchists,

   voluntaryists, agorists, classical liberals, and others. On the latter

   (conservative) side are social conservatives, the anti-abortion movement,

   Constitutionalists, Christians and other people of faith, traditional

   conservatives, fusionists, "main streeters" who understand economics, 2nd

   Amendment activists, some libertarian conservatives, entrepreneurs who want

   to be left alone to grow the economy, education activists, home-schoolers,

   and others.

   If the Free State Project is to be successful, an alliance of all the above

   must be welded together in order to wield electoral power. The truth is that

   most of the above types of people agree on *most *issues (like 80% or more).

   If we can create a fusion of all of the above groups---a process which is

   well underway in NH---then all the surging power of the socialist Left will

   be unable to dislodge or defeat us (as long as elections aren't cancelled,

   which is a favorite tactic of the Left once they gain power). So...as I

   said, British MP Daniel Hannan put his finger on an issue that we

   Freestaters should be aware of and discussing. Doubtless there are many

   people on this list who will want to expostulate on how one group or another

   could *never* be part of a grand alliance (especially the libertarian

   purists). On the other hand, the rest of us need to be very clear that the

   Free State is a big-tent polity, and that everyone who believes in a few

   basic precepts (low taxes, very small government, individual freedom, free

   enterprise, 2nd Amendment rights, and belief in the Constitution and the

   Bill of Rights should cover it) should be part of that alliance. It's the

   only way we can win in New Hampshire, and keep the flame of capitalism and

   freedom alive as the rest of the United States slide down into the cesspool

   of socialism and fascism.

   See? ---Tim Condon

   On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:55 PM, GaryT <garyonthenet@ yahoo.com> wrote:

   > Tim:

   >

   > Could you give more detail on this one? Danial Hannan as it relates to FSP

   >

   > Gary T

   >

   > ----- Original Message -----

   > From: Tim Condon

   > To: freestateproject@ yahoogroups. com

   > Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 10:58 AM

   > Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non FSP

   > posts

   >

   >

   >

   > Yes! One way to do that would be to examine and discuss the question of

   > whether both conservatives and libertarians (each in all their varying

   > types) are good fits for the FSP, starting with the Daniel Hannan column

   > applied to the Free State Project. Yes?

   >

   > On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Chris Lawless <dreepa@yahoo. com> wrote:

   >

   > > Maybe this will incent the 1000 people on this list to come up with

   > ideas:

   > >

   > > 1. How to recruit more people to MOVE to NH ASAP.

   > > 2. How to recruit more people to JOIN the FSP.

   > > 3. How to help spread the word about the FSP.

   > > 4. How we can increase the number of people volunteering for the FSP to

   > > help the 3 items above.

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > > ************ ********* ********* ********* *

   > >

   > > I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!

   > And

   > > let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no

   > > virtue!

   > >

   > > --- On Sun, 12/6/09, Ron Helwig <ronhelwig@gmail. com> wrote:

   > >

   > > From: Ron Helwig <ronhelwig@gmail. com>

   > > Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Moderators: please do your job - too many non FSP

   > > posts

   > > To: freestateproject@ yahoogroups. com

   > > Date: Sunday, December 6, 2009, 6:57 AM

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > > On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 7:43 AM, Tim Condon <tim@timcondon. net>

   > > wrote:

   > >

   > > >

   > >

   > > > I must say, this list has gone for months, if not years, with no

   > > discussion.

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > > That's one of the good properties of lists: when there's nothing

   > >

   > > important going on related to it, you aren't having your time wasted

   > >

   > > by maintaining a relationship with it. I vastly prefer that my lists

   > >

   > > remain "moribund" when there isn't anything relevant going on related

   > >

   > > to their topic, so I can concentrate on other stuff. When something

   > >

   > > important and related comes up, the list revives and reenters my

   > >

   > > awareness.

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > > Ron Helwig

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > > ------------ --------- --------- ------

   > >

   > > Yahoo! Groups Links

   > >

   > >

   > >

   > >

   >

   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

   >

   >

   >

   >

   >

   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

   >

   >

   >

   > ------------ --------- --------- ------

   >

   > Yahoo! Groups Links

   >

   >

   >

   >

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Tim, or anybody else, coming from a Michigan resident hoping to move to
NH as soon as possible,
I hope that your quote shown below really comes true, but what I hear
and fear is happening is
that NH, in the south particularly, that it is getting a bigger
population moving into it from MA.

I presume that most of those would be trying to escape high prices and
taxes especially, but what
that brings with them is their failed philosophies and politics that we
don't want to infest NH
government with, because of course these people will most likely vote
too. I  realize there is nothing
that can be done to stop that kind of "invasion", except to move as many
liberty activists to NH
as possible, and get them into political office from the bottom to the
top, as soon as they get their
required 2 years of residency in so that they can run for public office,
and that perhaps should be
something else that FSP can work on pro-actively and ahead of time
instead of waiting for their
2 years to come up, we should try to identify prospective office seekers
as they move in and get them
involved in the political machine somehow before they are eligible to
run, such as working on other
campaigns, voicing opinions at school board meetings, city council
meetings etc., just to get their
names out there and people used to it, and we shouldnt delay on any
issue that would help our cause.

I will do what I can from here, that is one reason why I joined FSP
early before my move to NH.

-Mark Smith
  Michigan



Tim Condon wrote:

>
>
> That is, in New Hampshire we will establish a polity where everyone
> will not only be free,
> but wealthy. This will be because the increasing number of
> liberty-activists
> (not just Freestaters, but native NH people and others who are moving into
> the state independent of the FSP) will make the state the *only* sovereign
> political entity in North America where such policies will not only be
> supported, but implemented, to the ultimate betterment of all. That is,
> politics in the Free State will not be driven by envy, hatred, and other
> socialist machinations, but rather will be driven by freedom, capitalism,
> individualism, low taxes, small government, entrepreneurial energy, and an
> absence of bureaucratic control over enterprise and other Human Action.
>
>
>
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 2009-12-07T16:17:38-0500, <tim@...> wrote:

> LAWYER: (Rep.) Bill O'Brien (A+ NHLA), who has his office in Concord. He has
> about five cases now pending before the NH state supreme court that have
> been brought by various libertarians, and is defending at least two
> Freestaters in the criminal system (not real crimes, of course, but things
> like exercising various individual rights). Also Omer Ahern in Plymouth, NH.
> There are several other young lawyers coming up; I'm not sure Adam Rick has
> graduated and joined the bar, and there are at least a couple of others I
> know of.

Seth Hipple, Adam Mackler, also.

> REAL ESTATE: There are several Freestater particpants and "friends" around
> the state who are in the real estate business.

Mark Warden, David Walthour, also. I think Mackler is an RE lawyer.

> INTERNET SERVICES: Including web hosting and Internet access: Wallnet.com,
> owned by Bob Hull, who lives in Grafton, the Free Town.

I do web hosting, too. http://www.eprci.com/services.

> WEB SITE DESIGN: Andrew Hemingway, in Bristol, NH.

And this. :) And Ron Helwig, whom I usually work with---he does the
design (Drupal), I do the hosting. Dan Garthwaite and Mike Barskey also
do some of this, mostly in Drupal. Dale Everett does WordPress sites.

Linda Lagana and Lou Eastman are the graphic designers we frequently
work with.

> You know, the Free State Project maybe ought to have some kind of index of
> businesses owned and services offered by libertarians, Freestaters, and
> other freedom-friendly people. We should keep our money in the family, and
> support those who support what we believe in. --Tim Condon

Amy Winters maintains a "Porcupine directory" similar in nature to this.

--
Jeremy J. Olson