Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Elizabeth's approach

Expand Messages
  • Invent Yourself
    I don t have cable and so missed Elizabeth s recent appearance, but judging from the reaction and reports, I strongly support her approach, and I denounce the
    Message 1 of 27 , Apr 29, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      I don't have cable and so missed Elizabeth's recent appearance, but
      judging from the reaction and reports, I strongly support her approach,
      and I denounce the belligerent, politically naive idea that we would be
      more successful if we did the job of our enemies for them, and smeared
      ourselves as the bringers of crack, whores, and crackwhores.

      Further, we'd be better received if we think of ourselves as less an
      ideological invasion force, and more an injection of fresh ideas into the
      public local debate. Ready to integrate with and learn from our new
      neighbors how best to introduce market forces to solve local issues,
      instead of imposing our external, rigid, pre-cooked dogmatic agenda on the
      good folk.

      We need a crash course in how to do grassroots political work. Most of the
      work comes from the Left, and anyone who wants to learn must read
      Communist sources and adapt them. That's because libertarians have not
      been any good at it since the American Revolution. Which is why the
      Marxists ended up with half the planet, and we hardly have the numbers to
      even influence (let alone overthrow) a single district. (This is a bit
      paradoxical, because the hardcore dogmatists will refuse to accept that
      there is anything of value to learn from impure, non-libertarian sources.
      But offtopic flames against Marxism by people who have no clue what I'm
      saying will most definitely be ignored.)

      I'd rather live in a 1/2 libertarian state than any current one. Would
      you? Let's get it to 50% then, first, before getting it to 100%.
      Successful political movements are driven by the extremist preachers, but
      their gains are only materialized by the moderates.

      This may come as a surprise to those of you who never leave the rarified
      airs of Libertarianism, but to the soccer moms of the American Street,
      laws "protecting" their children from drugs and their husbands from
      prostitutes are not their primary beef with government! I know, it's hard
      to imagine how twisted some people are out there, isn't it? They're
      actually more concerned with high taxes soaking the middle and lower
      classes in a time of economic recession, and with the web of legislating
      impeding small business owners from making an honest living.



      --
      In an opinion poll conducted in early March by Zogby, 97% of
      Saudis said they had an unfavorable opinion of the US.

      "I think that underestimates it," said Awardh Badhi, a political
      scientist with the Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies.
    • delcomico
      Again, however, IF WE: (A) Have no stated goals, aside from liberty platitudes, and no platform; (B) Call ourselves libertarians ; (C) Have, among us, many
      Message 2 of 27 , Apr 29, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Again, however, IF WE:

        (A) Have no stated goals, aside from liberty platitudes, and no
        platform;

        (B) Call ourselves 'libertarians';

        (C) Have, among us, many passionate and outspoken libertarians who want
        to eliminate "victimless crimes" (i.e., legalize all drugs, smut, and
        prostitution);

        -then-

        (D) Are we not, by proxy, already telling the state we will invade
        that we will be the bringers of 'crack, whores, and crackwhores'?


        I'm not trying to stir up arguments here, but it seems clear to me that
        the Free State Project does not--at this writing--have a firm idea of
        what it wants to be. Even liberal socialists call themselves "freedom
        advocates", so the platitudes by themselves are not worth a bucket of
        warm horsespit.

        There is no logic in saying "let's be stealth libertarians and sneak all
        our ideas up on 'em". Especially while we are calling ourselves
        libertarians openly on our home page, and in all our writings.

        My suggestion:

        (1) If we are going to be libertarians, let us be unapologetic, honest,
        up front, in-your-face libertarians.

        (2) If we are going to be something else, let us define what the
        something else IS and put it on paper, and in cyberspace--so that
        everyone will see what we do and do not stand for. This is called
        'clarity' and 'honesty'.
        It will help, not hurt, our cause.


        --Kev
      • Jason P Sorens
        ... Actually, B is not the case; we ve never said that this is a libertarian project, though you might say that it in fact is. We ve avoided applying a
        Message 3 of 27 , Apr 29, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, delcomico wrote:

          > Again, however, IF WE:
          >
          > (A) Have no stated goals, aside from liberty platitudes, and no
          > platform;
          >
          > (B) Call ourselves 'libertarians';
          >
          > (C) Have, among us, many passionate and outspoken libertarians who want
          > to eliminate "victimless crimes" (i.e., legalize all drugs, smut, and
          > prostitution);

          Actually, "B" is not the case; we've never said that this is a
          "libertarian" project, though you might say that it in fact is. We've
          avoided applying a single ideological label to ourselves because there are
          a lot of libertarians out there who don't like to call themselves that.
          (Witness the "Voluntarism" article recently added to the website.)

          Eventually we want to legalize all drugs for adults. We don't have to run
          from that. But when we do say that, we have to make clear all the
          nuances and context of the libertarian position: that sequencing matters,
          that concomitant reforms are necessary (such as allowing property owners
          to discriminate against drug users), that kids are different from adults
          and require special protections, and that we are politically astute. In
          a short interview it's very difficult to state all that context, so best
          to leave the details a little vague, while making clear our general
          philosophy.

          As an aside, as a hardcore libertarian, if I were watching a program and a
          libertarian advocate simply said, "All drugs must be legalized," I would
          know what he meant but I would not want to join whatever he's pushing
          because he's not very articulate or savvy. To get quality libertarian
          activists (yes, even the hardcore kind), we have to show the subtlety of
          our thought and the ability to avoid media traps. Otherwise we're just
          another pack of ideologues in la-la land.

          ___________________________________________________________________________

          Jason P Sorens - jason.sorensATyale.edu - <http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35>

          <http://www.freestateproject.org> - Do you want liberty in your lifetime?
        • Amanda Phillips
          Whoa, there. Check your peremises! I take issue with A, B, and C. ... no ... The Free State Project is a plan in which 20,000 or more liberty-oriented people
          Message 4 of 27 , Apr 29, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Whoa, there. Check your peremises! I take issue with A, B, and
            C.

            Kevin wrote:
            >Again, however, IF WE:
            >
            >(A) Have no stated goals, aside from liberty platitudes, and
            no
            >platform;

            "The Free State Project is a plan in which 20,000 or more
            liberty-oriented people will move to a single state of the
            U.S., where they may work within the political system to
            reduce the size and scope of government."

            Getting 20,000 people to move is a clear, specific, stated
            goal.

            >(B) Call ourselves 'libertarians';

            But we don't call ourselves 'libertarians.' I am an anarchist.
            I think Tim C is a Republican. And there are a lot of people
            who consider themselves libertarian. That's OK with me... I'm
            happy that you Republicans and Libertarians will be moving to
            my Free State because I think you want most of the same things
            that I want. If we ever get to the point where we're arguing
            amongst ourselves about whether or not we should privatize the
            police force, I'll be a happy little anarchist.

            >(C) Have, among us, many passionate and outspoken
            libertarians who want
            >to eliminate "victimless crimes" (i.e., legalize all drugs,
            smut, and
            >prostitution);

            I don't know if a lot of the Porcupines actually want this. I
            certainly do, but I can't make that claim for all 3,000+
            members. I don't think these e-mail lists are a representative
            sample of the 3,000+ members. How many people post to the
            lists... maybe a few hundred?

            >-then-
            >
            >(D) Are we not, by proxy, already telling the state we will
            invade
            >that we will be the bringers of 'crack, whores, and
            crackwhores'?

            Since I take issue with A, B, and C, I don't need to tell you
            that I think D is wrong.

            Also, I *hate* the word "invade." We want freedom, not an
            invasion.

            Peace,
            Amanda

            http://amanda42.livejournal.com
            Peace,

            Amanda

            amanda@...
            http://amanda42.livejournal.com
          • Gary Snyder
            ... be ... smeared ... We don t HAVE enemies yet. All we have is 3,500 out of a necessary 20,000, thus our only objective at his point is to recruit the
            Message 5 of 27 , Apr 29, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Invent wrote:
              >
              > and I denounce the belligerent, politically naive idea that we would
              be
              > more successful if we did the job of our enemies for them, and
              smeared
              > ourselves as the bringers of crack, whores, and crackwhores.

              We don't HAVE enemies yet. All we have is 3,500 out of a necessary
              20,000, thus our only objective at his point is to recruit the
              remaining 16,500, "enemies" be damned.

              > Further, we'd be better received if we think of ourselves as less an
              > ideological invasion force,

              We're probable YEARS away from needing to even think about how to
              be best received.

              > This may come as a surprise to those of you who never leave the
              rarified
              > airs of Libertarianism, but to the soccer moms of the American
              Street,
              > laws "protecting" their children from drugs and their husbands from
              > prostitutes are not their primary beef with government! I know, it's
              hard
              > to imagine how twisted some people are out there, isn't it? They're
              > actually more concerned with high taxes soaking the middle and lower
              > classes in a time of economic recession, and with the web of
              legislating
              > impeding small business owners from making an honest living.

              This may come as a surprise to conservatives (an educated guess)
              like you, but there might be MORE soccer moms out there who
              think they don't pay enough in taxes, and are actually more
              concerned that a husband or brother or son is in jail for a
              non-violent drug offense.

              I thought the FSP wisely concluded at its creation that it
              wouldn't waste its time trying to appeal to EITHER ilk.

              Gary
            • Zack Bass
              ... Wrong. I do agree that property owners (and leasers and renters) ought to be allowed to discriminate against anyone they please on that property. But it is
              Message 6 of 27 , Apr 30, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, Jason P Sorens
                <jason.sorens@y...> wrote:
                >
                > ... we have to make clear all the
                > nuances and context of the libertarian position: that sequencing
                > matters, that concomitant reforms are necessary (such as allowing
                > property owners to discriminate against drug users),
                >

                Wrong.
                I do agree that property owners (and leasers and renters) ought to be
                allowed to discriminate against anyone they please on that property.
                But it is immoral to imprison someone for buying or selling drugs,
                regardless of any other Law; just as it is immoral to imprison aomeone
                for carrying a weapon, regardless of any other Law.

                Would you have us hold off on abolishing State Gun Laws until property
                owners are given the right to discriminate against gun owners?

                Wrong is wrong. When you can stop the madness, do so. Just Say No.
              • Tim Condon
                ... Tim chimes in: And we don t need a platform because we re not a political organization. The job of the Free State Project is to get to 5,000 members,
                Message 7 of 27 , Apr 30, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  >Kevin wrote: >Again, however, IF WE:
                  > >>(A) Have no stated goals, aside from liberty platitudes, and no platform;
                  >
                  >Amanda said: "The Free State Project is a plan in which 20,000 or more
                  >liberty-oriented people will move to a single state of the U.S., where
                  >they may work within the political system to reduce the size and scope of
                  >government." Getting 20,000 people to move is a clear, specific, stated goal.

                  Tim chimes in: And we don't need a "platform" because we're not a
                  "political" organization. The job of the Free State Project is to get to
                  5,000 members, hold a vote to choose the Freestate, and then get 20,000
                  squalling liberty-lovers together to start the migration. "Politics"
                  doesn't enter into it, thank goodness, or we'd all spend all our time
                  fighting amongst ourselves (not that we're not doing that to some degree
                  already.... ;--) )

                  >Kevin said: (B) Call ourselves 'libertarians';
                  >
                  >Amanda said: But we don't call ourselves 'libertarians.' I am an
                  >anarchist. I think Tim C is a Republican. And there are a lot of people
                  >who consider themselves libertarian. That's OK with me... I'm happy that
                  >you Republicans and Libertarians will be moving to my Free State because I
                  >think you want most of the same things that I want. If we ever get to the
                  >point where we're arguing amongst ourselves about whether or not we should
                  >privatize the police force, I'll be a happy little anarchist.

                  Tim chimes in: Yep, I'm a registered Republican, and what I'd call
                  a "conservative libertarian." It's worth noting that there are plenty of
                  freedom-loving *non*-libertarians, both in the world and in the FSP. To
                  coin a phrase, we have a "big tent." All you have to do to comport with the
                  goals of the FSP is believe in individual freedom and support the ultimate
                  reduction in size of state government by 2/3 or more (more, in my case).

                  >Kevin said: >(C) Have, among us, many passionate and outspoken
                  >libertarians who want to eliminate "victimless crimes" (i.e., legalize all
                  >drugs, smut, and prostitution);
                  >
                  >Amanda said: I don't know if a lot of the Porcupines actually want this. I
                  >certainly do, but I can't make that claim for all 3,000+ members. I don't
                  >think these e-mail lists are a representative sample of the 3,000+
                  >members. How many people post to the lists... maybe a few hundred?

                  Tim chimes in: In fact, some Porcupines do *not* want to abolish
                  what some of us call "victimless crime laws." Why? Because they disagree
                  that such crimes are "victimless." The ultimate call will be made by the
                  people of the Freestate, acting through elections and their duly elected
                  representatives.

                  >Kevin said: >-then- >>(D) Are we not, by proxy, already telling the state
                  >we will invade that we will be the bringers of 'crack, whores, and
                  >crackwhores'?
                  >
                  >Amanda said: Since I take issue with A, B, and C, I don't need to tell you
                  >that I think D is wrong. Also, I *hate* the word "invade." We want
                  >freedom, not an invasion.
                  >Peace,
                  >Amanda

                  Tim chimes in: Agree strongly with Amanda, even though she's a
                  dangerous anarchist. (joak, joak!)
                • Jason P Sorens
                  ... Really? Do you think so? I haven t seen anyone like that. There s one guy on the forum who opposes legalizing heroin, but he s not a member.
                  Message 8 of 27 , Apr 30, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Tim Condon wrote:

                    > Tim chimes in: In fact, some Porcupines do *not* want to abolish
                    > what some of us call "victimless crime laws."

                    Really? Do you think so? I haven't seen anyone like that. There's one
                    guy on the forum who opposes legalizing heroin, but he's not a member.

                    ___________________________________________________________________________

                    Jason P Sorens - jason.sorensATyale.edu - <http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35>

                    <http://www.freestateproject.org> - Do you want liberty in your lifetime?
                  • Tim Condon
                    ... I have seen posts in the Christian FSP email list worrying that the FSP is going too libertarian, IIRC. There are libertarian-conservatives in the FSP, I
                    Message 9 of 27 , Apr 30, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > > Tim chimes in: In fact, some Porcupines do *not* want to abolish
                      > > what some of us call "victimless crime laws."
                      >
                      >Really? Do you think so? I haven't seen anyone like that. There's one
                      >guy on the forum who opposes legalizing heroin, but he's not a member.

                      I have seen posts in the Christian FSP email list worrying that
                      the FSP is going "too libertarian," IIRC. There are
                      libertarian-conservatives in the FSP, I believe, who would not agree with
                      legalizing "all" recreational drugs. --Tim C.
                    • Gary Snyder
                      ... (and then...) ... ultimate ... case). That IS a platform . And if the members of the FSP don t agree on HOW to reduce govt size by 2/3 (meaning, WHICH
                      Message 10 of 27 , Apr 30, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Tim wrote:
                        >
                        > And we don't need a "platform" because we're not a
                        > "political" organization.

                        (and then...)

                        > All you have to do to comport with the
                        > goals of the FSP is believe in individual freedom and support the
                        ultimate
                        > reduction in size of state government by 2/3 or more (more, in my
                        case).

                        That IS a "platform".

                        And if the members of the FSP don't agree on HOW to reduce govt size
                        by 2/3 (meaning, WHICH govt programs to eliminate) this "platform"
                        is useless and this project destined to fail miserably.

                        If this isn't already clear: if some of us want to end victimless
                        crimes, and some don't; if some want to eliminate govt schools, and
                        some don't; if some want to eliminate govt welfare, and some don't,
                        etc., this simply will not work.

                        > In fact, some Porcupines do *not* want to abolish
                        > what some of us call "victimless crime laws."

                        If this is the case (and "some" number more than a couple) then I AM
                        in the wrong organization. (I'd feel no different if you told me
                        that some Porcupines do not want to reduce taxes drastically.)

                        > I am a "conservative libertarian".

                        How, exactly, do you distinguish between a conservative libertarian
                        and a libertarian?

                        Gary
                      • delcomico
                        ... From: Tim Condon [mailto:tcondon@freestateproject.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 11:50 PM To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [FSP] The
                        Message 11 of 27 , May 1, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Tim Condon [mailto:tcondon@...]
                          Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 11:50 PM
                          To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: RE: [FSP] The problem with no platform.


                          > > Tim chimes in: In fact, some Porcupines do *not* want to
                          abolish
                          > > what some of us call "victimless crime laws."
                          >
                          >Really? Do you think so? I haven't seen anyone like that. There's
                          one
                          >guy on the forum who opposes legalizing heroin, but he's not a member.

                          I have seen posts in the Christian FSP email list worrying that

                          the FSP is going "too libertarian," IIRC. There are
                          libertarian-conservatives in the FSP, I believe, who would not agree
                          with
                          legalizing "all" recreational drugs. --Tim C.


                          I'm a libertarian-conservative and I favor legalizing all recreational
                          drugs. It shouldn't be implemented overnight, but there could be a
                          definite move to deconstruct the War On Drugs. We could start by
                          decriminalizing marijuana (in all contexts, not just for chronically ill
                          medical patients).

                          --Kev




                          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          freestateproject-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        • delcomico
                          ... From: Gary Snyder [mailto:gary@garysnyder.org] Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 12:54 AM To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [FSP] The problem
                          Message 12 of 27 , May 1, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: Gary Snyder [mailto:gary@...]
                            Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 12:54 AM
                            To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: RE: [FSP] The problem with no platform.

                            Tim wrote:
                            >
                            > And we don't need a "platform" because we're not a
                            > "political" organization.

                            (and then...)

                            > All you have to do to comport with the
                            > goals of the FSP is believe in individual freedom and support the
                            ultimate
                            > reduction in size of state government by 2/3 or more (more, in my
                            case).

                            That IS a "platform".>

                            Yes, it is--it's just a very unclear and nebulous one. I think we need
                            one that is more specific.


                            <And if the members of the FSP don't agree on HOW to reduce govt size
                            by 2/3 (meaning, WHICH govt programs to eliminate) this "platform"
                            is useless and this project destined to fail miserably.

                            If this isn't already clear: if some of us want to end victimless
                            crimes, and some don't; if some want to eliminate govt schools, and
                            some don't; if some want to eliminate govt welfare, and some don't,
                            etc., this simply will not work.>>

                            Well, it CAN work if we develop our political ideas (including
                            compromises in position) into a solid base. That's one reason we need a
                            real platform. Because we seem to have one camp that thinks almost ANY
                            limitations on human behavior are tyranny, and we have another camp that
                            is afraid to even refer to the Free State Project as a "political
                            organization".

                            If we don't know who we are and what we stand for, how will we effect
                            change with others..? What do we stand for?

                            And just saying "Liberty" is not a valid answer, in my opinion. Everyone
                            in the political spectrum, from Ralph Nader to Jerry Falwell, will say
                            that he stands for Liberty. George W. Bush and John Ashcroft say that
                            they stand for Freedom and Liberty.

                            --Kev
                          • Gary Snyder
                            ... and a ... government; I ... chance for ... say); I ... national ... against ... religion; and ... board; I ... respect to ... notion of ... hah? Of ...
                            Message 13 of 27 , May 1, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Tim wrote:
                              >
                              >>> I am a "conservative libertarian".
                              >>
                              >> How, exactly, do you distinguish between a conservative libertarian
                              and a
                              >> libertarian?
                              >> Gary
                              >
                              > I'm not an anarchist, I believe in a small, limited
                              government; I
                              > am quite patriotic, and believe that America is the last, best
                              chance for
                              > the world to show how to have widespread freedom and justice (the
                              > "original" America, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, I should
                              say); I
                              > support a very strong, but light and fast-moving military for
                              national
                              > defense; I believe that the nuclear family is the main bulwark
                              against
                              > unhinged statism; I believe strongly in religion, particularly the
                              > Christian religion, and am very pro-church and pro-organized-
                              religion; and
                              > I am very much in favor of individualism and capitalism across the
                              board; I
                              > abhor those who advocate violence to achieve political ends with
                              respect to
                              > the struggle for freedom in America, and I explicitly reject the
                              notion of
                              > secession, as does the Free Sttate Project. Pretty conservative,
                              hah? Of
                              > course I hold all the other standard libertarian positions, but I
                              mention
                              > those above to distinguish me from the anarchists and
                              > left-libertarians. --Tim Condon

                              Not all libertarians are anarchists. You sound pretty mainstream
                              libertarian to me.

                              Gary

                              P.S. My take is that the FSP does not explicitly reject the notion of
                              secession, but sees it as a last resort.
                            • delcomico
                              Even the word libertarian can cover a lot of territory. Consider that we have two famous talk show hosts---Neal Boortz and Bill Maher--who call themselves
                              Message 14 of 27 , May 1, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Even the word "libertarian" can cover a lot of territory. Consider that
                                we have two famous talk show hosts---Neal Boortz and Bill Maher--who
                                call themselves 'libertarians', and they are both cogs of the Republican
                                and Democratic parties, respectively. Boortz is a flag-waving Bushie.
                                Maher is a gun control advocate who has attended Democratic fundraisers.
                                How very liberty-oriented.

                                That's why--regardless of whether or not we wear the 'LIBERTARIAN'
                                label--I feel we do need a statement of political goals and objectives.
                                We will soon determine the state that is chosen--are we going to wait
                                until that point to discuss, in detail, what our political objectives
                                are going to be? If ever?

                                Is it even fair to those who will sacrifice their homes to this
                                movement, to sell the sizzle ("Liberty in our lifetime!") when there is
                                no steak..?

                                --Kev



                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: Tim Condon [mailto:tcondon@...]
                                Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 4:39 PM
                                To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: RE: [FSP] The problem with no platform.


                                > > I am a "conservative libertarian".
                                >
                                >How, exactly, do you distinguish between a conservative libertarian and
                                a
                                >libertarian?
                                >Gary

                                I'm not an anarchist, I believe in a small, limited government;
                                I
                                am quite patriotic, and believe that America is the last, best chance
                                for
                                the world to show how to have widespread freedom and justice (the
                                "original" America, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, I should
                                say); I
                                support a very strong, but light and fast-moving military for national
                                defense; I believe that the nuclear family is the main bulwark against
                                unhinged statism; I believe strongly in religion, particularly the
                                Christian religion, and am very pro-church and pro-organized-religion;
                                and
                                I am very much in favor of individualism and capitalism across the
                                board; I
                                abhor those who advocate violence to achieve political ends with respect
                                to
                                the struggle for freedom in America, and I explicitly reject the notion
                                of
                                secession, as does the Free Sttate Project. Pretty conservative, hah? Of

                                course I hold all the other standard libertarian positions, but I
                                mention
                                those above to distinguish me from the anarchists and
                                left-libertarians. --Tim Condon




                                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                freestateproject-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                              • Tim Condon
                                ... I m not an anarchist, I believe in a small, limited government; I am quite patriotic, and believe that America is the last, best chance for the world to
                                Message 15 of 27 , May 1, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  > > I am a "conservative libertarian".
                                  >
                                  >How, exactly, do you distinguish between a conservative libertarian and a
                                  >libertarian?
                                  >Gary

                                  I'm not an anarchist, I believe in a small, limited government; I
                                  am quite patriotic, and believe that America is the last, best chance for
                                  the world to show how to have widespread freedom and justice (the
                                  "original" America, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, I should say); I
                                  support a very strong, but light and fast-moving military for national
                                  defense; I believe that the nuclear family is the main bulwark against
                                  unhinged statism; I believe strongly in religion, particularly the
                                  Christian religion, and am very pro-church and pro-organized-religion; and
                                  I am very much in favor of individualism and capitalism across the board; I
                                  abhor those who advocate violence to achieve political ends with respect to
                                  the struggle for freedom in America, and I explicitly reject the notion of
                                  secession, as does the Free Sttate Project. Pretty conservative, hah? Of
                                  course I hold all the other standard libertarian positions, but I mention
                                  those above to distinguish me from the anarchists and
                                  left-libertarians. --Tim Condon
                                • Kelly Setzer
                                  ... Yes, it is fair. I don t like steak, I d much prefer a hamburger. Most of all, don t try to make me eat something I don t like. I will move to wherever
                                  Message 16 of 27 , May 1, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 04:13:47PM -0500, delcomico wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Is it even fair to those who will sacrifice their homes to this
                                    > movement, to sell the sizzle ("Liberty in our lifetime!") when there is
                                    > no steak..?
                                    >

                                    Yes, it is fair. I don't like steak, I'd much prefer a hamburger.
                                    Most of all, don't try to make me eat something I don't like. I will
                                    move to wherever for some sizzle so long as I'm left alone to grill my
                                    own hamburger.

                                    In recruiting "liberty minded" individuals, all the FSP asks is that
                                    you attend the barbecue. If the FSP suddenly changes course and
                                    starts enumerating a political platform, I believe that it will have a
                                    negative impact on recruitment efforts and may cause a rift among the
                                    current FSP agreement signatories.

                                    Kelly
                                    --
                                    Res ipsa loquitur - the affair speaks for itself.
                                  • delcomico
                                    No kidding! Anything to make me a liar, it seems. Good to hear. ;-) --Kev ... From: Tim Condon [mailto:tcondon@freestateproject.org] Sent: Thursday, May 01,
                                    Message 17 of 27 , May 1, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      No kidding! Anything to make me a liar, it seems. Good to hear. ;-)

                                      --Kev

                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: Tim Condon [mailto:tcondon@...]
                                      Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 10:02 PM
                                      To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: RE: [FSP] The problem with no platform.

                                      At 04:13 PM 5/1/2003 -0500, you wrote:
                                      >Even the word "libertarian" can cover a lot of territory. Consider that
                                      >we have two famous talk show hosts---Neal Boortz and Bill Maher--who
                                      >call themselves 'libertarians', and they are both cogs of the
                                      Republican
                                      >and Democratic parties, respectively. Boortz is a flag-waving Bushie.
                                      >Maher is a gun control advocate who has attended Democratic
                                      fundraisers.
                                      >How very liberty-oriented.

                                      Bill Maher is a collectivist pig, no doubt about it. But Boortz

                                      *is* a libertarian, as anyone can tell if they listen to his program.
                                      Incidentally, he talked about the Free State Project for about 20
                                      minutes
                                      today, took calls from two Porcs (including me), and outright endorsed
                                      the
                                      project, saying he thought it could work. "Build me a studio and I'll be

                                      right there with you!" he said. ---Tim Condon




                                      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                      freestateproject-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                                      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                    • Mike Lorrey
                                      ... I would instead describe it as spreading by word of mouth that this restaurant has the best damn steak in the universe among closet meat lovers in a world
                                      Message 18 of 27 , May 1, 2003
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- Kelly Setzer <kelly.setzer@...> wrote:
                                        > On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 04:13:47PM -0500, delcomico wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > > Is it even fair to those who will sacrifice their homes to this
                                        > > movement, to sell the sizzle ("Liberty in our lifetime!") when
                                        > > there is no steak..?
                                        > >
                                        >
                                        > Yes, it is fair. I don't like steak, I'd much prefer a hamburger.
                                        > Most of all, don't try to make me eat something I don't like. I will
                                        > move to wherever for some sizzle so long as I'm left alone to grill
                                        > my own hamburger.

                                        I would instead describe it as spreading by word of mouth that this
                                        restaurant has the best damn steak in the universe among closet meat
                                        lovers in a world of vegans. The public front of the restaurant is that
                                        they have an excellent vegan menu with soy based "meat" entrees. The
                                        vegans have never tasted soy steak that is so great before. They don't
                                        realize they are eating the real thing until it is far too late...

                                        =====
                                        Mike Lorrey
                                        "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                        - Gen. John Stark
                                        "Pacifists are Objectively Pro-Fascist." - George Orwell
                                        "Treason doth never Prosper. What is the Reason?
                                        For if it Prosper, none Dare call it Treason..." - Ovid

                                        __________________________________
                                        Do you Yahoo!?
                                        The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
                                        http://search.yahoo.com
                                      • Tim Condon
                                        ... I am too Kev, and I agree with you. But we re not going to get away from federal anti-drug statutes. All we can do in any event is abolish such laws on the
                                        Message 19 of 27 , May 1, 2003
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          >Tim chimes in: In fact, some Porcupines do *not* want to abolish what some
                                          >of us call "victimless crime laws."

                                          > >Really? Do you think so? I haven't seen anyone like that. There's one
                                          > guy on the forum who opposes legalizing heroin, but he's not a member.
                                          >
                                          > I have seen posts in the Christian FSP email list worrying that
                                          > the FSP is going "too libertarian," IIRC. There
                                          > are libertarian-conservatives in the FSP, I believe, who would not agree
                                          >with legalizing "all" recreational drugs. --Tim C.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >I'm a libertarian-conservative and I favor legalizing all recreational
                                          >drugs. It shouldn't be implemented overnight, but there could be a
                                          >definite move to deconstruct the War On Drugs. We could start by
                                          >decriminalizing marijuana (in all contexts, not just for chronically ill
                                          >medical patients).
                                          >
                                          >--Kev

                                          I am too Kev, and I agree with you. But we're not going to get
                                          away from federal anti-drug statutes. All we can do in any event is abolish
                                          such laws on the state level. Which most likely will be done (since the FSP
                                          isn't a political organization, it's ultimately up to the people of the
                                          Freestate and their elected representatives, yes?). --Tim Condon
                                        • Mike Lorrey
                                          ... One of the great things about a libertarian society is that true liberty is the default state. If voluntary consensual groups of individuals wish to
                                          Message 20 of 27 , May 1, 2003
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            --- Tim Condon <tcondon@...> wrote:
                                            > At 04:13 PM 5/1/2003 -0500, you wrote:
                                            > >Even the word "libertarian" can cover a lot of territory. Consider
                                            > >that we have two famous talk show hosts---Neal Boortz and Bill
                                            > >Maher--who call themselves 'libertarians', and they are both cogs
                                            > > of the Republican and Democratic parties, respectively. Boortz is
                                            > > a flag-waving Bushie. Maher is a gun control advocate who has
                                            > >attended Democratic fundraisers. How very liberty-oriented.
                                            >
                                            > Bill Maher is a collectivist pig, no doubt about it. But
                                            > Boortz *is* a libertarian, as anyone can tell if they listen to his
                                            > program.

                                            One of the great things about a libertarian society is that true
                                            liberty is the default state. If voluntary consensual groups of
                                            individuals wish to surrender their freedom to their respective groups
                                            (i.e. form a commune) within such a society, that is their right, they
                                            just can't initiate force to do so against anyone. That the reverse
                                            isn't allowed to occur is indicative of which is the truly just
                                            condition. Bill Maher is a collectivist, no doubt, but so, to my mind,
                                            are many christian oriented libertarians who submit to a collective
                                            religious dogma. There is nothing wrong with this at all, so long as it
                                            is consensual for all participants.

                                            This is the libertarian principle of enclavism at work.

                                            > Incidentally, he talked about the Free State Project for about 20
                                            > minutes today, took calls from two Porcs (including me), and outright
                                            > endorsed the project, saying he thought it could work. "Build me a
                                            > studio and I'll be right there with you!" he said.

                                            This is great. People like this need to be recruited as spokespersons.


                                            =====
                                            Mike Lorrey
                                            "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                            - Gen. John Stark
                                            "Pacifists are Objectively Pro-Fascist." - George Orwell
                                            "Treason doth never Prosper. What is the Reason?
                                            For if it Prosper, none Dare call it Treason..." - Ovid

                                            __________________________________
                                            Do you Yahoo!?
                                            The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
                                            http://search.yahoo.com
                                          • Tim Condon
                                            ... Yeah? Well I ll bet there are a bunch of libertarians who would disagree with you...but let s not quibble about it; we re all trying to get to the same
                                            Message 21 of 27 , May 1, 2003
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              >I'm not an anarchist, I believe in a small, limited government; I am quite
                                              >patriotic, and believe that America is the last, best chance for the world
                                              >to show how to have widespread freedom and justice (the "original"
                                              >America, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, I should say); I support a
                                              >very strong, but light and fast-moving military for national defense; I
                                              >believe that the nuclear family is the main bulwark against unhinged
                                              >statism; I believe strongly in religion, particularly the Christian
                                              >religion, and am very pro-church and pro-organized-religion; and I am very
                                              >much in favor of individualism and capitalism across the board; I abhor
                                              >those who advocate violence to achieve political ends with
                                              >respect to the struggle for freedom in America, and I explicitly reject
                                              >the notion of secession, as does the Free Sttate Project. Pretty
                                              >conservative, hah? Of course I hold all the other standard libertarian
                                              >positions, but I mention those above to distinguish me from the anarchists
                                              >and left-libertarians. --Tim Condon
                                              >
                                              >Not all libertarians are anarchists. You sound pretty mainstream
                                              >libertarian to me.
                                              >Gary

                                              Yeah? Well I'll bet there are a bunch of libertarians who would
                                              disagree with you...but let's not quibble about it; we're all trying to get
                                              to the same place.

                                              >P.S. My take is that the FSP does not explicitly reject the notion of
                                              >secession, but sees it as a last resort.

                                              The FSP isn't a secessionist movement, period. If things get dicey
                                              years in the future, that will be for those people to deal with. However,
                                              after everyone sees the extraordinary success of the Freestate, America
                                              will turn around and start re-embracing the freedoms that the Founding
                                              Fathers bequeathed to us, thus negating any silliness about secession now
                                              or in the future. At least that's the theory.... ---Tim C.
                                            • Tim Condon
                                              ... Bill Maher is a collectivist pig, no doubt about it. But Boortz *is* a libertarian, as anyone can tell if they listen to his program. Incidentally, he
                                              Message 22 of 27 , May 1, 2003
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                At 04:13 PM 5/1/2003 -0500, you wrote:
                                                >Even the word "libertarian" can cover a lot of territory. Consider that
                                                >we have two famous talk show hosts---Neal Boortz and Bill Maher--who
                                                >call themselves 'libertarians', and they are both cogs of the Republican
                                                >and Democratic parties, respectively. Boortz is a flag-waving Bushie.
                                                >Maher is a gun control advocate who has attended Democratic fundraisers.
                                                >How very liberty-oriented.

                                                Bill Maher is a collectivist pig, no doubt about it. But Boortz
                                                *is* a libertarian, as anyone can tell if they listen to his program.
                                                Incidentally, he talked about the Free State Project for about 20 minutes
                                                today, took calls from two Porcs (including me), and outright endorsed the
                                                project, saying he thought it could work. "Build me a studio and I'll be
                                                right there with you!" he said. ---Tim Condon
                                              • PJ
                                                Yes. Quality libertarian activists and subtlety of thought . Influence is not an automatic gift bestowed on good people. It is earned. It falls to a
                                                Message 23 of 27 , May 1, 2003
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Yes. "Quality libertarian activists" and "subtlety of thought".

                                                  "Influence is not an automatic gift bestowed on good people. It is earned. It falls to a huge variety of people, most of whom consciously plan on acquiring influence." ----Hugh Hewitt







                                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                                  From: Jason P Sorens
                                                  To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
                                                  Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 12:34 PM
                                                  Subject: RE: [FSP] The problem with no platform.


                                                  On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, delcomico wrote:

                                                  > Again, however, IF WE:
                                                  >
                                                  > (A) Have no stated goals, aside from liberty platitudes, and no
                                                  > platform;
                                                  >
                                                  > (B) Call ourselves 'libertarians';
                                                  >
                                                  > (C) Have, among us, many passionate and outspoken libertarians who want
                                                  > to eliminate "victimless crimes" (i.e., legalize all drugs, smut, and
                                                  > prostitution);

                                                  Actually, "B" is not the case; we've never said that this is a
                                                  "libertarian" project, though you might say that it in fact is. We've
                                                  avoided applying a single ideological label to ourselves because there are
                                                  a lot of libertarians out there who don't like to call themselves that.
                                                  (Witness the "Voluntarism" article recently added to the website.)

                                                  Eventually we want to legalize all drugs for adults. We don't have to run
                                                  from that. But when we do say that, we have to make clear all the
                                                  nuances and context of the libertarian position: that sequencing matters,
                                                  that concomitant reforms are necessary (such as allowing property owners
                                                  to discriminate against drug users), that kids are different from adults
                                                  and require special protections, and that we are politically astute. In
                                                  a short interview it's very difficult to state all that context, so best
                                                  to leave the details a little vague, while making clear our general
                                                  philosophy.

                                                  As an aside, as a hardcore libertarian, if I were watching a program and a
                                                  libertarian advocate simply said, "All drugs must be legalized," I would
                                                  know what he meant but I would not want to join whatever he's pushing
                                                  because he's not very articulate or savvy. To get quality libertarian
                                                  activists (yes, even the hardcore kind), we have to show the subtlety of
                                                  our thought and the ability to avoid media traps. Otherwise we're just
                                                  another pack of ideologues in la-la land.

                                                  ___________________________________________________________________________

                                                  Jason P Sorens - jason.sorensATyale.edu - <http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35>

                                                  <http://www.freestateproject.org> - Do you want liberty in your lifetime?



                                                  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



                                                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                                  freestateproject-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                                                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                • David Mincin
                                                  I find myself pretty much in agreement with our thoughts Tim. Ouch, does that mean that my next stop is a jail cell???? (smile) ... From: Tim Condon To:
                                                  Message 24 of 27 , May 2, 2003
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    I find myself pretty much in agreement with our thoughts Tim. Ouch, does that mean that my next stop is a jail cell???? (smile)
                                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                                    From: Tim Condon
                                                    To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
                                                    Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 5:39 PM
                                                    Subject: RE: [FSP] The problem with no platform.



                                                    > > I am a "conservative libertarian".
                                                    >
                                                    >How, exactly, do you distinguish between a conservative libertarian and a
                                                    >libertarian?
                                                    >Gary

                                                    I'm not an anarchist, I believe in a small, limited government; I
                                                    am quite patriotic, and believe that America is the last, best chance for
                                                    the world to show how to have widespread freedom and justice (the
                                                    "original" America, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, I should say); I
                                                    support a very strong, but light and fast-moving military for national
                                                    defense; I believe that the nuclear family is the main bulwark against
                                                    unhinged statism; I believe strongly in religion, particularly the
                                                    Christian religion, and am very pro-church and pro-organized-religion; and
                                                    I am very much in favor of individualism and capitalism across the board; I
                                                    abhor those who advocate violence to achieve political ends with respect to
                                                    the struggle for freedom in America, and I explicitly reject the notion of
                                                    secession, as does the Free Sttate Project. Pretty conservative, hah? Of
                                                    course I hold all the other standard libertarian positions, but I mention
                                                    those above to distinguish me from the anarchists and
                                                    left-libertarians. --Tim Condon



                                                    Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



                                                    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                                    freestateproject-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                                                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  • Zack Bass
                                                    [Moderator Note: I m letting this through because the last bit peripherally has to do with our communication strategy, but discussion of drug policy is
                                                    Message 25 of 27 , May 2, 2003
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      [Moderator Note: I'm letting this through because the last bit peripherally has to do with our communication strategy, but discussion of drug policy is off-topic, so if you want to discuss victimless crime policy, please respond on crackerbarrel. Thanks!]

                                                      --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, Tim Condon <tcondon@f...> wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      > .... In fact, some Porcupines do *not* want to abolish
                                                      > what some of us call "victimless crime laws." Why? Because they
                                                      > disagree that such crimes are "victimless."
                                                      >

                                                      Who do they think is the Victim? And whom do they propose to punish?

                                                      The term "Victimless" is shorthand; it also implies a Perpetrator.
                                                      You cannot make a Criminal Law against something without stating whom
                                                      you will punish. The Perpetrator cannot also be the Victim. Saying
                                                      that a whore or a drug user is a Victim does not justify punishing him.

                                                      People who pretend that Victimless Crimes actually have Victims are
                                                      simply liars who want to pretend to accept the notion of a Victimless
                                                      Act and yet punish people they don't like anyhow.

                                                      I believe that Porcupines who do this may be convinced by pointing out
                                                      to them their error. I do not believe that the Statists in the place
                                                      we intend to move to will ever be so convinced though.
                                                    • Amanda Phillips
                                                      ... am an ... lot of people ... I m happy that ... State because I ... ever get to the ... not we should ... what I d call ... are plenty of ... the FSP. To
                                                      Message 26 of 27 , May 3, 2003
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        >>Kevin said: (B) Call ourselves 'libertarians';
                                                        >>
                                                        >>Amanda said: But we don't call ourselves 'libertarians.' I
                                                        am an
                                                        >>anarchist. I think Tim C is a Republican. And there are a
                                                        lot of people
                                                        >>who consider themselves libertarian. That's OK with me...
                                                        I'm happy that
                                                        >>you Republicans and Libertarians will be moving to my Free
                                                        State because I
                                                        >>think you want most of the same things that I want. If we
                                                        ever get to the
                                                        >>point where we're arguing amongst ourselves about whether or
                                                        not we should
                                                        >>privatize the police force, I'll be a happy little anarchist.
                                                        >
                                                        > Tim chimes in: Yep, I'm a registered Republican, and
                                                        what I'd call
                                                        >a "conservative libertarian." It's worth noting that there
                                                        are plenty of
                                                        >freedom-loving *non*-libertarians, both in the world and in
                                                        the FSP. To
                                                        >coin a phrase, we have a "big tent." All you have to do to
                                                        comport with the
                                                        >goals of the FSP is believe in individual freedom and support
                                                        the ultimate
                                                        >reduction in size of state government by 2/3 or more (more,
                                                        in my case).

                                                        Excellent! How about reducing the state government by 3/3?

                                                        >>Amanda said: Since I take issue with A, B, and C, I don't
                                                        need to tell you
                                                        >>that I think D is wrong. Also, I *hate* the word "invade."
                                                        We want
                                                        >>freedom, not an invasion.
                                                        >>Peace,
                                                        >>Amanda
                                                        >
                                                        > Tim chimes in: Agree strongly with Amanda, even
                                                        though she's a
                                                        >dangerous anarchist. (joak, joak!)

                                                        Not nearly as dangerous as you statists! :) But I will work
                                                        with you statists as long as you're moving in my direction...
                                                        even though you are ultimately misguided! (joak, joak!)

                                                        Peace,

                                                        Amanda
                                                        http://amanda42.livejournal.com
                                                      • Jim
                                                        This IS a big tent. I have never seen an anarchist Republic in history. Can anybody think of one? I m a Conservative /Libertarian /Southern Nationalist if it
                                                        Message 27 of 27 , May 4, 2003
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          This IS a big tent. I have never seen an anarchist Republic in
                                                          history. Can anybody think of one? I'm a
                                                          Conservative /Libertarian /Southern Nationalist if it comes to
                                                          definitions. I'm a registered Repub because I don't want to dis-
                                                          enfranchise myself. I vote Repub. mostly in local elections. One of
                                                          our own SN's is looking like he's going to run in the Republican
                                                          Primaries in theb Southern States against GW. His main point is to
                                                          get the intrusive Federal Government into the public debate. Rev.
                                                          John Thomas Cripps looks like he he will be going after the
                                                          Governorship of Mississippi. He was one of the main players in the
                                                          Mississippi flag fight and got the thing out to be voted on by the
                                                          people. The entire States Rights and the concept of a "Republic of
                                                          Republics" is what I'm about.

                                                          Jim




                                                          --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, Amanda Phillips
                                                          <amanda42@r...> wrote:
                                                          >
                                                          > >>Kevin said: (B) Call ourselves 'libertarians';
                                                          > >>
                                                          > >>Amanda said: But we don't call ourselves 'libertarians.' I
                                                          > am an
                                                          > >>anarchist. I think Tim C is a Republican. And there are a
                                                          > lot of people
                                                          > >>who consider themselves libertarian. That's OK with me...
                                                          > I'm happy that
                                                          > >>you Republicans and Libertarians will be moving to my Free
                                                          > State because I
                                                          > >>think you want most of the same things that I want. If we
                                                          > ever get to the
                                                          > >>point where we're arguing amongst ourselves about whether or
                                                          > not we should
                                                          > >>privatize the police force, I'll be a happy little anarchist.
                                                          > >
                                                          > > Tim chimes in: Yep, I'm a registered Republican, and
                                                          > what I'd call
                                                          > >a "conservative libertarian." It's worth noting that there
                                                          > are plenty of
                                                          > >freedom-loving *non*-libertarians, both in the world and in
                                                          > the FSP. To
                                                          > >coin a phrase, we have a "big tent." All you have to do to
                                                          > comport with the
                                                          > >goals of the FSP is believe in individual freedom and support
                                                          > the ultimate
                                                          > >reduction in size of state government by 2/3 or more (more,
                                                          > in my case).
                                                          >
                                                          > Excellent! How about reducing the state government by 3/3?
                                                          >
                                                          > >>Amanda said: Since I take issue with A, B, and C, I don't
                                                          > need to tell you
                                                          > >>that I think D is wrong. Also, I *hate* the word "invade."
                                                          > We want
                                                          > >>freedom, not an invasion.
                                                          > >>Peace,
                                                          > >>Amanda
                                                          > >
                                                          > > Tim chimes in: Agree strongly with Amanda, even
                                                          > though she's a
                                                          > >dangerous anarchist. (joak, joak!)
                                                          >
                                                          > Not nearly as dangerous as you statists! :) But I will work
                                                          > with you statists as long as you're moving in my direction...
                                                          > even though you are ultimately misguided! (joak, joak!)
                                                          >
                                                          > Peace,
                                                          >
                                                          > Amanda
                                                          > http://amanda42.livejournal.com
                                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.