Re: [FSP] Elizabeth on MSNBC
- Debra wrote:
>>You missed my point.
>> She might as well have said, "Yes, tax cuts will be considered,
>> but not right away."
> He asked about drugs & prostitutes, not tax cuts.
> If he HAD asked about taxthings
> cuts, she likely would have said, "Yes, those are some of the first
> we'll look at" because they likely WOULD BE some of the first thingswe'd
> look at. As opposed to prostitution, which we couldn't get legalizeduntil
> we built a following (as you suggest with the "make 5 friends" below)This makes no sense. Whether it's tax cuts, prostitution or
anything else, we'd need to get ELECTED to implement them. And
if we have the numbers (the whole point of the FSP) and get
elected, ALL of it is doable.
> , and drugs, which entails long, long, LONG battles with the Fed, asshown in
> California.Irrelevant. We can end state and local govt drug prohibition
immediately upon getting elected.
Btw, we'll be battling Fed mandates with regard to tax cuts, too.
>> If each activist makes five good friends, we're golden.way we
> Great. And until we make those 5 friends who are willing to vote the
> want on the drug-and-prostitute-issue,Those 5 friends aren't voting for ANY issue...they'd be voting for
> do we just sit around grousing about the lack of brothels and opiumdens?
You can if you want. Others will more likely be grousing about
peaceful prostitutes and drug users rotting in a jail cell - or someone
else there because a corrupt cop planted drugs on him - and paying
taxes for it.
> Or do we agitate for changes that canAnd exactly how do we "agitate" for anything without being elected?
> actually be accomplished with relative ease?
> Again, she didn't say welooked
> didn't support the drug & prostitution thing; she said they would be
> at, but not as a first priority.Gee, that's gonna inspire libertarians to pack their bags.
>>> If we walk in out of nowhere and said "Hi guys, we're here to givehear
>>> smack and whores!" it ain't gonna fly.
>> That's not fair, Debra. It's a strawman. Nobody's suggesting that.
> That's EXACTLY what residents of the states we are considering would
> had Elizabeth said what you're suggesting below. And that's exactlyhow the
> media would portray it.1) Who cares?! We're likely YEARS from migrating. That should be
our last concern. We're in recruiting mode, not give-a-shit-what-
2) I'm shocked that you think a "we're here to give you smack"
reaction could possibly result from such an innocuous statement.
> > I would've been more than satisfied to hear the lovely Elizabethsmaller
> > express, "Well, Keith, is it really government's business to police
> > what peaceful pot smokers do in their home on the weekend, and do
> > we as taxpayers want to pay for locking them up?"
>> No, we'll blend in with Republicans. We'll *attract* Republicans,
>> and we'll end up with the same old government.
> I'm not following you here. We shouldn't support changes toward
> government that might actually be accepted by the local populacebecause
> Republicans might support them?No. I'm saying we shouldn't be trying to recruit 20,000 signees
to leave their lives behind by sounding like Republicans. And
once we get the numbers and migrate, we needn't conceal our views.
> Some of our philosophies mesh with Republican philosophies. Somemesh with
> Democrat philosophies. If we move into an area that is mostlyconservative
> (as the majority of our target states are), doesn't it make sense toWin
> initially push reforms that are in line with the current ideologies?
> small battles first? When there are no more "easy" reforms to pass,then
> start working on the more difficult ones. By that time, each activistsway public
> *should* have made their 5 friends, and *should* be able to help
> opinion in our favor.Of course we do what we can do at any point in time. But I see no
point in concealing libertarian views from anyone. That slows the
> For that matter, I don't consider drug legalization as moreimportant than
> ending regulations for homeschooling, or legalized prostitution amore noble
> cause than getting Vermont-style concealed carry legislation passed.Nor do I. But I don't consider drug legalization any LESS important,
> If Igetting
> have a good chance of getting the latter passed and a poor chance of
> the former passed, what possible sense does it make to spend my time,There's no time, energy or money. There's votes. You make friends,
> energy, and money on the former rather than the latter?
you get votes, you get elected, you vote to enact policy.
>>> (Disclaimer: the preceding opinions are solely my own and in noway
>>> reflect the official stance, policies, and/or opinions of FreeState
>>> Project, Inc. Yada yada yada....)are my
>> That's fine, but the problem is that your opinions DID reflect
>> the official stance of the FSP on MSNBC.
> Again, not following. I was making the statement that these views
> own, that I didn't hash them out with Board of Directors first, andthat
> what I'm saying may or may not be what the rest of the Board thinks.How is
> this a problem???THIS dialogue isn't a problem. But when your stance that we
shouldn't take advantage of an opportunity to comment on drug
prohibition on TV is shared by someone in position to make that
comment, it's a problem, IMO.
- And should someone feel moved to take a very EZ action, go to the
newsletter pg, download the May Quill, print off a few copies and give
them to your friends (or leave a few in your local library, coffeeshop,
university, convenience store, laundromat, bus stop, etc. This would
cost you, oh, a coupla bucks at Kinko's, and, if you simply carry them
with you on your daily rounds, no time at all.
> I must confess sometime I see the call go out for volunteers, and
> wonder were all the hardcore activists are! Shall we become just
> another group of talkers, wow my ideas are really the best, or are we
> really prepared to do what needs to be done to effect real change.
> Why is it that I see so many more people saying what needs to be done
> and so few actually doing what needs to be done?
> Ok shall we fall into the good old libritarian trap."We have the right
> ideas, how foolish everyone else is," or are we truly who we have
> pledged to be, activists, and doers. Only you can look inside your
> heart and say, and I am hopeful you will say yes, not only with our
> words, but with your deeds!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mary Lou Seymour
> To: Gary Snyder ; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 8:10 PM
> Subject: RE: [FSP] Elizabeth on MSNBC
> > That's mostly on target, but I feel that by watering down our
> message > we run the risk of falling way short of 20,000, period. I
> think those > to whom a watered down message appeals won't relocate,
> and those who > would relocate desire significantly more freedom.
> Gary has hit the nail on the head. I am in complete agreement with
> the above summarization. If the "recruiting message" gets watered
> down, we won't end up with our 20,000 activists, so the whole
> project won't happen. Simple as that. Plus, in order to actually
> effect change once we get to the free state, we're going to need
> those 20,000 hardcore activists ...who will be a living breathing
> demonstration that those who love liberty are NOT dope addicts with
> horns and a pitchfork coming to corrupt "the children". That's the
> entire rationale behind the FSP. Everyone knows (or should realize)
> that in order to effect political change, there must be a cultural
> change, and cultural change occurs in large part by one on one
> interaction. If our 20,000 are simply mildly conservative "we want
> lower taxes but lock up all the druggies and dont take away our
> publik schools" folks, there will be no cultural change of the
> magnitude needed to effect real political change.
> It is remarkably EZ to defuse the "crack & whores" type rhetoric
> thrown at us by statists. If we instead try to water down or excuse
> our positions, we end up looking like either liars, fools, or
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online
> Answer To Life's Important Questions.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to