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

Re: [FSP] Elizabeth on MSNBC

Expand Messages
  • Gary Snyder
    ... You missed my point. ... things ... we d ... until ... This makes no sense. Whether it s tax cuts, prostitution or anything else, we d need to get ELECTED
    Message 1 of 71 , Apr 30, 2003
      Debra wrote:
      >>
      >> She might as well have said, "Yes, tax cuts will be considered,
      >> but not right away."
      >
      > He asked about drugs & prostitutes, not tax cuts.

      You missed my point.

      > If he HAD asked about tax
      > cuts, she likely would have said, "Yes, those are some of the first
      things
      > we'll look at" because they likely WOULD BE some of the first things
      we'd
      > look at. As opposed to prostitution, which we couldn't get legalized
      until
      > 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, as
      shown 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.
      >
      > Great. And until we make those 5 friends who are willing to vote the
      way we
      > want on the drug-and-prostitute-issue,

      Those 5 friends aren't voting for ANY issue...they'd be voting for
      friends.

      > do we just sit around grousing about the lack of brothels and opium
      dens?

      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 can
      > actually be accomplished with relative ease?

      And exactly how do we "agitate" for anything without being elected?

      > Again, she didn't say we
      > didn't support the drug & prostitution thing; she said they would be
      looked
      > 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 give
      >> you
      >>> 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
      hear
      > had Elizabeth said what you're suggesting below. And that's exactly
      how 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-
      residents-in-ten-possible-candidate-states-think mode.

      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 Elizabeth
      > > 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
      smaller
      > government that might actually be accepted by the local populace
      because
      > 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. Some
      mesh with
      > Democrat philosophies. If we move into an area that is mostly
      conservative
      > (as the majority of our target states are), doesn't it make sense to
      > initially push reforms that are in line with the current ideologies?
      Win
      > small battles first? When there are no more "easy" reforms to pass,
      then
      > start working on the more difficult ones. By that time, each activist
      > *should* have made their 5 friends, and *should* be able to help
      sway public
      > 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
      process, IMO.

      > For that matter, I don't consider drug legalization as more
      important than
      > ending regulations for homeschooling, or legalized prostitution a
      more noble
      > cause than getting Vermont-style concealed carry legislation passed.

      Nor do I. But I don't consider drug legalization any LESS important,
      either.

      > If I
      > have a good chance of getting the latter passed and a poor chance of
      getting
      > the former passed, what possible sense does it make to spend my time,
      > energy, and money on the former rather than the latter?

      There's no time, energy or money. There's votes. You make friends,
      you get votes, you get elected, you vote to enact policy.

      >>> (Disclaimer: the preceding opinions are solely my own and in no
      way
      >>> reflect the official stance, policies, and/or opinions of Free
      State
      >>> Project, Inc. Yada yada yada....)
      >>
      >> 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
      are my
      > own, that I didn't hash them out with Board of Directors first, and
      that
      > 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.

      Gary
    • Mary Lou Seymour
      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
      Message 71 of 71 , May 2, 2003
        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 ; freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
        > 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
        > hypocrits.
        >
        >
        > 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]
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        > ---------------------~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online
        > Answer To Life's Important Questions.
        > http://us.click.yahoo.com/cjB9SD/od7FAA/uetFAA/XgSolB/TM
        > ---------------------------------------------------------------------~
        > ->
        >
        > 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/
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.