RE: [FSP] Elizabeth on MSNBC
> > He asked about drugs & prostitutes, not tax cuts.Actually, you missed mine.
> You missed my point.
> This makes no sense. Whether it's tax cuts, prostitution or anythingelse, 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
In the smallest state, Wyoming, 20,000 is 13% of the voters. 13%. If
the other 87% have decided that you're a whack-job, they aren't going to
elect you. So it's not doable UNLESS you can get the support of at least
another 37% of the voters.
> Irrelevant. We can end state and local govt drug prohibitionimmediately upon getting
> elected.Great. I'll memo Ed Rosenthal.
> Btw, we'll be battling Fed mandates with regard to tax cuts, too.Not concerning state taxes/property taxes/ etc.
> Those 5 friends aren't voting for ANY issue...they'd be voting forfriends.
First off, "stroke of the pen, law of the land" may not be viable in all
cases. Depending on the issue, it may require a vote.
Secondly, all 20,000 of us aren't going to be running for office. I'd be
surprised if as many as 500 do. So if you're running for office, you
have your 5 friends, but I'll need to convince MY 5 friends to vote for
you. And they're going to be concerned about issues. They may vote for
"me" because they like "me", but they won't necessarily vote for "you"
because they like "me", especially if they have already decided that
you're a dangerous anarchist who doesn't care about the ch-i-i-l-l-dren!
If you do get into office and unilaterally eliminate all non-coercive
laws without attempting to build support for your actions among the
populace, you'll be kicked out of office. They'll vote in a Republican
or Democrat who will reinstate everything you just eliminated, and all
your hard work will have been for nothing. Just ask Joe (Solitar) on the
> Others will more likely be grousing about peaceful prostitutes anddrug users rotting in > a jail cell - or someone else there because a
corrupt cop planted drugs on him - and
> paying taxes for it.And I would be one of them. However, until you can get the support of
the populace on a particular platform, you CAN'T change it. And you're
not going to get the support of the populace by walking in and saying,
"We're here, we're in charge, deal with it." Every state that we're
considering would respond with, "Oh yeah? Bet me."
I'm simply saying that if you equally support Issue A, Issue B, and
Issue C, and you're pretty damn sure everyone else supports A, why not
get A passed first, then work on B&C?
> And exactly how do we "agitate" for anything without being elected?Hmmm - let's see. Referendum process? Getting a bill introduced?
> Gee, that's gonna inspire libertarians to pack their bags.Because all libertarians want is drugs 'n whores, and don't care about
anything else at all? Are we really that shallow?
> 1) Who cares?! We're likely YEARS from migrating. That should be ourlast concern.
> We're in recruiting mode, not give-a-shit-what-residents-in-ten-possible-candidate-
> states-think mode.Okay, I think I may have finally figured out where we're missing each
other. It was frustrating to me because our principles are very similar.
I feel that how we portray ourselves during the recruiting process will
impact how effective we are after the move. Consequently, I feel that we
should "market" ourselves for mainstream consumption, particularly in
mass media; not for recruitment purposes, but to ensure a welcome
reception where ever we go. I feel that libertarians will get our
message even if it isn't stated overtly.
You don't agree - you're concerned solely with recruiting the 20,000,
the more hard-core, the better. You feel that by watering down our
message to make ourselves more palatable, we run the risk of attracting
members who don't truly value a libertarian society. In addition, you
are concerned that hard-core types will be put off by our
political-correctness and refuse to join, further eroding our
Am I warm?
> 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've known too many anti-drug types. You know, the ones who think those
stupid "Nick and Norm" commercials actually make sense.
- 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 ; email@example.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
> 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