- ... From: Zack Bass [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 1:12 PM To: email@example.com Subject: Re: [FSP] Elizabeth onMessage 1 of 71 , May 1, 2003View Source-----Original Message-----
From: Zack Bass [mailto:yahoo@...]
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: [FSP] Elizabeth on MSNBC
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Kelly Setzer
> On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 02:58:51AM -0400, Gary Snyder wrote:It seems that a decision HAS been made to emphasize TAXES as our
> > 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.
> It seems like a very large contigent of the participants have
> expressed a desire to stay under the radar, as it were. By words and
> deeds, the FSP leadership has demonstrated that all efforts are in
> reaching the membership goals, not towards political action.
How many people do you think would move to, say, Wyoming for the LOWER
TAXES, considering that they will make less money there?
Here's a simple math problem for those who have successfully completed
the sixth grade:
Let's say you live in a VERY HIGH-TAX State, where the combination of
State Income Tax and Sales Tax takes 20% of your annual salary, which
And say you own Real Estate worth $100,000, which is taxed at the rate
of 15 mils (1.5 percent) per year.
Now suppose you move to Wyoming, where you will earn $30,000 per year.
Problem to solve: How low must the State Income Tax, Sales Tax, and
Property Tax be so that you will be as well off FINANCIALLY as you
were in the high-tax State?
Now tell me we ought to emphasize TAXES as our priority! Whom are we
going to sign up, greedy stupid people?
Let's face it, people are going to move to the Free State to create
and enjoy SOCIAL FREEDOMS, or not at all.>
No, Zack, YOU will move to the Free State to create and enjoy 'social
freedoms', since they are an extremely high priority for you,
personally. I believe social freedoms are somewhat important, but my
major motivation is to move somewhere where the Second Amendment is
respected, property rights are absolute, the long arm of Washington is
further away, and taxes are lower.
My 'inherent rights' to stand on the steps of the State Capitol naked
and smoke a doobie are not a high priority on this list of issues.
- 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 friendsMessage 71 of 71 , May 2, 2003View SourceAnd 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