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

RE: [FSP] The problem with no platform.

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 27 , May 1, 2003
      -----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
    • 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 2 of 27 , May 1, 2003
        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/
      • 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 3 of 27 , May 1, 2003
          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 4 of 27 , May 1, 2003
            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 5 of 27 , May 1, 2003
              --- 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 6 of 27 , May 1, 2003
                >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 7 of 27 , May 1, 2003
                  --- 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 8 of 27 , May 1, 2003
                    >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 9 of 27 , May 1, 2003
                      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 10 of 27 , May 1, 2003
                        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 11 of 27 , May 2, 2003
                          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 12 of 27 , May 2, 2003
                            [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 13 of 27 , May 3, 2003
                              >>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 14 of 27 , May 4, 2003
                                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.