Clarification on "States Rights"
I'm sorry that I was not aware of this discussion group until now. In the months prior to the selection of NH, a previous Yahoo FSP board discussed the issue of "state's rights," and I see it has come up again.
Question: Is the FSP now taking the position that we are a "state's rights" organization?
When this last came up, I made the point -- and I will make it again -- that I do NOT believe that this is wise, on 2 grounds:
1) As an organization committed to individual liberty, I was and am under the impression that the FSP believes in "individual rights," NOT "states rights." As a consistent libertarian, I find the term "state's rights" to be an oxymoron. I could look it up, but I believe that Dr. Sorens did agree at the time that the term "state's rights" was ill advised, giving me confidence that I was joining a group I could support.
2) Like it or not, fair or not, the term "state's rights" evokes distracting and unpleasant images of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and so forth. From a public relations perspective, I strongly advise against adopting such terminology, as it runs counter to our shared goal of reducing government to protecting against force and fraud.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]