- ... They came after the whores, and I was not a whore, so I did not protest. They came after the street pharmacists, and I was not a drug merchant, so I didMessage 1 of 7 , May 28, 2004View Source--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Rick <Ricks550@y...> wrote:
>"They came after the whores, and I was not a whore, so I did not
> I don't really look upon abortion or gay marriage with a smile,
> but nevertheless it's none of my business. On that same token,
> I will not fight for those rights, it's their personal battle
They came after the street pharmacists, and I was not a drug
merchant, so I did not protest.
They came after the polygamists, and I was not a polygamist, so I
did not protest.
Then they came after me, and there was no one left to protest."
This illustrates the fact that single-issue incrementalism will
never ever EVER succeed in rolling back the tyranny of the Majority.
For the same reason that it is easy to enact an Oppressive single-
issue Law, it is difficult to repeal one.
There are two kinds of incrementalism the FSP can pursue.
One is to slowly build political power for the entire spectrum of
Liberty that we espouse.
The other is to fight for the repeal, one by one, of the oppressive
Laws that we oppose (single-issue incrementalism).
The FSP cannot move in enough people to control New Hampshire
(although a Town can easily come under complete libertarian
control). Therefore the FSP must, overall, pursue an incrementalist
strategy of some sort. The proper approach is the one of building
power to change ALL of the oppressive Laws.
It would be a mistake to think that the Laws can be changed one by
one. Single-issue incrementalism favors the Authoritarians, not the
Liberators, for the reasons mentioned above. There is little
support for any one of the reforms alone.
Legalizing Medical Marijuana will satisfy those who want that single
issue, and they will not support further legalization. Many of them
would have joined with others who have other special liberty
interests, to support a broad repeal of Victimless Crime Laws
generally; but once they have their Marijuana they have no further
On the FSP "NH Info" page
( http://freestateproject.org/community/nh_info.jsp )
there is a link to something called the "NH Freedom to Marry
Coalition" - http://www.nhftm.org/
But look at the site. All it does is promote "Freedom" for GAYS to
marry. They couldn't care less about the Polygamists who are daily
being imprisoned or dissuaded or driven underground in this country
( Tom Green: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/news1/an010521-
- ... Yep. If the government is abridging the rights of ANY person in ANY fashion we should be right there to eliminate it. I ve taken on personal battles myselfMessage 2 of 7 , Jun 1, 2004View SourceOn Thu, 2004-05-27 at 22:37, Bill Alleman wrote:
> Rick wrote on 5/27/2004, 1:06 PM:Yep.
> > On that same token, I will not fight for those rights, it's their
> > personal battle
> "They came after the Jews and I was not a Jew, so I did not protest.
> They came after the Trade Unionists, and I was not a Trade Unionist, so
> I did not protest. They came after the Roman Catholics, and I was not a
> Roman Catholic, so I did not protest. Then they came after me, and there
> was no one left to protest."
> -Pastor Niemoeller-
> Upon exiting Nazi death camp
If the government is abridging the rights of ANY person in ANY fashion
we should be right there to eliminate it.
I've taken on personal battles myself over "small" issues because if I
don't, the "small" issues can turn into big ones.
I would not want to marry another man myself, but I fully support the
rights of others to do that if they want.
Better, as someone mentioned, would be for the government to butt out of
family issues -- including marriage -- altogether, because marriage
gives government the "right" to control your personal and family life.
I'd much rather see partners that wish to pledge themselves to each
other draw up private contractual agreements. Alas, the current court
systems may not respect such agreements, no matter how carefully they
are drawn up, simply because they don't fit "traditional" agreements and
can be challenged on that ground alone (though not necessarily in those
If we want government out of our lives in our lifetime, we must push
back everywhere it intrudes. Eventually, it will get the message and
leave us alone.
We Libertarians (bold assumption that most of us here are) will never
completely agree on the fine details of Liberty, but I think we can ALL
agree that we don't want government meddling in our affairs or dictating
to us how we arrange our personal lives in any fashion.
Thus, we can have a "Unity of Division" -- we allow ourselves diversity
of thought, which I deem a Good Thing, yet be united in recognizing
The Government has wedged itself up every orifice and in every crevasse
of our persons, and it's going to take one helluva shower to wash it
Freedom Fred <fred@...>