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

Re: Dramatically Increase FSP Membership Growth Now -

Expand Messages
  • Zack Bass
    ... 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 did
    Message 1 of 7 , May 28, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, Rick <Ricks550@y...> wrote:
      >
      > 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 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 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.

      Example:
      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
      motivation.

      Example:
      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-
      03.html ).
    • Freedom Fred
      ... 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 myself
      Message 2 of 7 , Jun 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        On Thu, 2004-05-27 at 22:37, Bill Alleman wrote:
        > Rick wrote on 5/27/2004, 1:06 PM:
        >
        > > 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

        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 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
        words).

        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
        that:

        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
        out.

        --
        Freedom Fred <fred@...>
        Freedom
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.