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

Invitatation to blog and ZAP

Expand Messages
  • mottoncouthUSA@aol.com
    Responding to the article that appears as a post-script: I assume that Denis is talking about the Zero Aggression Policy. But aren t we all being forced at
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 28, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Responding to the article that appears as a post-script: I assume that Denis
      is talking about the Zero Aggression Policy. But aren't we all being forced
      at some level, through taxation and other rules and regulations forces upon
      us by the tyranny of the majority. How come those that seek to incite
      violence (in retaliation to violence) aren't invited to blog for the freestate
      blogging corp?

      I'm not advocating violence, but I do believe that violent force is being
      threatened upon myself, and if I chose to react with violence, and urge my
      neighbors to do the same, it would be justified under articles 2a and 10 of the
      NH Constitutions bill of rights.

      [Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and
      bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the
      state.
      [Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common
      benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the
      private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men;
      therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty
      manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people
      may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The
      doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd,
      slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

      Upholding and defending the Constitution(s),
      Furb

      SiGN THIS PLEDGE!
      _http://www.pledgebank.com/Freedm2FascismNH_
      (http://www.pledgebank.com/Freedm2FascismNH)

      Post script

      I'm happy to give NH-based freedom-fighters an account on
      FreeStateBlogs, provided the content is indeed about the struggle for
      freedom (and not about, for example, your favorite member of 'nSync,
      or that your dog died. And of course I retain editorial rights to
      remove any incitement to violence, blatant racism, etc)

      If you already have a Blog, I'm happy to syndicate your posts on
      FreeStateBlogs, as is being done for Sandy's "Free State Observer",
      Mike's "International Libertarian", and Tyler Stearns' eponymous blog.








      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Seth Cohn
      ... Because 1) Advocating violence is one of the few things that the FSP is explicitly against. (Racism is another) 2) Denis s _private_ blogging site, so
      Message 2 of 4 , Dec 29, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, mottoncouthUSA@... wrote:
        > How come those that seek to incite
        > violence (in retaliation to violence) aren't invited to blog for the
        > freestate blogging corp?

        Because
        1) Advocating violence is one of the few things that the FSP is
        explicitly against. (Racism is another)
        2) Denis's _private_ blogging site, so Denis can set the rules.
        Don't like it? Start a competitive site.
        3) Hosting provider rules (which start with me, and work upstream)
        which cover things like violence, illegal activities, pornography,
        etc. Again, private rules, and you can find someone who is willing
        host such things.

        4th and most important) Denis's site is about putting on a good
        public face. The public perception is easily destroyed by one
        person's illwritten post ("I read that those freestaters want to shoot
        people") despite 20 good contrary opinions. Denis's editorial control
        is explicitly stated, but very important.

        > Upholding and defending the Constitution(s),

        And if you wrote a well reasoned thoughtful post on Art 2 or Art 10,
        which Denis felt would help in improving the public perception of the
        FSP, I'm sure he'd publish it, or link to it.
      • Denis Goddard
        I sometimes forget how literal, principled, and scrupulous libertarians are ;) ... keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property
        Message 3 of 4 , Dec 29, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          I sometimes forget how literal, principled, and scrupulous
          libertarians are ;)

          --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, mottoncouthUSA@... wrote:
          >
          >
          > [Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to
          keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their
          property and the state.

          That's specifically about DEFENSE.

          > [Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for
          the common

          OK, you got me :)

          What I basically meant to say is that if, in my own personal
          judgement, any blogger on FreeStateBlogs is needlessly advocating
          violence, abject racism, or anything else that I deem inappropriate, I
          reserve the right to kick them off the blog site that I own... and I
          just want that hopefully self-evident fact to be all above-board
          before folks get an account.

          As an example of how far along that line is drawn, I have to quarrel
          whatsoever with Mr. Lorrey's icon (have a look at FreeStateBlogs or at
          his primary blog The International Libertarian to see what I mean)

          I hope that clears things up, and I hope that yourself and others will
          take advantage of this pro bono offer.

          -Denis
        • lpb52@cotse.net
          ... I guess Denis alluded to it in his response about scruples, but (1) why would you think he was applying NAP in what he said, and (2) why would you
          Message 4 of 4 , Dec 29, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            > --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, mottoncouthUSA@... wrote:
            >> How come those that seek to incite
            >> violence (in retaliation to violence) aren't invited to blog for the
            >> freestate blogging corp?

            I guess Denis alluded to it in his response about scruples, but (1) why
            would you think he was applying NAP in what he said, and (2) why would you
            interpret the word "violence" to apply to self-defense principles outlined
            in the Constitution, or your own ideas of self-defense? I thought NAP
            allowed self-defense, and I don't consider self-defense "violence".

            Anyway, my point is, sheesh, the absolute worst thing we can do is buy
            into the Givernment's definition of "violence", which seems to be
            conveniently anything that overtly opposes it. There's an implied natural
            right to self-defense, that our founding fathers necessarily made a point
            of acknowledging in the Constitution. The attempts have gotten so bad
            that even speech, much less any physical action, is being labeled
            "violent" or hateful, and you can be fired for what used to not even turn
            a head.

            Lynn
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.