Invitatation to blog and ZAP
- 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
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
[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),
SiGN THIS PLEDGE!
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]
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, mottoncouthUSA@... wrote:
> How come those that seek to inciteBecause
> violence (in retaliation to violence) aren't invited to blog for the
> freestate blogging corp?
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.
- I sometimes forget how literal, principled, and scrupulous
libertarians are ;)
--- In email@example.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
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.
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, mottoncouthUSA@... wrote:I guess Denis alluded to it in his response about scruples, but (1) why
>> How come those that seek to incite
>> violence (in retaliation to violence) aren't invited to blog for the
>> freestate blogging corp?
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