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

Liberty seekers - who and what are they seeking

Expand Messages
  • GTriest
    Brian: It is good to have an open mind about freedom, but not so open as to have your brains fall out. But at some point I believe there has to be an essential
    Message 1 of 31 , Apr 29, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Brian:

      It is good to have an open mind about freedom, but not so open as to have your brains fall out.

      But at some point I believe there has to be an essential applicable idea that is common to all freedom seeking individuals.
      I have seen many flavors of Libertarianism and Anarchism.
      Remember, communisim was so supposed to be liberating to the common man.

      So questions of a person's personality, acceptance of outside levels of influence, personal levels of comfort - they are all fine and certainly fall within the concerns of anyone who claims a desire for personal and political freedom, as they most probably do for any person, freedom seeker or not.

      But I think those concerns do not target the essence of liberty seekers.
      I will be so bold as to say there are just a few touchstones of liberty seeking persons of the ilk that the FSP represents.

      I know that the FSP publicly tries to throw a wide net on the invitation of liberty seekers, but the undercurrent of what they mean generally runs upon the idea that a citizen should have the choice to interact with his government or not.
      That there are no legal obligations he has perform for his government, and obversely his government is not required to proactively provide him with domestic services.
      As for legal relation to his fellow citizens, the standard is similar, no obligations, no entitlements.
      The key is choice - for this is not to say he cannot voluntarily interact, or voluntarily enter into obligations or entitlements, but only by initial informed choice.
      (I will go one step further as far as Libertarianism goes, the government does have an obligation to enforce that choice)

      I have seen many flavors of Libertarianism and Anarchism.
      Just perusing the Wikipedia site for an explanation of what Libertarianism is, confuses far more than it enlightens. I believe that that 'source' of information has been either intentionally or accededly obfuscated to the point that anyone just wanting a simple explanation will just throw up their hands in frustration before managing to digest the whole thing.
      I myself, who have a reasonably good background in Libertarian theory, certainly do not find it instructive as to what the essence of Libertarianism is.

      With the Republican party going down in their own induced emolation, many Republicans will seek to find another political home, and many will glom onto Libertarianism as a superficially similar political viewpoint, although it is decidedly not.
      And then, later when they find out it has many unrestrained mandates of personal liberty, they will seek to conform the base ideologies of Libertarianism to match what they were accustomed to in the Republican party.
      Self appointed nouveau LINO Libertarian pundits will start chipping away at the absolute nature of libertarian mandates; they will try to soften or do away entirely with what makes Libertarianism unique, and if left be in control of the Libertarian orthodoxy, will conform it out of existence.

      The moral there is, although anyone can say they are looking for personal liberty and economic freedom, it is not ALL a relativist argument.
      There are actually SOME things that are at a bare minimum necessary to be present in the claim for freedom, for it to be the kind of freedom we are talking about in Libertarianism.


      Gary T




      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Brian W.
      To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 11:17 AM
      Subject: RE: [FSP] The New Hamsphire state legislature recently rejected a similar bill....





      The US and England does have much of those things to some
      degree. The degree increases each month. As for monitory; how many people
      in this group has a home monitoring service? Probably not many - not here.
      However, consider the number of people one knows who does and their reasons
      and their personality. Everyone has reason for accepting the level of
      influence from outside forces, usually starting with the "protection of
      their family."

      The people are being conditioned to accept it. The point was degree. In
      order to understand a view, one has to delve fully into it. It is
      impossible to express a view within a couple of paragraphs to someone who
      has no base understanding. I tend to write a lot when I get started. My
      problem tends to come when I'm trying to abridge or distill it to a couple
      paragraphs.

      Those who knew me for years know how I feel about the dwindling
      liberties we used to have. People are running scared. They are accepting
      more and more from the government to gain what they perceive as security
      unaware that they are loosing it because they are relying on others to
      provide it (now heading Franklin's statement). It is a psychological
      process.

      When one tries to express a view, one has to understand what the other
      person understands to be true. Only then can a proper explanation be given.
      One has to shape the explanation from what the other understands and guide
      them to the view; otherwise those who are hearing/reading it will insert
      their own view out of context or selfishness without trying to fully
      understand.

      It takes a lot of time to try to understand another concept or views and
      there is no way one can understand every view. That is why people skim over
      stuff they don't understand or doesn't fit comfortably into their view, if
      they read it at all. I don't blame anyone for this. Everyone does it and
      so do I. I'm looking for people who understand my view. I have no desire
      to shape those too far off (I have a hard enough time finding time for my
      creating). This project understood that when they chose a place already
      heading on a similar path. So far the general concept is the best I've
      found, though I see the same egos at play here; people set to impose their
      own views who do not desire it and who are trying to show off their
      knowledge to feel superior to others. All this is natural. We just need to
      understand it. If we are professing freedoms and liberty, we must also
      allow others to form their own view, whether we accept them at right or not;
      otherwise we are no different and hypocrites.

      Brian

      _____

      From: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:freestateproject@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Freedom Fred
      Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:24 PM
      To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [FSP] The New Hamsphire state legislature recently rejected a
      similar bill....

      rian wrote:
      >
      >
      > Hi,
      >
      > I just joined the group and have not made a proper introduction. So,
      > here I am about to comment before doing so. The "Texas Republicans"
      > are scary enough, but let us not forget that socialism has a hard
      > time staying "lite." There are some examples of nations that are
      > socialistic in nature and "lite" per se. Having lived in England for
      > three years; I'd rather be there than China where surveillance,
      > kidnap, imprison, and torture is part of their version.
      >
      > Brian

      And surveillance is not prevalent in England, with CCTVs on every corner?

      And torture is not prevalent in the US, with Guantanamo Bay's
      "waterboarding"? Not to mention police brutality, which I've personally
      witnessed. Oh nevermind with the torture. They'll just plant evidence
      like they did for many years in Philly, or just outright shoot you like
      they did with Diallo in NY some years back. Cops lie in court all the
      time, and I had to personally deal with this some years ago -- here in
      New Hampshire, of all places.

      And the US still, AFAIK, has the highest incarceration rate per capita
      of any nation, including China.

      OK, we don't have that much of a problem with kidnapping -- as far as we
      know. But some of the States near the Mexican border seems to have some
      issues...

      I don't know which place is worse -- China or the US. A former Chinese
      co-worker of mine recently returned to China with her husband -- to
      stay. Can't be all that bad there, especially if they now prefer it to
      being in the US.

      Wake up... There is the propaganda we've been fed over the years, and
      then there is what's really going on...

      -Freedom Fred

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Tim Condon
      Oh, I got the reference. Still, though. Same reaction. ---Tim ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Message 31 of 31 , May 25, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Oh, I got the reference. Still, though. Same reaction. ---Tim


        On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Jeremy J. Olson <yahoogroups@...>wrote:

        > Heh, tough crowd... No one got the reference?
        >
        > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysistrata
        >
        > At 2009-05-24T17:20:45-0400, <tim@...> wrote:
        >
        > > More likely ruined the marriage. Sex used as a weapon is a terribly
        > > double-edged sword. ---Tim Condon
        > >
        > > On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Brian W. <arinora@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > > Maybe-maybe not. It probably just ruined their marriage.
        > > >
        > > > The quote was from someone else, which I placed in the brackets. My
        > > > comment
        > > > followed it.
        > > >
        > > > Brian W.
        > > > _____
        > > >
        > > > From: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
        > > > [mailto:freestateproject@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol
        > > > Moore/Secession.Net
        > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 5:52 AM
        > > > To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
        > > > Subject: Re: [FSP] The veterans
        > > >
        > > > I think refusal to give one's husband sex has settled far more :-)
        >
        > --
        > Jeremy J. Olson
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.