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

RE: [FSP] Liberty seekers - who and what are they seeking

Expand Messages
  • Brian W.
    Hi Gary and all, I have been called the Devil s advocate for a long time. That tends to come from my challenge to people s convictions when they become so
    Message 1 of 31 , Apr 30, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Gary and all,





      I have been called the Devil's advocate for a long time. That
      tends to come from my challenge to people's convictions when they become so
      strong as to be fundamentalist. I have convictions and I hold to them very
      strongly. I also expect those who live in my house to hold those views as
      well, otherwise they can go. I may upset people here with these views. I
      may be new here, but I do tend to jump in when the atmosphere of discussion
      is free. I said it before; I'm looking for like minded people. I may have
      to leave if it becomes apparent this movement of liberty is the more the
      liberty of a few discontents. That is the view of many in the nation about
      the Libertarians and this movement.

      I still haven't seen how the Libertarians or this movement will avoid the
      trap of over-legislation. It is very simple to say, "the standard is
      similar, no obligations, no entitlements." But, everywhere you will find
      people fighting for the exceptions. What do you say to the veterans who
      lost their leg in combat after their ability to be a soldier is hindered and
      they are discharged?





      Communism was built on the concept of equalizing people, not
      liberating them in the sense this movement intends.





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



      This is like the line from the John Mellencamp song; You've Got To Stand For
      Something (or you're going to fall for anything).

      I do agree with both statements: one has to have convictions and they need
      to hold to them. My point was that everyone wants their own convictions to
      be recognized and accepted, and has limits to how much they will allow other
      to differ from them. That is the nature of things.

      All around, people are striving for laws and policy which benefit themselves
      to the limitations of others who differ. The competition of people does
      this and that stems from the fighting over limited resources. They may say
      it benefits all, but that is rarely the truth. Every person will accept
      levels of control from the government, if they gain something; and complain,
      if they don't. Today, the apparent gain is safety and security.





      [But I think those concerns do not target the essence of liberty seekers.]



      Those concerns are the path to the down fall and the undermining
      of liberty seekers. They are not the target; they never were. They are to
      be watched for and they are all around. I love simplicity, but that is hard
      to keep. Laws are getting more convoluted, confused and obfuscated all the
      time because there are attorneys seeking the wealth of the profession. Each
      decision handed down from the courts make it more so. Each broad
      legislation to fix a social problem does the same. I've been saying for a
      long time we have to many laws; so many and baffling as to why they
      considered it that feudalism looks really good at times.



      I see no one has admitted to the home security system in their
      own home. Yes, they have that choice. Some of the point of that was the
      system seems fine up front for individual choice. The problem occurs is how
      easy it is to take the next step for surveillance. "There are dangerous
      people out there and we need to find them."



      I've met many who strive for freedom of firearms, a few are
      friends. Most people see the "need" for limitations, while a few see how
      each limitation erodes the liberty of ownership. A great many voluntarily
      misunderstand the reason for the amendment because to want the apparent
      safety that gun control gives them.



      One of the things Libertarians are being accused of is being a
      butch of potheads who wish to legalize marijuana. I know this is just
      rhetoric from some of the other sides, but there are a few clips of meetings
      that reinforce that image. I'm all for the legalization of it. And, for
      legalizing prostitution as well, so we can protect the girls. The
      government will tax both and make up for the losses fro cigarettes or what
      ever when people stop doing that. To make marijuana legal, the import or
      growing of it most be legalized as well, or it will remain in the realm of
      crime syndicates.



      There are many social differences this nation was built on. The
      fundamentalist claim they have first right because they left Europe to
      escape persecution. They claim the right over the indigenous people in the
      area they settled. Others came here to find a better life. Some found it.
      Most came to achieve wealth. Once that wealth was gained, they enacted laws
      to keep it. It still goes on.

      The greater point of all this may be that this movement fights
      the foundations of people's convictions and they will fight back. There is
      a thread at this group for YouTube videos. I liked it; however I saw that
      the person being title as the one how started this movement admitted moving
      from the state to gain more wealth. That goes back to personal gain over
      the ideals of the words. [Sorry Jason. Oh, by the way, Jason. You don't
      look comfortable in a suit. You may consider wearing a polo shirt instead.]



      I accept that everyone wishes to live their lives in the best
      way they can. I have my own. I'd like to see polygyny become legal, but
      that is receiving more resistance the gay marriage. I cannot marry the
      women I love and love me and have gotten along well with each other because
      of restriction and views of morality. My women are scattered and unhappy
      now because of it.



      I strive for liberty like no one in my sphere. I like the
      concept of this movement. It is the closest to the views in my house. I'm
      sorry to say that there is a major flaw at the core and until it is settled;
      neither the movement nor the Libertarians will be strong. The flaw is in
      the other major parties as well. Both are vulnerable to the opinions of a
      few individuals who can manipulate the laws to their advantage. The rest
      suffers and are oppressed, especially the greater family groups.





      [.intentionally or accededly obfuscated to the point that anyone just
      wanting a simple explanation.]



      You did seem to understand the meaning of my statement of how
      difficult it is to comprehend a different philosophy, whether political,
      social or moral. I know many will not understand what I'm trying to get at.
      The whole strengthening the family goes against individualism.





      [.citizen should have the choice to interact with his government or not.]



      Those who do not try to interact with their government are
      unable to shape it. That a point of this movement. I know most people do
      to have the nature for it. Most managers don't have the nature to manage,
      no matter their education, though they still do. That is why there are
      political parties. People find the party that best suits their ideology and
      throw their support that way. That is the rosy glasses view. The truth is
      they support the party that be gives them advantage over others or gives
      them advantages.

      At this time, most people do not see how the Libertarians can give them an
      advantage. The tycoons like the Republicans. Those deep in corporate
      business like them as well. The under caste like the Democrats because of
      what they can gain from them. Not many like their family much any more and
      don't see advantage in striving for private business when corporations pay
      them more.





      Wow - I did it again. I'd apologize to those who do not like long messages,
      but they are probably reading something shorter.



      Brian





      p.s.



      I like the fancy words, but even John Adams was criticized for
      his verbosity. [.own induced emolation (emulation or emollition), many
      Republicans.] I have my faults. I have time-lag dyslexia and went to many
      different (some shoddy) schools when I grew. Though I have some collage,
      I'm pretty much self taught. What that did was keep me from most of the
      programming the education system does. I was also able to see a whole array
      of people. My views may not be liked by many, but it is valid.





      I'm sure I stirred the pot really good.



      _____

      From: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:freestateproject@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of GTriest
      Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 8:53 AM
      To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [FSP] Liberty seekers - who and what are they seeking



      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





      [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.