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

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

Expand Messages
  • Marcy Ch
    You guys write a lot. The answer is a whole lot simpler -- and far older.  Jefferson wrote: all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to
    Message 1 of 31 , May 4, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      You guys write a lot.

      The answer is a whole lot simpler -- and far older.  Jefferson wrote: "all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.  But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them to absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government and to provide new Guards for their future security."

      That's where we are right now.... "disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable."  And they ARE sufferable, to most people.  Yeah, the economy's tanked. TSA and DHS are a pain in the rear.   We all know the government lies thru its teeth and steals everything that's not nailed down and half the stuff that is -- but practically speaking, from my own life, all the brouhaha since last September has meant exactly zero change in my life.  I still go to work every day, I still raise my child, buy food, socialize with friends, and plan my gardens.  Ditto most of the people I know.   The evils are presented as very sufferable indeed.

      I read.  Widely.  I am an ardent archeolibertarian.  It grates that 90% of the liberty I had at birth (as a baby boomer) vanished.  I shudder when I consider the years ahead, because I know that this will all come to a head eventually -- if only because our monetary system is going to belly up with horrific consequences.  (At which point the evils will definitley NOT be sufferable to me, or anyone else). 

      I have a hunch the answer to your first question -- who are the liberty seekers -- will be everyone.  And what will they be seeking?   I'd like to think that eventually it will be a tiny federal government along constitutional guidelines, something we wouldn't recognize right now if it bit us in the collective ass.  Sound money, abolition of the Fed and rollback of taxes to pre-1913 levels.  Real justice, where money and social class don't buy a favorable verdict.  Food and water that corporations and municipalities aren't allowed to poison.  The end of empire and militarism.  Most power exercised on a local, rather than federal, level.

      I keep my fingers crossed that, after the revolution and we are headed for one, we will remember our Constitutional roots and go back to them.  I'm not betting on it.  What I will advocate is that my state safeguards my liberty.  I'm not betting heavily on that either.  What might give us a shot is the mass realization of how betrayed, ripped off, lied to and manipulated we've been by government (who many trusted to be their guardian, provider and savior) and the fury that's generated by that realization.   Unfortunately, by the time we get to that point, it's guaranteed to be bloody.  And that saddens me.

      Marcy



      --- On Sun, 5/3/09, Freedom Fred <fred@...> wrote:

      From: Freedom Fred <fred@...>
      Subject: Re: [FSP] Liberty seekers - who and what are they seeking
      To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Sunday, May 3, 2009, 8:52 PM

















      Brian,



      Brian W. wrote:

      > 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.



      Of course, many in this nation actually fear real Freedom. But that's

      partly because they've been conditioned to think in terms of needing

      their government to solve many problems they could really deal with on

      their own. Plus, "better the devil you know" plays in as well.



      Basically, people in general hate change. They will cling tenaciously to

      what is familiar to them, even if it is broken.



      > 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?



      The real problem is that so many have had to live in this broken system

      for so long that it's created its own dependency on the government

      status quo. The vets, you mention, may not have had to deal with being

      injured in unjustified wars if a more libertarian way of thinking had

      been in place.



      Transition will not be easy, because the existing system is broken

      beyond all repair and have screwed over so many.



      > Communism was built on the concept of equalizing people, not

      > liberating them in the sense this movement intends.



      True Communism has never existed. What we see called "communism" in

      today's world is really fascism. A family is communal. Small communities

      are communal to a large degree. It's not so much about "equalizing

      people" as it is holding resources in common.



      There can never be true equality. All we can best hope for is to give

      each individual the chance to self-actualize to his or her fullest. And

      that can best occur in an atmosphere of freedom.



      > [It is good to have an open mind about freedom, but not so open as to

      > have your brains fall out.]



      I think one must focus on what freedom really is and what it could be,

      and distinguish that from the mess we have today.



      > 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).



      Not so much "standing for something" as so much using your head.

      Rationality should lead the way.



      > I do agree with both statements: one has to have convictions and they

      > need to hold to them.



      I don't think one "has to have" convictions. I deem it far more

      important that one *has to think*. Understand and act on that understanding.



      > 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.



      The issue of beliefs is a very contentious one. Some cherish the right

      to believe anything you want. But it is obvious that some beliefs are

      just plain wrong and will get you nowhere. However, if you are able to

      critically access those beliefs, and be willing to modify them as your

      own logic and rationality dictates, then we may get somewhere.



      > All around, people are striving for laws and policy which benefit

      > themselves to the limitations of others who differ.



      That's the problem with democracies -- winner takes all, majority beats

      up on the minority.



      > 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.



      Well, what they get in return is a false sense of security and actually

      become less safe.



      > [But I think those concerns do not target the essence of liberty

      > seekers.]



      Liberty seekers wish to establish their own safety and security without

      the undue "help" from mommy government.



      > 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.



      The problem lies with the existing system and its dynamics. It is broken

      at its fundamental levels and creates more and more unsustainable

      systems and inane policies. Nevermind the corruption.



      > 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."



      A proper function of the government is to protect us from one another.

      If someone has harmed another, of course said individual should be

      brought to justice and properly prosecuted.



      But today's system of "justice" is broken at many levels. It fingers the

      innocent and sometimes let the guilty roam free. Police lie under oath

      routinely. Sound scientific practices are NOT in place with regards to

      dealing with evidence. The courts are a joke at best, overrun with

      appeals to emotion and bias rather than rationality and logic. And the

      list goes on and on...



      > 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.



      Apparent, indeed. Gun control, as we all know, only affects law abiding

      citizens. No need to beat that dead horse...



      > 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.



      I stand for the elimination of all consensual and victimless "crimes".

      Besides, its well known that tobacco is far more dangerous to your

      health than marijuana, etc....



      The only thing that should be a crime is someone harming others against

      their will. Imagine how much simpler the laws would become if we got rid

      of all the dross and kept it to that basic and very simple principle.

      Not to mention that the prison system would become MUCH cheaper, etc.



      > 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.



      I think focusing specifically on marijuana is a bad idea. Focusing on

      the much broader elimination of *all* consensual "crimes" would be more

      excellent to do, and you'd get your pot as a side effect.



      > 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.



      Nobody living today can claim they came here from Europe to escape

      religious persecution. Those people that did so are long dead. They

      lived and made decisions in a world that no longer exist.



      > 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.]



      In a winner-takes- all world, yes, you will have these fights unending.

      We need to abandon the winner-takes- all system and focus on individual

      sovereignty and what I call a "fractalization of power". The latter is a

      concept that is still embryonic; I hope to expand it into something more

      comprehensive over time.



      > 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 want to see government completely out of the business of marriage.

      Those that wish to marry themselves should draw up their own contract to

      cover the arrangement; the government's only role would be to enforce

      that contract.



      > 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.



      The planet is overrun by what I call "Mindless Vessels of Belief". MVBs

      screw up everything. In an ideal world, we should be able to insulate

      ourselves from the idiocy of the MVB. Well, we are FAR from that ideal!



      -Freedom Fred































      [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.