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

Re: [FSP] Re: Text Changes for Libertarian Nitpickers

Expand Messages
  • Elizabeth McKinstry
    These are not guidelines for a government -- they can t be, we re a non-profit. These are only guidelines for the move. ... From: dada2199
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 28, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      These are not guidelines for a "government" -- they can't be, we're a
      non-profit. These are only guidelines for the move.

      ----Original Message Follows----
      From: dada2199 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
      Reply-To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
      To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [FSP] Re: Text Changes for Libertarian Nitpickers
      Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 18:05:06 -0000


      > While I agree with both statements below, if we continue to modify
      and
      > adjust these guidelines (and have everyone re-sign each time), we
      might be
      > causing more problems than we're resolving.
      >
      > Other thoughts?


      Changes such as these are mandatory, and should be reviewed at
      regular progressional periods (say, every 500 new members, we have a
      review of changes that need to be made).

      We definitely need a modification to this "Constitution" to alot the
      following (not necessarily correct wording):

      During the ongoing drafting of our membership agreement, we will
      review the agreement and vote to modify the agreement, whenever we
      reach a point of 500 new members having joined since the last
      amendment meeting. Members can continue their original desire to
      enter into this agreement via e-mail or signed letter. (etc etc).

      It is of utmost importance that members who join down the line have
      some say so in entering ideas for amendment or additions to the
      membership agreement, as new people will bring new ideas. I do have
      to say that the un-libertarian passages that we're looking at changes
      did originally make me think twice about the FSP, because it sounded
      like it would be pro-freedom initially, and cave in to government's
      normal tyrannical progression that we've all witnessed.

      The changes set forth in recent days makes a big step in limiting the
      FSP's government's growth, but I don't think it is enough. We need
      more severe and strong wording limiting the FSP's government's
      powers, as well as strict wording that can't be "interpreted" down
      the line, maybe even wording saying "The words and beliefs contained
      in this document are not to be interpreted by anyone in the future.
      When there are doubts, the rights shall be granted to the
      individual." etc etc.

      dada






      -- Elizabeth M. McKinstry
      Organizing member of the Free State Project
      "Liberty in Our Lifetime"
      http://www.freestateproject.com


      _________________________________________________________________
      MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
      http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.