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

FSP and RRND

Expand Messages
  • Mary Lou Seymour
    As many of y all know, Free Market Net (Henry Hazlitt Foundation) suspended operations Dec.20. Negotiations are still continuing to save parts or all of FMN,
    Message 1 of 7 , Jan 11, 2003
      As many of y'all know, Free Market Net (Henry Hazlitt Foundation)
      suspended operations Dec.20. Negotiations are still continuing to "save"
      parts or all of FMN, but, in the meantime, 4 of the former FMN editorial
      staff started a new once-daily freedom news source to replace freedom
      News Daily so people could still receive the latest freedom news
      everyday. The Rational Review News .Digest . We've been putting our
      RRND 3 weeks now. RRND is totally supported by its readers. We all
      consider that the info put out by FND was so vitally important to keeping
      the freedom movement informed, we committed to keep going as long
      as we receive support.

      At any rate, Free State Project was a Free Market Net "partner", and I
      was the editor assigned to FSP. This meant that FSP news got placed in
      Freedom News Daily on a regular and consistent basis. Even though
      RRND doesn't have "partners" at present, I am committed to placing
      FSP news in RRND. Next week, there will be several FSP entries.

      The more subscribers RRND can obtain, the more likely it is the word
      will get out. Right now, we have around 1200 subscribers (pretty good
      for only 3 wks in operation! It took FND 5 years to get to 8000!)

      So please, if you haven't subscribed yet to RRND, please do so. Simply
      send a blank e-mail to rrnd-subscribe@yahoogroups.com; OR,
      send your request to me at libertymls@... and I will
      personally add you to our subscriber's list; OR, visit the website at
      http://www.rationalreview.com/news/.

      Also, right now, there are donor premiums! Donate $100, we'll
      send you a copy of L. Neil Smith's _Lever Action_. Donate $200,
      and we'll send you _Lever Action_ AND _Send in the Waco Killers_
      by Vin Suprynowicz. If you've secretly wanted those books, but
      also secretly suffer from a severe case of altruism, you can feed
      your vice and get your books at the same time!

      http://www.rationalreview.com/news/premiums.html

      We take credit cards (through PayPal), egold, and checks/money orders
      or even FRNs:-)

      Thanks

      Mary Lou
    • Jake Witmer
      My basic approach to the FSP is to encourage people to organize to the extent that they are gauranteed success. A gaurantee is better than an optimistic
      Message 2 of 7 , Jan 11, 2003
        My basic approach to the FSP is to encourage people to organize to the
        extent that they are gauranteed success. A gaurantee is better than an
        optimistic chance.

        If we "took over" at least one city council, we'd be sitting a lot prettier
        than if we fought a really "libertarian" Republican establishment liar, lost
        , and then endured more Republican crap and lies, and lost the interest of
        the Libertarians elsewhere.

        18.7% of the LP resigned or lost interest because they felt the LP was
        "hopeless" at one point, because we didn't focua enough on winning
        elections.

        Planning and planning some more wins elections. Considering all of the
        possible weaknesses and vulnerabilities wins elections. Running strong
        candidates who pander to local issues wins elections.

        The LP does not have a history of being good at these things. In fact, it
        is rare.

        The ILP ran a big-money campaign and had a lot of organization, for the last
        election.

        But they ignored why people vote, and couldn't get into the debates, so
        their nice website failed to get them elected. (Of course, their website
        didn't post a letter of censure against their best candidate, in childishly
        amateurish text-only purple letters on a garish looking webpage, like the
        morons in Colorado did, regarding Rick Stanley.)

        The sheeple in Massachusetts voted for their own income tax, when the
        state-controlled media told them "it was in their best interest", even
        though Carla Howell did some intense PR work.

        Do we honestly think that any State is so libertarian that those in power
        will just hand over the reigns peacefully?

        Nope. They won't. We're going to encounter opposition, and we don't know
        to what extent. We also don't know how many "Republicans" will move to the
        free state, and say "Okay, we're all here, it's time to vote Republican!"

        I've seen it before. They might try every tactic we've imagined, and some
        we haven't. They might run Republican candidates that outright proclaim to
        vote with the LP platform, all lies. (Clinton himself said he was 'almost
        libertarian' on some issues.)

        The people of Wyoming still voted overwhelmingly against the LP (Although
        they did at least give us ballot access there.)

        People cling to their ignorance as if it was a liferaft made of lead, and
        they were to stupid to notice they were sinking, fast.

        I put way more faith in our numbers than I do our activism. The goal of our
        activism is to reach thinking humans. The goal of State activism is to
        reach 'feeling' humans.

        Which one has been more successful?

        If we are setting out to win elections, then we are setting out to play
        THEIR game. To win their game, we need votes. They can be gauranteed,
        carefully placed and organized votes of our own, that we can count on, or
        they can be votes made out of a promise that always fails to materialize.

        I think we should have a battle plan drawn up that can't lose.

        Fill one city council with enough libertarians to definitely win and control
        it (preferably the capitol, or the largest city in the state). Overlap the
        council boundaries with as many state legislative districts as possible.
        Distribute the rest evenly in all state legislative districts, and develope
        a scheme for assigning newcomers who get in touch with the FSP to a valuable
        position.

        Sure, we'll be able to convince a lot of people to vote with us. Sure,
        we'll have more people coming into the state when we begin to move. Sure, I
        hope.

        But I wouldn't take anything for granted, or believe that people who have
        voted against their own lives for years will suddenly listen to us
        rationally, and without bias.

        A bird in the hand is worth 200 thousand voting for Bush.

        Besides, there are a lot of things the freedom-haters aren't going to like
        about freedom, when we gain control.

        Their teenagers might smoke more dope (even if they would have anyway.)

        -Guess who takes the blame? -we do.

        They might not get their usual payoff /farm subsidy

        -so now they hate us.

        They might know someone who gets killed in a gunfight, because he didn't
        know how to use it or wasn't fast enough (even if he wouldn't have lived
        anyway, but at least had a fighting chance with the gun).

        -Guess who takes the blame? -we do.

        Do irrational people become more rational when they hear rational arguments?
        No.

        Can they be brainwashed by repeated actions, and by the media, and
        persuaded? Yes.

        The idea that this is not going to be a big crappy battle with a horde of
        slimy bureaucrats is wishful thinking.

        The most libertarians I've encountered anywhere was in the Pacific
        Northwest, but even then, I was hanging out with magic-mushroomers and
        well-educated sci-fi reading computer geeks. Representative of the general
        populace, no.

        If we're lucky, we might be able to convince 1 in 3 voters to vote with us.
        Hopefuly that, coupled with a robust flow of new voters will allow us to win
        most of our elections.

        But I think everything should be as planned-for success as possible. It
        would not be a good feeling to realize that the socialist media
        Counter-force is way stronger than we realized, and now that people have
        already moved, we could win our elections, but only if we move again, within
        the state. Imagine, how much more effective we'd be if we owned a city
        council. Every cruddy big government opression could be killed by a simple
        lack of cooperation. (OK, you can draft our kids, if you can find 'em. Oh
        yeah, by the way, there's an angry mob walking this way, and the local
        police are out catching a serial killer. Looks like you boys from selective
        service had better be leaving.)

        When we finally realize how sheepish people are, is too late. It's better
        to say, wow that was close, it's a good thing we directed people so
        efficiently and carefully.

        That's not the time to take the map out, and say "Gee whillickers, I wish
        we would have followed a more careful plan! Why, we'd have owned the
        capitol's city council!"

        I'll be working on getting the ward, district, and maps over the next few
        days. All this bullshitting has made me interested in seeing just what we
        could control, with 20K optimally placed votes. I think I'll be silent for
        a while, as I do my homework.
      • Jason P Sorens
        ... With just 20,000 people we wouldn t be guaranteed success at the state level: in any state we d have to convince at least 100,000 others to vote with us to
        Message 3 of 7 , Jan 12, 2003
          On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Jake Witmer wrote:

          > My basic approach to the FSP is to encourage people to organize to the
          > extent that they are gauranteed success. A gaurantee is better than an
          > optimistic chance.

          With just 20,000 people we wouldn't be guaranteed success at the state
          level: in any state we'd have to convince at least 100,000 others to vote
          with us to control the whole state. However, when starting out it would
          be a good idea to try to gain absolute control of a few towns and
          counties. The largest city or capital in most states might be too much to
          try at first. However, I envision trying to get an absolute majority of
          Porcupines in a few towns & counties, and enough Porcupines in a majority
          of state legislative districts to make it possible to win all those
          districts eventually. The "free towns" we create will provide the example
          of success that our activists outside those areas will need in order to
          win votes in the rest of the state. There has been some discussion of the
          "free town" idea in the state we choose on the web forum:

          http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=20;action=display;threadid=952
          http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=20;action=display;threadid=561

          ___________________________________________________________________________

          Jason P Sorens - jason.sorensATyale.edu - <http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35>

          <http://www.freestateproject.org> - Do you want liberty in your lifetime?
        • Ronald G Wittig
          Jake See my post, 2002 Elections. 10,000 votes+ for Lib candidates in 3 way state wide races, 86,000+ in a 2 way state wide race. Idaho doesn t register voters
          Message 4 of 7 , Jan 12, 2003
            Jake
            See my post, 2002 Elections. 10,000 votes+ for Lib candidates in 3 way state
            wide races, 86,000+ in a 2 way state wide race. Idaho doesn't register
            voters by party affiliation.
            http://www.idsos.state.id.us/ELECT/results/2002/general/tot_stwd.htm
            Ron
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Jake Witmer" <jakewitmer@...>
            To: <freestateproject@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 5:16 PM
            Subject: [FSP] OPTIMUM VOTE PLACEMENT


            > My basic approach to the FSP is to encourage people to organize to the
            > extent that they are gauranteed success. A gaurantee is better than an
            > optimistic chance.
            >
            > If we "took over" at least one city council, we'd be sitting a lot
            prettier
            > than if we fought a really "libertarian" Republican establishment liar,
            lost
            > , and then endured more Republican crap and lies, and lost the interest of
            > the Libertarians elsewhere.
            >
            > 18.7% of the LP resigned or lost interest because they felt the LP was
            > "hopeless" at one point, because we didn't focua enough on winning
            > elections.
            >
            > Planning and planning some more wins elections. Considering all of the
            > possible weaknesses and vulnerabilities wins elections. Running strong
            > candidates who pander to local issues wins elections.
            >
            > The LP does not have a history of being good at these things. In fact, it
            > is rare.
            >
            > The ILP ran a big-money campaign and had a lot of organization, for the
            last
            > election.
            >
            > But they ignored why people vote, and couldn't get into the debates, so
            > their nice website failed to get them elected. (Of course, their website
            > didn't post a letter of censure against their best candidate, in
            childishly
            > amateurish text-only purple letters on a garish looking webpage, like the
            > morons in Colorado did, regarding Rick Stanley.)
            >
            > The sheeple in Massachusetts voted for their own income tax, when the
            > state-controlled media told them "it was in their best interest", even
            > though Carla Howell did some intense PR work.
            >
            > Do we honestly think that any State is so libertarian that those in power
            > will just hand over the reigns peacefully?
            >
            > Nope. They won't. We're going to encounter opposition, and we don't know
            > to what extent. We also don't know how many "Republicans" will move to
            the
            > free state, and say "Okay, we're all here, it's time to vote Republican!"
            >
            > I've seen it before. They might try every tactic we've imagined, and some
            > we haven't. They might run Republican candidates that outright proclaim
            to
            > vote with the LP platform, all lies. (Clinton himself said he was
            'almost
            > libertarian' on some issues.)
            >
            > The people of Wyoming still voted overwhelmingly against the LP (Although
            > they did at least give us ballot access there.)
            >
            > People cling to their ignorance as if it was a liferaft made of lead, and
            > they were to stupid to notice they were sinking, fast.
            >
            > I put way more faith in our numbers than I do our activism. The goal of
            our
            > activism is to reach thinking humans. The goal of State activism is to
            > reach 'feeling' humans.
            >
            > Which one has been more successful?
            >
            > If we are setting out to win elections, then we are setting out to play
            > THEIR game. To win their game, we need votes. They can be gauranteed,
            > carefully placed and organized votes of our own, that we can count on, or
            > they can be votes made out of a promise that always fails to materialize.
            >
            > I think we should have a battle plan drawn up that can't lose.
            >
            > Fill one city council with enough libertarians to definitely win and
            control
            > it (preferably the capitol, or the largest city in the state). Overlap
            the
            > council boundaries with as many state legislative districts as possible.
            > Distribute the rest evenly in all state legislative districts, and
            develope
            > a scheme for assigning newcomers who get in touch with the FSP to a
            valuable
            > position.
            >
            > Sure, we'll be able to convince a lot of people to vote with us. Sure,
            > we'll have more people coming into the state when we begin to move. Sure,
            I
            > hope.
            >
            > But I wouldn't take anything for granted, or believe that people who have
            > voted against their own lives for years will suddenly listen to us
            > rationally, and without bias.
            >
            > A bird in the hand is worth 200 thousand voting for Bush.
            >
            > Besides, there are a lot of things the freedom-haters aren't going to like
            > about freedom, when we gain control.
            >
            > Their teenagers might smoke more dope (even if they would have anyway.)
            >
            > -Guess who takes the blame? -we do.
            >
            > They might not get their usual payoff /farm subsidy
            >
            > -so now they hate us.
            >
            > They might know someone who gets killed in a gunfight, because he didn't
            > know how to use it or wasn't fast enough (even if he wouldn't have lived
            > anyway, but at least had a fighting chance with the gun).
            >
            > -Guess who takes the blame? -we do.
            >
            > Do irrational people become more rational when they hear rational
            arguments?
            > No.
            >
            > Can they be brainwashed by repeated actions, and by the media, and
            > persuaded? Yes.
            >
            > The idea that this is not going to be a big crappy battle with a horde of
            > slimy bureaucrats is wishful thinking.
            >
            > The most libertarians I've encountered anywhere was in the Pacific
            > Northwest, but even then, I was hanging out with magic-mushroomers and
            > well-educated sci-fi reading computer geeks. Representative of the
            general
            > populace, no.
            >
            > If we're lucky, we might be able to convince 1 in 3 voters to vote with
            us.
            > Hopefuly that, coupled with a robust flow of new voters will allow us to
            win
            > most of our elections.
            >
            > But I think everything should be as planned-for success as possible. It
            > would not be a good feeling to realize that the socialist media
            > Counter-force is way stronger than we realized, and now that people have
            > already moved, we could win our elections, but only if we move again,
            within
            > the state. Imagine, how much more effective we'd be if we owned a city
            > council. Every cruddy big government opression could be killed by a
            simple
            > lack of cooperation. (OK, you can draft our kids, if you can find 'em.
            Oh
            > yeah, by the way, there's an angry mob walking this way, and the local
            > police are out catching a serial killer. Looks like you boys from
            selective
            > service had better be leaving.)
            >
            > When we finally realize how sheepish people are, is too late. It's better
            > to say, wow that was close, it's a good thing we directed people so
            > efficiently and carefully.
            >
            > That's not the time to take the map out, and say "Gee whillickers, I wish
            > we would have followed a more careful plan! Why, we'd have owned the
            > capitol's city council!"
            >
            > I'll be working on getting the ward, district, and maps over the next few
            > days. All this bullshitting has made me interested in seeing just what we
            > could control, with 20K optimally placed votes. I think I'll be silent
            for
            > a while, as I do my homework.
            >
            >
            > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > freestateproject-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            >
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >
            >
            >
          • Jake Witmer
            I agree. But I d aim a little higher if it was Anchorage we were trying for, because Scott Kohlhaas is already there, already mobilizing a petitioning force
            Message 5 of 7 , Jan 12, 2003
              I agree. But I'd aim a little higher if it was Anchorage we were trying
              for, because Scott Kohlhaas is already there, already mobilizing a
              petitioning force for their petition and referenda -end the draft, end drug
              criminalization, etc. petition and referendum would help us out a lot,
              because it would allow us to put every issue we were in favor of right on
              the ballot.

              In addition, some of the referenda failed in alaska by a small margin that
              we would make up with 20K, I think.

              -Jake
              on 1/12/03 11:58 AM, Jason P Sorens at jason.sorens@... wrote:

              On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Jake Witmer wrote:

              > My basic approach to the FSP is to encourage people to organize to the
              > extent that they are gauranteed success. A gaurantee is better than an
              > optimistic chance.

              With just 20,000 people we wouldn't be guaranteed success at the state
              level: in any state we'd have to convince at least 100,000 others to vote
              with us to control the whole state. However, when starting out it would
              be a good idea to try to gain absolute control of a few towns and
              counties. The largest city or capital in most states might be too much to
              try at first. However, I envision trying to get an absolute majority of
              Porcupines in a few towns & counties, and enough Porcupines in a majority
              of state legislative districts to make it possible to win all those
              districts eventually. The "free towns" we create will provide the example
              of success that our activists outside those areas will need in order to
              win votes in the rest of the state. There has been some discussion of the
              "free town" idea in the state we choose on the web forum:

              http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=20;action=display;threadid
              =952
              http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=20;action=display;threadid
              =561

              ___________________________________________________________________________

              Jason P Sorens - jason.sorensATyale.edu - <http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35>

              <http://www.freestateproject.org> - Do you want liberty in your lifetime?



              Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT

              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              freestateproject-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
              <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Peter Saint-Andre
              ... Is that a web design critique or a critique of the Colorado LP s position on Rick Stanley s candidacy? If the latter, for the record I will
              Message 6 of 7 , Jan 13, 2003
                On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Jake Witmer wrote:

                > (Of course, their website
                > didn't post a letter of censure against their best candidate, in childishly
                > amateurish text-only purple letters on a garish looking webpage, like the
                > morons in Colorado did, regarding Rick Stanley.)

                <offtopic>

                Is that a web design critique or a critique of the Colorado LP's position
                on Rick Stanley's candidacy? If the latter, for the record I will state
                only that I quit the Colorado LP over its failure to repudiate Rick
                Stanley completely (not just give him a slap on the wrist), and I question
                the sanity of anyone who thinks Rick Stanley was a great candidate. Read
                the following URL at the Colorado Freedom Report for a full chronicle of
                Stanley's candidacy:

                http://www.co-freedom.com/2002/11/stanleycampaign.html

                This is *not* the kind of person we'd want running as a Porcupine.

                </offtopic>

                Peter
              • Jake Witmer
                [last message on this topic, on this forum anyway. thanks. ;-)] It s both. Stanley was one of the best candidates you guys in Colorado ran. (I m
                Message 7 of 7 , Jan 13, 2003
                  [last message on this topic, on this forum anyway. thanks. ;-)]

                  <wayofftopic>
                  It's both. Stanley was one of the best candidates you guys in Colorado ran.
                  (I'm a Libertarian, so I'm used to having my sanity questioned.) He didn't
                  do much worse than the weakly libertarian former-Republican we ran for
                  Governor in Illinois. If you would have defended him and his harsh
                  language, you could have made yourselves stronger. Who knows by how much?

                  If you would have worked with him, and promoted the hell out of him, it
                  would ave helped you in the long run. Why? Because you guys are still in
                  the infancy of a Party that's been around 30 years! The CO LP embarassed
                  itself by "issuing a letter of censure". At least they've updated the
                  website to one that appears as if it was made by a highschool graduate.

                  Your philosophers in CO have taken the "big fish in a small pond" syndrome
                  to the next level. You guys are whale sharks splashing in mud puddles. I
                  doubt if the time spent writing that letter of censure couldn't have been
                  better spent writing an editorial in defense of Stanley, or even handing out
                  ISIL fliers (something that the LP still seems to believe in).

                  I don't think some of the things Rick said were optimal for success (and
                  obviously not in Colorado, where they caused his party to abandon him). But
                  does one optimize success by cowardly pandering to the PC police? Nope,
                  when a strong candidate states that the politicians who've ruined this
                  country need to accept their ultimate credit for doing so, then I'd stick up
                  for him, not stick a knife in his back.

                  In addition, he put his actions where his mouth was. Something that's
                  rarely done, in any LP.

                  People all over the nation recognized him for speaking honestly. And his
                  million gun march this year is a good idea that's likely to show more people
                  than the "MMM", if he decides to go through with it anyway.

                  In addition, I honestly believe that he'll bring more people to the free
                  state than I will, and I intend to bring at least 50 additional, not
                  currently registered. (Are you listening Rick?!)

                  So yeah, I find it pretty hard to criticize Rick Stanley, especially after
                  the beating he took from his own "Political Party". In fact, I kind of like
                  the guy.

                  -Jake

                  on 1/13/03 11:26 AM, Peter Saint-Andre at jabber@... wrote:

                  On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Jake Witmer wrote:

                  > (Of course, their website
                  > didn't post a letter of censure against their best candidate, in childishly
                  > amateurish text-only purple letters on a garish looking webpage, like the
                  > morons in Colorado did, regarding Rick Stanley.)

                  <offtopic>

                  Is that a web design critique or a critique of the Colorado LP's position
                  on Rick Stanley's candidacy? If the latter, for the record I will state
                  only that I quit the Colorado LP over its failure to repudiate Rick
                  Stanley completely (not just give him a slap on the wrist), and I question
                  the sanity of anyone who thinks Rick Stanley was a great candidate. Read
                  the following URL at the Colorado Freedom Report for a full chronicle of
                  Stanley's candidacy:

                  http://www.co-freedom.com/2002/11/stanleycampaign.html

                  This is *not* the kind of person we'd want running as a Porcupine.

                  </offtopic>

                  Peter



                  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
                  var lrec_target="_top"; var lrec_URL = new Array(); lrec_URL[1] =
                  "http://rd.yahoo.com/M=219695.2850578.4203976.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=17050603
                  75:HM/A=1400466/R=0/id=flashurl/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;5046279;77905
                  48;y?http://www.ameritrade.com/o.cgi?a=cjx=roc=/offer/25.html"; var
                  link="javascript:LRECopenWindow(1)"; var lrec_flashfile =
                  'http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/am/ameritrade/120402_am_ban_bc_x49_x_30
                  0x250_3.swf?clickTAG='+link+''; var lrec_altURL =
                  "http://rd.yahoo.com/M=219695.2850578.4203976.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=17050603
                  75:HM/A=1400466/R=1/id=altimgurl/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;5046279;7790
                  548;y?http://www.ameritrade.com/o.cgi?a=cjx=roc=/offer/25.html"; var
                  lrec_altimg =
                  "http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/am/ameritrade/120402_am_ban_off_x82_x_3
                  00x250_6.gif"; var lrec_width = 300; var lrec_height = 250;
                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  freestateproject-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
                  <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




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