Free State Project Forum

FSP -- General Discussion => Prospective Participants => Topic started by: AlaskanWoman on May 23, 2003, 12:42:59 am

Title: Libertarian Party
Post by: AlaskanWoman on May 23, 2003, 12:42:59 am
Do you peep hold with what the "national" Libertarian Party thinks?

Is this group associated with the "national" Libertarian Party?

If so, what does the "national" party think of you peeps plan/plot to overtake/overwhelm certain "select" states?

And if not, well then that is a hole nutter kettle of fish.
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: Justin on May 23, 2003, 01:26:44 am
Quote
Do you peep hold with what the "national" Libertarian Party thinks?

Am I a peep? Isn't that the sound baby chickens make?  I like baby chickens, they're cute.


Quote
Is this group associated with the "national" Libertarian Party?

http://www.freestateproject.com/faqs.htm (http://www.freestateproject.com/faqs.htm)  - Scroll down to "Q. Is the FSP part of the Libertarian Party?"


Quote
If so, what does the "national" party think of you peeps plan/plot to overtake/overwhelm certain "select" states?

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=1071 (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=1071)


Quote
And if not, well then that is a hole nutter kettle of fish.

How so?  

Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: AlaskanWoman on May 23, 2003, 01:30:41 am
ohhhhhhhhh again sarcasm and again, it be poorly done.  ::)

So Justin, you peeps don't hold with the "national" party. Figures. Couldn't cut it there either huh?

Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: Justin on May 23, 2003, 02:02:17 am
Quote
Couldn't cut it there either huh?

I'm a bit unclear as to your philosophy.  The above quote might lead one to think you believe "being able to cut it" would have been a good thing that we failed to accomplish, but your original post alludes to some unease with regard to the LP.

Care to elaborate on your position?
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: AlaskanWoman on May 23, 2003, 02:11:25 am
Justin

I am a registered Democrat, have been since I turned 18, a long time ago.

I vote for the ones I feel will do the job right.  Libertarians, at one time here in my state, back when ol Joe V was alive and in charge of it, it was a good thing. These days it ain't. In fact, it isn't really all that much of a Libertarian Party.

I asked if you and your kind went along with the national but again you played your stupid game. Ok fine. Don't aanswer me, I don't really care. Because Justin, so far I am not impress. Does it matter what I think about you and your kind? No. But Justin, it will matter should you seek my state to subvert. Think on that.



Quote
Couldn't cut it there either huh?

I'm a bit unclear as to your philosophy.  The above quote might lead one to think you believe "being able to cut it" would have been a good thing that we failed to accomplish, but your original post alludes to some unease with regard to the LP.

Care to elaborate on your position?
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: Justin on May 23, 2003, 03:12:42 am
Party affiliations are one thing, but what about your principles with regard to government? You state you "vote for the ones I feel will do the job right".  What job is it you feel politicians should be doing?  
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: AlaskanWoman on May 23, 2003, 01:20:14 pm
Ya know boy, I can't be as vague and dumb as you and you kind are so let me answer this honestly and openly. See boy, I don't hide, unlike you and your kind.

What I expect and demand of MY gov, is, (local I am speaking of here boy) they best do as the people all the people requires they to do.

See boy, unlike most states, my state does more FOR the people of this state tha sitting around with their hands int heir pockets.

I require a gov to be there and (novel idea, try it one day boy) support their people.

I require a gov who will do as they said they would do.

I require they do keep their words.

I do not require a group of wannabe punks who wants to play god in control of anything.

Should they fail to do as they promised, then they are out never to return.

Party affiliations are one thing, but what about your principles with regard to government? You state you "vote for the ones I feel will do the job right".  What job is it you feel politicians should be doing?  
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: Radar on May 23, 2003, 04:38:01 pm
If you want smaller, less expensive, less intrusive government that abides by the Constitution and allows you to live your life as you want to live it, you MUST vote for only Libertarian candidates.  Everyone else will give you exactly the opposite even if they're members of the FSP because their party will pressure them into submission.
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: AlaskanWoman on May 23, 2003, 06:22:25 pm
Excuse me?  I must?

lol Oh no I must vote for who and what I wish. ANd libertarian so far has shown ME nada.

If you want smaller, less expensive, less intrusive government that abides by the Constitution and allows you to live your life as you want to live it, you MUST vote for only Libertarian candidates.  Everyone else will give you exactly the opposite even if they're members of the FSP because their party will pressure them into submission.
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: AlaskanWoman on May 23, 2003, 06:52:54 pm
Thank you Joe

That is hmmmmmmm  reassuring to know that the Libertarian group wont overtake our state.

Now if ol Joe was alive, he would still not allow them to overtake our state.

Since you actually "answered" this question, let me toss out another.........to you.

What exactly is a "Porcupines"?

And thanks for the links I will check them out.

Do we hold with the National Libertarian Party?
Many of us do not.
Some of us emphatically do not.
Contrary to some posts here, the FSP never was associated with the LP.

Below is some of what I've previously posted elsewhere on this forum.

The 20,000 Free Staters won't accomplish much in any state without native and local support.  But with native and local support the cause of liberty can advance so much faster than the LP's paltry efforts that it will make the LP look like it is standing still (which it is -- or actually losing ground -- see the membership numbers below).

Furthermore, if some of our more radical sort anger the locals and natives with thier more-libertarian-than-thou attitude, they won't go anywhere. They won't even get somebody elected to fence viewer or coroner.

To Radar, Radracer and other such purist Libertarians...

The very best you all could do for Porcupines trying to win elections and be effective in winning more liberty is to loudly and widely proclaim that
Free Staters are not Libertarians!
and
The LP is not associated with the FSP!


Why?
See these discussions
LP or not LP? (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=20;action=display;threadid=442)
Some disturbing election results (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=939)
LP Reputation (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=20;action=display;threadid=1081)
Should we vote at some point to officially endorse a LP candidate for pres? (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=1715)
Rejected by the LNC (Libertarian National Committee) (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=1071)
Porcupines, sever connections with national LP (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=20;action=display;threadid=1593)

Here are the National Libertarian Membership numbers.
Year 2000 = 32,922
Year 2001 = 27,731
Year 2002 = 22,871
Year 2003 = Under 20,000??? ???
Source:
http://www.dehnbase.org/lpus/library/membership-hist.html
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: AlaskanWoman on May 23, 2003, 08:45:49 pm
WOW!!  Now I know who to come to for answers. Thank you
Quote
"Porcupines" refers to the Free State Project members.
It derives from the FSP logo.
Note, for your future reference, that the "Free State Project" is primarily or only the effort to get 20,000 liberty-minded activists to move to a state that is
1) most Free now, and
2) is most receptive of such a movement, and
3) will best support efforts to regain liberties this nation began with.
The "Free State Project" formally ends when the move is complete.
Ok, I understand that. Thank you

Quote
Then a separate informal or perhaps formal effort is begun by the Free Staters ("Porcupines") and their local and native supporters to support existing efforts to enhance liberty. As a city councilman I know there are local councilmembers, commissioners and state legislators who have lots of ordinances or laws they would like to repeal or lighten up, but they have not had the support needed to do that.

Yeah I do believe we have several of those people here. In fact lol I know a few of them.

Quote
Then, if that works and people adjust to their regained freedoms (freedom from building & zoning codes to fewer licenses and less gun ownership restrictions) then Free Staters themselves can hopefully get elected so that the locals and natives can let some energetic youngsters carry the load for a while.

ANd the Free Staters will also include locals?

Quote
I'd bet that in Alaska, like in rural Colorado, there is a constant inmigration of people who the old big-city or suburban regulations enforced in their new community.  The Porcupines can be allies against those meddlesome newcomers.

Oh do NOT get me started on them. Way too many to many of them.

Quote
Unfortunately I believe that most of the Porcupines will not be "activists". Most will disappear into their communities because they do not want to be involved in politics. They just want to be left alone. You probably won't even notice them except in elections when tax proposals get voted down by bigger margins.

Why would that be unforunate?  If they did what they meant to do and it was good and not bad, why not let them "fade" away to live their lives? I see nothing bad in that. In fact, many people feel that way here.

Quote
Unfortunately the outsiders bringing planning, zoning, codes, regulations and laws with them do not disappear, do not want to be left alone and leave others alone.  Their activism and willingness to run for office and make changes often tires out the locals and natives. Thus the big-government types win -- and keep winning in town after town.

We get them mostly from Cal, Wa state and oregon. They are very aggressive and yeah it is hard to fight them.

Quote
Thus my compatriots and I in my small city and the Free Staters in one chosen state must eventually draw a line and say "No more!"  Maybe 20,000 liberty-minded activists can reinforce one state enough so the locals and natives have the political strength to stop the effects of outsiders who want to change small town ways into big city politics.  
 

You know Joe, of all the people who posts here, you have made the best sense to me. You were clear, consistant, was not vague, not afraid to answer questions put out there.

And man you make sense.

hmmm Guess I best head back over to the pit and post a retraction. Not all of you are off.  :)

And you have given me a lot to think about. Cool!
 
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: Radar on May 23, 2003, 08:53:18 pm
Quote
Excuse me?  I must?

Only if you want smaller, less expensive, less intrusive government that abides by the Constitution and allows you to live your life as you want to live it.  If you want larger, more expensive, more intrusive government that intrudes on every aspect of your life, attacks your civil rights, steals more of your income, lies, cheats, murders, and steals by all means feel free to vote for anyone other than Libertarian party members and that's exactly what you'll get.  

Quote
lol Oh no I must vote for who and what I wish. ANd libertarian so far has shown ME nada.

I couldn't agree more.  You must vote for who and what you wish and if what you wish is freedom you must vote for Libertarians voting for anyone other than a Libertarian will get you the opposite of freedom. But if what you want is more of the same, feel free to vote for people other than Libertarians.

Quote
Though many, if not most, if not nearly all of the FSP'ers are Jeffersonian Classical Liberals (back before there was anything such as "libertarian")

The Libertarian party and no other party represents Jeffersonian Classical Liberalism.  But the phrase "Liberal" was bastardized over the years.  Jefferson WAS a Libertarian plain and simple and no amount of re-writing history will change that.

I don't care what your personal opinion is, having the name "Libertarian" after your name on a ballot is not now, nor has it ever been a handicap or detrimental to a political candidate in any way.  What is a handicap is trying to do a project of this size and importance and shooting yourself in the foot by backing non-Libertarians before you get there.  

The Republican party will never be free or support the cause of freedom or smaller government....N-E-V-E-R  Even if every single member of the FSP joined the Republican party it won't happen.  That is a lost cause.  If you support Republicans you support large government and tyrrany PERIOD.  

The very best thing the FSP can do to stick to their cause of gaining freedom within our lifetime and winning elections is to proudly stand up and loudly say, "The FSP are 20,000 members of the Libertarian party and we will control the outcome of elections without changing sides, or compromising.  We WILL forever remain associated with the LP!"

Quote
If those 20,000 don't compromise enough to get another 100,000 voters to vote with them, what will 20,000 votes, all by themselves, get you?

It's naive and ignorant to think that 20,000 Libertarians (many of which are activists) in a state that leans towards freedom already won't get others to vote with them.  In fact 100,000 is a very conservative estimate about the number of people who would join us if we voted together as Libertarians.

Quote
That is hmmmmmmm  reassuring to know that the Libertarian group wont overtake our state.

Rest assured, if there ever is a FREE state, it will be run by Libertarians.  Any state run by those other than Libertarians won't be free by definition.  A vote for anyone other than a Libertarian is a vote for murder, torture, lies, ignorance, greed, theft, fraud, huge government, slavery, oppression, and imperialism.  If you compromise your principles of freedom by joining those who created this problem, you become part of the problem.  America is in the state we're in precisely because people like Joe chose to compromise.  Do yourself a favor and work toward freedom instead of against it like him.

I seek to unite us for the cause of freedom and he seeks to divide us and compromise our principles.  He is exactly what is wrong in America and hopefully he won't taint many other actual freedom loving FSP members with what could end this project before it starts.
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: AlaskanWoman on May 23, 2003, 09:11:39 pm
See Radar

We have a problem. A problem that has the best chance to flare into something enough to blow up all your plans.

Go into any state with that attitude, and you loose. No if, no and and no buts.

You and your kind really need to rethink many things.

I will NEVER vote as someone else orders me to do so. Not way in hades. In fact, me and many others the nation over, could very well vote the OTHER way should you and your kind say otherwise.
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: Radar on May 23, 2003, 09:23:11 pm
Quote
You and your kind really need to rethink many things

I could say the same of you.

Quote
I will NEVER vote as someone else orders me to do so. Not way in hades.

And I would NEVER order anyone to vote any way other than what thier conscience requires.  But I was under the impression the people of the FREE State Project had a desire for FREEDOM.  Given the indisputable fact that we will NEVER have freedom if we vote for anyone other than Libertarians, I'd think your conscience would dictate you vote for the only party that actually represents freedom; The Libertarian Party.  But as I've said all along, you can vote for whomever you wish.  Just know if you vote for anyone other than a Libertarian you're voting for pure evil.

Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: Dalamar49 on May 23, 2003, 09:26:46 pm
Well, no offence Radar, but what about Ron Paul? Ron Paul isn't evil at all. Sure he's a Republican, but he has a pure Libertarian voting record.
He's even anti-war! An issue the Libertarian party stands devided on.
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: Radar on May 23, 2003, 09:34:26 pm
What about Ron Paul?  He's a Libertarian who sold out and hasn't accomplished anything.  While I respect his consistant voting against all things unconstitutional he is not changing the Republican party, and he represents everything that's wrong with America and with those in the freedom movement.  You can't be a nice Nazi.  Sorry, but it's true.  If you choose to wear that uniform you automatically become as evil as Hitler himself.  If you join the monster, you become the monster.  

Ron Paul is nothing more than a puppet for the Republican party.  Because they know they can vote for huge government and point to him and say they want small government.  
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: Dalamar49 on May 23, 2003, 09:51:29 pm
Sure he's not changing the party, but he's only one man. We'll have 20,000 pro-liberty activists we can change the local, statewide party.

Ron Paul might not be changing the Republican party, but he is pushing a very Libertarian agenda in DC, which is more than most of us can claim....including myself and hell I'm the Northen Nevada's Libertarian party representitive.
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: Penfist on May 23, 2003, 10:43:27 pm
What Joe is saying is that we all have flaws.

He is doing a good job of it too!

What matters is that reinforcements are on the way. We aren't sure where they are going yet, but that question will be decided soon enough.
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: AlaskanWoman on May 23, 2003, 11:07:47 pm
Quote
ANd the Free Staters will also include locals?
 
I believe the Porcupines want with all their hearts and minds that lots of your locals and natives are already Free Staters -- that's why they are trying their darndest to figure out which state is the most Free State because it already has the most Free Staters.

Well we are NOT like the people of the lower 48 that much I can tell you. We are much more Individualists: Isolationists: Loners: Hermits: Rebels: Anti-governmentists. But does that many we are Free Staters? This I don't know. I do know that the people here, we do not suffer many things gladly.

Quote
Thus, again, look upon Porcupines as fresh reinforcements, as green troops coming to the front. And like green troops, they are definitely going to need some experienced people to train them so that both battle-hardened but tired old troops and the fresh recruits can survive and win the battle against those Californicaters and New Yorkifiers.

Cal people arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh  We have them in bunches here. Should any of you thought me close-minded (and yet ya didn't take the time to get to know me tsk tsk tsk  ;D ;)) then you should get to know "those" people here.

Quote
On another note,
try to ignore Radar and his unbending, uncompromising, "more-libertarian-than-thou" (I really like that phrase).
They spout sentences like
"Jefferson WAS a Libertarian plain and simple and no amount of re-writing history will change that."
when it is more accurate to say
"Libertarians ARE Jeffersonians plain and simple and no amount of re-writing history will change that."

Note I stopped responding to Radar pretty much after the first couple of his posts to me.

Quote
BUT, Libertarians would criticize even Jefferson for being a turncoat simply because he became an ultimate insider -- President -- and because he waged war against the terrorists in Tripoli and used public money to speculate in real estate (The Louisiana Purchase).  Thus not even Jefferson would have been a pure enough Libertarian to satisfy these born-again Libertarians.

Blind obedience to any tenet, faith, cause is a bad bad thing.

Quote
P.S. My city council is presently struggling with a decision to buy some real estate for cheap and re-sell it to neighboring property owners, businesses and anyone else who wants a piece.  The real estate is railroad property that the railroad has not wanted to sell to any private party -- not even the neighbors to that property.
Is this proposal Libertarian? No.
Is it Jeffersonian? You betcha!

Oww.  I just went thru that myself two years ago. So now I got a nice little road out side almost of my door. What do I care if idiots/morons ain't got enough sense to slow down going around curves?  So because of idiots/morons I lost land. Oh joy. ANd now I am told that part of my land is right in the middle of the bypass road.

Can you say "toll road"?
 ;D
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: Radar on May 23, 2003, 11:10:16 pm
Quote
Ron Paul might not be changing the Republican party, but he is pushing a very Libertarian agenda in DC, which is more than most of us can claim....including myself and hell I'm the Northen Nevada's Libertarian party representitive.

While I'm not pushing the agenda in D.C. I'm doing a lot in California.  I (and my outreach group) have organized outreach booth at raves with 45,000 people.  I've been responsible for several hundred new, young, and diverse registered Libertarians and a few new members too.  And that's saying a lot in the most socialistic of all States.  Ron Paul isn't making changes in government policy or even his own party policy.  As I said, he's a token for the Republicans so they can still lie to people and use him as a false example of their desire for small government.

Quote
"Libertarians ARE a Jeffersonians plain and simple and no amount of re-writing history will change that."

<BZZZT>Wrong.  Thanks for playing we've got some lovely parting gifts for you.

The correct answer is Classic Liberalism (libertarianism) is far older than Thomas Jefferson.  

Quote
Blind obedience to any tenet, faith, cause is a bad bad thing.

My dedication to the cause of freedom isn't blind.  I'm dedicated to it because I can see.  Those who think they can make progress toward freedom by making deals with the devil, or compromising their principles are the blind ones.
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: AlaskanWoman on May 23, 2003, 11:16:46 pm
And I thought I was to the extreme attitude wise here. lol I am a conservative compared to you. lol So funny  ;D
Anyho, off to stir up even more things  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quote
Ron Paul might not be changing the Republican party, but he is pushing a very Libertarian agenda in DC, which is more than most of us can claim....including myself and hell I'm the Northen Nevada's Libertarian party representitive.

While I'm not pushing the agenda in D.C. I'm doing a lot in California.  I (and my outreach group) have organized outreach booth at raves with 45,000 people.  I've been responsible for several hundred new, young, and diverse registered Libertarians and a few new members too.  And that's saying a lot in the most socialistic of all States.  Ron Paul isn't making changes in government policy or even his own party policy.  As I said, he's a token for the Republicans so they can still lie to people and use him as a false example of their desire for small government.

Quote
"Libertarians ARE a Jeffersonians plain and simple and no amount of re-writing history will change that."

<BZZZT>Wrong.  Thanks for playing we've got some lovely parting gifts for you.

The correct answer is Classic Liberalism (libertarianism) is far older than Thomas Jefferson.  

Quote
Blind obedience to any tenet, faith, cause is a bad bad thing.

My dedication to the cause of freedom isn't blind.  I'm dedicated to it because I can see.  Those who think they can make progress toward freedom by making deals with the devil, or compromising their principles are the blind ones.
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: Aaron on May 23, 2003, 11:28:22 pm
Woman from Alaska,

Before reading your reply to Joe, I had the impression that you were just here to heckle us and poke fun.  Perhaps my first impression was wrong and you are interested in a serious discussion.  I would like to attempt to clarify a couple of terms.  Maybe this will help make some of these posts easier to understand.

Libertarian (big L):  Person associated with/dedicated to the Libertarian Party.

libertarian (small l):  Person who believes in the philosophy of individual freedoms both social and economic.  Some of these call themselves Jeffersonians, Classical Liberals, etc. in an attempt to avoid the big L small l confusion.

Porcupine:  Person who has signed the Statement of Intent of the Free State Project.  We can be recognised on this forum by the phrase "FSP Member" by our sign in name.  Some are libertarian, some are Libertarian, some are both, some are neither.

Examples:  Joe is not a porcupine or a Libertarian (big L).  He may be a (small l) libertarian, but he will never call himself that.  He is much more likely to call himself a Jeffersonian or Classical Liberal.  I am a porcupine and a (small l) libertarian.  I used to be a member of the Libertarian Party, but too many of them are misguided (or just plain silly) for me to believe in their viability as a means of political change.  Radar seems to be a (big L) Libertarian.

Please keep in mind that only half the registered members of this forum are porcupines.  My impression is that very few (big L) Libertarians are here.  And as you can see by this debate between Dalamar and Radar, many of us don't agree with the opinions of the (big L) Libertarians.  As a general rule (there are exceptions!) we all believe that individual liberties both social and economic are necessary for a just and moral society.  We just disagree about what is the most effective way to move our society closer to this ideal.  Also, some of the posts here are from people who would not call themselves libertarian (small l) at all, or are undecided and are reading posts to learn more.  Perhaps you fit in this category.

To complicate thigs further, there are subdivisions within these terms as well.  Someone may be thoroughly disgusted with the National Libertarian Party, but be a card carrying member of the New Hampshire State Libertarian Party.  There are as many flavors of (big L) Libertarians as there are states (plus one, the national).

The same is true for (small l) libertarians.  We range from minarchist to anarchist (most are minarchist).  These differences are sometimes like splitting hairs, but many of us are intellectuals who love sitting around splitting hairs.  The problem is that to an outside observer, this makes us seem inconsistent, wishy-washy, etc.  The thing is, opinions are like (insert your favorite body part here), everybody has one and they are not always shaped the same.

Unfortunately, some of the posts on this forum use these terms interchangeably.  I have found several of these posts to be difficult to follow because of this.  I can only imagine that this would be worse for someone brand new to this forum.  (Heck, I had to ask what IMHO means.  I have never posted to an internet forum before and I thought it sounded like some sort of health insurance plan.)

Porcupine is the only of these terms that is not controversial.  You have either signed up or not.  But what Joe said is important:  the only thing we have agreed to by signing is to move to the state that the first 5000 of us decide is the best place to help the local lovers of liberty keep what freedom they have, and gain back those freedoms they would like to recover but don't yet have enough support.  How far do we want to take it?  We don't always agree.  An example on one of your other threads is drug prohibition.  Most of us think pot should be legal.  Some of us think harder drugs should be legal, and some do not.  Why don't we move to legalize pot first and see how it works out?  We can debate the harder drugs later.  Maybe we will find that the issue is not really as important to us as welfare reform or fiscal concerns such as lowering taxes.  We will have very limited resources and will need to have priorities.

One last point:  Very few of the FSP membership read and post to this forum.  You are getting a skewed sample of what porcupines believe.  You are mainly talking to the computer geeks among us (again, there are exceptions!).
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: AlaskanWoman on May 24, 2003, 12:27:32 am
Quote
Before reading your reply to Joe, I had the impression that you were just here to heckle us and poke fun.  Perhaps my first impression was wrong and you are interested in a serious discussion.  I would like to attempt to clarify a couple of terms.  Maybe this will help make some of these posts easier to understand.

Well Aaron I can and do understand that. Considering my first posts well yeah. But as I have said, I meant to shake you all up, make you all mad and see what you all said then.

But hassle and stuff, no, I have better ways to do that than post somewhat intelligent posts. And yeah I also have an unique way to stating my thoughts, opinions etc. And not even all my friends can understand me. Should I ever decide I trust anyone here, I might even exzplain why I am this way.  

But no, not just to bug ya all? No

To learn yes. I am not afraid to learn to consider etc.

Quote
Libertarian (big L):  Person associated with/dedicated to the Libertarian Party.

libertarian (small l):  Person who believes in the philosophy of individual freedoms both social and economic.  Some of these call themselves Jeffersonians, Classical Liberals, etc. in an attempt to avoid the big L small l confusion.

Porcupine:  Person who has signed the Statement of Intent of the Free State Project.  We can be recognised on this forum by the phrase "FSP Member" by our sign in name.  Some are libertarian, some are Libertarian, some are both, some are neither.

Thank you, altho I will need to reread this a couple of times to get the full story. Understanding? Not sure but I will try

Quote
Examples:  Joe is not a porcupine or a Libertarian (big L).  He may be a (small l) libertarian, but he will never call himself that.  He is much more likely to call himself a Jeffersonian or Classical Liberal.  I am a porcupine and a (small l) libertarian.  I used to be a member of the Libertarian Party, but too many of them are misguided (or just plain silly) for me to believe in their viability as a means of political change.  Radar seems to be a (big L) Libertarian.

This I do understand. The Libertarian party here is very much like that. And once upon a time, they weren't.

Quote
Please keep in mind that only half the registered members of this forum are porcupines.  My impression is that very few (big L) Libertarians are here.  And as you can see by this debate between Dalamar and Radar, many of us don't agree with the opinions of the (big L) Libertarians.  As a general rule (there are exceptions!) we all believe that individual liberties both social and economic are necessary for a just and moral society.  We just disagree about what is the most effective way to move our society closer to this ideal.  Also, some of the posts here are from people who would not call themselves libertarian (small l) at all, or are undecided and are reading posts to learn more.  Perhaps you fit in this category.

No I do not claim to be libertarian at all. In fact, other than the ones from my state and a few friends who claims to be one, I don't know much about the party, except what we get presented to us up here.  Me, I don't know if I would ever sign up. See I live exactly where I want to. I will not move. And from what I understand, if you sign you pretty much have agreed to move where ever it is decided. And I wont. So I wont sign up. Sounds fair? Hope so cos that is the way I have to do it. Also I am undecided at the polls. I refuse to allow any party tell me that I can't even "look" at their issues. So undecided I am. lol

Quote
To complicate thigs further, there are subdivisions within these terms as well.  Someone may be thoroughly disgusted with the National Libertarian Party, but be a card carrying member of the New Hampshire State Libertarian Party.  There are as many flavors of (big L) Libertarians as there are states (plus one, the national).

Ok, will reread and think on this. Confusing I can safely say.

Quote
The same is true for (small l) libertarians.  We range from minarchist to anarchist (most are minarchist).  These differences are sometimes like splitting hairs, but many of us are intellectuals who love sitting around splitting hairs.  The problem is that to an outside observer, this makes us seem inconsistent, wishy-washy, etc.  The thing is, opinions are like (insert your favorite body part here), everybody has one and they are not always shaped the same.

Exactly!!! And that is what makes people like me step back and look at ya like you are erhmmm (insert anything here). And you all can't blame us for thinking that way. If you all are having all these problems, imagine the rest of us who are even more lost!

Quote
Unfortunately, some of the posts on this forum use these terms interchangeably.  I have found several of these posts to be difficult to follow because of this.  I can only imagine that this would be worse for someone brand new to this forum.  (Heck, I had to ask what IMHO means.  I have never posted to an internet forum before and I thought it sounded like some sort of health insurance plan.)

Lost would be a very mild word. And some of the posts, alarming too. I am aware that what one posts does not always mean everyone agrees with it. Maybe I found the group of posters that was on the extreme side of you all. That could very well be possible.

Quote
Porcupine is the only of these terms that is not controversial.  You have either signed up or not.  But what Joe said is important:  the only thing we have agreed to by signing is to move to the state that the first 5000 of us decide is the best place to help the local lovers of liberty keep what freedom they have, and gain back those freedoms they would like to recover but don't yet have enough support.  How far do we want to take it?  We don't always agree.  An example on one of your other threads is drug prohibition.  Most of us think pot should be legal.  Some of us think harder drugs should be legal, and some do not.  Why don't we move to legalize pot first and see how it works out?  We can debate the harder drugs later.  Maybe we will find that the issue is not really as important to us as welfare reform or fiscal concerns such as lowering taxes.  We will have very limited resources and will need to have priorities.

Glad at least one term is not interchangable. And while Porcupine seems to be the one thing I could totally agree, move is not an option at all for me.

Yep proititize is very important.

Quote
One last point:  Very few of the FSP membership read and post to this forum.  You are getting a skewed sample of what porcupines believe.  You are mainly talking to the computer geeks among us (again, there are exceptions!).  

Ok and thank you Aaron for taking the time to explain this confusing mass (not mess) to me. I do appreciate it very much and as I said this does give me things to think on.

And I don't think you people are a bad lot. Some even seems quite nice. Not all but some  :)
 
 
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: Radar on May 24, 2003, 02:22:55 am
Aaron you left out one thing.  All big L's are automatically small L's.  And so is anyone claiming to be a "Jeffersonian" or a "Classic Liberal".

All true Libertarians recognize the need for government but want it to remain small with very limited powers.  All true Libertarians (big or small L) are pro-choice in EVERYTHING.  

Quote
Radar seems to be a (big L) Libertarian.

I'm both a big L and a small L.  Although I'm not misguided, silly, or wrong on the subject of freedom, the Constitution, or the political unity required make this work.  And given the fact that the Libertarian party is the only party in America (or pretty much anywhere else) that will actually take the necessary steps to reduce the size, scope, cost, and intrusiveness of government, we must unite behind this party and use the strengths they already have rather than trying to swim upstream or sell our souls to the devil by joining or supporting candidates of the GOP or Dems.
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: SandyPrice on May 24, 2003, 11:35:58 am
Look Alaskan women.  You are still coming off an a teenager trying to bring all angles of politics and philosophy down to your simple level of understanding.

I can see from your inability to comprehand what individual independence means to you.  
"Your Kind?  Your Ilk?"  What the hell are you talking about?

I am a old senior who has never taken an illegal drug in my life.  I don't drink or smoke and have tried to be good example for my kids and have led a very successful life.

Suddenly I am being categorized as some kind of oddball because I have discovered like-minded Americans.  The whole premise is that we live our lives according to our own personal value systems.  I find your inability to comprend how so many of us can work for the same end game and yet be so different is an indication of your utter ignorance.

I have received many emails that are disgusted with your posts and insults.  You obviously have no ability to think as an individual and will insist on issuing labels on the rest of us.  You can do it without my participation.

I have decided to back out of this forum rather than have to read your extremely ignorant and insulting words.  I am working through several newspapers doing my own selling job on the FSP and will not bring anyone here who might consider your total ignorance to be worth reading.,

Oh yes, you have the freedom to insult and point your fingers at our naivete but to be honest with you, you are making an ass out of yourself.  You are a typical example of government schools and why they should not be a part of the FSP.

Have you ever had a totally individual thought in your head?  You certainly do not show any indication of it here.  I have work to do with and for people who want a different society and far away from the label makers such as yourself.
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: AlaskanWoman on May 24, 2003, 12:59:52 pm
Quote
Look Alaskan women.  You are still coming off an a teenager trying to bring all angles of politics and philosophy down to your simple level of understanding.

Look shammy

You are coming across as a bitter dried up old woman who fears people who does not blindy follow what you believe is the one true way. Sorry toots but check the real world out.

Quote
I can see from your inability to comprehand what individual independence means to you.  
"Your Kind?  Your Ilk?"  What the hell are you talking about?

And I can see from your inane babbling that you fear people who does not bow down to your ~snickers~ babbling.  You have NO idea what I believe in. Never attempt to assume jack, not about me  and not about my state.

Your kind, Your ilk. What the hell I mean is this. YOU!  Your people. So far, but for a very very few, you and YOUR people come across as nuts, physcos, a bunch of looney tunes.

Quote
I am a old senior who has never taken an illegal drug in my life.  I don't drink or smoke and have tried to be good example for my kids and have led a very successful life.

Old meaning what exactly? Just because someone is old does not mean they are right.

So big deal!!  I don't drink. I don't do drugs. I raised my daugter to be polite, respectfully and she is doing the same with hers.

Led a very successful life! And yet you seek to take over my state. Impose your vague value system and beliefs on my state and my people and me? Right very successful.

Quote
Suddenly I am being categorized as some kind of oddball because I have discovered like-minded Americans.  The whole premise is that we live our lives according to our own personal value systems.  I find your inability to comprend how so many of us can work for the same end game and yet be so different is an indication of your utter ignorance.

You sandy, joined a movement that is not main stream, run of the mill, every day stuff. You plan/plot to go to another state and do what exactly? Yopu seem to think the people of what ever state you and your kind might chose should just lie down and accept WITHOUT question.  Lady you are way off base.

Again, you have no idea what I think, how I think not one thing about me do you know. You are a narrow minded person who fears people who dare question/doubt your good intentions. After all, everyone knows about good intentions.

Quote
I have received many emails that are disgusted with your posts and insults.  You obviously have no ability to think as an individual and will insist on issuing labels on the rest of us.  You can do it without my participation.

Like I care!

Like I wish to blindly follow you? Not in this lifetime. You need to get a reality check cos you are way out there........

I can't think as an individual?  Excuse me???????????  I am not the one following sheep like here.

Quote
I have decided to back out of this forum rather than have to read your extremely ignorant and insulting words.  I am working through several newspapers doing my own selling job on the FSP and will not bring anyone here who might consider your total ignorance to be worth reading.,

And if everyone is like you, you and your people will fail. If you run tail and run away at the first time of people questions and doubting your purest of motives, then tell me, how in the world will you succeed to convince the people of what ever state you invade, that you mean to do good? That you mean no harm. That you mean to make better their state? You can't/wont be able to. People will see you for what you are, cowards. Invaders. People out to subvert their way of life.

My total ignorance?  So I was right at the beginning, you people are indeed out to destroy what ever state you descend on. And to hell with what the peoples of the soon to be destroyed state might wish otherwise.

Quote
Oh yes, you have the freedom to insult and point your fingers at our naivete but to be honest with you, you are making an ass out of yourself.  You are a typical example of government schools and why they should not be a part of the FSP.

ANd you are showing me the proof I have been seeking since I heard of a bunch of nuts. Ya know, in a way I was hoping I was wrong about you and your ilk, but I'm not, am I. No I am not.

Quote
Have you ever had a totally individual thought in your head?  You certainly do not show any indication of it here.  I have work to do with and for people who want a different society and far away from the label makers such as yourself.

This question coming from a sheep? lol ow if that ain't funny. See shammy I have stood and stand on my own. I don't require 20,000 people/sheep to change my world. I work to make MY state better and to be more of the state I desire. I do not go and run away and then have the nerve to think I should be allowed/welcomed/accepted in another state to change that state into my own personal whatever it is you want. No, I stay and fight to make MY state better. You and your kind do not. You are cowards, you are not good people. You are not the kind that can live in my state. You are weak.

Far away from trouble makers/label makers as me, cool, just don't come to my state then shammy, cos I ain't leave Alaska. Got that? Hope so cos I purely don't care to repeat myself to a nut case that plans on breaking many laws.


Yeah, shame you and your kind turned out to be what I figured you and your kind was from the first day.  Some times is sucks being proven right. Then agian, sometimes it rocks being proven right.
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: Tony Stelik on May 24, 2003, 09:06:56 pm
Joe, you sand like a free mason. Are you?:)
To Radar:
I am Objectivist. There are perhaps 1 milion of us - I do not know how many exactly.
Amongst Objectivist I am olmoust ostracised for I joined Libertarian Party.
Amongst Libertarian I am "extimist" - by the political quiz.
And yet I am pragmatic enough to join Libertarian party as I see this way I can advance my freedom much more successfully than if work on my own (I do this still within Libertarian Party).
I I would see I can have more success within Republican Party I would work with them. In extreme situation I would work with Democrats. Whotever works for my freedom.
Spliting the hair is nonsens. As long as we agree that government is too big we go the same road. Later we can discuss how this road should look like. As for me I like dirt roads.
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: freedomroad on May 25, 2003, 05:44:56 pm
The very best thing the FSP can do to stick to their cause of gaining freedom within our lifetime and winning elections is to proudly stand up and loudly say, "The FSP are 20,000 members of the Libertarian party and we will control the outcome of elections without changing sides, or compromising.  We WILL forever remain associated with the LP!"

I hope to clear up a little bit of possible confusion.

The Free State Project is not currently, and has never been associated with any state or national Libertarian Party organization.  The Free State Project and the Libertarian Party are completely different organizations.  The Free State Project will never become part of the Libertarian Party and the Libertarian Party will never become part of the FSP.

There is no "our kind."  All of the Free State Project members of separate people that think and act independently.  The Free State Project has no plan to ever try to takeover anything.  

Almost all of the FSP members are prepared to compromise on most issues.  In fact, all of us have compromised on many things already.  Even though we disagree with some of the things that the local, state, and federal governments do, we still pay taxes to them.  

Everyone is welcome to post the FSP Forum.  However, there are a few rules.  One such rule is that making fun of other people is discouraged.  Woman from Alaska, I highly respect you and your love of Alaska.  I have never had that chance to visit your fine state although I have family in AK and they love it.  However, I have to ask you, PLEASE, do not make fun of other posters.  PLEASE, do not call posters "boy" or other such terms.  And most of all, please stick around and continue to post here.

Just a note on myself:
I am not saying this to make myself look good.  I am just trying to show that you can love the Libertarian Party and still love to promote freedom in other ways.

Where I live you do not register for a political party.  The government registers you for a political party depending on how you vote.  The government registered me as an Independent.  I usually vote for Republicans and Libertarians and I am a member of the Libertarian Party.  I am also a member of GOA which is a libertarian organization that supports Libertarian Party candidates on paper but usually only give money to Republican Party candidates because usually they are the only pro-gun people with a chance at getting elected.
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: Tony Stelik on May 25, 2003, 08:10:56 pm
Ron Paul
He is Libertarian. And yet he got elected as Republican. Radar said ron sold out.
I have the question: Would ron be elected if he run as Libertarian? I do not think so.
What if Ron Run as libertarian and of course lost? Sobebody (Republican) would take a seat. Would that be better? I do not think so. Sticking to the party line would bring worse outcome than is now.
Should Ron work to change Republicans? I do not think it is possible.
For now, as long as Libertarians still do not have winable elections to the house Ron shoul do what he is doing, that is vote NO in allfreedom infigements.
Free state might turn public opinion around and within 15 years there will be Libertarian party vs republicans (with democrats passed to history). This depends how good job FSPers will do. And I tell you guys, do not follow anybody but yourself.
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: BobW on May 26, 2003, 05:25:38 am
Hi Freedom,

Appreciate your post (# 31).

My wife and I are seriously reviewing a move to Wyoming or Alaska (MadamW leans toward AK and has more friends and contacts in Seward's Folly than Aklaska Women, the recent poster here).

I'm planning to rejoin the Republican Party, having quit circa Senator Dole's nomination to take on Clinton.  This will be augmented by also affiliating with the GOP's Liberty Caucus.  In Wyoming the Caucus is not yet active. The nominal US$60 (2x 30$) Caucus fee my colleagues  tell me will allow for accelerated mobility in the Wyoming GOP.  They also told me the Caucus isn't that much of a deal in Wyoming because most all are subscribers to the doctrine, sans some of the old guard politicans.

Less the nonsense at most all web sites I visit, to include here, my political votes mirror image the FSP positions.  

Again, I appreciate your above post.

BobW
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: ShrineGuard on May 26, 2003, 10:34:32 am
I would definatly agree that bashing Ron Paul for 'selling out' or anything of the sort is quite rediculous.

Check his voting record, it tells it all.  Does it matter what party he is with?  I thought that we wern't huge party followers here.  When Ron Paul ran for the House in 1996, the National Republican Party spent almost one million dollars trying to keep him from being elected.

He is also one of the most reachable Congressmen, and is incredibly friendly to anyone, including constituants and non-constituants, republicans, democrats, socialists, libertarians, whatever.

A model Congressman is what Ron Paul is, not a traitor.

Speaking of such, does anyone know how much Ron Paul knows about the FSP?
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: Radar on May 26, 2003, 01:00:00 pm
Quote
Almost all of the FSP members are prepared to compromise on most issues.

Then the FSP has already failed and will never experience actual freedom.

Quote
I have the question: Would ron be elected if he run as Libertarian? I do not think so.

Does it matter?  Sorry, but the ends don't justify the means.  Getting elected isn't more important than selling your soul to the devil and the Republican party is most certainly the devil when it comes to freedom.

I love how so many ignorant people say, "I'll vote for the Libertarians when they can win an election."  That's high up on the stupid comments list.  If you voted for them they would have a chance at winning the election.  Saying you'll vote for them if they can win is like saying, "I'll only vote for them if they don't need my vote."  I hate people who use their vote like they're betting on a horse.  They want to vote for the winner.  

The Libertarian party has the only candidates who will never compromise your freedom for their wallets.  Not now, and not if they were in power; Not ever!  The Libertarian party is the only party that represents smaller government in America and therefore the only party that represents freedom.    If you vote for a candidate other than a Libertarian, you're voting against freedom, against the Constitution, against small government with limited powers, and against returning America to a Constitutional republic where power mostly resides in the states.  If you vote for a Republican or Democrat you're saying you love what they've been doing and you want more of the same.  

If you vote for any candidate other than a Libertarian, you're wasting your vote.  If you desire freedom (especially within your lifetime) and you vote for a candidate other than a Libertarian, you're a traitor to yourself.

Quote
Check his voting record, it tells it all.

He has a fine voting record.

Quote
Does it matter what party he is with?

Absolutely.  It matters very much.  

Quote
A model Congressman is what Ron Paul is, not a traitor.

I didn't accuse him of being a traitor.  George W. Bush is guilty of treason, I do consider him a traitor, but not Ron Paul.  He's just misguided and a sell-out.  I admire his desire to effect change but not to the point you side with the enemy.
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: ShrineGuard on May 26, 2003, 02:14:58 pm
Sorry for using the word traitor instead of sell out, as you had said.

I just feel like having at least one man in D.C. who votes libertarian is better than none, irregardless of party.  As I made an allusion to earlier, while he may be a member of the Republican Party, they rarely want anything to do with him...He just doesn't side with them at all, and they ignore him now.
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: BobW on May 26, 2003, 02:55:49 pm
Hi Radar,

In my zippered day planner with some plastic business card holders, I've got a real good quote I've carried around for years;

"In the contest between yourself and the world, bet on the side of the world."  Soren Kirkegaard

You take suppositions and then argue them as facts.  What I see you doing is a major question that evolved from the French Revolution; do you try to rehabilitate old and failed institutions or do you start fresh with new ones?  There's no answer.  This also is a political question.

The US electorate is divided on several major issues.  You are taking your opinion and making it "gospel".  Half the country has a different opinion than you on the abortion issue.  The half against you will argue you deny freedom to the unborn.

A large segment of the voting body politic believe freedom exists when welfare programs - yes, welfare recipients vote, and they get rides to the polling place-are comprehensive as they are not today.

The list is large and you are familiar with the different topics.

A strong argument can be developed that your political party is not a bona fide political party, just by the lack of capitalization.  

My point is not to discourage you to leave your positions and the LP.  It is to say that there's more than one defining opinion out there.

You can be 100% correct but in the meantime do accept that there's other views.  It's possible but I don't expect to learn of an Archdiocese in Saudi Arabia in my lifetime.  I'm prepared to concede otherwise.  

The test question is to ask yourself what is the weakest point you are making.  If you answer to yourself "nothing", you must do some more thinking.  Wyoming is a good place.  So is New Hampshire.

BobW
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: MajesticLeo on May 26, 2003, 03:43:34 pm
While it might be somewhat amusing to read the inane ravings of the person calling him/herself AlaskaWoman, attempting to answer his/her accusations is an exercise in futility.  By his/her own admission, nothing he/she has so far said has anything to do with his/her personal beliefs or desire to learn.  While I subscribe to the idea we must be able to educate the majority of voters to the values porcupines profess, it is obvious this "person" only desires a forum in which to gain attention.  I am not sure Sandy has it quite right in her post because the level of discourse presented by "Alaskan Woman" more resembles the ramblings of a 10 or 12 year old than that of a teenager.  Since he/she self-admittedly only desires to inflame others and cause dissent, further comment to or about him/her would seem to be counterproductive.  Just my personal opinion of course. :P
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: Tony Stelik on May 27, 2003, 07:52:33 am
And yet either we like it or not AlaskanWoman is the example of what we are going to meet in the state we will come to. Keep in mind half of population leans to socialism (Democrats), while the other half leans to national socialism (Republicans). Not too many ever heard about Libertarians. For over 24 hundred years world admires Platon's Republic. It takes from 8 to 12 years in average for somebody to switch his / her thinking to individualist way. And only if that person will apply heavy thinking.
In everyday contact people will ask again and again the same questions, criticizing us from their collectivist stand point. They will be stubborn, unwilling to look at the matter from your perspective. Did anybody tried to make an atheist from the Christian? This is something like this. People do not apply a lot of logic, but they do apply a lot of emotions instead. And when emotions take over any further discussion is like discussion with the drunk.
We have to learn to talk patiently to “AlaskanWomens” no matter how difficult it is.
One more thing: In history there were only three parties based on philosophy: The first was Communist Party which based on Marxism. Nitze created another philosophy which become a base for Fascism. The third is Libertarian Party based on Objectivism and Laissez Faire Capitalism introduced by Von Misses. (I am not going back to free masonery of 18 century)
People are not interested in studying philosophies but they see analogy in operations. Since Democrats today deny their affiliations with the Marxism and switch back and fore without any integrity, and Republicans deny their affiliations with the philosophy of Nitze and also switch back and fore without integrity, people do not saw for time being connections between politicks and philosophy. Steel people know and sometimes remember openly acting Communists. Their devotion and activism as nowhere before.
Libertarians are very much activist and they are also devoted to philosophy of objectivism, Laissez Faire markets and so on. Without analyzing what our philosophy is people tend to compare us to communist (activism – smilingly selfless, and devotion to philosophical views – nobody knows or cares to know). When I talk to people they ask often: What are you? Communist? Or Fascist?
It is reality and we have to have patience. We can not expect somebody will become individualist just because we explained to them what individualism is and how good is to be free. People will need to se examples of freedom based legislature to asses if it is FOR THEM god, bad or indifferent. And they will not look any other than just superficially. This is reality.
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: Tony Stelik on May 27, 2003, 08:11:25 am
Radar:
Did you think about millions of Randian Objectivists? They do not join Libertarians because the do not want any compromises. For the same reason they do not vote. You look for me as on the chart (The smallest political quiz)  pretty close to 100% X 100%.
How can you cope with the compromises all around Libertarian party (all less than 100% X 100%).
Do you play poker? Or chess?
Everybody must be pragmatic to be successful. Only end is not justifying the initial force, otherwise end justifies the means
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: Tony Stelik on May 28, 2003, 11:06:40 am
Radar:
To whom you are answering? Where did you take those quotes from? It would be good if you reference the post number
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: Tony Stelik on May 28, 2003, 11:10:31 am
Joe:
Free masonery to my knowledge were clasic liberals and they still are:)
I have learned most of founding fathers were masons, so is constitution libertarian or clasicly liberal?
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: JasonPSorens on May 28, 2003, 11:31:49 am
Radar:
To whom you are answering? Where did you take those quotes from? It would be good if you reference the post number

It was a post from maXimo that I deleted for being abusive.  Maximo has been banned from the forum for repeatedly violating forum rules.  I've also gone ahead and deleted Radar's post since it was made obsolete by the deletion of Maximo's.
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: Rearden on May 29, 2003, 09:46:06 am

...has been banned from the forum for repeatedly violating forum rules.

There's something you don't see every day - a bouncer with a PhD.   (I SAID "DON'T TOUCH THE GIRLS!!!!")  ;D
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: michLinoregon on May 31, 2003, 03:47:26 pm
Wow, this is certainly not what I expected to see. But what I am pleased to see is a discourse in differing belief systems. I think every one of us, as porcupines, small or big L libertarians, objectivists, and the like are quite aware of the fact that we do not fall in step with the "majority." But if the majority were truly represented by their elected officials I think that the majority would vote. Which doesn't happen. Which is evidence to me that "republican" and "democrat" ideology is a false dichotomy. People are dissatisfied with the choices presented, and given a choice they don't choose, thus low voter turn out consistently. What IS being chosen, is by the minority of people who do fall in step with what is being presented as the opinion of the majority! Gah! Where does it end? Does it end? Those who are very happy with status quo don't want it to end, because that requires less action, or maybe they truly think that our system is great. I think America is great, and the principles on which it was founded, even more great. Still, it is broke, and needs fixing! Thoughts?
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: radracer on May 31, 2003, 05:26:49 pm
MichLinoregon: Welcome to the forum. You are correct in your theorizing about why “America is broke and needs fixing”.
The fighting among our group (shown below) is what is hurting us.

KARL: “I want nothing to do with the LP or the "Porcupine Party." <<<meaning Free staters or Joe(Sequel to Solitar)’s Jeffersonian party he thinks he’ll be starting? I’m confused.

KARL: “These people will be slaughtered in the initial backlash.”

So, you plan not to help; just sit back and hope we fail huh?

Tony Stelik: “Did you think about millions of Randian Objectivists?”

And you know there are millions of them because? Like most people (and admittedly many Libertarians), I’m sure they have given up on the voting processes. See Votescam.com for why it may be futile to vote.

Shrineguard. I must side with you as far as Ron Paul is concerned. Having met and worked with him briefly (I met with him due to my local LP) I found him genuinely Libertarian and his voting record and objections to bigger taxes and intrusive policies is outstanding for Liberty loving Americans. True RADAR it would be better if he’d renounce his membership with the freedom hating GOP but if he brings attention to Libertarian policy then he’s doing what he can. I have tried to show people what Libertarianism is for years. Most people (correctly) hate politics and the manipulative, self-serving bureaucrats within and don’t want to hear about anything having to do with politics. Is it any wonder 80% of people polled in Massachusetts had no idea what a Libertarian was or stood for? People have the insane idea that if they “vote for the lesser of two evils” and he wins they have in some way associated themselves with a winner. I imagine some bureaucrat invented this term to justify apathetic voters too lazy to find an alternative to the duopoly of evil as I call the Demopublicans. Unfortunately it stuck and people believe it works!
What most anti-Libertarians have to rail us for is our lack of accomplishments in changing anything. Unless they have changed anything they should help us not criticise. When you realize 80% haven’t even heard of us you have to look at what we’re doing wrong. The answer? Not being connected with multi million-dollar campaign contributors (like the Republicrats) who will fund a television campaign to educate Americans of the philosophical differences between the two-headed monster, and us, which is BIG government. We keep ourselves separated from multi million dollar campaign contributors (like Lockheed etc,) correctly I must add because they must not have control over us like they do the “greedy two”. So, unless the anti-LP people want to start, fund, and control a parallel party to the LP they should take note that Jason met with many local LP groups (not Jeffersonian groups because there are few if any) on his recent tours. The LP  has been the backbone of our freedom fight for 30 years and we would look like we (FSP’rs) were avoiding the obvious if we try to pretend we are anything but Libertarian in philospohy.

Joe(Sequel to Solitar): “P.S. My city council is presently struggling with a decision to buy some real estate for cheap and re-sell it to neighboring property owners, businesses and anyone else who wants a piece.  The real estate is railroad property that the railroad has not wanted to sell to any private party -- not even the neighbors to that property.
Is this proposal Libertarian? No.
Is it Jeffersonian? You betcha!”

Oh yeah? How do you know the railroad will sell it to your city council? A Libertarian solution to this would be for one entrepreneur to buy the whole piece (again if the railroad will sell it to anyone) and parcel it off to individuals as the city council has proposed. BTW, Libertarians don’t exclude groups (city councils speaking/working for a small city for example) in setting community standards or upholding local values/standards. We are just against Federal and state intrusion. We would not be against Mormons setting their own standards (in their own city) anymore than if they got their “High elder” to buy your railroad property and redistribute it.

MajesticLeo: I think you are correct that continuing to chat with AlaskanWoman is counterproductive. My guess is that she is (as you guessed) a 12 year old playing on the computer; due to her terminology (high school language and poor spelling), temperament, and failure to absorb the ideas presented to her. Just reinforcing that view.
Title: Re:Libertarian Party
Post by: michLinoregon on May 31, 2003, 05:46:36 pm
Well as much as Alaskawoman sounds immature and uneducated, she may just be the average citizen! They need help in coming to the conclusions that others have come to. I know I was there once and thought that the government being my father, husband and big brother was a great idea, it keeps people from doing things that are dangerous. But as a wise man once said "Those who would vote for safety at the expense of liberty deserve neither" or something to that effect. It is the playing upon of fear that drives multitudes to the churches and it's very effective in getting the multitudes to vote one way or the other. Don't vote republican because they want war! Don't vote democrat they want to take all your money! They both want control, the ends don't justify the means! I'm glad that I know the truth about the false dilemma even if it is at the expense of my relatively low blood pressure!  ;D