Free State Project Forum

FSP -- General Discussion => General FSP Discussion => Topic started by: citizen Winston on July 05, 2010, 04:12:34 pm

Title: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: citizen Winston on July 05, 2010, 04:12:34 pm
I was told that once you goto PorcFest that you'll be itching to move ASAP!  However, that is not exactly how I am feeling although I wish that were the case.  After having visited PorcFest I still have some reservations concerning not so much New Hampshire, but the FSP and some of its participants. A little background; I am from the west coast and I would consider myself a small "l" libertarian or minarchist of the Ron Paul / Thomas E. Woods stripe.

I have never came into contact with so many anarchists at the same time and was surprised to see how they were represented both in numbers of people and events.  Having heard them out, I am certainly receptive to their views and tactics whereas before I just generally disregarded them completely.  That being said, I am still NOT for zero government, of course I do think it needs to be drastically curtailed.  I see anarchism as a state of transition, whereby warlordism and/or a tyrannical government (supported by a military-industrial complex) quickly supplants it.  I think it is much easier to win people over into supporting and maintaining a limited constitutional republic for which there has already been a precedent set forth than to hope to achieve a mass "paradigm shift" necessary to attain an anarchist utopia in equilibrium.  Now onto the main topic...

It really hit me when I was watching the Matt Simon (politico) vs Rich Paul (civil disobedience activist) debate about approaches to ending pot prohibition with former Gov. Gary Johnson.  I thought the debate or discussion was one of the best events, if not thee best at PorcFest 2010 and I was surprised at how reasonable and cooperative Rich Paul seemed towards Matt Simon's efforts - who I sympathized more with. 

I actually found myself applauding Rich Paul at times, like when he responded to the first questionnaire.... Curtis is his name, who approached the mic and with an aire of arrogance turned to the crowd pointed to his Voluntaryist shirt, turned back around and declared "I oppose what you are doing" to Matt Simon.  Its one thing to disagree with the effectiveness of the tactic but to actively OPPOSE it?  I probably wouldn't care so much, but I learned that he is one of the organizers so I figured his view carries more weight or is indicative of more participants than I'd like to think.  Am I attributing too much to this?  Its just discouraging to see people advocating not to vote at all, because I think voting and civil disobedience are not entirely incompatible.

I never understood why it was necessary to list NH towns and cities as either deemed better suited for "civil disobedience" types or "politicos" but now I see why thats important.  Is the schism that great?  I really want to move and participate in the political process, but I already face enough apathy and opposition in my home state, why move if I'll be facing opposition to my efforts from my so-called allies?  Maybe the politicos can help me out here, my perception is that they're being under represented...  Where are you!? Are there any FSP participants who are also active C4L members?

I just wanted to post these concerns up here, because I was not the only potential mover with them during the event.  Thanks.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 05, 2010, 04:20:00 pm
I'm going to be honest. The schism is significant and deep. IMO, if Curtis really holds those views and wasn't just playing devil's advocate, he doesn't belong in the FSP. Just my honest opinion. We don't need people who think it's OK for the government to continue imprisoning people just so that he can have a black market to sell in. That's exactly the opposite of what we want, and exactly the kind of rent-seeking mentality we're fighting against.

Now, I was at the debate, and I didn't see anyone else defend Curtis' position, even the other agorists. I agree that the anarchists were well represented at Porc Fest - for the first time really. The thing that concerns me is not the anarchism; I used to be an anarcho-capitalist. What concerns me is the attitude that politics is immoral, and so are people who do it. That kind of mentality is inherently schismatic. The politicos think CD is fine, so long as it's well thought out and doesn't hurt anybody, but many of the CD anarchists apparently think that the politicos are wicked. That's an untenable situation.

I'm glad you brought this up, because the fact is that many people share your concerns. I will say that if you move somewhere other than Keene, you're unlikely to encounter Free Staters who oppose your work for liberty. But I am concerned that people like you will be turned off the FSP if we don't get a handle on what we really are and want to be - and present that image at our events.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: swamp_yankee on July 05, 2010, 05:13:38 pm
Remember, FSP chose New Hampshire for a reason. New Hampshire is small, manageable and already has a strong undercurrent of liberty minded people. For example, did you know that the NH legislature is the third largest representative body in the world after Congress and the House of Commons. You can make a difference there and will probably find a niche eventually, even if its not among the FSP anarchists.  I agree that anarchy is adolescent and untenable.  But there is important work to do and some people are doing it.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: BigJoe on July 05, 2010, 05:45:44 pm
I'm going to be honest. The schism is significant and deep. IMO, if Curtis really holds those views and wasn't just playing devil's advocate, he doesn't belong in the FSP. Just my honest opinion. We don't need people who think it's OK for the government to continue imprisoning people just so that he can have a black market to sell in. That's exactly the opposite of what we want, and exactly the kind of rent-seeking mentality we're fighting against.

Now, I was at the debate, and I didn't see anyone else defend Curtis' position, even the other agorists. I agree that the anarchists were well represented at Porc Fest - for the first time really. The thing that concerns me is not the anarchism; I used to be an anarcho-capitalist. What concerns me is the attitude that politics is immoral, and so are people who do it. That kind of mentality is inherently schismatic. The politicos think CD is fine, so long as it's well thought out and doesn't hurt anybody, but many of the CD anarchists apparently think that the politicos are wicked. That's an untenable situation.

I'm glad you brought this up, because the fact is that many people share your concerns. I will say that if you move somewhere other than Keene, you're unlikely to encounter Free Staters who oppose your work for liberty. But I am concerned that people like you will be turned off the FSP if we don't get a handle on what we really are and want to be - and present that image at our events.


don't think I have ever heard of a former ancap before.  When you were, was it on deontological or consequentialist grounds?  what got you to think that the state is necessary?
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: rossby on July 05, 2010, 06:14:11 pm
what got you to think that the state is necessary?

Did he say it was?
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Denis Goddard on July 05, 2010, 06:48:10 pm
I had similar concerns about this PorcFest.

When I moved to NH in 2005, I was a Libertarian, and still largely a Republican. I thought the war in Iraq was necessary. I had serious concerns about America's border security. I thought that any talk of "secession" was at best irresponsible and at worst counterproductive.

The FSP's strength has been its big-tent inclusiveness: if you want to reduce the size and scope of Government, you belong here -- no matter how much you want it reduced, no matter how you go about bringing that reduction (so long as it's peaceful).

Some of the more prominent FSPers lately -- I am thinking of specifically Curtis, Ian, and a few others -- are "macho flash libertarians". They do not try hard to accommodate & welcome people who are like I was when I came to NH. They show respect for anarchists who are willing to perform civil disobedience. Anyone else gets the subtle message that the FSP is not about "their kind."

The FSP Board should yank back the reigns on these folks. Maybe the FTL live reads should clarify that the FSP is for Constitutionalists and small-government Republicans and Democrats, just as much as it is for anarchists and voluntaryists -- "The host of Free Talk Live does not speak for the Free State Project". Similarly, there should have been much more positive, reassuring vibes from the organizers and emcees to the folks in attendance who, like Winston here, are not anarchists.

Just to be clear -- I like Curtis and Ian both as people. Curtis did an awesome job with much of PF; Ian's show is of inestimable value. Both should take the opportunity to stop talking, however, when interacting to people who are less far off the deep end than they are.

The schism is not about Politics vs. Div Dis; it's not about Anarchists vs. Small-Government types.
It's about Intolerance vs. Tolerance of dissenting views.

Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Denis Goddard on July 05, 2010, 06:53:36 pm
if you move somewhere other than Keene, you're unlikely to encounter Free Staters who oppose your work for liberty.
^this

Come to any NH Liberty Alliance event -- such as the Liberty Dinner (http://www.nhliberty.org/dinner2010) this weekend. You'll meet Free Staters who have won political office -- including seats in the NH House of Representatives. People who are trusted and admired by the people in their towns.

Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Dreepa on July 05, 2010, 07:16:56 pm
I  Maybe the politicos can help me out here, my perception is that they're being under represented...  Where are you!? Are there any FSP participants who are also active C4L members?

I just wanted to post these concerns up here, because I was not the only potential mover with them during the event.  Thanks.

there were lots of people who work 'in the system' or politicos as you call them.
The C4L is 'active' in NH but most of us are already working in the NHLA so C4L (which came after)... is harder to get people active in C4L because of the same work being done on a local level here in NH with RLCNH, CNHT and NHLA.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: JaqEboy on July 05, 2010, 07:23:18 pm
...did you know that the NH legislature is the third largest representative body in the world after Congress and the House of Commons...

I thought the other larger legislative body was the Russian Duma, not the UK HOC.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: freedomroad on July 05, 2010, 07:28:07 pm
The majority of the fsp moving anarchists that I know in NH do politics.  It's no big deal that some of them don't. 

Curtis is just a person.  I don't consider the founder of the fsp, the head of the fsp, a certain organizer or anyone else to have more important views than anyone else.  People are people and all of these people are volunteers.  We don't have to agree on everything, just the statement of intent.  And many of the folks I work with in NH aren't even FSP folks and wouldn't sign the statement of intent.  They just happen to live in NH, be active in politics, and agree with me on issue X so we work together on issue X.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: JaqEboy on July 05, 2010, 07:30:56 pm
...
The FSP Board should yank back the reigns on these folks
....

It's about Intolerance vs. Tolerance of dissenting views.


You're so funny when you do things like this Denis!  ;D
I mean, I guess you're poking fun at the board, but... wow, maybe you aren't...
You mean you could really say both of those things in the same post??? and mean them both??? Doesn't that make your brain hurt??? Wait, maybe you're trying to say you think the board should become more intolerant - I'm so confused.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Dreepa on July 05, 2010, 07:54:40 pm
...did you know that the NH legislature is the third largest representative body in the world after Congress and the House of Commons...

I thought the other larger legislative body was the Russian Duma, not the UK HOC.

I think NH is really 5th.

US Congress
UK HOC
Russian Duma
Indian Parliament

all have more than NH.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Rich Goldman on July 05, 2010, 07:56:43 pm
The statement regards English speaking legislatures (as I understood/report it)
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: BigJoe on July 05, 2010, 08:13:41 pm
what got you to think that the state is necessary?

Did he say it was?

he said he used to be an AnCap, so I assumed that meant he thought it was necessary.  Sorry if that assumption was incorrect.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: JaqEboy on July 05, 2010, 08:39:43 pm
Wow, Jason, I'm surprised at you!

I'm going to be honest. The schism is significant and deep. IMO, if Curtis really holds those views and wasn't just playing devil's advocate, he doesn't belong in the FSP.

It's my understanding that the condition for being an FSP member is the SoI, not agreement with Matt Simon's strategy and tactics. Are you threatening a newly-coined rule that allows you to unilaterally expel productive members because they oppose Matt's choices? Are you joining Denis' intolerance wing? This should probably be brought to a vote of the members or at least the board before you begin pulling the dictator's lever!

Just my honest opinion. We don't need people who think it's OK for the government to continue imprisoning people just so that he can have a black market to sell in. That's exactly the opposite of what we want, and exactly the kind of rent-seeking mentality we're fighting against.

That's an outrageous slander to state that Curtis is in favor of the government imprisoning people - he's obviously a victim of that (due to, in my opinion, his ill-considered CD involvement). You're failing to grasp even the most basic libertarian principles here (and I know that the FSP is not a libertarian only club).


Now, I was at the debate, and I didn't see anyone else defend Curtis' position, even the other agorists. I agree that the anarchists were well represented at Porc Fest - for the first time really. The thing that concerns me is not the anarchism; I used to be an anarcho-capitalist. What concerns me is the attitude that politics is immoral, and so are people who do it.

Yes, well that argument has been had and settled in the libertarian movement back in the 70's. Libertarians are for rights and are inherently against majoritarian voting of people's rights away, so it's an absolute anti-concept to then advocate "voting for freedom". The argument politicals who call themselves "libertarians" make is that, "well, I think we should do it because it'll work", ie, the pragmatic argument. Of course it's evil to engage in voting for candidates and legislation - that was settled a long time ago. The issue for most to consider is will I do just a little evil, because I think it'll do more good? If you can live with your conscience, then, go ahead (but, best to call yourselves something other than a consistent libertarian).

That kind of mentality is inherently schismatic. The politicos think CD is fine, so long as it's well thought out and doesn't hurt anybody, but many of the CD anarchists apparently think that the politicos are wicked. That's an untenable situation.

See above. I should mention that the other fundamental belief of the politicals is that they can win something with this pragmatic approach. I think you'll find that you can't - the system is owned and rigged (too long of a story to get into here).

I'm glad you brought this up, because the fact is that many people share your concerns. I will say that if you move somewhere other than Keene, you're unlikely to encounter Free Staters who oppose your work for liberty. But I am concerned that people like you will be turned off the FSP if we don't get a handle on what we really are and want to be - and present that image at our events.

I thought that the discussion that the FSP was "only the bus" and couldn't favor any one ideological variant, was already had and resolved. I could be wrong - I wasn't there.

Please tell me that you get the point and that you are not siding with the intolerants and playing favorites. Then, the FSP would have a really big problem reconciling being for freedom and then making power plays to squash opinions of members - how would you justify that, other than just that you have the power?
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: lobstah on July 05, 2010, 09:02:52 pm
i see nothing wrong with attempting to dismantle the system from within.....i just don't think it will work. hopefully i'm wrong!
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: PraeterIdiot on July 05, 2010, 09:03:38 pm


The FSP Board should yank back the reigns on these folks. Maybe the FTL live reads should clarify that the FSP is for Constitutionalists and small-government Republicans and Democrats, just as much as it is for anarchists and voluntaryists -- "The host of Free Talk Live does not speak for the Free State Project". Similarly, there should have been much more positive, reassuring vibes from the organizers and emcees to the folks in attendance who, like Winston here, are not anarchists.

Just to be clear -- I like Curtis and Ian both as people. Curtis did an awesome job with much of PF; Ian's show is of inestimable value. Both should take the opportunity to stop talking, however, when interacting to people who are less far off the deep end than they are.


How should Ians and Curtises "stop talking?"  Should they preface or append every statement they make with "but if you're a statist don't you worry your pretty little head, save your worrying for when you gotta lick some government boots..."  yeah that's condescending (and if pushed to say something, I can easily see it sounding like that), but I have trouble seeing it as anything but to imply that non-anarchists need such a coddling.

From what I've seen, as someone living in Keene (anarchist but I think most of the civil disobedience is political so it's all a wash), is that Ians and Curtises are not rude to individuals outside of a robust debate or discussion, only on account of the beliefs espoused in a debate.  Not Curtis, not Ian, no one's given me crap for not participating in any civil disobedience...I don't smoke anything and would never attend a "topless" anydamnthinghellno.  Maybe it's because I don't push any "you're doing it wrong" views to the point of friendship being compromised (perhaps a real friend would...spooky stuff), but I've never yet ran into a personal problem with it.

Perhaps if the FSP's own website had a type of "schismatic" warning page, respectfully and neutrally affirming that both politicos and supposedly non-politicos are welcome to move to New Hampshire, but like livin' itself, ain't no one gonna please everyone, that that could also help to assure people who may have concerns because they aren't "off the deep end." 
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Pat K on July 05, 2010, 09:21:17 pm
Call me crazy, but if the give and take at Porc Fest was
to much for some folks sensibility's, then- liberty in your life
time -is just plain going to kick your ass.

Perhaps a spirited game of tiddly winks would better occupy your time.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: elkingrey on July 05, 2010, 09:24:54 pm
 I am from the west coast and I would consider myself a small "l" libertarian or minarchist of the Ron Paul / Thomas E. Woods stripe.

For the record, Tom Woods is an anarchist. I know this because I discussed it with him personally in Las Vegas at the CFL Regional Conference. At the time, I was still a limited government libertarian. I couldn't understand why Tom was an anarchist and why he wouldn't vote for Ron Paul even though he sung his praises every day. I asked him which book converted him to anarchism. He told me to read Democracy: The God That Failed. I did, and I can now proudly proclaim myself to be a fellow anarcho-capitalist.

I asked the same thing to Walter Block, and he told me to read two books by Murray Rothbard; For A New Liberty and The Ethics of Liberty. I read those as well.

You should still come to New Hampshire even if you consider yourself a limited government libertarian. You are desperately needed. Perhaps some day we will convert you to anarcho-capitalism as well.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FTL_Ian on July 05, 2010, 09:26:10 pm
Uh, Denis - I'm trying to bring people together.  You must have missed it during the debate when Matt Simon publicly apologized for his anger and I forgave him.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: freedomroad on July 05, 2010, 09:35:29 pm
It's my understanding that the condition for being an FSP member is the SoI, not agreement with Matt Simon's strategy and tactics. Are you threatening a newly-coined rule that allows you to unilaterally expel productive members because they oppose Matt's choices?

Jason doesn't have the ability (and I doubt the desire) to come up with any rules regarding the FSP.  He is just a person like you and I.  And like us, he isn't perfect nor all powerful.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: lobstah on July 05, 2010, 09:45:20 pm
i guess i just don't see how the voluntaryist vs minarchist argument is an issue until we're actually at the point where we have a real choice between no government at all or very small government. right now, the goal (in my opinion) is to reduce the behemoth government any way possible. unfortunately, we are a long way from having to have this argument. and yes, i'll be honest that i see political action as being contrary to my ultimate goal, but we're just not there yet. not even close. let's not let it negatively effect us before either goal (minarchy or anarchy) is even close to being obtained.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: BigJoe on July 05, 2010, 10:04:01 pm
 I am from the west coast and I would consider myself a small "l" libertarian or minarchist of the Ron Paul / Thomas E. Woods stripe.

For the record, Tom Woods is an anarchist. I know this because I discussed it with him personally in Las Vegas at the CFL Regional Conference. At the time, I was still a limited government libertarian. I couldn't understand why Tom was an anarchist and why he wouldn't vote for Ron Paul even though he sung his praises every day. I asked him which book converted him to anarchism. He told me to read Democracy: The God That Failed. I did, and I can now proudly proclaim myself to be a fellow anarcho-capitalist.

I asked the same thing to Walter Block, and he told me to read two books by Murray Rothbard; For A New Liberty and The Ethics of Liberty. I read those as well.

You should still come to New Hampshire even if you consider yourself a limited government libertarian. You are desperately needed. Perhaps some day we will convert you to anarcho-capitalism as well.

Tom Woods is really good at sounding like a constitutionalist, but yes he is an anarchist.   I think he sometimes talks like a constitutionalist, because he wants to be more mainstream because his goal is to sell a bunch of books while also spreading the message.  What he is great at, is that he will never contradict his anarchist beliefs, in his speeches, something I imagine is somewhat difficult to pull off.

Tom is also a big time Christian, like Robert Murphy (another anarchist), but they are able to make all their arguments for anarchy on purely secular grounds, and then could also just as easily argue that anarchy is the Christian thing to support.

the Rothbard books you mentioned are available for free online :   http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf    http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics.pdf

and D:TGTF  can be found via torrents.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: freedomroad on July 05, 2010, 10:12:24 pm
Call me crazy, but if the give and take at Porc Fest was
to much for some folks sensibility's, then- liberty in your life
time -is just plain going to kick your ass.

Perhaps a spirited game of tiddly winks would better occupy your time.

Could you be any more of a condescending dick?  I think I've done a pretty good job at prefacing my concerns within the context of the event.  I just want to see whether my perceptions and concerns were warranted or not.  Making such a life altering move primarily for a cause like the FSP is not something I take lightly.

Please folks, let's keep this completely civil.  If you want to say mean things, feel free to do that elsewhere.

Winston, I know Pat and he is a great guy.  Many people in the part of the country where he is from regularly say things like that (and much worse) without batting an eye or attending to be mean.  I wouldn't take it personal.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Pat K on July 05, 2010, 10:21:47 pm
Call me crazy, but if the give and take at Porc Fest was
to much for some folks sensibility's, then- liberty in your life
time -is just plain going to kick your ass.

Perhaps a spirited game of tiddly winks would better occupy your time.

Could you be any more of a condescending dick?  I think I've done a pretty good job at prefacing my concerns within the context of the event.  I just want to see whether my perceptions and concerns were warranted or not.  Making such a life altering move primarily for a cause like the FSP is not something I take lightly.

Well yes I could be. :-*
Others will be much worse.


Lots of things will be be said and done that you don't like.
People are gonna yell, curse and fight for what they think is right.

Freedom is messy.
Hope ya decide it's worth it.


  
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FTL_Ian on July 05, 2010, 10:24:41 pm
I have never came into contact with so many anarchists at the same time and was surprised to see how they were represented both in numbers of people and events.

While I think voluntarist better describes me, this is a huge compliment from my perspective.  Maybe the Liberty Forum would be more your speed, though that is crawling with people who, like me, do not support aggression.  How much aggression do you support as a mini-statist?
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Pat K on July 05, 2010, 10:28:54 pm
Oh man FLID got censored.

I may have to change my forum name to that. ;D
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: shyfrog on July 05, 2010, 10:36:43 pm
*looks at date* Isn't this par for the course a week or two after PorcFest?

 >:D
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Sovereign Curtis on July 05, 2010, 10:39:16 pm

I have never came into contact with so many anarchists at the same time and was surprised to see how they were represented both in numbers of people and events.  Having heard them out, I am certainly receptive to their views and tactics whereas before I just generally disregarded them completely.  That being said, I am still NOT for zero government, of course I do think it needs to be drastically curtailed.  I see anarchism as a state of transition, whereby warlordism and/or a tyrannical government (supported by a military-industrial complex) quickly supplants it.  I think it is much easier to win people over into supporting and maintaining a limited constitutional republic for which there has already been a precedent set forth than to hope to achieve a mass "paradigm shift" necessary to attain an anarchist utopia in equilibrium.  Now onto the main topic...


I and others would argue against this view, but as you said, let us proceed.




It really hit me when I was watching the Matt Simon (politico) vs Rich Paul (civil disobedience activist) debate about approaches to ending pot prohibition with former Gov. Gary Johnson.  I thought the debate or discussion was one of the best events, if not thee best at PorcFest 2010 and I was surprised at how reasonable and cooperative Rich Paul seemed towards Matt Simon's efforts - who I sympathized more with. 

I actually found myself applauding Rich Paul at times, like when he responded to the first questionnaire.... Curtis is his name, who approached the mic and with an aire of arrogance turned to the crowd pointed to his Voluntaryst shirt, turned back around and declared "I oppose what you are doing" to Matt Simon.  Its one thing to disagree with the effectiveness of the tactic but to actively OPPOSE it?  I probably wouldn't care so much, but I learned that he is one of the organizers so I figured his view carries more weight or is indicative of more participants than I'd like to think.  Am I attributing too much to this?  Its just discouraging to see people advocating not to vote at all, because I think voting and civil disobedience are not entirely incompatible.


We'd have to check the tape for my exact wording, but I was addressing all three people on the stage.
Specifically I was responding to the "We're all working towards the same thing [the legalization of marijuana]" meme.
I'm working towards total liberty, the Voluntary Society.



I never understood why it was necessary to list NH towns and cities as either deemed better suited for "civil disobedience" types or "politicos" but now I see why thats important. 
Is the schism that great? 

No, not really. I was disappointed there was no debate, and I let them troll me. Rich did a magnificent job in changing his stripes.



I'm going to be honest. The schism is significant and deep.


lol, you can see that all the way from Buffalo?



IMO, if Curtis really holds those views and wasn't just playing devil's advocate, he doesn't belong in the FSP. Just my honest opinion. We don't need people who think it's OK for the government to continue imprisoning people just so that he can have a black market to sell in. That's exactly the opposite of what we want, and exactly the kind of rent-seeking mentality we're fighting against.


Twice The State has aggressed against me for being in possession of a plant. I unilaterally oppose The State and Its Aggression. To insinuate otherwise is most under-handed. If you understood Agorism and the NAP you would understand why I oppose the legalization of anything. (and for those of you out there scratching your heads, when I say "oppose" I do not mean I will expend energy to stop any measure a minarchist might take, I mean I do not support the measure).



Now, I was at the debate, and I didn't see anyone else defend Curtis' position, even the other agorists. I agree that the anarchists were well represented at Porc Fest - for the first time really. The thing that concerns me is not the anarchism; I used to be an anarcho-capitalist. What concerns me is the attitude that politics is immoral, and so are people who do it. That kind of mentality is inherently schismatic. The politicos think CD is fine, so long as it's well thought out and doesn't hurt anybody, but many of the CD anarchists apparently think that the politicos are wicked. That's an untenable situation.


Nick Ford, who was I think 3rd in line, backed me up. I believe there were others.



I'm glad you brought this up, because the fact is that many people share your concerns. I will say that if you move somewhere other than Keene, you're unlikely to encounter Free Staters who oppose your work for liberty. But I am concerned that people like you will be turned off the FSP if we don't get a handle on what we really are and want to be - and present that image at our events.


I thought the FSP was just the bus?

Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: MengerFan on July 05, 2010, 10:40:55 pm
Phase One: Fun Tent.
Phase Three: Anarchists have taken over.

My work here is done. Peace, my brethren.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Pat K on July 05, 2010, 10:53:53 pm
Phase One: Fun Tent.
Phase Three: Anarchists have taken over.

My work here is done. Peace, my brethren.

HA!!!!!!!

Um what was Phase 2?
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: citizen Winston on July 05, 2010, 11:00:19 pm
when I say "oppose" I do not mean I will expend energy to stop any measure a minarchist might take, I mean I do not support the measure).

Gotcha, that was what I was wondering when I heard the word "oppose" being used. Thanks for the insight. I also did not hear any of the other agorists use that strong a word, which is what I think JasonPSorens may be referring to when he said he didn't hear anybody else defending your position.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Lance on July 05, 2010, 11:10:07 pm
I agree that anarchy is adolescent and untenable.

Yes.

Grown-ups know better and use force.



Anyhow, citizen Winston, I hope you realize that if you move to NH, you will find friends and support regardless of your pedigree. :)
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: freedomroad on July 05, 2010, 11:17:08 pm
Oh man FLID got censored.

I may have to change my forum name to that. ;D

No Pat.  It was just me.  You know I love you but yeah, I'm not really excited about that language and name calling here.  Sorry if I misunderstood.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: JaqEboy on July 05, 2010, 11:21:59 pm
...if the give and take at Porc Fest was too much for some folks sensibility's, then- liberty in your life time -is just plain going to kick your ass.

There you go Pat - truth, nail-on-the-head
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Pat K on July 05, 2010, 11:24:09 pm
Yes it was just you censoring Big Joe's post.

I'M sure we will get over it.

I don't know if Big Joe was trying to be funny or insulting.

I don't care I thought it was hysterical.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Ed on July 05, 2010, 11:28:10 pm
Quote
Lots of things will be be said and done that you don't like.
People are gonna yell, curse and fight for what they think is right

That's like saying that because people are going to murder anyway, it's OK to murder.

A person should not engage in jagaloon behavior, period.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: freedomroad on July 05, 2010, 11:28:57 pm
Yes it was just you censoring Big Joe's post.

I'M sure we will get over it.

I don't know if Big Joe was trying to be funny or insulting.

I don't care I thought it was hysterical.

I let him know I removed his post.  He sent me a PM.  I don't know for sure, but it seems he was trying to be more funny (or even explain things to Winston) than insulting. Anyway, I think Winston knows quite well that you weren't trying to be mean to him.  Sorry to derail this thread everyone; although, maybe that's a good thing ;)
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: JaqEboy on July 05, 2010, 11:35:51 pm
Phase One: Fun Tent.
Phase Three: Anarchists have taken over.

My work here is done. Peace, my brethren.

Thanks for initiating fun! I want to take credit for initiating off-official sales with my bank of coffee makers.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Pat K on July 06, 2010, 12:06:36 am
Quote
Lots of things will be be said and done that you don't like.
People are gonna yell, curse and fight for what they think is right

That's like saying that because people are going to murder anyway, it's OK to murder.

A person should not engage in jagaloon behavior, period.

Um ED just a little tip here to help ya out.

There is a huge difference between murder and spirited debate and or outright insults.
Except perhaps in your posts, cause your killing me.................  ;D
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: BigJoe on July 06, 2010, 01:08:39 am
my brother knew a lacrosse playing FLID that got a "FLID" tattoo as part of a scavenger hunt.  All you need to know really   ;D
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Pat K on July 06, 2010, 01:16:09 am
 ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: artienewport on July 06, 2010, 01:40:47 am
I'm glad something is weeding out the complainers from joining.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: greap on July 06, 2010, 04:22:20 am
This thread makes me think of this

(http://mimg.ugo.com/200905/9544/kirk-spock-fight.jpg)
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: slayerboy on July 06, 2010, 08:22:33 am
To add a little bit of contrast to this discussion, as I said before, I attended PorcFest for the first time this year.  I love it so much I'm making plans to move by next PorcFest.

Here's what I saw at Porcfest:

I'm an "anarchist".  I see the value in doing inside and outside the system stuff, I also see the complete idiocy of some of it.  My plan when I move up is to act free.  If that means I end up engaging in CD, then so be it, but I don't think I would go out of my way to participate in CD if it wasn't something that I would do on a normal day.  I think inside the system stuff is hopeless, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't vote if I thought it would make a difference (usually it doesn't).

I think my biggest question to the OP would be what did you expect when it was advertised on the FSP Porcfest page and the Porcfest2010.com page, as well as the Facebook group that it would have Agora Alley, which agorism is usually tied in with anarchism/voluntaryism.  My suggestion would be to check out the NH Liberty Forum, as I think that is geared more toward inside the system stuff, but like it's been said you will probably find many "anarchists" there.

To the board of FSP, I think it needs to be defined what the objective of the FSP is.  Is it to just move liberty-minded people to NH and then let them sort out their activism and amount of freedom on their own?  Or is it not just a tool to bring new people to NH, but also a society that has rules that aren't written down?  I understand there is an image issue if it's just to get people to NH and let people do whatever they want to obtain freedom.  Maybe there should be disclaimers that the FSP isn't responsible for anyone who decides to move to NH.  Otherwise, people would associate movers as still members of the FSP and use their actions to judge the FSP.  I'd like to see it just be a tool and let stuff like FreeKeene, the Shire Society, etc evolve and form their own direction as how to achieve freedom.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 06, 2010, 08:41:52 am
I'm going to be honest. The schism is significant and deep. IMO, if Curtis really holds those views and wasn't just playing devil's advocate, he doesn't belong in the FSP.

It's my understanding that the condition for being an FSP member is the SoI, not agreement with Matt Simon's strategy and tactics.

Were you at the debate? This wasn't about tactics. Curtis said that he opposed marijuana legalization and supported prohibition, because it created a black market in which he and other agorists could operate. Rich Paul appropriately responded that by that logic everything should be banned. Now, I suspect Curtis was just trying to stir things up, playing devil's advocate in order to get people thinking. But if he really supports drug prohibition - well, I find it hard to square that with the SoI, don't you?

Quote
Yes, well that argument has been had and settled in the libertarian movement back in the 70's. Libertarians are for rights and are inherently against majoritarian voting of people's rights away, so it's an absolute anti-concept to then advocate "voting for freedom". The argument politicals who call themselves "libertarians" make is that, "well, I think we should do it because it'll work", ie, the pragmatic argument. Of course it's evil to engage in voting for candidates and legislation - that was settled a long time ago. The issue for most to consider is will I do just a little evil, because I think it'll do more good? If you can live with your conscience, then, go ahead (but, best to call yourselves something other than a consistent libertarian).

I disagree. There's nothing even a little bit evil, intrinsically, about voting or holding public office. If one opposes those things, one should do so on pragmatic but not moral grounds.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: slayerboy on July 06, 2010, 08:46:40 am
Were you at the debate? This wasn't about tactics. Curtis said that he opposed marijuana legalization and supported prohibition, because it created a black market in which he and other agorists could operate. Rich Paul appropriately responded that by that logic everything should be banned. Now, I suspect Curtis was just trying to stir things up, playing devil's advocate in order to get people thinking. But if he really supports drug prohibition - well, I find it hard to square that with the SoI, don't you?

I'm going to ruffle some feathers here, but if legalizing marijuana meant taxing the hell out of it like what is currently happening with tobacco, I'd support prohibition as well.  If it was a repeal on prohibition, just wipe the law off the record, then I'd be in favor of it.   Legalize it without taxing it and treat it just like any other drug that we call a food, then by all means go for it.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: freedomroad on July 06, 2010, 09:06:56 am
Were you at the debate? This wasn't about tactics. Curtis said that he opposed marijuana legalization and supported prohibition, because it created a black market in which he and other agorists could operate. Rich Paul appropriately responded that by that logic everything should be banned. Now, I suspect Curtis was just trying to stir things up, playing devil's advocate in order to get people thinking. But if he really supports drug prohibition - well, I find it hard to square that with the SoI, don't you?

I don't even see the relation to that and the SOI.  BTW, from what I've seen, on a liberty scale of 1 to 100 with 1 being no liberty and 100 being complete liberty, Curtis would likely be quite a bit higher on the scale than you.  Nevertheless, I still think your views square up very well with the SOI.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Sovereign Curtis on July 06, 2010, 09:12:13 am
I'm going to be honest. The schism is significant and deep. IMO, if Curtis really holds those views and wasn't just playing devil's advocate, he doesn't belong in the FSP.

It's my understanding that the condition for being an FSP member is the SoI, not agreement with Matt Simon's strategy and tactics.

Were you at the debate? This wasn't about tactics. Curtis said that he opposed marijuana legalization and supported prohibition, because it created a black market in which he and other agorists could operate. Rich Paul appropriately responded that by that logic everything should be banned. Now, I suspect Curtis was just trying to stir things up, playing devil's advocate in order to get people thinking. But if he really supports drug prohibition - well, I find it hard to square that with the SoI, don't you?

Rich Paul purposefully misstated the Agorist position in order to win points with the panelists and the crowd. That is the FIRST time I've ever heard Prohibition compared to Subsidy.

AGAIN, I am COMPLETELY opposed to the The State and its Violence. To blame an Agorist for the violence of The State is a logical fallacy. The goal of the Agorist is to consciously participate in the counter-economy, growing it to the point that private defense FROM THE STATE is required. More Prohibition means More Counter-Economy and a hastening of the demise of The State. Less Prohibition and more Minarchism delays the demise of The State and gives it new funding (lifeblood).

Now that I've made this clear, I could incorrectly accuse YOU of supporting the Violence of The State...


Furthermore I've never publicly stated how I am involved with the Counter-Economy, and to assume I am a pot dealer (while facing felony pot dispensing charges...),
just because I oppose Legalization and Regulation, is another logical fallacy.

A further logical error is to assume that pot dealers/etc would be opposed to legalization because they stand to lose "THOSE PROFIT$!". Just look at Amsterdam, Switzerland, Spain, California, even Canada. No amount of de-regulation, legalization, tolerance, etc, has lead to a significant decrease in the retail price of marijuana. Medical patients in California still pay the same as 19 y/o college students on the East Coast. In fact, the price of good marijuana hasnt changed significantly IN THIRTY YEARS. Just think about what has happened to the Dollar in the past three decades.      [sarcasm] Yea those Pot Dealers sure are getting Rich... [/sarcasm]


PS Why is Gary Johnson the only Politico (or so it seems) who understood what I was saying? I was responding to the "We're all in favor of legalization" meme.
I do not actively oppose the efforts of minarchists. Even if I believe that were they successful, they would just be paving the way for the next bigger more powerful Nanny State.


I intellectually oppose the neutering of the Agora, in order to "Save The State".

Prohibit EVERYTHING, start acting like Free Men, and let The State fail. TOTAL FREEDOM.


AGORA, ANARCHY, ACTION!
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: JaqEboy on July 06, 2010, 09:35:20 am
Yes, well that argument has been had and settled in the libertarian movement back in the 70's. Libertarians are for rights and are inherently against majoritarian voting of people's rights away, so it's an absolute anti-concept to then advocate "voting for freedom". The argument politicals who call themselves "libertarians" make is that, "well, I think we should do it because it'll work", ie, the pragmatic argument. Of course it's evil to engage in voting for candidates and legislation - that was settled a long time ago. The issue for most to consider is will I do just a little evil, because I think it'll do more good? If you can live with your conscience, then, go ahead (but, best to call yourselves something other than a consistent libertarian).

I disagree. There's nothing even a little bit evil, intrinsically, about voting or holding public office. If one opposes those things, one should do so on pragmatic but not moral grounds.

OK, so we've clearly identified the issue, and we needn't bog this forum down with this, but I will refer you to a variety of articles that make it clear that "a ballot is a bullet", etc., ie, it's an act of agression (that libertarians oppose). Once that connection is clear, then we've identified "the gun in the room", as Stefan says.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: JaqEboy on July 06, 2010, 09:43:02 am
I'm going to be honest. The schism is significant and deep. IMO, if Curtis really holds those views and wasn't just playing devil's advocate, he doesn't belong in the FSP.

It's my understanding that the condition for being an FSP member is the SoI, not agreement with Matt Simon's strategy and tactics.

Were you at the debate? This wasn't about tactics. Curtis said that he opposed marijuana legalization and supported prohibition, because it created a black market in which he and other agorists could operate. Rich Paul appropriately responded that by that logic everything should be banned. Now, I suspect Curtis was just trying to stir things up, playing devil's advocate in order to get people thinking. But if he really supports drug prohibition - well, I find it hard to square that with the SoI, don't you?

I wasn't at the debate - I'll have to catch the video. I was busy tending to the back of the bus.

I said strategy and tactics. Voting (and promotion of legislation) is a strategy to reach freedom. It is immoral and won't work - 2 good reasons to move libertarians towards effective action with strategies consistent with the desired end and away from strategies that corrupt their moral sense and dissipate their money and energies.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 06, 2010, 10:09:59 am
I'm going to be honest. The schism is significant and deep. IMO, if Curtis really holds those views and wasn't just playing devil's advocate, he doesn't belong in the FSP.

It's my understanding that the condition for being an FSP member is the SoI, not agreement with Matt Simon's strategy and tactics.

Were you at the debate? This wasn't about tactics. Curtis said that he opposed marijuana legalization and supported prohibition, because it created a black market in which he and other agorists could operate. Rich Paul appropriately responded that by that logic everything should be banned. Now, I suspect Curtis was just trying to stir things up, playing devil's advocate in order to get people thinking. But if he really supports drug prohibition - well, I find it hard to square that with the SoI, don't you?

Rich Paul purposefully misstated the Agorist position in order to win points with the panelists and the crowd. That is the FIRST time I've ever heard Prohibition compared to Subsidy.

AGAIN, I am COMPLETELY opposed to the The State and its Violence. To blame an Agorist for the violence of The State is a logical fallacy. The goal of the Agorist is to consciously participate in the counter-economy, growing it to the point that private defense FROM THE STATE is required. More Prohibition means More Counter-Economy and a hastening of the demise of The State. Less Prohibition and more Minarchism delays the demise of The State and gives it new funding (lifeblood).

So you're saying that the end justifies the means. Aggression against innocent people is OK because in the long run you think it will lead to the demise of the state.

Quote
PS Why is Gary Johnson the only Politico (or so it seems) who understood what I was saying? I was responding to the "We're all in favor of legalization" meme.

IIRC, Gary's response to your statement was essentially: Forgetting everything else, marijuana prohibition means that 1.8 million innocent people are arrested each year, and we should support legalization to end that moral horror. I thought it was a very compelling response to your pie-in-the-sky theorizing.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: JaqEboy on July 06, 2010, 10:56:19 am
Jason, please save yourself the repeated embarrassment of mis-stating the agorist position over and over again and getting bitch-slapped each time. Just read the New Libertarian Manifesto, which is the document that defines agorism. It's available in various forms, including audio book. You can find links to all of the forms at the Shire Agorists' site on Fr33 Agents: http://fr33agents.ning.com/group/shireagorists

We all know about the voting/parliamentary political action strategy and, by now, most are hep to the fact that it's a failed meme for the freedom movement. To act in that realm is just to be a string-puppet in a staged drama intended to dissipate our time, money and energies - keep playing and keep losing while you're being channeled down the cattle chute. Please just read up on the only strategy that has consistency of end and means. Agorism is the further evolution of libertarian thought that solves the moral dilemma that is posed by the parliamentary political system. After reading, you'll understand the set-up for this discussion (and you won't go back to being a parliamentary political string-puppet  ;D ).


So you're saying that the end justifies the means. Aggression against innocent people is OK because in the long run you think it will lead to the demise of the state.

Quote
PS Why is Gary Johnson the only Politico (or so it seems) who understood what I was saying? I was responding to the "We're all in favor of legalization" meme.

IIRC, Gary's response to your statement was essentially: Forgetting everything else, marijuana prohibition means that 1.8 million innocent people are arrested each year, and we should support legalization to end that moral horror. I thought it was a very compelling response to your pie-in-the-sky theorizing.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 06, 2010, 11:06:07 am
I've read it, long ago, & I think Curtis' position as stated does not reflect anything SEK3 would have endorsed.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Sovereign Curtis on July 06, 2010, 11:21:05 am
I'm going to be honest. The schism is significant and deep. IMO, if Curtis really holds those views and wasn't just playing devil's advocate, he doesn't belong in the FSP.

It's my understanding that the condition for being an FSP member is the SoI, not agreement with Matt Simon's strategy and tactics.

Were you at the debate? This wasn't about tactics. Curtis said that he opposed marijuana legalization and supported prohibition, because it created a black market in which he and other agorists could operate. Rich Paul appropriately responded that by that logic everything should be banned. Now, I suspect Curtis was just trying to stir things up, playing devil's advocate in order to get people thinking. But if he really supports drug prohibition - well, I find it hard to square that with the SoI, don't you?

Rich Paul purposefully misstated the Agorist position in order to win points with the panelists and the crowd. That is the FIRST time I've ever heard Prohibition compared to Subsidy.

AGAIN, I am COMPLETELY opposed to the The State and its Violence. To blame an Agorist for the violence of The State is a logical fallacy. The goal of the Agorist is to consciously participate in the counter-economy, growing it to the point that private defense FROM THE STATE is required. More Prohibition means More Counter-Economy and a hastening of the demise of The State. Less Prohibition and more Minarchism delays the demise of The State and gives it new funding (lifeblood).

So you're saying that the end justifies the means. Aggression against innocent people is OK because in the long run you think it will lead to the demise of the state.

Wrong again. (Keeping this up makes me wonder if you are purposefully trying to smear my reputation/character).

I am 100% opposed to the Violence of The State. I wish to end it FOREVER, not just the next few years or decades, FOREVER.

Accusing me of being supportive of the State Violence that goes along with Prohibition is to accuse me of supporting my own incarceration for a victimless act (twice).
Since that first incarceration started me on the path to liberty, and that second incarceration is providing me an opportunity to stand up to the Violent State,
I'd have to say your accusation is VERY VERY wrong.

Quote
PS Why is Gary Johnson the only Politico (or so it seems) who understood what I was saying? I was responding to the "We're all in favor of legalization" meme.


IIRC, Gary's response to your statement was essentially: Forgetting everything else, marijuana prohibition means that 1.8 million innocent people are arrested each year, and we should support legalization to end that moral horror. I thought it was a very compelling response to your pie-in-the-sky theorizing.

"pie-in-the-sky" Nice. Thats kind of how I feel about Empowering violent men with a monopoly on legitimized violence, to stop all the violence... Talk about a fairy tale.

And I was referring to the conversation Gary and I had the next day.
He wanted to stop and thank me for introducing him to Agorism and thank me for the Agorist Activism I am a part of.
We made clear our positions, and we are not opposed to one another in the slightest.



I DO NOT SUPPORT THE VIOLENCE OF THE STATE, NOR DO I SUPPORT THE CAGING OF PEACEFUL PEOPLE
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: WendellBerry on July 06, 2010, 11:40:50 am
Quote
It's my understanding that the condition for being an FSP member is the SoI

Jason, all of this could have been avoided if the SoI had NOT been changed!

It HAD said when I signed it...

"I hereby state my solemn intent to move to the state of New
Hampshire. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort
toward the creation of a society in which the maximum SOLE role of
civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property."

I believe it was changed to "maximum role" because the President of the organization at the time (Amanda Phillips) was a self-described "anarchist".

Please someone correct me if I am wrong.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 06, 2010, 11:53:48 am
Not really.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 06, 2010, 11:56:47 am
Yes, well that argument has been had and settled in the libertarian movement back in the 70's. Libertarians are for rights and are inherently against majoritarian voting of people's rights away, so it's an absolute anti-concept to then advocate "voting for freedom". The argument politicals who call themselves "libertarians" make is that, "well, I think we should do it because it'll work", ie, the pragmatic argument. Of course it's evil to engage in voting for candidates and legislation - that was settled a long time ago. The issue for most to consider is will I do just a little evil, because I think it'll do more good? If you can live with your conscience, then, go ahead (but, best to call yourselves something other than a consistent libertarian).

I disagree. There's nothing even a little bit evil, intrinsically, about voting or holding public office. If one opposes those things, one should do so on pragmatic but not moral grounds.

OK, so we've clearly identified the issue, and we needn't bog this forum down with this, but I will refer you to a variety of articles that make it clear that "a ballot is a bullet", etc., ie, it's an act of agression (that libertarians oppose). Once that connection is clear, then we've identified "the gun in the room", as Stefan says.
Huh?
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 06, 2010, 12:25:47 pm
I'm going to be honest. The schism is significant and deep. IMO, if Curtis really holds those views and wasn't just playing devil's advocate, he doesn't belong in the FSP.

It's my understanding that the condition for being an FSP member is the SoI, not agreement with Matt Simon's strategy and tactics.

Were you at the debate? This wasn't about tactics. Curtis said that he opposed marijuana legalization and supported prohibition, because it created a black market in which he and other agorists could operate. Rich Paul appropriately responded that by that logic everything should be banned. Now, I suspect Curtis was just trying to stir things up, playing devil's advocate in order to get people thinking. But if he really supports drug prohibition - well, I find it hard to square that with the SoI, don't you?

Rich Paul purposefully misstated the Agorist position in order to win points with the panelists and the crowd. That is the FIRST time I've ever heard Prohibition compared to Subsidy.

AGAIN, I am COMPLETELY opposed to the The State and its Violence. To blame an Agorist for the violence of The State is a logical fallacy. The goal of the Agorist is to consciously participate in the counter-economy, growing it to the point that private defense FROM THE STATE is required. More Prohibition means More Counter-Economy and a hastening of the demise of The State. Less Prohibition and more Minarchism delays the demise of The State and gives it new funding (lifeblood).

So you're saying that the end justifies the means. Aggression against innocent people is OK because in the long run you think it will lead to the demise of the state.

Wrong again. (Keeping this up makes me wonder if you are purposefully trying to smear my reputation/character).

I am 100% opposed to the Violence of The State. I wish to end it FOREVER, not just the next few years or decades, FOREVER.

Accusing me of being supportive of the State Violence that goes along with Prohibition is to accuse me of supporting my own incarceration for a victimless act (twice).
Since that first incarceration started me on the path to liberty, and that second incarceration is providing me an opportunity to stand up to the Violent State,
I'd have to say your accusation is VERY VERY wrong.

I'm trying to understand your position. So far it's leaving me confused. Let's get our terms straight.

"Marijuana legalization" means "marijuana's becoming legal." "Marijuana prohibition" means "marijuana's remaining illegal." To keep something illegal requires state violence. Legalization and prohibition are mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories. To oppose something means to support the absence of it. Therefore, to oppose marijuana legalization is to support marijuana prohibition. Therefore, to oppose marijuana legalization is to support something that requires state violence.

That syllogism seems airtight. Which premiss is wrong? Or are you going to recant your support for prohibition/state violence? I hope so.

Quote
I DO NOT SUPPORT THE VIOLENCE OF THE STATE, NOR DO I SUPPORT THE CAGING OF PEACEFUL PEOPLE

I wish you had said that during the debate. You gave a lot of people the wrong impression.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 06, 2010, 12:27:38 pm
Quote
It's my understanding that the condition for being an FSP member is the SoI

Jason, all of this could have been avoided if the SoI had NOT been changed!

It HAD said when I signed it...

"I hereby state my solemn intent to move to the state of New
Hampshire. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort
toward the creation of a society in which the maximum SOLE role of
civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property."

I believe it was changed to "maximum role" because the President of the organization at the time (Amanda Phillips) was a self-described "anarchist".

Please someone correct me if I am wrong.

I think you're wrong! There's nothing wrong w/ anarchism or anarchists. There is something wrong with anarchists who support maintaining state violence because they think that if you keep state violence going, one day the state will magically disappear. Those of us who are gradualists are not going in the same direction as those people. We're working at cross purposes.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: WendellBerry on July 06, 2010, 12:39:41 pm
Quote
It's my understanding that the condition for being an FSP member is the SoI

Jason, all of this could have been avoided if the SoI had NOT been changed!

It HAD said when I signed it...

"I hereby state my solemn intent to move to the state of New
Hampshire. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort
toward the creation of a society in which the maximum SOLE role of
civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property."

I believe it was changed to "maximum role" because the President of the organization at the time (Amanda Phillips) was a self-described "anarchist".

Please someone correct me if I am wrong.

I think you're wrong! There's nothing wrong w/ anarchism or anarchists. There is something wrong with anarchists who support maintaining state violence because they think that if you keep state violence going, one day the state will magically disappear. Those of us who are gradualists are not going in the same direction as those people. We're working at cross purposes.

OK, but why was it changed?

Just curious, are you an active proponent of poly-centric law and private insurance/protective agencies via contract to supplant what we have in place today (monopoly on force within a geographical territory)?
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FreedomFred on July 06, 2010, 12:40:05 pm
I was told that once you goto PorcFest that you'll be itching to move ASAP!  However, that is not exactly how I am feeling although I wish that were the case.  After having visited PorcFest I still have some reservations concerning not so much New Hampshire, but the FSP and some of its participants. A little background; I am from the west coast and I would consider myself a small "l" libertarian or minarchist of the Ron Paul / Thomas E. Woods stripe.

I have never came into contact with so many anarchists at the same time and was surprised to see how they were represented both in numbers of people and events.  Having heard them out, I am certainly receptive to their views and tactics whereas before I just generally disregarded them completely.  That being said, I am still NOT for zero government, of course I do think it needs to be drastically curtailed.  I see anarchism as a state of transition, whereby warlordism and/or a tyrannical government (supported by a military-industrial complex) quickly supplants it.  I think it is much easier to win people over into supporting and maintaining a limited constitutional republic for which there has already been a precedent set forth than to hope to achieve a mass "paradigm shift" necessary to attain an anarchist utopia in equilibrium.  Now onto the main topic...

What constitutes "government"? If we are self-governing, is that still not a "government", per se?

Is the current status-quo government the only possibility? I don't think so.

The terms can get lost, because  we all have a slightly different take on them.

What you don't want -- and what no one wants -- is total lawless chaos where, say, someone can rob you and you'd have no recourse. I don't think anyone wants that.

But there are alternative ways we can approach the situation, and those ways need to be explored.

http://fractopoly.com -- my embryonic attempt at a possible alternative, that would encompass agorism, deal with the so-called "tragedy of the commons", and deal with a lot of other issues that your typical person would raise.

Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: eh? on July 06, 2010, 12:43:10 pm

I disagree. There's nothing even a little bit evil, intrinsically, about voting or holding public office.

... "a ballot is a bullet", etc., ie, it's an act of agression

Notwithstanding that it may be as rarely seen in the world today today as a black albino buffalo, either a ballot, whether bullet or not, or the holding of a public office could conceivably be either an indefensible act of aggression or an act in defense of self or property.  I have yet to see a pure example of the latter situation arise in practice.  Still, the adverb was "intrinsically."
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 06, 2010, 12:44:40 pm
Quote
It's my understanding that the condition for being an FSP member is the SoI

Jason, all of this could have been avoided if the SoI had NOT been changed!

It HAD said when I signed it...

"I hereby state my solemn intent to move to the state of New
Hampshire. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort
toward the creation of a society in which the maximum SOLE role of
civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property."

I believe it was changed to "maximum role" because the President of the organization at the time (Amanda Phillips) was a self-described "anarchist".

Please someone correct me if I am wrong.

I think you're wrong! There's nothing wrong w/ anarchism or anarchists. There is something wrong with anarchists who support maintaining state violence because they think that if you keep state violence going, one day the state will magically disappear. Those of us who are gradualists are not going in the same direction as those people. We're working at cross purposes.

OK, but why was it changed?

Just curious, are you an active proponent of poly-centric law and private insurance/protective agencies via contract to supplant what we have in place today (monopoly on force within a geographical territory)?

It was changed so that anarchists could be included. After all, I was once an anarcho-capitalist who advocated what you suggest above, but at the time I was also a gradualist - better half a loaf than none, it's the only rational position. So we want to attract gradualists to the FSP, regardless of what their ultimate position on where we ought to end up may be.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: JaqEboy on July 06, 2010, 12:50:52 pm
This should probably be carried on in a separate thread and I'll refer you to folks who have written more extensively and clearly than I could on it. Sorry, but "I thought everyone knew this."

A good starting point for your reading would be the Alliance of the Libertarian Left's site: http://all-left.net. That's where I'd pick and choose some reading to recommend.


I disagree. There's nothing even a little bit evil, intrinsically, about voting or holding public office.

... "a ballot is a bullet", etc., ie, it's an act of agression

Notwithstanding that it may be as rarely seen in the world today today as a black albino buffalo, either a ballot, whether bullet or not, or the holding of a public office could conceivably be either an indefensible act of aggression or an act in defense of self or property.  I have yet to see a pure example of the latter situation arise in practice.  Still, the adverb was "intrinsically."
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: pupmom on July 06, 2010, 12:52:37 pm
As someone who was at Porcfest to feel out what it would be like to move, I would like to applaud this thread for demonstrating there is not a just a dichotomy of views in the FSP but a continuum.  I really enjoy reading civil debates and constructive commentary.  Bravo!     ;D
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: shyfrog on July 06, 2010, 12:56:57 pm
I'll go out on this limb...but I will speak for myself

I believe that the state will continue to gain power and use violence regardless of what we do. It is what the state does.
I do not support the violence of the state, but I recognize that it exists. I also recognize that I can choose to live without fear and choose not to ask permission from a violent entity to do what is my right to do naturally.

Therefore, I choose to live my life while allowing the inevitable to happen, but reserve the liberty to help others free themselves from its path. It does not mean that I give it permission by standing aside. It just means that I recognize that one cannot reason with violence as it moves toward it's goal of power, control, and enslavement.

My goal is to starve it of: money, people, ideas, product, service, fuel, food

Does this help?  >:D
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: JaqEboy on July 06, 2010, 01:03:24 pm
Well,  come on over in carbon form, then! Don't just be with us electronically!  ;D .

As someone who was at Porcfest to feel out what it would be like to move, I would like to applaud this thread for demonstrating there is not a just a dichotomy of views in the FSP but a continuum.  I really enjoy reading civil debates and constructive commentary.  Bravo!     ;D
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: WendellBerry on July 06, 2010, 01:13:05 pm

I disagree. There's nothing even a little bit evil, intrinsically, about voting or holding public office.

... "a ballot is a bullet", etc., ie, it's an act of agression

Notwithstanding that it may be as rarely seen in the world today today as a black albino buffalo, either a ballot, whether bullet or not, or the holding of a public office could conceivably be either an indefensible act of aggression or an act in defense of self or property.  I have yet to see a pure example of the latter situation arise in practice.  Still, the adverb was "intrinsically."

Well, the great libertarian Albert J. Nock who wrote "Our Enemy, The State" claimed there was a difference between "the state" and "governance" as legitimate delegated authority.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: elkingrey on July 06, 2010, 01:15:13 pm
The state is finished. It's going to grasp for more and more power which will drive more and more people to anarchy. That is not to say the state wouldn't be finished even if it were on the wane, which it is not.

On a side note, is there anything we can learn from what is currently going on in Mexico with the druglord vs. government civil war?
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: eh? on July 06, 2010, 01:24:31 pm
This should probably be carried on in a separate thread and I'll refer you to folks who have written more extensively and clearly than I could on it. Sorry, but "I thought everyone knew this."

A good starting point for your reading would be the Alliance of the Libertarian Left's site: http://all-left.net. That's where I'd pick and choose some reading to recommend.


I disagree. There's nothing even a little bit evil, intrinsically, about voting or holding public office.

... "a ballot is a bullet", etc., ie, it's an act of agression

Notwithstanding that it may be as rarely seen in the world today today as a black albino buffalo, either a ballot, whether bullet or not, or the holding of a public office could conceivably be either an indefensible act of aggression or an act in defense of self or property.  I have yet to see a pure example of the latter situation arise in practice.  Still, the adverb was "intrinsically."

1) When "everyone knows something" then "everyone" is quite possibly wrong.
2) From the quotes above it is quite obvious that at least one other "everyone" doesn't "know this."  Unless, of course, "everyone" only includes people who agree with the position you presented.
3) I do agree with what you are suggesting in the vast majority of situations.  For example, I cannot imagine a situation actually arising in which I would actually vote in a public election.  Just the idea almost makes me throw up.
4) Thankyou for your suggestions about reading material.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: JaqEboy on July 06, 2010, 01:48:54 pm

2) From the quotes above it is quite obvious that at least one other "everyone" doesn't "know this."  Unless, of course, "everyone" only includes people who agree with the position you presented.

That's why I put that statement in quotes - I meant to put a smiley after it, too.

I've just been around long enough to have heard the arguments on this the first, second, third, ... and fiftieth times. That's why I was just using shorthand like "the ballot is a bullet", rather than rehash the whole argument.

The point about PorcFest is that, well, the market has spoken and the agora is taking it's proper place, instead of having to continue to ride in the back of the bus. Like I said at the MVP meeting Saturday, the politicals are nice people, some of them good friends, and they will come around - a little more reading, a little more beating their heads against the wall - they will burn out with it and join us in the freedom movement. Each one will have a different time, a different reason that helped them get it. Meanwhile, we are creating a vibrant, fun, productive movement and fun events, like PorcFest!

Hopefully, most won't take a repressive position, like Denis does. We just don't allow that here - it's the free state, eh? Repressive California Republinazis go home!  ;D
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: WendellBerry on July 06, 2010, 01:54:07 pm
The state is finished. It's going to grasp for more and more power which will drive more and more people to anarchy. That is not to say the state wouldn't be finished even if it were on the wane, which it is not.


Well, I guess what Jason was originally questioning is if furthering the state's power in the short term will in the long run make it implode quicker as "more and more people are driven" towards more market-based, voluntary agreements (what you call "anarchy"). The Vietnam analogy is to "burn down the village in order to save it from the Vietcong".

He is suggesting that this line of thinking runs completely counter to a gradualist approach which he advocates for...

Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 06, 2010, 02:03:22 pm
The state is finished. It's going to grasp for more and more power which will drive more and more people to anarchy. That is not to say the state wouldn't be finished even if it were on the wane, which it is not.


Well, I guess what Jason was originally questioning is if furthering the state's power in the short term will in the long run make it implode quicker as "more and more people are driven" towards more market-based, voluntary agreements (what you call "anarchy"). The Vietnam analogy is to "burn down the village in order to save it from the Vietcong".

He is suggesting that this line of thinking runs completely counter to a gradualist approach which he advocates for...

That's correct, & the original agorist position was that trading in gray markets would gradually undermine prohibitionist restrictions. To advocate continuing prohibition in order to foster gray & black markets is to turn SEK3's philosophy upside down and backwards. It's like saying, "I'm going to join the CIA and torture more & more people until Americans get really hacked off at the CIA and maybe eventually decide to abolish torture!" It's nonsensical on its face and immoral to boot.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: sonofastitch on July 06, 2010, 02:03:35 pm
Okay, I'm a former lurker, but I'm jumping in on this one because this is an issue "near and dear" to my heart.

Winston, I was also at PorcFest for the first time in order to make my decision.  I definitely got the same vibe that you got as far as the divide being deeper than I expected, although I'm coming at it from the opposite (voluntaryist) perspective.

The anarchist/minarchist divide has always been a fight within the libertarian school of thought, so I suppose it shouldn't be surprising to see it in full bloom at PorcFest.  But I did find it concerning, and it frankly irritates me because it's an argument that is WAY WAY premature.

Ultimately though, my wife and I made the decision to join the FSP.  We signed the SoI last week and we're in the process of planning the move.  Despite being surprised that the divide was deeper than expected, we believe that the FSP is the last best hope for liberty.  We think that most people who will make this move will be like us in recognizing that both the anarchists and minarchists are pursuing (for now, and probably the remainder of our lifetimes) the SAME ENDS using different means, and all should be supported.  I say make the move, and do it sooner rather than later ... I'll be happy to work alongside you and anyone else in achieving the stated goals.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: eh? on July 06, 2010, 02:04:48 pm

I've just been around long enough to have heard the arguments on this the first, second, third, ... and fiftieth times. That's why I was just using shorthand like "the ballot is a bullet", rather than rehash the whole argument.

Sure. :)  Me too.  Of course I didn't, but sometimes I feel like I invented them all myself. Unfortunately, all of those arguments must fail the "intrinsically" test. All it would take is one good counterexample to show that and, unfortunately, that is not hard to imagine. I wish it weren't so.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FreedomFred on July 06, 2010, 02:05:55 pm
The state is finished. It's going to grasp for more and more power which will drive more and more people to anarchy. That is not to say the state wouldn't be finished even if it were on the wane, which it is not.


Well, I guess what Jason was originally questioning is if furthering the state's power in the short term will in the long run make it implode quicker as "more and more people are driven" towards more market-based, voluntary agreements (what you call "anarchy"). The Vietnam analogy is to "burn down the village in order to save it from the Vietcong".

He is suggesting that this line of thinking runs completely counter to a gradualist approach which he advocates for...

I am not convinced that a gradualist approach will work. You can do a lot of work and then your term is up, and someone else comes in behind you and undoes everything you worked so hard for.

That's the way of politics.

What we need to do is establish our alternative systems so as to render the State infrastructures irrelevant. The State then can gather dust through disuse and go away quietly.

Because once enough of a critical mass have switched to alternative modes, only then will you will see the State wither away and die without a whimper.


Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: greap on July 06, 2010, 02:15:34 pm
Okay, I'm a former lurker, but I'm jumping in on this one because this is an issue "near and dear" to my heart.

Winston, I was also at PorcFest for the first time in order to make my decision.  I definitely got the same vibe that you got as far as the divide being deeper than I expected, although I'm coming at it from the opposite (voluntaryist) perspective.

The anarchist/minarchist divide has always been a fight within the libertarian school of thought, so I suppose it shouldn't be surprising to see it in full bloom at PorcFest.  But I did find it concerning, and it frankly irritates me because it's an argument that is WAY WAY premature.

Ultimately though, my wife and I made the decision to join the FSP.  We signed the SoI last week and we're in the process of planning the move.  Despite being surprised that the divide was deeper than expected, we believe that the FSP is the last best hope for liberty.  We think that most people who will make this move will be like us in recognizing that both the anarchists and minarchists are pursuing (for now, and probably the remainder of our lifetimes) the SAME ENDS using different means, and all should be supported.  I say make the move, and do it sooner rather than later ... I'll be happy to work alongside you and anyone else in achieving the stated goals.

Welcome to the forums. I am on the minarchist side of the great vagina myself but agree with you in regards to the prematurity of the arguments that are going on. Nearly everything both camps agree on and the 0.001% we don't is the stuff that doesn't happen until everything else is gone, augments like this undermine both the anarchist an minarchist positions.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Kevin3db on July 06, 2010, 02:26:49 pm

Welcome to the forums. I am on the minarchist side of the great vagina myself but agree with you in regards to the prematurity of the arguments that are going on. Nearly everything both camps agree on and the 0.001% we don't is the stuff that doesn't happen until everything else is gone, augments like this undermine both the anarchist an minarchist positions.

I think that's the debate...how do you get to that point?  It would be one thing if in-system and out-of-system worked harmoniously together, but it seems that they don't always.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: greap on July 06, 2010, 02:37:14 pm
I think that's the debate...how do you get to that point?  It would be one thing if in-system and out-of-system worked harmoniously together, but it seems that they don't always.

I think both sides of this debate are being antagonistic towards the other. I disagree with the position Curtis has taken on this issue, the ends do not justify the means if the means are themselves unethical, but until he actively works against anti-prohibition activism (which he has said he wont) I don't really see there as being much of an issue as it amounts to the same as simply not working on an issue (I have no interest in actively working on this myself). If he starts advocating for actively obstructing anti-prohibitionist work then all the brimstone should be rained down upon him as anyone else advocating unethical positions. 
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: WendellBerry on July 06, 2010, 02:49:23 pm
The state is finished. It's going to grasp for more and more power which will drive more and more people to anarchy. That is not to say the state wouldn't be finished even if it were on the wane, which it is not.


Well, I guess what Jason was originally questioning is if furthering the state's power in the short term will in the long run make it implode quicker as "more and more people are driven" towards more market-based, voluntary agreements (what you call "anarchy"). The Vietnam analogy is to "burn down the village in order to save it from the Vietcong".

He is suggesting that this line of thinking runs completely counter to a gradualist approach which he advocates for...

That's correct, & the original agorist position was that trading in gray markets would gradually undermine prohibitionist restrictions. To advocate continuing prohibition in order to foster gray & black markets is to turn SEK3's philosophy upside down and backwards. It's like saying, "I'm going to join the CIA and torture more & more people until Americans get really hacked off at the CIA and maybe eventually decide to abolish torture!" It's nonsensical on its face and immoral to boot.

Bravo!

I have to admit, I did take particular delight in your identifying that trying to foster gray & black market activity in this way as "rent-seeking" activity.

Makes my little mutualist and geo-lib heart go pitter patter.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Kevin3db on July 06, 2010, 03:05:37 pm
I was told that once you goto PorcFest that you'll be itching to move ASAP!  However, that is not exactly how I am feeling although I wish that were the case.  After having visited PorcFest I still have some reservations concerning not so much New Hampshire, but the FSP and some of its participants.

I think a lot of this was expectations.  This was my first PorcFest as well and I was expecting a Lew Rockwell/Tom Woods/Ron Paul/Walter Block type of atmosphere.  It wasn’t quite like that.  Everyone we met was really nice, but somehow the overall feel seemed “cliquey”.  Also, the guy being accused of a Fed and harassed and the comment made at the marijuana debate turned me off a bit. 

I think that when you have someone’s attention who’s new to liberty, people should be mindful of how they say things and how their actions will impact someone’s perception of the movement.  We’re talking about people making the decision to move (in some cases) across the entire country and I don’t think most people are hardcore anarchists that were there testing the waters.  At least no one I met was.

In many cases PorcFest represents the first experience that someone thinking about moving, or recently moved, will have with the liberty movement in NH.  I think what I’m getting at is I’d like to see obvious “we aren’t all anarchists” balance at the next one.  Maybe that means having a “debate” about anarchism vs minarchism or a class/discussion about anarchism.

Overall though I did have a great time and look forward to the next one (with an air mattress).
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: sonofastitch on July 06, 2010, 03:08:37 pm
I think that's the debate...how do you get to that point?  It would be one thing if in-system and out-of-system worked harmoniously together, but it seems that they don't always.

I would argue that we get to that point by continuing to do what we're doing ... civil disobedience will create impetus for in-the-system repeals faster than education campaigns or general politicking will.  That just needs to be recognized by all parties in order for the infighting to stop.  What bothered me about the pot debate was that I didn't really get a warm fuzzy that the two guys at the table were capable of working together.  That doesn't much matter to me, as pot legalization is kind of a minor issue for me personally, but I hope it's not indicative of how things will work when we start addressing bigger issues.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Kevin3db on July 06, 2010, 03:32:22 pm
I would argue that we get to that point by continuing to do what we're doing ... civil disobedience will create impetus for in-the-system repeals faster than education campaigns or general politicking will.  That just needs to be recognized by all parties in order for the infighting to stop.  What bothered me about the pot debate was that I didn't really get a warm fuzzy that the two guys at the table were capable of working together.  That doesn't much matter to me, as pot legalization is kind of a minor issue for me personally, but I hope it's not indicative of how things will work when we start addressing bigger issues.

I don't know if I agree with that.  This is all about changing people's minds and perceptions.  We see a CD activist getting arrested for marijuana possession as just another aggression from the tyrannical state.  The mom with two teenage kids sees it as a great service from the police that another "druggie" is off the street.  I'm not sure how civic disobedience activism for the recreational use of marijuana pushes the agenda forward with people not already open to real freedom.  The same thing goes for driving without a driver's license or walking around topless...I'm just not sure what that is supposed to accomplish.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FreedomFred on July 06, 2010, 03:43:16 pm
I don't know if I agree with that.  This is all about changing people's minds and perceptions.  We see a CD activist getting arrested for marijuana possession as just another aggression from the tyrannical state.  The mom with two teenage kids sees it as a great service from the police that another "druggie" is off the street.  I'm not sure how civic disobedience activism for the recreational use of marijuana pushes the agenda forward with people not already open to real freedom.  The same thing goes for driving without a driver's license or walking around topless...I'm just not sure what that is supposed to accomplish.

That's my question, too. We need to look at ways to include the mom and her teen into the move towards freedom and liberty, not drive them away, screaming to mommy government to "do something" about us!

Also, I consider that there are much bigger issues of freedom afoot than the recreational use of pot -- which you can do anyway in the privacy of your home without too much ado. Let's go after the bigger game first and the pot issue will tend to itself.

I mean, why not go after getting rid of ALL victimless / consensual crimes, for instance? Wouldn't that be a MUCH bigger win than getting pot legalized? For the same effort, you can make major inroads there, and get pot for free!
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: elkingrey on July 06, 2010, 03:47:10 pm
Yeah, I'm not really advocating anything there. I'm merely pointing it out how I see it.

Often times we hear that the fascists are smart and are taking us down by gradualism. I'm not sure that is the case anymore. I think if they had their way, they would go to 100% fascism tomorrow. The only reason they are "gradually" taking us down is because there is so much opposition in the political arena. I do think, however, that if those in the political arena simply let go and let the fascists totally take over, that those people not paying attention would all of a sudden be like "WHOA!?!?" and would join our ranks in the Agora. I believe we can win in the Agora. That is our turf. We cannot win in the political arena. That is their turf.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: WendellBerry on July 06, 2010, 03:48:47 pm
Quote
I mean, why not go after getting rid of ALL victimless / consensual crimes, for instance? Wouldn't that be a MUCH bigger win than getting pot legalized? For the same effort, you can make major inroads there, and get pot for free!

That would be extremely difficult.

But, medical use of marijuana would be a good start.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: sonofastitch on July 06, 2010, 04:05:48 pm
I agree that "changing people's minds and perceptions" is one of the things we're trying to do ... but different strokes for different folks ... some respond to seeing a Tom Woods lecture, some respond to seeing a peaceful individual being dragged away in chains.  I'm guessing most would describe me as a run-of-the-mill surburbanite and, for me, the latter is a more powerful motivator.  I can say definitively that I would have never come to PorcFest (or be on my way to NH) if it weren't for the efforts of the civil disobedients to date.  I've done the whole "educational campaign" bit, I've been a politics junky in the past, I've worked within C4L, and I didn't see a lot of results.  In fact, it felt pretty pointless.  Which is a big part of why I personally am coming to NH.  

I recognize that the system can (theoretically, arguably) be torn down gradually and systematically from the inside, so I'm more than willing to work with inside-the-system types when appropriate ... but so far I'm not sensing a willingness to return the favor, and that's concerning.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 06, 2010, 04:38:34 pm
Inside-the-system activism in NH is quite effective. The situation in NH is totally different from that in the rest of the country. It's a small, open state. Almost as many people live in my county as in the entire state of NH, and NH has 400 citizen representatives. The list of political accomplishments in NH due to the FSP is quite extensive:

* opting out of REAL ID
* defeating the smoking ban the first time (second time the wave was too strong, as it has been just about everywhere)
* passing medical marijuana, nearly overriding governor's veto
* passing full marijuana decriminalization (vetoed)
* total knife freedom, first in nation
* eliminating criminal penalties for keeping prescription drugs in a container other than the one in which they were dispensed
* millions of dollars in tax & spending cuts in towns across NH
* bill prohibiting Katrina-style emergency gun seizures passed into law
* defeating all mandatory seat belt laws that have come up

That doesn't count things like civil unions/same-sex marriage that probably would have happened anyway without the FSP.

Now, I'm on record as supporting smart, strategic civil disobedience, including some of the specific acts that activists have done. But I have to say - I can't think of a single law or government practice that has changed in NH because of civil disobedience. None. That might be different if activists actually used good legal strategies to get laws overturned in the courts, but in general they've been pleading guilty or throwing themselves on the mercy of the court. Not very effective in the short term, maybe there will be a long-term payoff.

But the bottom line is that it's just inaccurate to claim that CD is accomplishing more in NH than legislative activism.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: sonofastitch on July 06, 2010, 04:56:12 pm
Jason -- I guess that post was directed at me.  If so, I think you're missing my point.  My point is that it doesn't matter which type of activism is more effective (which is an argument that can't be won by either side) ... what matters is that the activism happens and that it's supported and encouraged.  I defend CD because I sense a strong undercurrent against it.  I disagree with anyone that categorically dismisses one form of activism, and I plan to contribute to both in my own way.  But if I have to constantly put up with drama between the two sides rather than productive collaboration, my stay in NH will probably be short.  I'm looking for liberty in my lifetime, not a new form of partisanship.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: freedomroad on July 06, 2010, 05:04:05 pm
But if I have to constantly put up with drama between the two sides rather than productive collaboration, my stay in NH will probably be short.  I'm looking for liberty in my lifetime, not a new form of partisanship.

Why would you have to constantly put up with drama between the two sides?  If people are arguing about something like this at your house, you can ask them to leave.  If they are arguing about something like this in your car, you can ask them to get out.  Maybe don't attend events where you think there is a history of cursing, yelling and fighting related to this type of drama.  Unless you seek out such drama and place yourself in the middle of it, you will likely have to put up with hardly any of such drama. 

Some people do it for fun, but it certainly isn't required.  If it isn't for you, no problem, stay out of it.  It really shouldn't have any noticeable effect of your life or even your activism.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: sonofastitch on July 06, 2010, 05:17:47 pm
Some people do it for fun, but it certainly isn't required.  If it isn't for you, no problem, stay out of it.  It really shouldn't have any noticeable effect of your life or even your activism.

You're absolutely right if it is limited to spirited debate and philosophical gymnastics in my living room.  What I saw at the pot debate was not that.  I saw two individuals who are not going to work together.  When it crosses into influencing real-world tactics and relationships within a greater movement, it absolutely influences individuals like myself.  It's discouraging, particularly when you're looking at making a huge life change by moving across the country.  I'm looking for someone, anyone to agree with me that, as Glen Dickey said at the debate, "the chariot of liberty can be pulled by two horses."  I'm looking for some reassurance that this polarization isn't going to be a part of every single issue we address going forward.

You guys are starting to freak me out, quite frankly.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Denis Goddard on July 06, 2010, 05:19:41 pm
How much aggression do you support as a mini-statist?

Ian, that question is just not constructive if you're talking to someone who already self-identifies as a libertarian.

I know you feel this was a valid and useful question for debate; indeed, it would be, if it were intended to enlighten 3rd parties (such as on the radio) -- at the expense of alienating the person to whom you are asking the question.

The person to whom you direct this question parses it as, "Did you stop beating your wife yet?" and reacts accordingly.

Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: freedomroad on July 06, 2010, 05:30:52 pm
Some people do it for fun, but it certainly isn't required.  If it isn't for you, no problem, stay out of it.  It really shouldn't have any noticeable effect of your life or even your activism.

You're absolutely right if it is limited to spirited debate and philosophical gymnastics in my living room.  What I saw at the pot debate was not that.  I saw two individuals who are not going to work together.  When it crosses into influencing real-world tactics and relationships within a greater movement, it absolutely influences individuals like myself.  It's discouraging, particularly when you're looking at making a huge life change by moving across the country.  I'm looking for someone, anyone to agree with me that, as Glen Dickey said at the debate, "the chariot of liberty can be pulled by two horses."  I'm looking for some reassurance that this polarization isn't going to be a part of every single issue we address going forward.

There are 1000s (5,000? 10,000? 50,000?, not sure as I've only personally worked with less than 1000 people on various issues although groups I've worked with have worked with 1000s of people in total) of people in NH working for freedom on one issue or another.  Most of them will not work with you on most issues.  You address what issues you want in NH and other people will address what issues they want in NH.  You will address them the way you want and others will address the issues the way they want.  There isn't some giant collective or even a tiny one.  There any many single issue groups in NH.  There are also groups like the ALCU and NHLA in NH which work with many issues to some degree.  It's all about the individuals doing what the individuals want and working with those they want to work with.  There are plenty of people taking leadership roles on various issues, and many of them would likely gladly have you help them.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: sonofastitch on July 06, 2010, 05:33:56 pm
I'm not looking for collective thought.  I'm looking for tolerance.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Ed on July 06, 2010, 05:35:05 pm
Extreme example in case anybody doesn't get Jason's point (though I doubt that's actually the case):

Imagine in 1939 Germany, instead of the rounding up of the Jews being executed the way it actually was, it was voted on. That is, there's a ballot, and people vote if all the Jews should be rounded up and sent into labor camps. Assume that the country seems split pretty evenly on the issue, and there is an actual chance of getting such a proposal turned down. The anarchists and their buddies don't vote because they "don't support the violence of the state" or whatever. Then the votes are cast and the Jews lose out. What if those few hundred extra votes could have made the difference? And just in general, aren't you at least going to try to stop such madness?

Now clearly, most stuff on the ballot isn't anywhere near as extreme. But a lot of policies cause a lot of damage over a long period of time. Zoning basically pwns anyone who doesn't own land, and causes us to guzzle endless amounts of fuel, and helped cause the housing market and then entire market crash, etc... that's just one example. Are you not going to try and stop that or other damaging policies?

And that's the other thing about voting. A vote ISN'T always a bullet, it doesn't always represent force. The assertion just isn't true. Sometimes it STOPS the bullet. Because people can vote to take power AWAY from government. It DOESN'T always enforce the legitimacy or power of the state. It's just the way the state can be stopped. It's just a frank recognition of reality.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Ed on July 06, 2010, 05:36:56 pm
Quote
I'm not looking for collective thought.  I'm looking for tolerance.

touche
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: freedomroad on July 06, 2010, 05:38:28 pm
I'm not looking for collective thought.  I'm looking for tolerance.

People commented to me that the debate was boring because Rich and Matt agreed so much.  I didn't hear of anyone stabbing or shooting anyone.  I didn't hear of any horrible name calling by any of the main people involved.  It seemed that it was the perfect example of tolerance so I am sorry, but I'm confused as to what you are talking about.  Some people like to debate for fun.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: sonofastitch on July 06, 2010, 05:43:44 pm
Fair enough.  I guess Winston and I were imagining things.  And when it was asked if the two could work together and there was no agreeement, I guess that was friendly tit-for-tat.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Ed on July 06, 2010, 05:44:23 pm
I think he means tolerance in a broader sense

The rhetoric displayed clearly shows a serious kind of hatred or despising of people who disgaree, who aren't in complete lockstep

the only thing that seems to be accepted are the most outlandish positions that would disgust 90% of the public and actually ought to be shunned
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: freedomroad on July 06, 2010, 05:51:01 pm
Fair enough.  I guess Winston and I were imagining things.  And when it was asked if the two could work together and there was no agreeement, I guess that was friendly tit-for-tat.

I'm certainly not trying to be mean or suggest that you are imagining things.  It may have been them saying that they would not work together.  With so many 1000s of people pushing for increased freedom in NH, they all aren't likely to agree on the best approach for a particular issue.  Maybe there will be 100s of different approaches or just 5.  None of this is set in stone, though, I'm certainly not going to discourage discourse like a fun debate.  Maybe both Matt and Rich convinced more people to try out their style of activism on this issue and their will be increase freedom in NH because of that  :)
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: freedom_is_science on July 06, 2010, 05:55:27 pm
activism in NH is quite effective. The situation in NH is totally different from that in the rest of the country. It's a small, open state. Almost as many people live in my county as in the entire state of NH, and NH has 400 citizen representatives. The list of political accomplishments in NH due to the FSP is quite extensive:

* opting out of REAL ID
* defeating the smoking ban the first time (second time the wave was too strong, as it has been just about everywhere)
* passing medical marijuana, nearly overriding governor's veto
* passing full marijuana decriminalization (vetoed)
* total knife freedom, first in nation
* eliminating criminal penalties for keeping prescription drugs in a container other than the one in which they were dispensed
* millions of dollars in tax & spending cuts in towns across NH
* bill prohibiting Katrina-style emergency gun seizures passed into law
* defeating all mandatory seat belt laws that have come up

I'm not trying to discredit the work done by in the system activists, as I feel it's just as important as OOS, but I'm not sure I can categorically say all of those are accomplishments.  I might even go so far as to say some are failures.  Like "nearly overriding governer's veto", or "defeating the smoking ban the first time".  It's like if Beaver came home one day and said, "Guess what, Pa! I ALMOST past the spelling test in school today! Gee wilerkers!"  Or if some frat boy said to his buddy, "Bro, last night at the party, Jackie and I were wasted, and I ALMOST slept with her.  But then she tricked me into doing her Spanish homework."  I believe the phrase is "close but no cigar".

The same can EASILY be said for many CD, not that I want to point out any particular case. (((anarchojessiegardeningincentralsquare)))  I feel that civil dis is still evolving, and will continue to improve.  I cannot say it's entirely ineffective, as it has been known to draw people to these ideas.  (plus, can't we openly smoke pot in Keene without fear of arrest?  How's that working in the rest of the state? >:D)  Obviously it can be more effective in greater numbers, but as an act of conscience can it ever be wrong?  Thoreau said:
"Can there not be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? -in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree resign his conscience to the legislator? What has every man a conscience then?"

I am not a fence sitter, I am a bridge builder.  I have yet to see this schism everyone keeps talking about since my circle of friends are of both varieties.  I applaud the hard work done by politicos, even if I don't actively support it.  I would personally like to thank you for full knife freedom, protecting my guns in an emergency, and preventing me from getting a seatbelt ticket, as those affect me the most.  Keep up the good work!

Also, to not want to move to the Keene area simply because you're a politico would be foolish.  It's absolutely beautiful here, and most people are very down to earth.  I welcome anyone Liberty minded.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Denis Goddard on July 06, 2010, 06:11:59 pm
I'm not sure I can categorically say all of those are accomplishments.
They aren't. That said, it wasn't a complete list.
The recent example of total knife freedom would be sufficient, IMO. Bill sponsored by a free-stater, signed into law by the governor. Or opting out of real-id -- also (co)-sponsored by a free-stater, signed into law by the governor. Oh yeah, and the bill Dawn Lincoln (Free-stater) worked to push thru the House & Senate, signed into law by the Governor, that reduced the regulation on home-schoolers.

There are more like that. But -- is there any CD act that comes even close to any of the above accomplishments?

The CD activists I've spoken with seem to count "victory" as "we didn't get put in jail that specific time", or, "the judge let it go this time", or "the cops almost never hassle us at the 4:20 events". All of those sound like non-victories to me, in the same way that "almost passing MJ decrim" is a non-victory.

Can any CD activist name even one objectively verifiable, unqualified victory in NH?

Note that I'm not against CD as a tactic. I like pointing to Mike Fisher's "outlaw manicure (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kx0HH5FIScU)" as a great act of CD. Unfortunately, it's also the most recent positive act of CD I can think of.

Also, to not want to move to the Keene area simply because you're a politico would be foolish. 
Au contraire.
To be a politically active FSPer in Keene, you have two choices:
1) do not let it be known you are an FSPer
2) start out with the majority of the community biased against you, believing you are irresponsible and in no way representative of their morals or beliefs

Andy Carroll has a slight chance of winning -- he had the wisdom & inclination to be a Democrat in Keene, and he's doing all the right things in terms of volunteering in the community. He just has to not finish dead last in the primary -- which will be tough, given that people will, unfortunately and erroneously, associate him with the jackasses who were bullhorning Pumpkin Fest.  :'(
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: creaganlios on July 06, 2010, 06:16:16 pm
Also, to not want to move to the Keene area simply because you're a politico would be foolish.  It's absolutely beautiful here, and most people are very down to earth.  I welcome anyone Liberty minded. 

What he said.  Not everyone here is an anarchist.  Everyone is welcome. It really is unfortunate and incorrect to characterize various towns as being certain 'types' of activism.

Quote from: Denis
To be a politically active FSPer in Keene, you have two choices:
1) do not let it be known you are an FSPer
2) start out with the majority of the community biased against you, believing you are irresponsible and in no way representative of their morals or beliefs

Denis, while I agree with your general antangonism towards stupidity.....keep in mind that 'the Keene area' encompasses a hell of a lot more than Keene.  We've had - and have - FSPers running for office in Westmoreland, Swanzey, and Chesterfield....all bordering Keene, as Republicans and as Democrats...and with a decent chance to win two statehouse seats this year.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 06, 2010, 06:32:23 pm
I'm not looking for collective thought.  I'm looking for tolerance.

You & I both! I don't think it's productive to denounce people with whom you merely tactically disagree as immoral, or to tell them to their face, "I oppose your objective, and I hope you fail." But that's what I'm getting from some of the anarchos.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 06, 2010, 06:33:59 pm
P.S. On the list of legislative victories, I forgot homeschooling deregulation! Still a ways to go, but definitely an improvement in freedom that's directly attributable to the FSP.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Kevin3db on July 06, 2010, 07:14:37 pm
Note that I'm not against CD as a tactic. I like pointing to Mike Fisher's "outlaw manicure (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kx0HH5FIScU)" as a great act of CD.

I defend CD because I sense a strong undercurrent against it.

Personally, I think CD can be extremely powerful, but it depends on issue.  And so far everyone I've talked to about it agrees.  There are times when CD is a great tactic and times when it's not.  I think people oppose CD when it is counter-productive.  We're here to be free, but our neighbors have to agree too.  The state still exists because it has the support of the people.  A handful of young adults smoking weed in the town square recreationally doesn't make a powerful statement that will get the 50 year old neo-con on board.  However, seeing what looks like his 75 year old mother being arrested for smoking marijuana because that's the only thing that helps her glaucoma does.

I have a lot of respect for people that carry out thoughtful CD.  They have the courage to fly in the face of the system.  To face jail time, license forfeitures, etc.  I don't think I could do that.

sonofastich, I think you'll find whatever tactic you want to employ (hopefully both), that this is the place to do it.  I haven't been here long at all, but I can already tell, the freedom movement is strong with NH (does that sounds a little too much like Star Wars?)
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: freedom_is_science on July 06, 2010, 07:29:19 pm
The CD activists I've spoken with seem to count "victory" as "we didn't get put in jail that specific time", or, "the judge let it go this time", or "the cops almost never hassle us at the 4:20 events". All of those sound like non-victories to me, in the same way that "almost passing MJ decrim" is a non-victory.

It's not that the cops ALMOST never hassle us @ the 4:20s, they NEVER hassle us.  And it's not just the 4:20s.  I don't even go to them any more.  We've done it at other times, and in other places.  I smoked pot on Main st. in broad daylight, and the cops went right past me.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: micheleseven on July 06, 2010, 09:22:08 pm
"Some of the more prominent FSPers lately -- I am thinking of specifically Curtis, Ian, and a few others -- are "macho flash libertarians". They do not try hard to accommodate & welcome people who are like I was when I came to NH. They show respect for anarchists who are willing to perform civil disobedience. Anyone else gets the subtle message that the FSP is not about "their kind."

The FSP Board should yank back the reigns on these folks."



Dennis, There is nothing preventing you or anyone else in taking an active role in promoting whatever your interests are. The fact that Sovereign Curtis does is a testimony to his assertiveness and diligence to his priorities and that is commendable as part of the process of taking ownership and responsibility for his own values. It is of specific concern to me that you are interested in "[yanking] back the reigns on these folks" as that is an issue of force- TOTALLY contrary to the principles of non-aggression. Curtis doesn't speak for FSP; he speaks for himself.

I do find it interesting that someone who doesn't even live here nor, as far as I know, did he attend Porcfest which was so totally successful on account of the very person being criticized, has his opinion so vehemently supported.

My suggestion is to do what others have done and get involved with what you think would be of value or service to the community and stop knocking those with whom you disagree. For example, I and several other women believe that there needs to be an active women's issues group. We are not interested in pointing to Curtis or anyone else to change in order to promote our agenda but rather are getting a group together and trust that if there is a market for it, it will thrive, and if not, it will wither.

And back to that issue of force...Maybe you would like to re-think that one...

Michele
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: seamas on July 06, 2010, 10:17:11 pm
I think that you would have a different impression if you had attended the talks by Joel Winters and Dan Itse (a Democrat and a Constitutionalist Republican who are both NH State Reps).  Probably if you spent a day at Micheal Badnarik's Constitution class or at the Appleseed Shoot you would have had another different impression.  People place their emphasis on what aspect of freedom most concerns them and which tactics most appeal to them and it's unfortunate that your impression of the FSP has been formed by being around people who's approach you don't find useful.  If you had spent time with a different crowd, I am sure that you would have a different impression (indeed, you might have come away with the idea that we are all right wing gun nuts).  My point is that the FSP and freedom movement in NH is a very big tent.

Nevertheless, you aren't the only potential mover who has been turned off in the same way.  Anarchists denigrating acting within the system is plainly counterproductive.  Furthermore, the historical determinism (e.g. the state will inevitably collapse and we will then live free and sing kumbaya) that some anarchists espouse is simply wrong; as you have observed.  It is ignorant of human nature in the same way that Marxism was but has the virtue of being ineffectual.  Civil disobedience tends to get conflated with anarchism at times and that is a mistake - one is a tactic and the other is a philosophy.  

I was told that once you goto PorcFest that you'll be itching to move ASAP!  However, that is not exactly how I am feeling although I wish that were the case.  After having visited PorcFest I still have some reservations concerning not so much New Hampshire, but the FSP and some of its participants. A little background; I am from the west coast and I would consider myself a small "l" libertarian or minarchist of the Ron Paul / Thomas E. Woods stripe.

I have never came into contact with so many anarchists at the same time and was surprised to see how they were represented both in numbers of people and events.  Having heard them out, I am certainly receptive to their views and tactics whereas before I just generally disregarded them completely.  That being said, I am still NOT for zero government, of course I do think it needs to be drastically curtailed.  I see anarchism as a state of transition, whereby warlordism and/or a tyrannical government (supported by a military-industrial complex) quickly supplants it.  I think it is much easier to win people over into supporting and maintaining a limited constitutional republic for which there has already been a precedent set forth than to hope to achieve a mass "paradigm shift" necessary to attain an anarchist utopia in equilibrium.  Now onto the main topic...

[snip]

I just wanted to post these concerns up here, because I was not the only potential mover with them during the event.  Thanks.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: slayerboy on July 06, 2010, 10:28:45 pm
If I could, I'd like to make a point about the CD activists.  I think what they do IS working, you just can't see it yet.  The NH court system will keep on getting clogged up with these CD activists, the only way for the state judicial system to maintain the idea that they are needed is for them to just stop agressing against  non-violent people.  That's it.  All everyone wants here on both sides is an end to prosecution of non-violent "offenders".

Will the inside the system stuff work?  Possibly, but I think the outside the system people are helping to bring down the state and lessen it's impact.  I realize that inside the system people feel like outside the system people are making them look bad, and maybe that is the case, but shouldn't there be a realization that people are going to do what they want regardless if you want them to or not?

This is why i think it's pretty important to designate from the SoI if the FSP is going to requiring participants to behave a certain way.  Yes, we can all agree that we should be non-violent.  But the board really needs to decide if they're going to dictate behavior or not.  If they are, then I think maybe the people who are looking to do CD should maybe not sign up for the FSP?  I dunno. I haven't seen a concrete answer about this and it concerns me, like I said on my post a few pages back.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Denis Goddard on July 06, 2010, 10:45:27 pm
It's not that the cops ALMOST never hassle us @ the 4:20s, they NEVER hassle us.
There is video that contradicts this.
I think you mean, "the cops have decided not to bust any of us lately".

Also... I suspect you have no idea how close Keene was to having a lot less MJ prosecution, before the CDers came along and opened up a one-sided "conversation". Much damage was done.

It is of specific concern to me that you are interested in "[yanking] back the reigns on these folks" as that is an issue of force
Oh for heaven's sake, Michele, it's a figure of speech. When the landlord tells you you can't paint the bedroom bright pink, it's not force, it's just ownership. In this case, the FSP Board owns PF and owns the FSP brand name.

I do find it interesting that someone who doesn't even live here nor, as far as I know, did he attend Porcfest which was so totally successful on account of the very person being criticized, has his opinion so vehemently supported.
Yep, that's me, standing up (once again) for people who are favorably disposed toward the FSP, but then get pushed away by "macho flash" anarchists.
I have a long history of trying to make the FSP more friendly to people who are "Less Anarchist than Thou."

Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Pat K on July 07, 2010, 12:20:13 am
Quote
There is a huge difference between murder and spirited debate and or outright insults

It's called an analogy. Not a direct comparison.

It's amazing to me how much you guys can wax high-and-mighty philosophically and not understand a simple analogy.

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong.

Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Pat K on July 07, 2010, 12:37:44 am
You can  have more than tolerance, on my part, you can have some of my Beer.

But what you won't have is fake quiet niceness, when disagreement occur.

Some my cry we need Civility! You have it, there is no force being used on
either side here. In fact you don't even have to participate.

But this is not kindergarten. When I have something to say I say it and expect the same from others.

Freedom is messy, yes I am going to keep saying that.

I don't know how you can can have a revolution, evolution, liberty in your life time
with out somebody being Fucking offended every now and then .

Or every Fucking day for that matter.

Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Bazil on July 07, 2010, 08:26:52 am
I'm not an anarchist, and I'm not worried about the vast majority of the anarchists that are in the FSP.  Because they aren't the, rock throwing, car flipping, Socialist Anarchists we saw rough up the G20.  If they don't want to participate in government then they will have no say.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FTL_Ian on July 07, 2010, 10:32:48 am
It's not that the cops ALMOST never hassle us @ the 4:20s, they NEVER hassle us.
There is video that contradicts this.
I think you mean, "the cops have decided not to bust any of us lately".

If you define lately as eight full months.  Smoking and drinking go on openly every single day in Central Sq. and now at night with the new nightcaps.  Cops just drive and walk around the square, but NEVER come in the park.  We have won. 

Quote
Also... I suspect you have no idea how close Keene was to having a lot less MJ prosecution, before the CDers came along and opened up a one-sided "conversation". Much damage was done.
Ludicrous.  All the city council considered was passing a resolution encouraging the reps to pass decrim.  Big fucking whoop.  We got decrim in Keene's parks without begging.

Quote
Au contraire.
To be a politically active FSPer in Keene, you have two choices:
1) do not let it be known you are an FSPer
2) start out with the majority of the community biased against you, believing you are irresponsible and in no way representative of their morals or beliefs

Please.  It's far more likely most people don't even know what the FSP is.  You sound like one of the Keene Sentinel statist commenters, claiming to speak for "the community".
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 07, 2010, 10:59:33 am
What about the regular guy smoking and/or growing pot at home? Or selling it? Any evidence that these activities are now being treated as legal? The 420 smokeouts aren't being bothered now, but they didn't exist before they existed, so the fact that they're not being bothered doesn't indicate a net increase in freedom. To the extent that they have been bothered in the past, those episodes have represented net decreases in freedom. Has Keene law enforcement actually changed its policies on general drug enforcement? If not, then the protests aren't having the desired effect yet. Maybe eventually they will, but it's premature to declare victory, wouldn't you say?
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FTL_Ian on July 07, 2010, 11:10:44 am
We have won the right to consume alcohol and cannabis in public without police harassment.  That is a victory.  If any one of us had been doing that prior to the 420 celebrations we'd have easily been arrested, provided the police were made aware.

We can also gamble in public and sell food without permits in public.  All of these things have been done at Free Keene fest.

Clearly, they are still enforcing their rules elsewhere, but we have taken ground.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: 10stateswithnh on July 07, 2010, 11:13:46 am
Fair enough.  I guess Winston and I were imagining things.  And when it was asked if the two could work together and there was no agreeement, I guess that was friendly tit-for-tat.

I don't remember that question. Then again, I left before Rich and Ian partook on stage.
I think they were fairly friendly and agreeable. Agreeable doesn't mean they want to participate in each other's work. It just means they are nice to each other.

Some people on here seem to have a different definition of civil than I do, as in saying people should be civil. To me, civility is about being nice and respectful to people. Others here seem to think you can call your interaction civil as long as you haven't physically hurt the people but throw out every verbal insult you can think of. I think respect and not violating the NAP are two very different things.

I think you can be civil towards other people even if you disagree with their approach. I find calling other kinds of activism immoral not only to be counterproductive, but divisive as well. However, contrary to Ed's constant unsupported assertions, I find most people on here to be open to both kinds of activism, and disagreeing with the extreme positions he finds so offensive. However, Ed, I agreed with your statements about the effect of people refusing to vote. I also disagreed with Jack's earlier assertions about the immorality of voting being established back in the 70's. Obviously, it's not settled or this discussion would not be going on, and I don't see how asserting that it was settled 40 years ago is any different than stating that I have to accept a form of government because it was settled upon 220 years ago. It seems like an appeal to authority to me.

sonofastitch, and Winston, I sure wish you had made it to more of the political events. I certainly came away understanding that there are many different groups and organizations, pursuing many different tactics, and didn't see nearly as much conflict at PF as what this forum makes it appear there is in the movement. I think most of the divisiveness is by a few individuals who just happen to be more active on the forums than the more civil folk.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: greap on July 07, 2010, 11:15:11 am
We have won the right to consume alcohol and cannabis in public without police harassment.

Erm no you haven't, you have done nothing but convince the police to leave you alone for a little while. They can still roll up and arrest you any time they want, they think they have better things to do then both with you.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FTL_Ian on July 07, 2010, 11:18:44 am
That's a win.  If they choose to use discretion rather than aggress against peaceful people who are obviously breaking their rules, that is success and an increase in freedom.

It also shows them as inconsistent and proves they have the ability to use discretion.  Keene's Central Square is like a weed DMZ and has garnered international press coverage as a result.  Another win.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: slayerboy on July 07, 2010, 11:49:01 am
Ian, I'm all for the stuff that you guys are doing in Keene with the 420 celebrations and nightcaps and all.  But can we be honest here?  If someone who wasn't part of the FSP or the group that normally attends the 420/nightcaps wanted to get a group of friends and start playing poker and drink beer in public, do you think they would be left alone?

That's how to measure the effect that the CD has had.  If random people not associated with the regulars attempt to do the same thing, only in a smaller crowd or by themselves, would they be harassed?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to jump on you, but just because your group of friends is "allowed" to do this, doesn't mean another group of friends who have never done it before will be allowed. 
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: "Hagrid" on July 07, 2010, 12:17:03 pm
We have won the right to consume alcohol and cannabis in public without police harassment.

Actually, the right to do so is either a natural law (meaning you've won nothing, but defended your natural rights a few times, and they can and likely will be attacked again)  or it's a written law. (And I don't seem to recall that passing, yet)

If you 'won' something, I suggest that when (not if) someone is arrested in Keene for alcohol or drugs, your win becomes a total loss, since you clearly didn't stop it, or guarantee anything for anyone.

Jenn (along with a majority of House/Senate votes and a signature from the Governor) guaranteed your right to own any sort of knife.  No police will (legally) harass you for owning a knife now. That was a real win.

Let's rewrite your comment as more factual:

We have won the right to consume alcohol and cannabis in public without police harassment currently.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FreeStyle on July 07, 2010, 12:21:09 pm
what a bummer of a thread.  So many people at porcfest (I count 3, which is too many for me) that said they saw the 'great schism' open wide and dragging the souls of politico and anarchist alike into it.  

I didn't see any of that.  I saw politicos hanging out with anarchists, libating, smoking, eating, buying things from each other, talking about their respective strategies, even some mild mannered poking fun at each other.   I saw anarchists allowing campaign posters outside of their sites.  I saw politicos donating to the CD evolution fund.

I didn't see a schism.  I saw a bunch of people doing fun stuff and planning things that they were going to do for liberty.   Sorry that so many people, the founder included, saw this great evil schism first hand.  Maybe people need to look past this whole thing and friggin relax.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Dreepa on July 07, 2010, 12:23:12 pm
what a bummer of a thread.  So many people at porcfest (I count 3, which is too many for me) that said they saw the 'great schism' open wide and dragging the souls of politico and anarchist alike into it.  

I didn't see any of that.  I saw politicos hanging out with anarchists, libating, smoking, eating, buying things from each other, talking about their respective strategies, even some mild mannered poking fun at each other.   I saw anarchists allowing campaign posters outside of their sites.  I saw politicos donating to the CD evolution fund.

I didn't see a schism.  I saw a bunch of people doing fun stuff and planning things that they were going to do for liberty.   Sorry that so many people, the founder included, saw this great evil schism first hand.  Maybe people need to look past this whole thing and friggin relax.
agreed.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FTL_Ian on July 07, 2010, 12:25:05 pm
We have won the right to consume alcohol and cannabis in public without police harassment.

Actually, the right to do so is either a natural law (meaning you've won nothing, but defended your natural rights a few times, and they can and likely will be attacked again)  or it's a written law. (And I don't seem to recall that passing, yet)

If you 'won' something, I suggest that when (not if) someone is arrested in Keene for alcohol or drugs, your win becomes a total loss, since you clearly didn't stop it, or guarantee anything for anyone.

Jenn (along with a majority of House/Senate votes and a signature from the Governor) guaranteed your right to own any sort of knife.  No police will (legally) harass you for owning a knife now. That was a real win.

Let's rewrite your comment as more factual:

We have won the right to consume alcohol and cannabis in public without police harassment currently.

Fair enough Seth.  Of course the exact same thing can be said of any political victory as well.  In CA, they won the right to get gay married, then that was taken away.  Wherever cannabis has had advancement in the govt's laws, there is always a push to bring back prohibition.  Look at Los Angeles banning hundreds of dispensaries.

So, we have won our rights being respected when in public smoking..for now.  How about that?
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FTL_Ian on July 07, 2010, 12:30:23 pm
Ian, I'm all for the stuff that you guys are doing in Keene with the 420 celebrations and nightcaps and all.  But can we be honest here?  If someone who wasn't part of the FSP or the group that normally attends the 420/nightcaps wanted to get a group of friends and start playing poker and drink beer in public, do you think they would be left alone?

That's how to measure the effect that the CD has had.  If random people not associated with the regulars attempt to do the same thing, only in a smaller crowd or by themselves, would they be harassed?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to jump on you, but just because your group of friends is "allowed" to do this, doesn't mean another group of friends who have never done it before will be allowed. 

Do you think the police have a catalog of everyone who attends 420 or nightcap?  If you're in the park any time, day or night, odds are good you'll be left alone.  With armed men you have no guarantees, of course.  Many days at 420 there are zero liberty activists present and the cops don't mess with the average Keeniacs, even though they would have a much easier time.  The average Keeniac is not really willing to stand up for their freedom in the face of adversary - they just join in because they perceive safety.

The cops could go arrest the non-liberty-activists and easily get them to pay fines and such, but they don't.  Possibly because they don't know who is a liberty activist and who isn't.  Possibly because they believe we will come to their victims' aid.

Thanks, but I think we can measure the success of the CD in a variety of ways.  Number one is all the publicity it has created.  Number two is the safe zone for cannabis consumption that has been created.  Number three to make the cops look inconsistent and reveal they can use discretion, proving the "we're just doing our jobs" excuse is total bullshit.  Win-win-win.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FTL_Ian on July 07, 2010, 12:39:41 pm
what a bummer of a thread.  So many people at porcfest (I count 3, which is too many for me) that said they saw the 'great schism' open wide and dragging the souls of politico and anarchist alike into it.  

I didn't see any of that.  I saw politicos hanging out with anarchists, libating, smoking, eating, buying things from each other, talking about their respective strategies, even some mild mannered poking fun at each other.   I saw anarchists allowing campaign posters outside of their sites.  I saw politicos donating to the CD evolution fund.

I didn't see a schism.  I saw a bunch of people doing fun stuff and planning things that they were going to do for liberty.   Sorry that so many people, the founder included, saw this great evil schism first hand.  Maybe people need to look past this whole thing and friggin relax.

this.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: slayerboy on July 07, 2010, 01:09:29 pm
what a bummer of a thread.  So many people at porcfest (I count 3, which is too many for me) that said they saw the 'great schism' open wide and dragging the souls of politico and anarchist alike into it.  

I didn't see any of that.  I saw politicos hanging out with anarchists, libating, smoking, eating, buying things from each other, talking about their respective strategies, even some mild mannered poking fun at each other.   I saw anarchists allowing campaign posters outside of their sites.  I saw politicos donating to the CD evolution fund.

I didn't see a schism.  I saw a bunch of people doing fun stuff and planning things that they were going to do for liberty.   Sorry that so many people, the founder included, saw this great evil schism first hand.  Maybe people need to look past this whole thing and friggin relax.

agreed.  I had an amazing time at porcfest and didn't see the schism, but then again, I'm one of the anarchists :P
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: slayerboy on July 07, 2010, 01:15:19 pm
Ian, I'm all for the stuff that you guys are doing in Keene with the 420 celebrations and nightcaps and all.  But can we be honest here?  If someone who wasn't part of the FSP or the group that normally attends the 420/nightcaps wanted to get a group of friends and start playing poker and drink beer in public, do you think they would be left alone?

That's how to measure the effect that the CD has had.  If random people not associated with the regulars attempt to do the same thing, only in a smaller crowd or by themselves, would they be harassed?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to jump on you, but just because your group of friends is "allowed" to do this, doesn't mean another group of friends who have never done it before will be allowed. 

Do you think the police have a catalog of everyone who attends 420 or nightcap?  If you're in the park any time, day or night, odds are good you'll be left alone.  With armed men you have no guarantees, of course.  Many days at 420 there are zero liberty activists present and the cops don't mess with the average Keeniacs, even though they would have a much easier time.  The average Keeniac is not really willing to stand up for their freedom in the face of adversary - they just join in because they perceive safety.

The cops could go arrest the non-liberty-activists and easily get them to pay fines and such, but they don't.  Possibly because they don't know who is a liberty activist and who isn't.  Possibly because they believe we will come to their victims' aid.

Thanks, but I think we can measure the success of the CD in a variety of ways.  Number one is all the publicity it has created.  Number two is the safe zone for cannabis consumption that has been created.  Number three to make the cops look inconsistent and reveal they can use discretion, proving the "we're just doing our jobs" excuse is total bullshit.  Win-win-win.

Thank you for the explanation.  And, again, I agree with what you guys are doing.for the most part.  I didn't see the angle that it shows the cops are inconsistent if they were not arresting the people at the 420's but arresting those who might just enjoy a beer in the park at say 2PM.  This nails it for me that CD is even more of a valid way to bring about freedom than I originally thought.  I still appreciate the efforts of the inside the system people, but just from your explanation of what's happening I can see CD is having at least some impact in the area.  :)
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FTL_Ian on July 07, 2010, 01:23:37 pm
Thank you for the explanation.  And, again, I agree with what you guys are doing.for the most part.  I didn't see the angle that it shows the cops are inconsistent if they were not arresting the people at the 420's but arresting those who might just enjoy a beer in the park at say 2PM.  This nails it for me that CD is even more of a valid way to bring about freedom than I originally thought.  I still appreciate the efforts of the inside the system people, but just from your explanation of what's happening I can see CD is having at least some impact in the area.  :)

Yes, the inconsistency is that they enforce the laws selectively, though to be clear, you can also enjoy a beer in the same park.  It happened last night, as a matter-of-fact.  A cop was walking around the perimeter of Central Sq. at one point, actually doing something that I support - checking business' front doors to make sure they were locked.  They have been on foot at least three separate occasions (they are constantly driving around the circle) in the last two weeks during nightcaps, and never once have they crossed the street to do a walk-through of the park, even though it's entirely obvious that people are drinking beers.  The park is lighted and they are definitely close enough to see what's up.

While I'd prefer they not enforce bad laws at all rather than selectively, this is progress.  Perhaps the politicos will get them to stop enforcing it on everyone someday.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: sonofastitch on July 07, 2010, 02:22:54 pm
I didn't see a schism.  I saw a bunch of people doing fun stuff and planning things that they were going to do for liberty.   Sorry that so many people, the founder included, saw this great evil schism first hand.  Maybe people need to look past this whole thing and friggin relax.

Since so many people seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying, and what I think Winston is saying, let me try ONE MORE TIME.

It is a fact that there is, and always has been, a schism within libertarian thought between anarchists and minarchists.  It is a fact that, eventually WAY down the line (I hope), this movement will break apart into at least two "parties," for lack of a better term.  Right now is not that time.  I think we're all in agreement there.  Now is the time for collaboration, not division.

This is not about whether or not the anarchists or the minarchists are "right," or whether or not inside-the-system activism is "better" than outside-the-system activism.  It's about division around those subjects making potential movers nervous.  This subject is the one MAJOR concern that my wife and I were left with from PorcFest.  Unfortunately, what I've seen on this thread doesn't make me feel a whole lot better about it.

If anyone actually cares that (at least) three different prospective movers (Winston, myself, my wife), all from different places and different ideological perspectives, were alarmed by this perceived division ... my suggestion for the FSP is to make the upcoming Liberty Forum about inclusiveness and collaboration in as many ways as possible.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: greap on July 07, 2010, 03:23:50 pm
The cops could go arrest the non-liberty-activists and easily get them to pay fines and such, but they don't.  Possibly because they don't know who is a liberty activist and who isn't.  Possibly because they believe we will come to their victims' aid.

In the square. As Seth pointed out if someone was randomly walking down the street smoking a joint and drinking a beer how likely do you think it would be that the cops would leave him alone? Its nice you have created a tiny DMZ where people can exercise their rights until the cops get bored and decide to arrest you all but what value does it have to liberty as a whole and the community outside of that DMZ? If it is a selfish victory then great, those are fine but state it as that rather then claiming it to be a victory for liberty in general when it is not.

Number one is all the publicity it has created.

I think it would be more accurate to state the perception generated by publicity. If people read about you but think you are idiots then that is not a good thing. There is also such a thing as too much publicity, after a while people simply get bored and stop paying attention.

Number two is the safe zone for cannabis consumption that has been created.

That's a personal and extremely limited victory, I would suggest you still have a lower chance of being arrested for smoking in your own home then in your DMZ. Under this logic doesn't that mean that people smoking in their own homes without making a big deal about it are far more successful CDers then this?

Number three to make the cops look inconsistent and reveal they can use discretion, proving the "we're just doing our jobs" excuse is total bullshit.

I agree with this one.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: creaganlios on July 07, 2010, 03:43:36 pm
All the wrangling aside....

...wouldnt it have been nice - and more effective - if the "insiders' and the "CDs" would have at least *COLLABORATED* on decrim and med MJ, so that a consistent, effective message with targets and goals would have played out in the media?

One can be true to their convictions while leveraging the stengths of others...but that requires LISTENING to others, and putting aside PERSONAL agendas, and working towards COMMON GOALS.

Gee, what a concept.......
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 07, 2010, 03:49:48 pm
Thank you for the explanation.  And, again, I agree with what you guys are doing.for the most part.  I didn't see the angle that it shows the cops are inconsistent if they were not arresting the people at the 420's but arresting those who might just enjoy a beer in the park at say 2PM.  This nails it for me that CD is even more of a valid way to bring about freedom than I originally thought.  I still appreciate the efforts of the inside the system people, but just from your explanation of what's happening I can see CD is having at least some impact in the area.  :)

Yes, the inconsistency is that they enforce the laws selectively, though to be clear, you can also enjoy a beer in the same park.  It happened last night, as a matter-of-fact.  A cop was walking around the perimeter of Central Sq. at one point, actually doing something that I support - checking business' front doors to make sure they were locked.  They have been on foot at least three separate occasions (they are constantly driving around the circle) in the last two weeks during nightcaps, and never once have they crossed the street to do a walk-through of the park, even though it's entirely obvious that people are drinking beers.  The park is lighted and they are definitely close enough to see what's up.

While I'd prefer they not enforce bad laws at all rather than selectively, this is progress.  Perhaps the politicos will get them to stop enforcing it on everyone someday.
Ordinance as compared to statute.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Denis Goddard on July 07, 2010, 04:19:51 pm
I suspect you have no idea how close Keene was to having a lot less MJ prosecution, before the CDers came along and opened up a one-sided "conversation". Much damage was done.
Ludicrous.  All the city council considered was passing a resolution encouraging the reps to pass decrim.
No, I am not talking about the city council. I am talking about some people you have alienated that were about to become your allies. Someday you might know, for now, you will believe whatever is comfortable to you.

It's far more likely most people don't even know what the FSP is.
That's good news.
I still maintain Andy starts out this race with a big iron "FreeKeene" ball around his neck.
He is so intelligent, articulate, and persuasive -- I am really, really hoping he can make it thru the primary. He will be an incredible asset to liberty if he does.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Denis Goddard on July 07, 2010, 04:22:51 pm
I think most of the divisiveness is by a few individuals who just happen to be more active on the forums than the more civil folk.
Almost right.

Many of those of his who disagree most vehemently on the forums like each other a lot in person. PatK is and always will be a guy I like. I like Ian a lot as a person the few times we've managed to hang out. Rich Paul and I have had plenty of long friendly chats. And so on, and so on.

Real life is not the internet.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: artienewport on July 07, 2010, 04:40:08 pm
...wouldnt it have been nice - and more effective - if the "insiders' and the "CDs" would have at least *COLLABORATED* on decrim and med MJ, so that a consistent, effective message with targets and goals would have played out in the media?

It's hard to collaborate when you are at polar opposite belief systems for the most part.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: sonofastitch on July 07, 2010, 04:52:01 pm
It's hard to collaborate when you are at polar opposite belief systems for the most part.

TOTALLY disagree.  (And, again, just so all the minarchists don't think ALL "anarchists" are impossible to work with ... I'm a voluntaryist.) 

This is the point I'm trying to drive home:  Until we get back to some semblance of limited, Constitutional, minarchist government, the two belief systems are NOWHERE CLOSE to polar opposites and the goals up until that point are all the same.  So can we just shelve this debate and collaborate on getting to that point?
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: "Hagrid" on July 07, 2010, 05:24:15 pm
If anyone actually cares that (at least) three different prospective movers (Winston, myself, my wife), all from different places and different ideological perspectives, were alarmed by this perceived division ... my suggestion for the FSP is to make the upcoming Liberty Forum about inclusiveness and collaboration in as many ways as possible.

If it makes you feel any better, rest assured, even during PF2010 itself, this was already being discussed at the highest levels (cue Indiana Jones music as we crate up the Ark), the highest levels.  But seriously, a number of folks with the FSP for years also perceived this, and began plans to address it, including Jason himself, because if you think you're alarmed, imagine how some of us feel about the fact that _movers_ were telling us that if this was their first PF, they might not have moved.  Speaking for myself only, your concerns have been echoed many times on nonpublic discussions on and offline , and I thank you for posting them, to help document the problem(s), and convince the skeptics that this IS a problem.
 
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: sonofastitch on July 07, 2010, 05:32:17 pm
Happy to help I guess.  I just hope that any "solutions" are not exclusionary.  I'll be happy to be a part of the tolerance and collaboration brigade when I make it up to the Free State.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: 10stateswithnh on July 07, 2010, 05:32:56 pm
I think most of the divisiveness is by a few individuals who just happen to be more active on the forums than the more civil folk.
Almost right.

Many of those of his who disagree most vehemently on the forums like each other a lot in person. PatK is and always will be a guy I like. I like Ian a lot as a person the few times we've managed to hang out. Rich Paul and I have had plenty of long friendly chats. And so on, and so on.

Real life is not the internet.

Agreed, thanks for the clarification.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: "Hagrid" on July 07, 2010, 05:35:31 pm
Its nice you have created a tiny DMZ where people can exercise their rights until the cops get bored and decide to arrest you all but what value does it have to liberty as a whole and the community outside of that DMZ? If it is a selfish victory then great, those are fine but state it as that rather then claiming it to be a victory for liberty in general when it is not.

Exactly.  Ian, Jenn helped win knife freedom for the entire state, with the force of law behind it.  (Yes, it's possible to ruin or overturn it, with a lot of effort, and it won't happen overnight.  It's a big rock, moved in the right direction, making it that much harder to move in the wrong direction.  It takes a lot to move it, in either direction.  Statists have been moving in small (and getting bigger) increments for a long time.)  Your 'victory' is a tiny square, during certain hours, with no legal protection, merely the absence of enforcement and the whim of the men with guns.  Yes, fine, you want to call it victory, fine.  On the scale of 1-10, where Jen's bill is a clear 9 or 10 for creating more liberty for 1.2+ million people in the State, from Westmoreland to Berlin, where would you like to self-rate your 4:20 victory?

I eagerly await hearing this answer.

That is NOT to say that small victories aren't good victories.  If we got rid of Blue Sunday laws, or Adultery laws, the true net 'liberty gain' would be small too.  If we legalized MJ for medical use, that would not be the hugest win possible, but it would be a good win.
If you were elected Sheriff of Cheshire County, that would be a win of some large size, depending on what you did in that role.
Etc.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: 10stateswithnh on July 07, 2010, 05:39:31 pm
Happy to help I guess.  I just hope that any "solutions" are not exclusionary.  I'll be happy to be a part of the tolerance and collaboration brigade when I make it up to the Free State.

I could get on board with that too. Thanks for posting your concerns. Personally I guess I was oblivious to a lot of this since I missed a lot of the most popular events.

Seth, I largely agree with you, but didn't Jenn Coffey's bill pass pretty much anonymously? I take that to mean that something with a lot of support was proposed by an FSP member. Does that mean the NHLA or FSP deserves the credit for the victory? I don't know.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: "Hagrid" on July 07, 2010, 05:41:12 pm
Happy to help I guess.  I just hope that any "solutions" are not exclusionary.  I'll be happy to be a part of the tolerance and collaboration brigade when I make it up to the Free State.

I doubt 'exclusion' is going to work anyway.  There is no entrance exam at the border of NH.  Voluntary means are all we can really do, with perhaps some economic decisions to back them up.  The problem is large and complex, and interestingly, biases toward the anarchists in many ways.  It's far harder to work in politics than to drop out and agora.  It requires a lot more people skills, more cooperation, more tough decisions with no good answer only the least bad answer possible, it's not sexy, it's long term, it's costly, etc etc.  But the rewards are much richer too, as I said above.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: "Hagrid" on July 07, 2010, 05:58:16 pm
Seth, I largely agree with you, but didn't Jenn Coffey's bill pass pretty much anonymously? I take that to mean that something with a lot of support was proposed by an FSP member. Does that mean the NHLA or FSP deserves the credit for the victory? I don't know.

"Something with a lot of support".  Seems like that now.  Trust me, that is missing a huge silent part of the picture.  All of the work Jenn, Evan, Sam, Denis, and so many others, multiple years, gaining respect and trust.  Building alliances.  The NHLA is one cog, and helped.

The FSP gets the credit in the sense that Jen moved, and Evan move, and Denis moved, etc etc... But it didn't do more than being a bus.  The NHLA gets credit in that it helped train some of us, but so does all of the local folks who did the training, who got elected and learned how it works and then passed that to us.

Politics isn't anonymous to those who learn how it works.  And here in NH, you can learn how it works.  Or you can throw all of that open and easy to access government aside, and treat it like the rest of the US and do CD.  That is really my biggest frustration with the CD folks: you could be doing that _anyplace_, NH's political system is unique to here, so you're making it harder for those of us who are trying to do it here because we CAN here.  If you decided to do 4:20 in Vermont, or Mass, or New York, you could do it.
We can't.  NH is _special_, for politics.  It's the last vestige of what politics should be, instead of the money/snake pit it's become.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: sonofastitch on July 07, 2010, 05:58:56 pm
It's far harder to work in politics than to drop out and agora.  

*sigh*  ::)
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: creaganlios on July 07, 2010, 06:13:09 pm
It's hard to collaborate when you are at polar opposite belief systems for the most part.

I disagree that we are at polar opposites, and I disagree that collaboration woud not be possible.  And lets take Medical MJ for instance.

I think we all know by now that Matt Simon worked his ass off to get Med MJ as far as he did.  And what he saw, from his perspective, was "damage" being done to this cause by the 420 demonstrations...People *I* spoke with, non-FSPers, who agreed with Med MJ, were ALSO put off by the 420 demos, and shifted politically as a result.

Now, the anartchists who believe they were accomplishing certain goals would disagree with that.  But that DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE TWO SIDES COULDNT PLAN EFFECTVELY TOGETHER.   

Let me tell you a secret...the American Revolution was not won by spontaneous acts of loving liberty.  It was WELL-PLANNED, from taverns to sewing circles to church meetings to overseas trips....and there was NO LOVE between Adams and Jefferson. Nonetheless, it worked.

A message *might* have been sent to this effect:  "LOOK, kids all over the place are smoking MJ and nothing happens, while Grandma tries to avoid addiction to heavier drugs while easing her cancer pain and she is a criminal!"   

The entire 420 episode could have been presented without everyone looking and sounding like a dirtbag, and perhaps in a different location, and perhaps with carefully crafted satements to the pres and press releases afterwards.  The Anarchists who PREFER CD could have engaged in CD, the in-the-system folks could have used their boldness and shock value....but instead, everyone just got pissy with everyone else.

If you believe in Liberty, read up on Liberty movements.  Successful ones are not comprised of "I'll do whatever I want" types or "Purity or Nothing!" types.   They are made up of carefully planned events that leverage all elements.







Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: "Hagrid" on July 07, 2010, 06:14:16 pm
It's far harder to work in politics than to drop out and agora.  

*sigh*  ::)

You wanna argue the truth of that statement?

You can become an agorist tomorrow, never vote, stay in the shadows, etc.  There is no entrance bar.  The dropout cost is minimal, the sacrifices might be large for some, but less for others.

Compare to working in politics.  The entrance cost is high, the long term commitment, the public nature, the cooperation and compromise.  Yes, all flaws in some ways, but also necessary for the bigger return on investment.

In fact, I offer a challenge to those who think it's not true: Run for office.  Not a paper candidacy, but really run for office.  Don't pretend to run, or run only to 'end the office', or 'run to show it's not worth voting' or any of the other dodges to really running.
Raise money.  Get volunteers, etc.  If you take on this challenge, you'll do more than some LPers do sadly, and guess what, you'll stop arguing the truth of the above.  Politics is the hard path, NOT the easy path.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: 10stateswithnh on July 07, 2010, 06:24:46 pm
Oops, I wrote anonymously, I meant unanimously. If you are saying that the legislature overwhelmingly passed it because FSP and NHLA members educated them about needing to remove the knife restrictions, I agree that is a great victory. If the victory is claimed merely because a successful bill is proposed by an FSP or NHLA member, well, that seems like a small victory to me.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 07, 2010, 06:33:50 pm
Oops, I wrote anonymously, I meant unanimously. If you are saying that the legislature overwhelmingly passed it because FSP and NHLA members educated them about needing to remove the knife restrictions, I agree that is a great victory. If the victory is claimed merely because a successful bill is proposed by an FSP or NHLA member, well, that seems like a small victory to me.


Without Jenn and Evan's initiative, I can guarantee you that the bill would never even have come up.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 07, 2010, 06:34:24 pm

If you believe in Liberty, read up on Liberty movements.  Successful ones are not comprised of "I'll do whatever I want" types or "Purity or Nothing!" types.   They are made up of carefully planned events that leverage all elements.

Amen.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FTL_Ian on July 07, 2010, 06:45:46 pm
I think it would be more accurate to state the perception generated by publicity. If people read about you but think you are idiots then that is not a good thing. There is also such a thing as too much publicity, after a while people simply get bored and stop paying attention.

Anything controversial will generate differing perceptions and opinions.  I live by Harry Browne's "silver rule" - that you will attract those who are like you by being yourself.  We've had incredible success with the 420 celebrations, including a huge feature in Cannabis Culture as well as DRCNet coverage and more.  Liberty-minded people everywhere are paying attention to Keene.  Why the hell would I care about some anonymous statist whiners on the local newspaper comments section?

Quote
That's a personal and extremely limited victory, I would suggest you still have a lower chance of being arrested for smoking in your own home then in your DMZ. Under this logic doesn't that mean that people smoking in their own homes without making a big deal about it are far more successful CDers then this?

Uh, that's not CD.  CD involves being publicly disobedient.  It's only your perspective that it's a limited victory.  From the perspective of the persecuted cannabis consumer (or alcohol), the DMZ is a huge win.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FTL_Ian on July 07, 2010, 06:47:01 pm
All the wrangling aside....

...wouldnt it have been nice - and more effective - if the "insiders' and the "CDs" would have at least *COLLABORATED* on decrim and med MJ, so that a consistent, effective message with targets and goals would have played out in the media?

One can be true to their convictions while leveraging the stengths of others...but that requires LISTENING to others, and putting aside PERSONAL agendas, and working towards COMMON GOALS.

Gee, what a concept.......

By that do you mean, the politicos tell the CDers what to do, and they do it?  Cause that's what some of the politicos wanted last year.  How about they just focus on their activism and message and not worry so much?
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FTL_Ian on July 07, 2010, 07:00:38 pm
No, I am not talking about the city council. I am talking about some people you have alienated that were about to become your allies. Someday you might know, for now, you will believe whatever is comfortable to you.

Oh, I know.  I've heard them.  They usually say things like, "Well, I really like a lot of what you say and do, and was about to get involved, but then you did X".

As I said, controversy will do that.  On the other hand, we also got people involved who otherwise may not have supported us.  How many on each side?  No way to know for sure, but when I was on the local rock station a local business owner called to give Free Keene a shout out saying his business support us.  (Of course there is another man who claims to own a business who despises us and has told us so, but is too cowardly to identify who he is and what business he owns, so we presume he's telling the truth.)  What does one do?

I'll tell ya - what one believes is right.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: sonofastitch on July 07, 2010, 07:19:01 pm
You wanna argue the truth of that statement?

Nope, precisely because to do so would be pointless and divisive, just like 80% of this thread.  I'm done here.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FTL_Ian on July 07, 2010, 07:19:26 pm
If anyone actually cares that (at least) three different prospective movers (Winston, myself, my wife), all from different places and different ideological perspectives, were alarmed by this perceived division ... my suggestion for the FSP is to make the upcoming Liberty Forum about inclusiveness and collaboration in as many ways as possible.

If it makes you feel any better, rest assured, even during PF2010 itself, this was already being discussed at the highest levels (cue Indiana Jones music as we crate up the Ark), the highest levels.  But seriously, a number of folks with the FSP for years also perceived this, and began plans to address it, including Jason himself, because if you think you're alarmed, imagine how some of us feel about the fact that _movers_ were telling us that if this was their first PF, they might not have moved.  Speaking for myself only, your concerns have been echoed many times on nonpublic discussions on and offline , and I thank you for posting them, to help document the problem(s), and convince the skeptics that this IS a problem.
 

Yet, at the same time it was the most popular Porcfest EVER and the buzz in the movement was huge.  Virtually all the shows on LRN.FM were talking about it in advance and afterwards and they were raving about it!  (Positively.)

So, what can you do?
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Ed on July 07, 2010, 07:37:03 pm
Quote
Quote from: Ed on July 06, 2010, 05:16:40 pm
Quote
There is a huge difference between murder and spirited debate and or outright insults

It's called an analogy. Not a direct comparison.

It's amazing to me how much you guys can wax high-and-mighty philosophically and not understand a simple analogy.


One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong.

OK, this is good because it kind of shows the point of the original poster(s). OK, so it's not like you don't understand the analogy. I never compared being a loud annoying jagaloon to murder - I compared your moral statement that it's OK to act like a jagaloon just because some people inevitably will to a more extreme hypothetical of same said concept to demonstrate how it's wrong. You understand that, but instead of actually contributing something serious to the discussion, you instead try to slander your perceived "opponents" by deliberately twisting their words. That kind of behavior doesn't even come up in politics that much, ferchrissakes, at least not to the extent (blatant lie) you're doing it.

So, collaboration or infighting? I guess we can see where the purists stand.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FTL_Ian on July 07, 2010, 07:45:03 pm
Its nice you have created a tiny DMZ where people can exercise their rights until the cops get bored and decide to arrest you all but what value does it have to liberty as a whole and the community outside of that DMZ? If it is a selfish victory then great, those are fine but state it as that rather then claiming it to be a victory for liberty in general when it is not.

Exactly.  Ian, Jenn helped win knife freedom for the entire state, with the force of law behind it.  (Yes, it's possible to ruin or overturn it, with a lot of effort, and it won't happen overnight.  It's a big rock, moved in the right direction, making it that much harder to move in the wrong direction.  It takes a lot to move it, in either direction.  Statists have been moving in small (and getting bigger) increments for a long time.)  Your 'victory' is a tiny square, during certain hours, with no legal protection, merely the absence of enforcement and the whim of the men with guns.  Yes, fine, you want to call it victory, fine.  On the scale of 1-10, where Jen's bill is a clear 9 or 10 for creating more liberty for 1.2+ million people in the State, from Westmoreland to Berlin, where would you like to self-rate your 4:20 victory?

I eagerly await hearing this answer.

That is NOT to say that small victories aren't good victories.  If we got rid of Blue Sunday laws, or Adultery laws, the true net 'liberty gain' would be small too.  If we legalized MJ for medical use, that would not be the hugest win possible, but it would be a good win.
If you were elected Sheriff of Cheshire County, that would be a win of some large size, depending on what you did in that role.
Etc.


Jenn had a big win and I've given props to her and the politicos many times on my radio program.  I consider that a shining proof of concept that politics can work in NH.

However, it's apples and oranges.  Yes, it affects the whole geographic region and so is "big" from that standpoint.  From the standpoint of the civil disobedience activist, especially those who are new to disobedience, acts of CD are a "big" personal win because they have to overcome fear and learn to take risk, which don't really factor much into political change.

So, yes, Jenn's political success affects more people, but most of them don't even know it.  Those who do know about the law change and already carry a switchblade are perhaps relieved slightly that their risk has been lowered (they had already accepted that risk by carrying while it was illegal), and those who know about the change and had always wanted a switchblade but were too scared are now happy that they can get a new product.  No real "big" personal wins in any of those.  So apples and oranges.  They are both big in different ways.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Ed on July 07, 2010, 07:59:04 pm
I'm not trying to be anatagonistic, but: is it me or did he just admit that the CD is really ultimately done for the sake of the CDers themselves, For their own personal gratification?

I didn't think it would come out so explicitly.

I'm again reminded of Penn & Teller and the Code Pink people.

clearly CD can do something sometimes for the public - but clearly it goes the other way in terms of intention a lot of the time
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FTL_Ian on July 07, 2010, 08:00:31 pm
If you believe in Liberty, read up on Liberty movements.  Successful ones are not comprised of "I'll do whatever I want" types or "Purity or Nothing!" types.   They are made up of carefully planned events that leverage all elements.

I don't know about you, but the primary reason I moved to NH was because there are no successful liberty movements. 
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: creaganlios on July 07, 2010, 08:38:53 pm
I don't know about you, but the primary reason I moved to NH was because there are no successful liberty movements. 

In the context of 18th Century Monarchies and Mercantile-System Economics, the Americna Revolution was a Liberty Movement.

In the context of a 20th Century Eastern Block Soviet Era, the collpase of the Berlin Wall, the rise of Solidarnosc in Poland, and the Velvet Revolution in the Czech Republic were Liberty Movements.

In the context of a theocratic caste system, the economic miracle in Kerala Province in India is a Liberty Movement.

And no, no one is suggesting that anarchists be 'told' what to do.  It's hard to convey information to people who believe they already occupy a perfected state of moral high ground.....
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FreeStyle on July 07, 2010, 08:49:19 pm
none of those places have had successful liberty movements.  I know this because those places are not free.

I consider not harming people to be a perfect state of moral high ground.  You don't have to believe the same as me. 
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: joanb on July 07, 2010, 08:49:38 pm
Just a quick note to anyone who was concerned about the anarchists at PorcFest..there are just as many small "l" Libertarians here in NH as there are anarchists. I am completely on Matt Simon's side but can understand the protesters. Once upon a time I felt the need to cry out for freedom no matter what the cost- but that was a lifetime ago.

These days I understand that government can not just disappear but must be made smaller and smalller still.

Thank you to Jason Sorens who created this great idea of the Free State!! Thank you to Matt Simon for all his tireless work..and you too Brinck! And Rich, thank you for trying to free us from horrific laws that create nothing but full jails.... don't agree that you are doing it the right way.. but sorry about your latest arrest.





Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: micheleseven on July 07, 2010, 08:51:02 pm
Can someone just cry "Grace" and be done with this?
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Argentum on July 07, 2010, 09:08:20 pm

Uh, that's not CD.  CD involves being publicly disobedient.  It's only your perspective that it's a limited victory.  From the perspective of the persecuted cannabis consumer (or alcohol), the DMZ is a huge win.

Why not have a cannabis oriented CD event on private property?  Notify the authorities so that it is publicized.  This way you will be on even more solid moral footing because you won't be on public property which is theoretically owned by everyone.  Also, being on private property will signal more pure intentions to those who may not agree with your personal choices.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: seamas on July 07, 2010, 11:00:01 pm
Furthermore, out of state carry licenses were expanded to include those from any state rather than just one's home state thanks to Evan (http://www.freestateproject.org/news/media_archive/0206.php).  To some this is a technicality but for those of us who live in rights abridging states it was a big win.  There is no way that this would have happened without an early mover who was politically active way back in 2004. 

Oops, I wrote anonymously, I meant unanimously. If you are saying that the legislature overwhelmingly passed it because FSP and NHLA members educated them about needing to remove the knife restrictions, I agree that is a great victory. If the victory is claimed merely because a successful bill is proposed by an FSP or NHLA member, well, that seems like a small victory to me.


Without Jenn and Evan's initiative, I can guarantee you that the bill would never even have come up.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Pat K on July 08, 2010, 12:00:22 am
Quote
Quote from: Ed on July 06, 2010, 05:16:40 pm
Quote
There is a huge difference between murder and spirited debate and or outright insults

It's called an analogy. Not a direct comparison.

It's amazing to me how much you guys can wax high-and-mighty philosophically and not understand a simple analogy.


One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong.

OK, this is good because it kind of shows the point of the original poster(s). OK, so it's not like you don't understand the analogy. I never compared being a loud annoying jagaloon to murder - I compared your moral statement that it's OK to act like a jagaloon just because some people inevitably will to a more extreme hypothetical of same said concept to demonstrate how it's wrong. You understand that, but instead of actually contributing something serious to the discussion, you instead try to slander your perceived "opponents" by deliberately twisting their words. That kind of behavior doesn't even come up in politics that much, ferchrissakes, at least not to the extent (blatant lie) you're doing it.

So, collaboration or infighting? I guess we can see where the purists stand.

ED the only thing you can see is your key board.
Though I have  to admit, I do like the word jagaloon.
I think I will steal that for future use.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Ed on July 08, 2010, 12:06:32 am
sticking to your guns with a lie:   yet more propping up the OP's point

Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: artienewport on July 08, 2010, 12:25:39 am
Ed, I will partake of your prostitutional pimping services at next Porcfest. Your service prices seem reasonable. Is there an early booking discount?
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: lobstah on July 08, 2010, 03:04:31 am


If you believe in Liberty, read up on Liberty movements.  Successful ones are not comprised of "I'll do whatever I want" types or "Purity or Nothing!" types.   They are made up of carefully planned events that leverage all elements.









i'm honestly not trying to be a dick here, but could you please list a few liberty movements that have a)not been achieved through violence, and b)have lasted in a peaceful, non-coercive society for, say, more than 25 years? i'm just curious to know more about these types of victories. obviously america is not one of them!
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: citizen Winston on July 08, 2010, 03:31:48 am
I'm going to ruffle some feathers here, but if legalizing marijuana meant taxing the hell out of it like what is currently happening with tobacco, I'd support prohibition as well.  If it was a repeal on prohibition, just wipe the law off the record, then I'd be in favor of it.   Legalize it without taxing it and treat it just like any other drug that we call a food, then by all means go for it.

A further logical error is to assume that pot dealers/etc would be opposed to legalization because they stand to lose "THOSE PROFIT$!". Just look at Amsterdam, Switzerland, Spain, California, even Canada. No amount of de-regulation, legalization, tolerance, etc, has lead to a significant decrease in the retail price of marijuana. Medical patients in California still pay the same as 19 y/o college students on the East Coast. In fact, the price of good marijuana hasnt changed significantly IN THIRTY YEARS. Just think about what has happened to the Dollar in the past three decades.      [sarcasm] Yea those Pot Dealers sure are getting Rich... [/sarcasm]

Why would I or anybody else for that matter buy from a dealer when I could legally grow my own tax-free herb? The proposition being proposed in CA would treat marijuana much the same way alcohol is treated. Of course the current supply of dealers stand to lose! You know who else stands to lose?  The prison-industrial complex and police associations who are lobbying hard to keep this prop from passing. 

Proposition 19 will control cannabis just like alcohol, so adults 21 years old and above will be allowed to possess up to one ounce of cannabis. Proposition 19 will also give local governments the ability to tax the sale of cannabis. Adults may only grow in a 5’x5’ area, and will have an affirmative defense to possess what they grow for personal use in that area. 

Its analogous to home brewing and drinking your own beer or buying it from a liquor store.  This was also a point that had to be repeatedly brought up during the debate by all the panelists including former Gov. Gary Johnson.  In fact, there is a video of him right on Prop 19's homepage urging others to support the cause at http://taxcannabis.org/index.html

Oh and about the value of pot remaining the same in the past 30 years is not exactly correct.  I have a friend who was just administered a medical marijuana license and purchased a gram of designer weed for $15, when the same amount and grade would fetch $20 on the black market.  I'm actually glad you brought up inflation too, because that only strengthens my argument that the price is indeed decreasing albeit not dramatically...not yet...

There's nothing wrong w/ anarchism or anarchists. There is something wrong with anarchists who support maintaining state violence because they think that if you keep state violence going, one day the state will magically disappear. Those of us who are gradualists are not going in the same direction as those people. We're working at cross purposes.

That's correct, & the original agorist position was that trading in gray markets would gradually undermine prohibitionist restrictions. To advocate continuing prohibition in order to foster gray & black markets is to turn SEK3's philosophy upside down and backwards. It's like saying, "I'm going to join the CIA and torture more & more people until Americans get really hacked off at the CIA and maybe eventually decide to abolish torture!" It's nonsensical on its face and immoral to boot.

Thank you Jason Sorens, and that is at the core of what I was taken aback by.  Seriously, WTF are you expecting from a first time visiting libertarian who is considering moving to NH and signing the SoI when they hear that their primary means of activism, which was thought to be a legitimate way of advancing the SoI is being publicly ridiculed and opposed by one of PorcFest's own organizers!  If you read my OP, all I was asking for was feedback to my concerns and clarification, apparently thats too much for some people.  Curtis ultimately did clarify that he wouldn't expend energy opposing anti-prohibitionist efforts, despite proclaiming the contrary.

I disagree with the position Curtis has taken on this issue, the ends do not justify the means if the means are themselves unethical, but until he actively works against anti-prohibition activism (which he has said he wont) I don't really see there as being much of an issue as it amounts to the same as simply not working on an issue (I have no interest in actively working on this myself). If he starts advocating for actively obstructing anti-prohibitionist work then all the brimstone should be rained down upon him as anyone else advocating unethical positions. 

+1

I do want to say I did have a good time drinking, smoking, eating, hiking, dancing and transacting (Mandrik got alot of my FRNs) with all the people that I did come into contact with at PorcFest 2010.  I don't want to make it out like I was in an eternal ideological battle during my entire stay.  I just believe that this needed to be brought out into the forefront and addressed somehow.
 
P.S. Has anybody uploaded the video of the pot debate yet?
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Sovereign Curtis on July 08, 2010, 07:15:15 am
well, not from me, but since she's your mom I'm sure she'll give you a good deal


WHY DO YOU MAKE US SUFFER THIS TROLL?!?!?

He is not a FSP friend

He is not a FSP participant

He is not a FSP mover

He is just a FSP TROLL
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: creaganlios on July 08, 2010, 07:31:08 am

If you believe in Liberty, read up on Liberty movements.  Successful ones are not comprised of "I'll do whatever I want" types or "Purity or Nothing!" types.   They are made up of carefully planned events that leverage all elements.

i'm honestly not trying to be a dick here, but could you please list a few liberty movements that have a)not been achieved through violence, and b)have lasted in a peaceful, non-coercive society for, say, more than 25 years? i'm just curious to know more about these types of victories. obviously america is not one of them!

Read a page back where i mentioend several.  But do not engage in the semantic sleight-of-tongue of confusing "liberty movements' with the establishment of the Perfected Liberty Society....they are not the same thing.  In fact, there will NEVER BE a perfected liberty society: only a constant struggle, and an ideal.  Human Nature insures that pefect liberty will never be 'established.'  Read Batsiat's "The Law."

Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FreeStyle on July 08, 2010, 07:34:09 am
I guess I just have more faith in the human spirit than you do Thom. 
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: "Hagrid" on July 08, 2010, 07:37:34 am
I'm not trying to be anatagonistic, but: is it me or did he just admit that the CD is really ultimately done for the sake of the CDers themselves, For their own personal gratification?

I didn't think it would come out so explicitly.

I'm again reminded of Penn & Teller and the Code Pink people.

clearly CD can do something sometimes for the public - but clearly it goes the other way in terms of intention a lot of the time

Some might feel Ed trolls... but +1 to this: nail on the head.  Not always true, by any means (I can think of exceptions right off), but often true.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: shyfrog on July 08, 2010, 07:52:48 am
I joined the FSP because I'm pro-liberty. That means "for everyone".

So...if this had been my first PorcFest, I probably wouldn't have joined the FSP. Why? Because I saw pro-war propaganda being sold and supported in the "official" tent, not agorist acres. I also met a man, who wants me to vote for him, that equates gay unions with bestiality.

So, there are two swift kicks to the balls of a peace-loving human being. Why am I bringing this up now? I was content to let it slide, but the SWAMP of WHINE coming from you people disgusts me. No really...DISGUSTS!

Discuss  >:D

Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FreeStyle on July 08, 2010, 08:30:45 am
oh shyfrog don't you realize that this is a big tent?  Don't you know that liberty, real liberty, will never be simply because humans don't like peace and never will.  We're doomed.

Warmongers are people too.  This big tent should include all the people that want other people to go harm others in other places.  This big tent should include people who won't let two other people get married because someone who was born 2010 years ago and his bearded father in the sky might not approve (although he loves everyone). 

It's a really big tent. 
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: shyfrog on July 08, 2010, 08:41:56 am
I kinda like that guy born 2010 years ago personally... I think the guy that you're talking about was actually born 3000+ years ago.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: greap on July 08, 2010, 08:46:25 am
We've had incredible success with the 420 celebrations, including a huge feature in Cannabis Culture as well as DRCNet coverage and more.

That is not liberty it is publicity.

Liberty-minded people everywhere are paying attention to Keene.

It has yet to be seen what you will do to leverage that attention.

Why the hell would I care about some anonymous statist whiners on the local newspaper comments section?

As was pointed out in various other threads it was not just the anon statists in the sentinel, lots of people both long time Keene residents and liberty people are taking issue with what you are doing. That's not the subject of this thread though.

Uh, that's not CD.  CD involves being publicly disobedient.  

No it doesn't. In the best example Gandhi himself was extremely public with his CD but the majority of people following him were not overt or public about following his codes. CD doesn't have to be about massive public outings where you throw things in peoples faces, it can be about people simply getting on with life and breaking bad laws as part of that. That both represents the absurdity of the laws and the fact breaking them doesn't make one bad.

The people you are "fighting" against are your neighbours and you seem to forget that liberty activists are in a minority no matter where they are, work should be focused on getting other locals to support your cause not about alienating them.

It's only your perspective that it's a limited victory. From the perspective of the persecuted cannabis consumer (or alcohol), the DMZ is a huge win.

The victory is personal to you and your friends in Keene, I am sure if we did a poll of users everywhere else they might say its awesome you have your DMZ but they most certainly wouldn't claim it as advancing their own personal liberty in the slightest.

Also Jesus of the pot and alcohol people, thanks for defining what the rest of us should think.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Ed on July 08, 2010, 09:16:46 am
Quote
I guess I just have more faith in the human spirit than you do Thom

OK, but the problem is you all have different ideas as to what's "liberty".

If everybody actually held to this absolutist tendency, it would cause a lot of problems if a "libertopia" actually ever did get established. Elkingray thinks he can force people into their homes and keep them in there if he owns land in front of their house. Does he actuyally have the right to act on it? What if the Libertopian cops try and arrest him? Based on this absolutism, he would think he has the right to shoot those cops too. All this necessarily follows if you think your rights are 100% absolute regardless of what any form of governance says, that respecting a form of governance is not in any way a value.

There's a ton of other little issues where there is lots of disagreement in libertarianism. And you can't cop out with "oh, but we don't believe in a coercive monopolistic state." Even if such forms of governance are possible, at some point or another authority, force, or whatever you want to call it, is going to have to be used, because some people inevitably initiate force. Some studies even suggest such a tendency is genetic for some people. Even if an anarcho-capitalist government is more legitimate because you have to agree to join it, doesn't mean it gets to violate rights, if you take the absolutist view.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Ed on July 08, 2010, 09:20:40 am
Quote
That is not liberty it is publicity.

really it kinda is. You have to give credit where credit's due. I don't like it myself, but they managed to get the cops to use their discretion better, or better as they see it. Half our freedom comes from that discretion - or rather if they didn't have that discretion, we have so many laws that we wouldn't be very free in this country. People jaywalk all the time (here in NJ/NY) but never get ticketed.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: creaganlios on July 08, 2010, 09:53:05 am
I guess I just have more faith in the human spirit than you do Thom. 

Umm..on the one hand you deny the existence of a single Liberty society anywhere on Planet Earth over the course of Millennium and after several Billion Humans....

......but than you have the audacity to claim you have more faith in the human spirit than I do?

I think I'm being realistic. 

And I think you're somewhere betyween Polyanna and Arguments-for-Ivory-Tower-Arguements sake.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: artienewport on July 08, 2010, 10:25:52 am
well, not from me, but since she's your mom I'm sure she'll give you a good deal


WHY DO YOU MAKE US SUFFER THIS TROLL?!?!?

He is not a FSP friend

He is not a FSP participant

He is not a FSP mover

He is just a FSP TROLL

I bet Ed is a current or former FSP Organizer...or several of them using the same account.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 08, 2010, 11:01:42 am
Quote
That is not liberty it is publicity.

really it kinda is. You have to give credit where credit's due. I don't like it myself, but they managed to get the cops to use their discretion better, or better as they see it. Half our freedom comes from that discretion - or rather if they didn't have that discretion, we have so many laws that we wouldn't be very free in this country. People jaywalk all the time (here in NJ/NY) but never get ticketed.
That would be an ordinance... not a statute.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 08, 2010, 11:41:33 am
i'm honestly not trying to be a dick here, but could you please list a few liberty movements that have a)not been achieved through violence, and b)have lasted in a peaceful, non-coercive society for, say, more than 25 years? i'm just curious to know more about these types of victories. obviously america is not one of them!

Victorian Britain was far freer than the US ever was, perhaps the freest industrial society in history, and slavery and mercantilism were abolished through the legislative process there. Hong Kong. Switzerland. New Zealand's reforms in the 80s were great - although they've backslidden some. The Isle of Man, Cayman Islands, & many other micro-states and quasi-states are extremely low-tax jurisdictions. Drug tolerance happened peacefully in the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Portugal.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Thorsmitersaw on July 08, 2010, 11:55:17 am
I'm going to be honest. The schism is significant and deep. IMO, if Curtis really holds those views and wasn't just playing devil's advocate, he doesn't belong in the FSP. Just my honest opinion. We don't need people who think it's OK for the government to continue imprisoning people just so that he can have a black market to sell in.

Strawman much?
(http://riverdaughter.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/strawman.jpg)
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Thorsmitersaw on July 08, 2010, 12:03:14 pm
Quote
I guess I just have more faith in the human spirit than you do Thom

OK, but the problem is you all have different ideas as to what's "liberty".

If everybody actually held to this absolutist tendency, it would cause a lot of problems if a "libertopia" actually ever did get established. Elkingray thinks he can force people into their homes and keep them in there if he owns land in front of their house. Does he actuyally have the right to act on it? What if the Libertopian cops try and arrest him? Based on this absolutism, he would think he has the right to shoot those cops too. All this necessarily follows if you think your rights are 100% absolute regardless of what any form of governance says, that respecting a form of governance is not in any way a value.

There's a ton of other little issues where there is lots of disagreement in libertarianism. And you can't cop out with "oh, but we don't believe in a coercive monopolistic state." Even if such forms of governance are possible, at some point or another authority, force, or whatever you want to call it, is going to have to be used, because some people inevitably initiate force. Some studies even suggest such a tendency is genetic for some people. Even if an anarcho-capitalist government is more legitimate because you have to agree to join it, doesn't mean it gets to violate rights, if you take the absolutist view.

absolutism? is that the charge levied against those who accept no form of slavery?

And what are these libertarian police? Without positive law, how can there be anything even resembling a police force?

Force is not always needed to protect your individual rights and even if it IS this is no salvation of your rights violating institutions. This is not a cop out at all. A man or groups of men acting to protect their own negative rights does not equal a state. Unless you are so obtuse as to conflate self defense with a monopoly upon this defense of rights or its forced socialization. I think it is hilarious that you are trying to use ahypothetical example, based on a misinterpretation of Lockean property rights, as a basis for your defense of law monooplies. That conflicts will always exist, disagreements, is no reason to accept government. This does not follow anymore than it follows from all men ar equal that all men should like Super Mario. There is absolutely no relation there.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Argentum on July 08, 2010, 12:04:04 pm
What societies were made more free through CD?  India got independence,not liberty.  In the U.S., the Civil Rights Movement was a net loss of liberty.  This is not to say it can't work.

On the flip side, Prohibition was repealed by law (a Constitutional Amendment to be precise).  The only argument that could be made is that the 21st Amendment resulted in less freedom in the area of alcohol then had existed prior to the 18th Amendment.  I'm not familiar with the history so I can't say.

On a side note, it is my opinion that those who smoke pot in public are more interested in making a personal statement rather than a political one.  If they want to get high, they could do it on their own property.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Sovereign Laissez-faire LeRoux on July 08, 2010, 12:12:43 pm
Civil disobedience is incredibly powerful, but it requires unity and organization to be effective. The Keene efforts are noble and helpful. While I oppose voting personally as a sanction of the tyranny, I consider liberty loving minarchists who run for office and vote to eliminate privileges and bad rules to be ALLIES. When all is said and done however, there appears to be little unity up there and lots of infighting. It has me nervous about moving. And, the best plan of civil disobedience in the nation now, and perhaps in the entire history of the world, are the Guardians of the Free Republics, which is growing very, very fast and making some serious, quiet impact. Most people will not understand what they are doing and many are trying to slander and destroy our efforts. But we are winning. The Restore America Plan is moving forward and while the plan's goal is not nearly enough freedom to satisfy me, it is a MASSIVE improvement on our current level or tyranny.

http://www.restoreamericaplan.net/
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Thorsmitersaw on July 08, 2010, 12:17:35 pm
What societies were made more free through CD?  India got independence,not liberty.  In the U.S., the Civil Rights Movement was a net loss of liberty.  This is not to say it can't work.

On the flip side, Prohibition was repealed by law (a Constitutional Amendment to be precise).  The only argument that could be made is that the 21st Amendment resulted in less freedom in the area of alcohol then had existed prior to the 18th Amendment.  I'm not familiar with the history so I can't say.

On a side note, it is my opinion that those who smoke pot in public are more interested in making a personal statement rather than a political one.  If they want to get high, they could do it on their own property.

No political activism is successful without the will of people to oppose bad laws. You act as if absent these individuals ignoring the state, the resolution could be passed. Aren't you government types the ones who are constantly yammering on about the will of the people and all that crap? Aren't you the ones professing to need votes and support for law? Do you think it is anything but bottom up? Prohibition would NEVER have been repealed (to the degree it actually WAS, apparently to satisfactory enough of a degree that it quelled massive opposition) without everyone refusing to follow the laws in the first place.

Governments rely upon your passive obedience  http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/laboetie.html (http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/laboetie.html)
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: greap on July 08, 2010, 01:48:34 pm
No political activism is successful without the will of people to oppose bad laws. You act as if absent these individuals ignoring the state, the resolution could be passed. Aren't you government types the ones who are constantly yammering on about the will of the people and all that crap? Aren't you the ones professing to need votes and support for law? Do you think it is anything but bottom up? Prohibition would NEVER have been repealed (to the degree it actually WAS, apparently to satisfactory enough of a degree that it quelled massive opposition) without everyone refusing to follow the laws in the first place.

Governments rely upon your passive obedience  http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/laboetie.html (http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/laboetie.html)

You seem to misunderstand those of us who support "political" activism over public CD.

Relating back to alcohol prohibition we equate Speakeasies as being the passive form where people simply got on with life rather then making a big deal about it, they were breaking the law but they didn't feel the need to call a press conference every time they went to the bar.

Not observing unjust laws is a valid and extremely valuable way of educating people as to the absurdity of those laws and changing the social acceptance of the actions themselves. The objection of people in this thread is to focus on extremely public displays of CD which only serve to draw attention to the unjust law not change it. If you want to fix the law (or even remove laws entirely) then you have to work with other people because you are in a minority, alienating those people is extremely counter productive and only serves to extend the tyranny of the state.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: citizen Winston on July 08, 2010, 01:51:03 pm
I'm glad something is weeding out the complainers from joining.

It's hard to collaborate when you are at polar opposite belief systems for the most part.

Ed, I will partake of your prostitutional pimping services at next Porcfest. Your service prices seem reasonable. Is there an early booking discount?

Its been nothing but one-liners and negativity coming from artienewport.  Your replies are anything but constructive.  You think I'm complaining?  Go re-read the OP and if you're too dense to figure out what I was asking, maybe you should refrain from jumping in head first. 
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Argentum on July 08, 2010, 01:53:43 pm


 Aren't you government types the ones who are constantly yammering on about the will of the people and all that crap? Aren't you the ones professing to need votes and support for law? Do you think it is anything but bottom up? Prohibition would NEVER have been repealed (to the degree it actually WAS, apparently to satisfactory enough of a degree that it quelled massive opposition) without everyone refusing to follow the laws in the first place.

Governments rely upon your passive obedience  http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/laboetie.html (http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/laboetie.html)

I'm an anarchist so I don't know what lead you to believe I was a "government type".  That said, I am one of those anarchists who thing that voting and holding office can be construed to be self-defense.  

And I, of course, agree with you that nothing much gets done unless there is popular support or lack of a motivated opposition.

I also consider minarchists to be allies and not budding Stalins.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FTL_Ian on July 08, 2010, 02:24:00 pm
We've had incredible success with the 420 celebrations, including a huge feature in Cannabis Culture as well as DRCNet coverage and more.

That is not liberty it is publicity.

Thank you for stating the obvious.  Publicity means more movers to Keene, meaning more activism, meaning more liberty down the line.

Quote
Liberty-minded people everywhere are paying attention to Keene.

It has yet to be seen what you will do to leverage that attention.

Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it's not happening.  Drop by the Free Keene Forum and look at all the introduction posts of people who are moving to Keene or planning a move because of the activism here.

Quote
Why the hell would I care about some anonymous statist whiners on the local newspaper comments section?

As was pointed out in various other threads it was not just the anon statists in the sentinel, lots of people both long time Keene residents and liberty people are taking issue with what you are doing. That's not the subject of this thread though.

Sure.  But there are people in Keene who love what we are doing, so again, why should I care about those that don't?  It's an inevitable consequence of publicly taking controversial stances.

Quote
Uh, that's not CD.  CD involves being publicly disobedient.  

No it doesn't. In the best example Gandhi himself was extremely public with his CD but the majority of people following him were not overt or public about following his codes. CD doesn't have to be about massive public outings where you throw things in peoples faces, it can be about people simply getting on with life and breaking bad laws as part of that. That both represents the absurdity of the laws and the fact breaking them doesn't make one bad.

I'd define quietly breaking laws with little-to-no risk to be living free.  When you bring a public component in, it becomes civil disobedience, but define it however makes you feel good.

Quote
The people you are "fighting" against are your neighbours and you seem to forget that liberty activists are in a minority no matter where they are, work should be focused on getting other locals to support your cause not about alienating them.

I'm not fighting anyone.  Thanks for telling me again what you think I should be doing.  We do have locals supporting our cause.  I was just hanging out with just a few of them at last night's Nightcap. 
(http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs128.snc4/36787_108611449191619_100001282931812_64327_5560199_n.jpg)

Quote
The victory is personal to you and your friends in Keene, I am sure if we did a poll of users everywhere else they might say its awesome you have your DMZ but they most certainly wouldn't claim it as advancing their own personal liberty in the slightest.

Same thing's true about the knife repeal.  Most people don't carry switchblades and have never wanted to.  So?

Quote
Also Jesus of the pot and alcohol people, thanks for defining what the rest of us should think.
Where did I tell you what to think?  I've seen you telling me what I should do, but not the other way around.  I'm merely here to defend the heroic civil disobedience activists in Keene from the incessant whining of the divisive politicos.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: GlenDickey on July 08, 2010, 02:32:45 pm
Hi Winston! 

I almost never comment on the Forum but I hate to see people get discouraged from joining the FSP based on this ‘issue’ so let me just say a couple of things before I go back to lurking… 

If you want to work toward Liberty then you are going to find a place here to do your activism and probably hands to help you.

If you are looking for community then in NH you are going to find a Liberty community probably unlike anything you have ever experienced before.  It was and is unlike anything I have experienced outside of it and I still find the fellowship amazing.

The Liberty community is a spectrum not a position.  You will find individuals scattered all over it.  Some you will agree with and some you won’t.  Naming calling outside of the interwebs, is very minimal and people are civil to each other even if they don’t agree.

While there are certainly areas that have more of one part of the spectrum than others these are just tendencies not fixed positions.  You can do in-the-system stuff in Keene, and out-of-the-system stuff in Concord. 

Most of the individuals I have encountered are a lot less tied to one kind of activism than might be perceived from the vantage of PorcFest.  Good ideas get run with and find hands to help.  That being said it is up to you.  It’s your activism, own it.

Now where did I put that Baby…

Glen
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FTL_Ian on July 08, 2010, 02:36:29 pm
I joined the FSP because I'm pro-liberty. That means "for everyone".

So...if this had been my first PorcFest, I probably wouldn't have joined the FSP. Why? Because I saw pro-war propaganda being sold and supported in the "official" tent, not agorist acres. I also met a man, who wants me to vote for him, that equates gay unions with bestiality.

So, there are two swift kicks to the balls of a peace-loving human being. Why am I bringing this up now? I was content to let it slide, but the SWAMP of WHINE coming from you people disgusts me. No really...DISGUSTS!

Discuss  >:D



Great post, Lou.  Interestingly, I never hear civil disobedience activists or anarchists whine about people who prefer politics.  I think it's because they focus on their own activism and don't waste their time concerning themselves over what the political guys do.  Many will work with the politicos who appreciate them and aren't constantly bitching or attacking them.  For instance, now that Matt Simon has apologized for his anger, I can see myself helping with his efforts again in the future, as I have in the past.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: shyfrog on July 08, 2010, 02:37:57 pm
It’s your activism, own it.

+infinity ∞
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Dreepa on July 08, 2010, 02:51:26 pm



  Interestingly, I never hear civil disobedience activists or anarchists whine about people who prefer politics.  I think it's because they focus on their own activism and don't waste their time concerning themselves over what the political guys do.  Many will work with the politicos who appreciate them and aren't constantly bitching or attacking them.  For instance, now that Matt Simon has apologized for his anger, I can see myself helping with his efforts again in the future, as I have in the past.

I do.
I think that there is a small group of 'politicos' who bitch about the 'anarchists'
and there is a small group of 'anarchists' who bitch about the 'politicos'.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: creaganlios on July 08, 2010, 03:16:34 pm
Prohibition would NEVER have been repealed (to the degree it actually WAS, apparently to satisfactory enough of a degree that it quelled massive opposition) without everyone refusing to follow the laws in the first place.

Now you're playing on my home turf.  Come to my home some day, and you will see all the framed pictures I have of Hueys Chophouse, the Riviera, and the Lafayette Grill...the three Speakeasies my great-grandfather ran in Long Beach NY during Prohibition. His son (my grandfather) was married to the Fire Chief's daughter. Each week ships would come up from the Caribbean and anchor off-shore.  Off-duty police and firefighters would block off the streets, and the barrels were marked as 'communion wine' and taken to the basement of the local RC Church after paying off the police & fire guards.  When deliveries were made to the speakeasies from the church, they were re-marked as "flour."    My great grandad, his patrons,  the politicos, and the NY banch of the Weiss gang actually worked together on the political angles to create a critical mass in favor of Repeal.

The point here is that they did not say, "Hell! We disagree!," And start selling Booze in the Street.  They did not create public sympathy by acting like drunken fools in public.  They engaged in their civil disobedience, but they did it *smart,* and they engaged the political process at the same time, even getting the cops on their side.

Thats a far cry from wrecked teenagers on Central Square being stupid and acting like six year olds on You-Tube.  ANd this is what I have been saying ALL ALONG...there is a place ofr CD, but that place is NOT, "HELL! I'll do what I want!"  It has a place as an element in a SMART STRATEGY.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FTL_Ian on July 08, 2010, 03:36:22 pm



  Interestingly, I never hear civil disobedience activists or anarchists whine about people who prefer politics.  I think it's because they focus on their own activism and don't waste their time concerning themselves over what the political guys do.  Many will work with the politicos who appreciate them and aren't constantly bitching or attacking them.  For instance, now that Matt Simon has apologized for his anger, I can see myself helping with his efforts again in the future, as I have in the past.

I do.
I think that there is a small group of 'politicos' who bitch about the 'anarchists'
and there is a small group of 'anarchists' who bitch about the 'politicos'.

I think that is true that there are probably anarchists who complain privately - I'm saying I never hear it in person.  I don't ever see forum threads started about the "schism" from the anarchists side.  They tend to mind their own business rather than wring their hands about the politicos.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FTL_Ian on July 08, 2010, 03:40:40 pm
Oh, that pic above?  The all night nightcap last night wasn't all about partying.  At one point KPD pulled someone over on main st.  We walked over and asked if the victims wanted us to keep an eye on things.  They responded affirmatively.

While we were Cop Blocking, a local approached to thank us for doing the same thing for him a few years back.  He had been pulled over on his motorcycle in front of Athens Pizza where several liberty activists happened to be eating.  The activists poured out and kept a watchful eye on the situation.  This guy remembered it, appreciated it, and when he had the opportunity a few years later, let us know as much.

Of course, we should just stop doing what we do, because "the community" doesn't like it, right?   ::)
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: 10stateswithnh on July 08, 2010, 03:47:45 pm
I think that there is a small group of 'politicos' who bitch about the 'anarchists'
and there is a small group of 'anarchists' who bitch about the 'politicos'.

Agreed - I seem to recall in this very thread someone saying that all political activism is immoral - is that criticism different from "bitching"? Obviously, the two sides criticize each other for different reasons, but it's still criticism, I don't think constructive either, and still antagonistic and divisive. I don't believe that any of the extreme positions can claim the moral high ground here (and why is it so important to establish which group is more moral? That is the part that REALLY baffles me - I thought we wanted to evolve past conflict into a peaceful society). Apparently a few people only want to switch from physical conflict to verbal conflict and then pat themselves on the back for being "peaceful".

I want a society where people are willing to give up some of their ego for the sake of peace, prefer harmony to proving I'm more correct than my neighbor every day, are humble enough to not feel like they have to point out everything they disagree with, and as a result actually get along and respect those with different beliefs. Personally, I love the vision of a peaceful society I get from Mary Ruwart's writings, and the place I choose will not be one where people are constantly criticizing each other, unless of course the others are open to such "correction". Otherwise the criticism, no matter how well-intentioned will be destructive in its effect.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

I'll repeat from a previous post - I hope those reading this and considering the move will not make the mistake of considering the forums to be a demonstration of what life will be like on the ground in NH. Outside of the limited argument on Saturday's FTL show, and in the marijuana debate, I didn't hear any conflict at PF. Of course, I did miss quite a few events, and being back in Utah for the next 14 months I am a little out of the loop as to what actually happens there normally. So take my 2 cents with a grain of salt (ooh, what a mixed metaphor!).  ;D
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: creaganlios on July 08, 2010, 03:49:43 pm
Of course, we should just stop doing what we do, because "the community" doesn't like it, right?   ::)

No.  When you do things like that, in a respectful dignified way, with purpose and reason and goals, its GREAT. I remember writing somewhere that one of the next things I want to  do is publish a Motorists Bill of Rights that tells motorists precisely what they must - and must not - do when pulled over.  

The problem are the antics that turn off the great majority of people and are counter-productive to expanding liberty.  "Topless Tuesdays" in Central Square has tuend off even some of the most LIBERAL, civil libertarian types in the Keene community....and has been counter-productive except for the titllation experienced by the participants.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: creaganlios on July 08, 2010, 03:54:23 pm
I want a society where people are willing to give up some of their ego for the sake of peace, prefer harmony to proving I'm more correct than my neighbor every day, are humble enough to not feel like they have to point out everything they disagree with, and as a result actually get along and respect those with different beliefs. Personally, I love the vision of a peaceful society I get from Mary Ruwart's writings, and the place I choose will not be one where people are constantly criticizing each other, unless of course the others are open to such "correction". Otherwise the criticism, no matter how well-intentioned will be destructive in its effect.

I have a Suggestion.

What if we decide upon a liberty-issue on which there has been little activism by anyone thus far....and bring together the "Keeniacs" and the "Politicos" in a Beer Summit  ;D  to try and put together a coordinated strategy that involves BOTH types of activism.  A "summit" where we honestly discuss our fears and cocnerns of 'the other side,' and try to agree on a plan....and then EXECUTE IT...and MEASURE OUR RESULTS.

Anyone else Game?

Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: time4liberty on July 08, 2010, 04:15:06 pm
I think political activism, civil disobedience, and agorism, can all be incredibly effective. In fact, I think the existence of each kind of activism strengthens the other two.

I think this is the message we should be sending, to attract the most liberty minded people of all kinds! :D
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: BigJoe on July 08, 2010, 04:25:02 pm
I want a society where people are willing to give up some of their ego for the sake of peace, prefer harmony to proving I'm more correct than my neighbor every day, are humble enough to not feel like they have to point out everything they disagree with, and as a result actually get along and respect those with different beliefs. Personally, I love the vision of a peaceful society I get from Mary Ruwart's writings, and the place I choose will not be one where people are constantly criticizing each other, unless of course the others are open to such "correction". Otherwise the criticism, no matter how well-intentioned will be destructive in its effect.

I have a Suggestion.

What if we decide upon a liberty-issue on which there has been little activism by anyone thus far....and bring together the "Keeniacs" and the "Politicos" in a Beer Summit  ;D  to try and put together a coordinated strategy that involves BOTH types of activism.  A "summit" where we honestly discuss our fears and cocnerns of 'the other side,' and try to agree on a plan....and then EXECUTE IT...and MEASURE OUR RESULTS.

Anyone else Game?



what kind of issues did you have in mind?
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: lobstah on July 08, 2010, 04:42:07 pm
i'm honestly not trying to be a dick here, but could you please list a few liberty movements that have a)not been achieved through violence, and b)have lasted in a peaceful, non-coercive society for, say, more than 25 years? i'm just curious to know more about these types of victories. obviously america is not one of them!

Victorian Britain was far freer than the US ever was, perhaps the freest industrial society in history, and slavery and mercantilism were abolished through the legislative process there. Hong Kong. Switzerland. New Zealand's reforms in the 80s were great - although they've backslidden some. The Isle of Man, Cayman Islands, & many other micro-states and quasi-states are extremely low-tax jurisdictions. Drug tolerance happened peacefully in the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Portugal.

thanks for the response, jason. i now realize, however, how pointless my question was. it was pointless because my definition of a peaceful, non-coercive society is different than yours. i don't believe that a society can truly be peaceful and/or civilized as long as a government exists in said society. while i believe that working within the system can be helpful at this point in the struggle, i don't see how it can possibly achieve my personal end goal - the absence of government in new hampshire. i have to be honest - in the end, i am really not interested in even the most minuscule of governments. i just don't see the point.

ok, i got sucked into the debate. i guess it was inevitable :)
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Uncle Walt on July 08, 2010, 05:00:33 pm
i have to be honest - in the end, i am really not interested in even the most minuscule of governments. i just don't see the point.


The purpose of government is to create a space agency that can use its resources to test soccer balls. 

Bwaahahahahahahahaha
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: artienewport on July 08, 2010, 05:18:08 pm
Of course, we should just stop doing what we do, because "the community" doesn't like it, right?   ::)

Yeah, but you're initiating force on them or something by doing what you think is free and they don't.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FTL_Ian on July 08, 2010, 05:23:48 pm
Of course, we should just stop doing what we do, because "the community" doesn't like it, right?   ::)

No.  When you do things like that, in a respectful dignified way, with purpose and reason and goals, its GREAT. I remember writing somewhere that one of the next things I want to  do is publish a Motorists Bill of Rights that tells motorists precisely what they must - and must not - do when pulled over.  

The problem are the antics that turn off the great majority of people and are counter-productive to expanding liberty.  "Topless Tuesdays" in Central Square has tuend off even some of the most LIBERAL, civil libertarian types in the Keene community....and has been counter-productive except for the titllation experienced by the participants.

It's amazing how many people claim they know what the majority is thinking.  How did you glean this amazing knowledge?

Of course, you have nothing but your own personal experience to pull from, and that's as valid as mine.

I'd rather focus on the people that like what I do rather than the inevitable group of complainers.  Apparently you appreciate Cop Blocking but not toplessness.  (Which has been over for weeks, by the way.)  Some other people might not like Cop Blocking very much.  They will get upset because we dare stand up to their heroes in the thin blue line.

So, should we keep doing Cop Block because you like it or stop because others don't?  It's impossible for us to satisfy everyone, and I won't bother to try.  I'll keep Cop Blocking because the VICTIMS of the police aggression appreciate it.  (Well, some do.  Some victims don't want us to watch, either because they appreciate the cops aggression or are too ashamed of the situation, and we respect their preference and leave the scene if they don't want us there.)  I don't give a fuck what everyone else thinks. 
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: time4liberty on July 08, 2010, 05:26:08 pm
i have to be honest - in the end, i am really not interested in even the most minuscule of governments. i just don't see the point.


The purpose of government is to create a space agency that can use its resources to test soccer balls. 

Bwaahahahahahahahaha

You have to admit, we need some sort of defense, in the future, against the massive destructive force of the jabulani.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Sovereign Laissez-faire LeRoux on July 08, 2010, 06:10:53 pm
All the forms of activism combine to overwhelm the system. This would be even more true if the different groups could support each other on a per issue basis. THIS is what I am looking for. I accept no labels and am very tired of the dichotomy between Objectivist and anarchist, minarchist and voluntaryist, etc. Despite the hostility, based in pure ignorance, of the Sovereign movement, I am still looking at KEENE.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: greap on July 08, 2010, 06:17:43 pm
All the forms of activism combine to overwhelm the system. This would be even more true if the different groups could support each other on a per issue basis. THIS is what I am looking for. I accept no labels and am very tired of the dichotomy between Objectivist and anarchist, minarchist and voluntaryist, etc. Despite the hostility, based in pure ignorance, of the Sovereign movement, I am still looking at KEENE.

You forgot those of us who consider ourselves ugly skin bags of mostly water.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 08, 2010, 06:19:38 pm
i'm honestly not trying to be a dick here, but could you please list a few liberty movements that have a)not been achieved through violence, and b)have lasted in a peaceful, non-coercive society for, say, more than 25 years? i'm just curious to know more about these types of victories. obviously america is not one of them!

Victorian Britain was far freer than the US ever was, perhaps the freest industrial society in history, and slavery and mercantilism were abolished through the legislative process there. Hong Kong. Switzerland. New Zealand's reforms in the 80s were great - although they've backslidden some. The Isle of Man, Cayman Islands, & many other micro-states and quasi-states are extremely low-tax jurisdictions. Drug tolerance happened peacefully in the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Portugal.

thanks for the response, jason. i now realize, however, how pointless my question was. it was pointless because my definition of a peaceful, non-coercive society is different than yours. i don't believe that a society can truly be peaceful and/or civilized as long as a government exists in said society. while i believe that working within the system can be helpful at this point in the struggle, i don't see how it can possibly achieve my personal end goal - the absence of government in new hampshire. i have to be honest - in the end, i am really not interested in even the most minuscule of governments. i just don't see the point.

ok, i got sucked into the debate. i guess it was inevitable :)

So Robert Nozick's utopia = Stalinist Russia/Nazi Germany? That just doesn't make any sense. How can people like you get exercised over private competing justice agencies, something that's never existed outside present-day Somalia and anarcho-capitalist theory, yet care nothing about 1.8 million marijuana arrests, failing public schools, teenagers unemployed by the minimum wage, agricultural subsidies that are starving millions of people in Africa & Latin America, health insurance nationalization that will result in people dying, and on and on and on?
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Sovereign Laissez-faire LeRoux on July 08, 2010, 07:15:01 pm
Quote
You forgot those of us who consider ourselves ugly skin bags of mostly water.
I'll work with ugly skin bags also, on a per issue basis!  ;)
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: lobstah on July 08, 2010, 07:48:28 pm
i'm honestly not trying to be a dick here, but could you please list a few liberty movements that have a)not been achieved through violence, and b)have lasted in a peaceful, non-coercive society for, say, more than 25 years? i'm just curious to know more about these types of victories. obviously america is not one of them!

Victorian Britain was far freer than the US ever was, perhaps the freest industrial society in history, and slavery and mercantilism were abolished through the legislative process there. Hong Kong. Switzerland. New Zealand's reforms in the 80s were great - although they've backslidden some. The Isle of Man, Cayman Islands, & many other micro-states and quasi-states are extremely low-tax jurisdictions. Drug tolerance happened peacefully in the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Portugal.

thanks for the response, jason. i now realize, however, how pointless my question was. it was pointless because my definition of a peaceful, non-coercive society is different than yours. i don't believe that a society can truly be peaceful and/or civilized as long as a government exists in said society. while i believe that working within the system can be helpful at this point in the struggle, i don't see how it can possibly achieve my personal end goal - the absence of government in new hampshire. i have to be honest - in the end, i am really not interested in even the most minuscule of governments. i just don't see the point.

ok, i got sucked into the debate. i guess it was inevitable :)

So Robert Nozick's utopia = Stalinist Russia/Nazi Germany? That just doesn't make any sense. How can people like you get exercised over private competing justice agencies, something that's never existed outside present-day Somalia and anarcho-capitalist theory, yet care nothing about 1.8 million marijuana arrests, failing public schools, teenagers unemployed by the minimum wage, agricultural subsidies that are starving millions of people in Africa & Latin America, health insurance nationalization that will result in people dying, and on and on and on?

easy there, jason. i'm not sure why you are making claims that i don't care about starving millions....or am i reading your post wrong? i am a voluntaryist. do my statements surprise you? i find it interesting that i say that your methods can be helpful at this point, and you respond with such an attack....yet i am not willing to work with you and your methods? again, i wonder if i am misunderstanding your response? i'm not here to fight with other pro-freedom activists. are you? i was simply trying to offer a little clarification on where i stand, and how it differs from where you yourself stand.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FreeStyle on July 08, 2010, 08:44:16 pm
the idea of helping to form a society that is based on the idea that you can't just stomp your opponents and punch people in the face to get what you want is very exciting to me.  Peace is not something exclusive of anarcho-capitalists.

this thread has jumped the shark.  Thank you Mr. Founder.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 08, 2010, 09:37:42 pm
i'm honestly not trying to be a dick here, but could you please list a few liberty movements that have a)not been achieved through violence, and b)have lasted in a peaceful, non-coercive society for, say, more than 25 years? i'm just curious to know more about these types of victories. obviously america is not one of them!

Victorian Britain was far freer than the US ever was, perhaps the freest industrial society in history, and slavery and mercantilism were abolished through the legislative process there. Hong Kong. Switzerland. New Zealand's reforms in the 80s were great - although they've backslidden some. The Isle of Man, Cayman Islands, & many other micro-states and quasi-states are extremely low-tax jurisdictions. Drug tolerance happened peacefully in the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Portugal.

thanks for the response, jason. i now realize, however, how pointless my question was. it was pointless because my definition of a peaceful, non-coercive society is different than yours. i don't believe that a society can truly be peaceful and/or civilized as long as a government exists in said society. while i believe that working within the system can be helpful at this point in the struggle, i don't see how it can possibly achieve my personal end goal - the absence of government in new hampshire. i have to be honest - in the end, i am really not interested in even the most minuscule of governments. i just don't see the point.

ok, i got sucked into the debate. i guess it was inevitable :)

So Robert Nozick's utopia = Stalinist Russia/Nazi Germany? That just doesn't make any sense. How can people like you get exercised over private competing justice agencies, something that's never existed outside present-day Somalia and anarcho-capitalist theory, yet care nothing about 1.8 million marijuana arrests, failing public schools, teenagers unemployed by the minimum wage, agricultural subsidies that are starving millions of people in Africa & Latin America, health insurance nationalization that will result in people dying, and on and on and on?

easy there, jason. i'm not sure why you are making claims that i don't care about starving millions....or am i reading your post wrong? i am a voluntaryist. do my statements surprise you? i find it interesting that i say that your methods can be helpful at this point, and you respond with such an attack....yet i am not willing to work with you and your methods? again, i wonder if i am misunderstanding your response? i'm not here to fight with other pro-freedom activists. are you? i was simply trying to offer a little clarification on where i stand, and how it differs from where you yourself stand.

Maybe I misunderstand your point. I took this:
in the end, i am really not interested in even the most minuscule of governments. i just don't see the point.
to mean that you don't care whether government is big or small, oppressive or benign. You only care about abolishing government. Is that a misinterpretation?
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: lobstah on July 08, 2010, 09:51:35 pm
i'm honestly not trying to be a dick here, but could you please list a few liberty movements that have a)not been achieved through violence, and b)have lasted in a peaceful, non-coercive society for, say, more than 25 years? i'm just curious to know more about these types of victories. obviously america is not one of them!

Victorian Britain was far freer than the US ever was, perhaps the freest industrial society in history, and slavery and mercantilism were abolished through the legislative process there. Hong Kong. Switzerland. New Zealand's reforms in the 80s were great - although they've backslidden some. The Isle of Man, Cayman Islands, & many other micro-states and quasi-states are extremely low-tax jurisdictions. Drug tolerance happened peacefully in the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Portugal.

thanks for the response, jason. i now realize, however, how pointless my question was. it was pointless because my definition of a peaceful, non-coercive society is different than yours. i don't believe that a society can truly be peaceful and/or civilized as long as a government exists in said society. while i believe that working within the system can be helpful at this point in the struggle, i don't see how it can possibly achieve my personal end goal - the absence of government in new hampshire. i have to be honest - in the end, i am really not interested in even the most minuscule of governments. i just don't see the point.

ok, i got sucked into the debate. i guess it was inevitable :)

So Robert Nozick's utopia = Stalinist Russia/Nazi Germany? That just doesn't make any sense. How can people like you get exercised over private competing justice agencies, something that's never existed outside present-day Somalia and anarcho-capitalist theory, yet care nothing about 1.8 million marijuana arrests, failing public schools, teenagers unemployed by the minimum wage, agricultural subsidies that are starving millions of people in Africa & Latin America, health insurance nationalization that will result in people dying, and on and on and on?

easy there, jason. i'm not sure why you are making claims that i don't care about starving millions....or am i reading your post wrong? i am a voluntaryist. do my statements surprise you? i find it interesting that i say that your methods can be helpful at this point, and you respond with such an attack....yet i am not willing to work with you and your methods? again, i wonder if i am misunderstanding your response? i'm not here to fight with other pro-freedom activists. are you? i was simply trying to offer a little clarification on where i stand, and how it differs from where you yourself stand.

Maybe I misunderstand your point. I took this:
in the end, i am really not interested in even the most minuscule of governments. i just don't see the point.
to mean that you don't care whether government is big or small, oppressive or benign. You only care about abolishing government. Is that a misinterpretation?

my point is that government is oppressive regardless of its size, so it would be best if it did not exist. please explain how that justifies your attack.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: seamas on July 08, 2010, 10:28:08 pm
Victorian Britain wasn't so great if one was Irish (much as the U.S. was more free pre-20th century unless one was black).  It was better than the previous penal laws that prohibited Catholics from owning land, voting, practicing their religion, or obtaining an education but still not so great with the absentee landowners (who owned land by virtue of conquest rather than trade) sending food and taxes back to England while people starved in the famine.  Ultimately the Irish people freed themselves from English rule by violence.

I mention all of this because the history of the Irish struggle for freedom involved all kinds of tactics from hedge schools teaching  illegally, to legislative action, to pleas to the Queen for mercy, to civil disobedience, to armed rebellion.  It would be a huge simplification to say that only violence brought freedom from English oppression, but it would be just as big a simplification to say that only civil disobedience freed India from British rule (given that there were violent acts against the British and the threat of 100s of millions of people rebelling half way around the world was harder to deal with than a few thousand rebellious Irish next door).   My point is that there are many tactics that can be employed to increase our freedom and I see fetishizing one tactic above all others (e.g. the civil disobedience advocate on this thread who claimed that using the ballot is tantamount to using the bullet) as counterproductive. 

Finally, it is interesting that so many of the more free countries are former British colonies (except Switzerland).  They laid the groundwork for further expansion of freedom.

i'm honestly not trying to be a dick here, but could you please list a few liberty movements that have a)not been achieved through violence, and b)have lasted in a peaceful, non-coercive society for, say, more than 25 years? i'm just curious to know more about these types of victories. obviously america is not one of them!

Victorian Britain was far freer than the US ever was, perhaps the freest industrial society in history, and slavery and mercantilism were abolished through the legislative process there. Hong Kong. Switzerland. New Zealand's reforms in the 80s were great - although they've backslidden some. The Isle of Man, Cayman Islands, & many other micro-states and quasi-states are extremely low-tax jurisdictions. Drug tolerance happened peacefully in the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Portugal.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: KBCraig on July 08, 2010, 10:37:04 pm
Victorian Britain was far freer than the US ever was, perhaps the freest industrial society in history, and slavery and mercantilism were abolished through the legislative process there.

Ah, yes, Victorian Britain, where people were so free that table cloths reached the floor, lest some young man be driven to sexual delirium by glimpsing a piece of wood that might suggest a female ankle. (Okay, to be fair, those were social mores, not legislated morality.)

Yes, Britannia under VR abolished slavery and mercantilism through legislation. America would have as well, if not for that militaristic asshole from Illinois.

And then, within three decades after Mrs. Brown's rule, the freedom-loving spirit of Britain, "through the legislative process", changed from a society where everyone was armed with a pistol or revolver and violent crime was almost unheard of (aberrations like Jack the Ripper dominated headlines because they were aberrations), into one where the populous were disarmed by law, and crime began a steady growth culminating in today's uncontrolled violence, where criminals carry machine guns and law-abiding citizens grind the points off their kitchen knives.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: "Hagrid" on July 09, 2010, 08:28:46 am
Same thing's true about the knife repeal.  Most people don't carry switchblades and have never wanted to.  So?

FYI, it's not just switchblades.  I was amazed how many folks were technically breaking the law with things like machetes in their car, carrying blades too long/narrow to be legal etc.  They were _unintentionally_ breaking the law, and potentially subject to arrest/fines at any moment a cop decided to enforce that particular law.  They weren't being arrested/fined, but they could have been.

That is the current state of your 420s, etc.  You might not be arrested/fined, but you could be.  Yes, it's nice that you aren't, it's nice that the cops are leaving you alone, but give them a slow night, some pressure from someone (on any side), etc, and it all falls apart like a house of cards.

The point of changing the law is to prevent the men with guns from bothering you.  It's nice that you wish they didn't exist at all, it's nice that they are leaving you alone.  Those of us who are working within the system are seeking to _do_ something concrete and more permanent about this situation, so it's very frustrated to us when you put us down, tell us how immoral we are, work against our efforts, etc etc.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 09, 2010, 08:36:55 am
i'm honestly not trying to be a dick here, but could you please list a few liberty movements that have a)not been achieved through violence, and b)have lasted in a peaceful, non-coercive society for, say, more than 25 years? i'm just curious to know more about these types of victories. obviously america is not one of them!

Victorian Britain was far freer than the US ever was, perhaps the freest industrial society in history, and slavery and mercantilism were abolished through the legislative process there. Hong Kong. Switzerland. New Zealand's reforms in the 80s were great - although they've backslidden some. The Isle of Man, Cayman Islands, & many other micro-states and quasi-states are extremely low-tax jurisdictions. Drug tolerance happened peacefully in the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Portugal.

thanks for the response, jason. i now realize, however, how pointless my question was. it was pointless because my definition of a peaceful, non-coercive society is different than yours. i don't believe that a society can truly be peaceful and/or civilized as long as a government exists in said society. while i believe that working within the system can be helpful at this point in the struggle, i don't see how it can possibly achieve my personal end goal - the absence of government in new hampshire. i have to be honest - in the end, i am really not interested in even the most minuscule of governments. i just don't see the point.

ok, i got sucked into the debate. i guess it was inevitable :)

So Robert Nozick's utopia = Stalinist Russia/Nazi Germany? That just doesn't make any sense. How can people like you get exercised over private competing justice agencies, something that's never existed outside present-day Somalia and anarcho-capitalist theory, yet care nothing about 1.8 million marijuana arrests, failing public schools, teenagers unemployed by the minimum wage, agricultural subsidies that are starving millions of people in Africa & Latin America, health insurance nationalization that will result in people dying, and on and on and on?

easy there, jason. i'm not sure why you are making claims that i don't care about starving millions....or am i reading your post wrong? i am a voluntaryist. do my statements surprise you? i find it interesting that i say that your methods can be helpful at this point, and you respond with such an attack....yet i am not willing to work with you and your methods? again, i wonder if i am misunderstanding your response? i'm not here to fight with other pro-freedom activists. are you? i was simply trying to offer a little clarification on where i stand, and how it differs from where you yourself stand.

Maybe I misunderstand your point. I took this:
in the end, i am really not interested in even the most minuscule of governments. i just don't see the point.
to mean that you don't care whether government is big or small, oppressive or benign. You only care about abolishing government. Is that a misinterpretation?

my point is that government is oppressive regardless of its size, so it would be best if it did not exist. please explain how that justifies your attack.

I thought you were siding with the extremist POV that anarchists shouldn't lift a finger to help us end prohibition, privatize schooling, deregulate health insurance, reduce taxes & spending, etc., b/c all you're interested in is abolishing the state. If that's not what you meant, I apologize.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 09, 2010, 08:38:20 am
Victorian Britain was far freer than the US ever was, perhaps the freest industrial society in history, and slavery and mercantilism were abolished through the legislative process there.

Ah, yes, Victorian Britain, where people were so free that table cloths reached the floor, lest some young man be driven to sexual delirium by glimpsing a piece of wood that might suggest a female ankle. (Okay, to be fair, those were social mores, not legislated morality.)

Yes, Britannia under VR abolished slavery and mercantilism through legislation. America would have as well, if not for that militaristic asshole from Illinois.

And then, within three decades after Mrs. Brown's rule, the freedom-loving spirit of Britain, "through the legislative process", changed from a society where everyone was armed with a pistol or revolver and violent crime was almost unheard of (aberrations like Jack the Ripper dominated headlines because they were aberrations), into one where the populous were disarmed by law, and crime began a steady growth culminating in today's uncontrolled violence, where criminals carry machine guns and law-abiding citizens grind the points off their kitchen knives.

Yep. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Argentum on July 09, 2010, 09:22:22 am
Same thing's true about the knife repeal.  Most people don't carry switchblades and have never wanted to.  So?

FYI, it's not just switchblades.  I was amazed how many folks were technically breaking the law with things like machetes in their car, carrying blades too long/narrow to be legal etc.  They were _unintentionally_ breaking the law, and potentially subject to arrest/fines at any moment a cop decided to enforce that particular law.  They weren't being arrested/fined, but they could have been.

That is the current state of your 420s, etc.  You might not be arrested/fined, but you could be.  Yes, it's nice that you aren't, it's nice that the cops are leaving you alone, but give them a slow night, some pressure from someone (on any side), etc, and it all falls apart like a house of cards.

The point of changing the law is to prevent the men with guns from bothering you.  It's nice that you wish they didn't exist at all, it's nice that they are leaving you alone.  Those of us who are working within the system are seeking to _do_ something concrete and more permanent about this situation, so it's very frustrated to us when you put us down, tell us how immoral we are, work against our efforts, etc etc.


As I mentioned elsewhere (maybe even on this thread), this anarchist does not think voting or holding office is inherently immoral.  My only qualification would be that the office-holder must only support repeal of laws and/or reductions in government power.

There are those anarchists who believe that any sanction of the system is immoral.  While I respect their view, I don't share it.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FreeStyle on July 09, 2010, 09:27:42 am
There are those anarchists who believe that any sanction of the system is immoral.  While I respect their view, I don't share it.

thanks, that's quite level headed and I agree.  Thanks for bringing a bit of sanity back to this thread.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: lobstah on July 09, 2010, 10:32:03 am
Jason -

No, I do not advocate that type of thinking. In fact, if I could press a button right now that would immediately eliminate the nh state government, I do not think that I would press it. Although my end goal is, without a doubt, a society without government, I do think that it needs to be a process, an evolution of the human mind. I think that the most important thing we can do at this point is to educate people and help them to understand why it is in their best interest to live without the moral and intillectual restraints of government. Ultimately, people will act upon their own best interests. Because of this, we cannot hope to truly achieve liberty until people actually want it. What good is opening the cage when the content slaves within will only resent us for it? They have to understand that they are slaves and that it is better to be free. This is why I don't have a problem with those who crawl into the cage (so to speak) and work with the captives in their own corrupt system. Unfortunately, I do see it as a necessary part of the process. Now having said that, I strongly believe tha WAY too much energy and money is wasted on supporting politicians who aren't really pro-liberty (pretty much all of them). I believe that we would do better to focus more on holding these politicians accountable for their actions, and encouraging others to do the same by showing them how more freedom would benefit them. In the long run, I see very little good that can come from showing the world that evil is ok as long as it is compared to a greater evil.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FTL_Ian on July 09, 2010, 10:47:14 am
The point of changing the law is to prevent the men with guns from bothering you.  It's nice that you wish they didn't exist at all, it's nice that they are leaving you alone.  Those of us who are working within the system are seeking to _do_ something concrete and more permanent about this situation, so it's very frustrated to us when you put us down, tell us how immoral we are, work against our efforts, etc etc.


Please cite where I did any of those things.  Unless by "you" you mean some collective mass.  I have done politics and will continue to do them as long as the politicos don't put me down and treat me like shit, which most of them don't.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: "Hagrid" on July 09, 2010, 11:14:20 am
The point of changing the law is to prevent the men with guns from bothering you.  It's nice that you wish they didn't exist at all, it's nice that they are leaving you alone.  Those of us who are working within the system are seeking to _do_ something concrete and more permanent about this situation, so it's very frustrated to us when you put us down, tell us how immoral we are, work against our efforts, etc etc.


Please cite where I did any of those things.  Unless by "you" you mean some collective mass.  I have done politics and will continue to do them as long as the politicos don't put me down and treat me like shit, which most of them don't.

Since you aren't the only one at 420/nightcap events, I thought the 'you' was clear there as the collective you.  Ian, My apologies if you felt I was singling you out in any way... And as the previous posters show, there is a range of 'anarchist' views, from those who are willing to vote and be politically active (Denis being a great example of someone who self-identifies as a political anarchist), to those who condemn it and swear at it (Catherine Bliesh, at Soapbox Idol, winning with her 'fuck politics' rant being a great example).

No, not all anarchists are doing the above things I mention as frustrating, just like No not all politicos are working for good... but please don't deny that the above happens, and sadly it happens often, it's a real problem, and it's been a long standing problem with the liberty community.  Since way before the FSP was a gleam in Jason's eye.  The LP history is rife with examples of this struggle between politicos and anarchists, to the total detriment of the party as a success.  The real question: will the FSP be any different?
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Stoker on July 09, 2010, 11:41:09 am
And as the previous posters show, there is a range of 'anarchist' views, from those who are willing to vote and be politically active (Denis being a great example of someone who self-identifies as a political anarchist), to those who condemn it and swear at it (Catherine Bliesh, at Soapbox Idol, winning with her 'fuck politics' rant being a great example).

No, not all anarchists are doing the above things I mention as frustrating, just like No not all politicos are working for good... but please don't deny that the above happens, and sadly it happens often, it's a real problem, and it's been a long standing problem with the liberty community.  Since way before the FSP was a gleam in Jason's eye.  The LP history is rife with examples of this struggle between politicos and anarchists, to the total detriment of the party as a success.  The real question: will the FSP be any different?


"Political Anarchist"? Surely you must be joking or do you believe this DoubleThink? Perhaps you do , as you not only point to "Political Anarchy" but also cite a Politician winning on the "Fuck Politics" platform. These things are mutually exclusive and absurd, like painting a Peace Sign on a Bomb or putting an "Earth First" sticker on an automobile. Politics is the OPPOSITE of Anarchy regardless of what "platform" you use to run for office with. Anarchy is Anarchy. War is War. Politics is Politics. What label you choose to put on something is irrelevant, it doesn't change what is in the breadwrapper folks.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: "Hagrid" on July 09, 2010, 11:48:22 am
"Political Anarchist"? Surely you must be joking or do you believe this DoubleThink? Perhaps you do , as you not only point to "Political Anarchy" but also cite a Politician winning on the "Fuck Politics" platform.

Denis will be shocked to learn that he's been Doublethought (grin), and Catherine will be shocked to learn that she's a Politician.

Quote
These things are mutually exclusive and absurd, like painting a Peace Sign on a Bomb or putting an "Earth First" sticker on an automobile. Politics is the OPPOSITE of Anarchy regardless of what "platform" you use to run for office with. Anarchy is Anarchy. War is War. Politics is Politics. What label you choose to put on something is irrelevant, it doesn't change what is in the breadwrapper folks.

So to be clear: you self identify as someone opposed to politics and 'political' action.  So if I am working for political activism, are you going to work against me?
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FreeStyle on July 09, 2010, 11:56:32 am
I'm opposed to grape jelly.  I only like blueberry jam.  I don't stand on the corner condemning grape jelly.  I don't go to the smuckers' headquarters and demand they stop.  Instead, I just enjoy my blueberry jam and spread the word about how easy it is to not eat grape jelly and offer a solution, eat blueberry jam instead.

or blueberry anything.  ahh blueberries.  My line in the sand is when they outlaw blueberries.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: "Hagrid" on July 09, 2010, 12:17:25 pm
I'm opposed to grape jelly.  I only like blueberry jam.  I don't stand on the corner condemning grape jelly.  I don't go to the smuckers' headquarters and demand they stop.  Instead, I just enjoy my blueberry jam and spread the word about how easy it is to not eat grape jelly and offer a solution, eat blueberry jam instead.

or blueberry anything.  ahh blueberries.  My line in the sand is when they outlaw blueberries.

flawed analogy.  To correct it, blueberries must already be illegal.  What now?
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Stoker on July 09, 2010, 12:28:48 pm
My post wasn't meant to "nitpick" about semantics or to label anyone. Sensible debate requires using the correct terminology. I said nothing about any personal political stance (or yours for that matter) whatsoever.


an·ar·chy
   /ˈænərki/
–noun
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

Anarchy is an absolute condition, like Dead and Pregnant. Just as you can't be "a little dead" or "a little pregnant", you can not have a"little bit of anarchy". You CAN however have "a little bit of politics", "a small amount of government", or, "a limited amount of law". The term "Political Anarchy" contradicts itself, resulting in the condition coined by Orwell as "DoubleThink", i.e. believing that something both exists and does not exist at the same time . The "War is Peace" message from Big Brother is  a good example of DoubleThink  from Orwells' 1984.


A Politician is someone who runs for an elected office. Therefore the person you cited as having successfully ran for an elected office on the "Fuck Politics" platform is another example of a contradictory term. If you run for office you are a  Politician, regardless of your stance on "Politics". If I run for Sheriff on a "Fuck the Police" platform and win, am I not a Policeman?

Words are all we have to work with in Discussion and Debate, and using the correct terms matters.





Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FreeStyle on July 09, 2010, 12:53:02 pm
I'm opposed to grape jelly.  I only like blueberry jam.  I don't stand on the corner condemning grape jelly.  I don't go to the smuckers' headquarters and demand they stop.  Instead, I just enjoy my blueberry jam and spread the word about how easy it is to not eat grape jelly and offer a solution, eat blueberry jam instead.

or blueberry anything.  ahh blueberries.  My line in the sand is when they outlaw blueberries.

flawed analogy.  To correct it, blueberries must already be illegal.  What now?

why do blueberries have to be illegal?  Perhaps just the act of making them into jam, possessing the jam, using the jam, and selling the jam.  I wasn't too concerned about what you perceive as a flawed analogy based on your idea that the blueberries have to be illegal.  Some people don't operate their lives based on what other people have deemed legal or illegal.  Some people just know that grape jelly and blueberry jam cause aggression against no one.

even if blueberries were illegal, nothing changes.  You can still fight so that others have to have the choice, or you can continue to do nothing wrong by eating blueberry jam.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Stoker on July 09, 2010, 12:59:26 pm
Some people just know that grape jelly and blueberry jam cause aggression against no one.
* Unless of course you smear Grape Jelly and/or Blueberry Jam on someone and chain them to a tree next to a bears den. Also keep in mind that the Cranberry, Rhubarb, and Strawberry advocates could become violent when confronted with a conspiracy involving "the Blue Fruits".
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Uncle Walt on July 09, 2010, 01:48:23 pm
Some people just know that grape jelly and blueberry jam cause aggression against no one.
* Unless of course you smear Grape Jelly and/or Blueberry Jam on someone and chain them to a tree next to a bears den. Also keep in mind that the Cranberry, Rhubarb, and Strawberry advocates could become violent when confronted with a conspiracy involving "the Blue Fruits".

Even so .. the jam is not the cause of the aggression.  Merely a tool of the aggressor.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: freedomroad on July 09, 2010, 01:52:17 pm
"Political Anarchist"?

Sure.  Back when I lived in TN, about half the people that attended the local LP meeting were anarchist.  You see, anarchy may be an ideology.  It doesn't have to be a way of life.  There are liberal Republicans and libertarian Democrats.  There are also plenty of anarchists that vote, or even run for office.  I've known them to run as Independents, Libertarians and even Democrats.  Some of them likely run as Republicans.  Sure, it may not be common, but anarchists in general aren't common so that isn't saying much.

I'll bring up an example of someone you have heard of, Ian Freeman.  He is a V, not an anarchist, though he used to be an anarchist.  Either way, he was and is still political.  He encourages others to run for office, helps them campaign and so on.  He even testifies in front of committees and contacts the state representatives in the district where he lives. Of course, he, like many anarchists, has voted.

Maybe you are new to the ideas of FSP.  Please stay around.  Lots of interesting stuff is happening here.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Stoker on July 09, 2010, 02:06:36 pm
"Political Anarchist"?

 There are also plenty of anarchists that vote, or even run for office.  I've known them to run as Independents, Libertarians and even Democrats.  Some of them likely run as Republicans.  Sure, it may not be common, but anarchists in general aren't common so that isn't saying much.

I'll bring up an example of someone you have heard of, Ian Freeman.  He is a V, not an anarchist, though he used to be an anarchist.  Either way, he was and is still political.  He encourages others to run for office, helps them campaign and so on.  He even testifies in front of committees and contacts the state representatives in the district where he lives. Of course, he, like many anarchists, has voted.

Maybe you are new to the ideas of FSP.  Please stay around.  Lots of interesting stuff is happening here.
What you are alluding to are examples of people who have have quasi-anarchistic idealogies , but again, if you are part of the governmental process you are not an Anarchist. If you vote or especially if you actually run for office- you are a de-facto part of an organized governmental process and therefore not Anarchist in principle or action. The only way to be an Anarchist is to not participate in any type of organized rule over others. I am personally not a proponent of true Anarchy, just pointing out misnomers that are commonly associated with the term "Anarchy".
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: greap on July 09, 2010, 02:09:58 pm
Some people just know that grape jelly and blueberry jam cause aggression against no one.
* Unless of course you smear Grape Jelly and/or Blueberry Jam on someone and chain them to a tree next to a bears den. Also keep in mind that the Cranberry, Rhubarb, and Strawberry advocates could become violent when confronted with a conspiracy involving "the Blue Fruits".

Oranges and elephants would be far funnier though.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: freedomroad on July 09, 2010, 03:09:51 pm
"Political Anarchist"?

 There are also plenty of anarchists that vote, or even run for office.  I've known them to run as Independents, Libertarians and even Democrats.  Some of them likely run as Republicans.  Sure, it may not be common, but anarchists in general aren't common so that isn't saying much.

I'll bring up an example of someone you have heard of, Ian Freeman.  He is a V, not an anarchist, though he used to be an anarchist.  Either way, he was and is still political.  He encourages others to run for office, helps them campaign and so on.  He even testifies in front of committees and contacts the state representatives in the district where he lives. Of course, he, like many anarchists, has voted.

Maybe you are new to the ideas of FSP.  Please stay around.  Lots of interesting stuff is happening here.
What you are alluding to are examples of people who have have quasi-anarchistic idealogies , but again, if you are part of the governmental process you are not an Anarchist. If you vote or especially if you actually run for office- you are a de-facto part of an organized governmental process and therefore not Anarchist in principle or action. The only way to be an Anarchist is to not participate in any type of organized rule over others. I am personally not a proponent of true Anarchy, just pointing out misnomers that are commonly associated with the term "Anarchy".

Again, to some people (most?) anarchy usually is an ideology, not a lifestyle.  I've noticed a few left anarchist that tend to view anarchy has more of a life style than ideology but most liberty based anarchist I know of tend to view anarchy as an ideology, just as they view libertarian, conservative, liberal, statist and so on as ideologies.  I guess if you still don't get what I'm saying, we are just splitting hairs.  We are just using words, and in the case of anarchy, an extremely controversial and misunderstood word, so it's possible we are using different meanings of the word, meanings that are common to different people.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: creaganlios on July 09, 2010, 04:18:57 pm
It's amazing how many people claim they know what the majority is thinking.  How did you glean this amazing knowledge?
Of course, you have nothing but your own personal experience to pull from, and that's as valid as mine.

Actually, that's a completely invalid conclusion.  Yes, you and I have personal experience to pull from, that does not make both valid.  I know people who swore from their personal experience and discussions that McCain was going to beat Obama....just as there were those who were sure that Obama was going to trounce McCain.

Well, guess what?  One observation was NOT as valid as the other.  I'll telll you this, mine comes from years of involvement in local organizations in NH (Pre FSP's birth).  Home Educators, PTAs, Businespeople, Dems, Reps, students, faculty, artists, Christians...LOTS of different groups...and the average age of those with whom I interact is higher than 25, bub...

I don't give a fuck what everyone else thinks. 

And that's the heart of the matter, isn't it?  Some of us actually CARE about how our actions affect Liberty in the Free State.

And some just don't give a fuck
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: freedomroad on July 09, 2010, 04:44:43 pm
I don't give a fuck what everyone else thinks.

That seems to be at the heart of many disagreements.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Stoker on July 09, 2010, 04:56:46 pm
The fact that someone would attempt to communicate his point of view to others in a public forum is proof that he DOES actually give a fuck what other people think, regardless of what he or she claims.

A saying I got from my father : "If someone says ""It's not about the Money"", you can bet your ass it is definitely ABOUT THE MONEY".
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Denis Goddard on July 09, 2010, 04:58:08 pm
We've had incredible success with the 420 celebrations, including a huge feature in Cannabis Culture as well as DRCNet coverage and more.
That is not liberty it is publicity.
[...] Publicity means more movers to Keene, meaning more activism, meaning more liberty down the line.

Sorry, this "plan" sounds awfully like a pyramid scheme to me.

Perhaps even a bit uncomfortably close to other Utopian schemes...
"We will have peace... after all nations are committed to a program of universal socialism."

Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: KBCraig on July 09, 2010, 10:29:43 pm
What you are alluding to are examples of people who have have quasi-anarchistic idealogies , but again, if you are part of the governmental process you are not an Anarchist.

Restricting how others may or may not --or must or must not-- define themselves is collectivism, which is definitely not anarchism.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: "Hagrid" on July 09, 2010, 10:31:23 pm
Sorry, this "plan" sounds awfully like a pyramid scheme to me.

Denis, sorry, you're just a doublethinker. (grin)
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Ed on July 09, 2010, 10:58:10 pm
Quote
Some of us actually CARE about how our actions affect Liberty in the Free State.

And some just don't give a fuck

that's what we call experienced-old-fogey pwnage
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FTL_Ian on July 09, 2010, 11:42:14 pm
The fact that someone would attempt to communicate his point of view to others in a public forum is proof that he DOES actually give a fuck what other people think, regardless of what he or she claims.

A saying I got from my father : "If someone says ""It's not about the Money"", you can bet your ass it is definitely ABOUT THE MONEY".

Very astute.  Clearly, I'd prefer to not be attacked by my peer group, so I defend myself.  That said, actions speak louder than words.  I continue to do the things I am being critiqued for, so while I am willing to defend my actions, it doesn't mean I really give a damn what the critics think.  Otherwise, I'd stop.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Sovereign Laissez-faire LeRoux on July 10, 2010, 08:05:54 am
Quote
Sorry, this "plan" sounds awfully like a pyramid scheme to me.

Thats bizarre. Its no more a "pyramid scheme" than any other political effort, i.e., voting. No change occurs without numbers.

Quote
Very astute.  Clearly, I'd prefer to not be attacked by my peer group, so I defend myself.  That said, actions speak louder than words.  I continue to do the things I am being critiqued for, so while I am willing to defend my actions, it doesn't mean I really give a damn what the critics think.  Otherwise, I'd stop.
I don't believe voting is moral because I don't want to sanction the system. But, I consider those trying to change the system by voting to be deluded allies, scratching at the surface of injustice. Now, when those people condemn those with the BALLS to disobey the unjust rules they themselves say they want to change, I pretty much figure they are morons or cops/attorneys.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FreedomFred on July 10, 2010, 12:01:31 pm
Quote
Sorry, this "plan" sounds awfully like a pyramid scheme to me.

Thats bizarre. Its no more a "pyramid scheme" than any other political effort, i.e., voting. No change occurs without numbers.

Quote
Very astute.  Clearly, I'd prefer to not be attacked by my peer group, so I defend myself.  That said, actions speak louder than words.  I continue to do the things I am being critiqued for, so while I am willing to defend my actions, it doesn't mean I really give a damn what the critics think.  Otherwise, I'd stop.
I don't believe voting is moral because I don't want to sanction the system. But, I consider those trying to change the system by voting to be deluded allies, scratching at the surface of injustice. Now, when those people condemn those with the BALLS to disobey the unjust rules they themselves say they want to change, I pretty much figure they are morons or cops/attorneys.


Voting is a joke. It is only a vehicle to quell the masses and to give them the illusion of choice. Look at Obama. Did it end the war voting for the "peace candidate?" Nope. Is Guantanamo Bay closed yet? Nope. Do we have less government? Nope. Did it get rid of the insane and needless Homeland Insecurity? Notta.

Instead, government will now be playing a greater role in what you do with your own bodies ("Universal Healthcare", which will be MANDATORY), T-ray body scanners which will render you, your spouse, and your children DIGITALLY NAKED whilst some pervert in a darkened room nearby watches, and perhaps even mandatory vaccinations. Yeah, Obama can keep the change!

The only way to bring about TRUE change is direct political activism. Taking to the streets, standing up at hearing in Concord, maybe some well-planned civil disobedience, and the like.

Besides, I have some moral objections to a system designed to give the majority the power to beat up on the minority! Centralized power sucks. We need to break up power into a more "fractalized" fashion:

http://fractopoly.com
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: rossby on July 10, 2010, 02:54:12 pm
Quote
Sorry, this "plan" sounds awfully like a pyramid scheme to me.

Thats bizarre. Its no more a "pyramid scheme" than any other political effort, i.e., voting. No change occurs without numbers.

Quote
Very astute.  Clearly, I'd prefer to not be attacked by my peer group, so I defend myself.  That said, actions speak louder than words.  I continue to do the things I am being critiqued for, so while I am willing to defend my actions, it doesn't mean I really give a damn what the critics think.  Otherwise, I'd stop.
I don't believe voting is moral because I don't want to sanction the system. But, I consider those trying to change the system by voting to be deluded allies, scratching at the surface of injustice. Now, when those people condemn those with the BALLS to disobey the unjust rules they themselves say they want to change, I pretty much figure they are morons or cops/attorneys.


Voting is a joke.

Generalizations can be funny too! ::)
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: KDus on July 10, 2010, 03:25:55 pm
Are there any FSP participants who are also active C4L members?
Apples and Oranges

Moving to NH and voting once will be more effective than years of C4L meetings and holding signs every Saturday.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: SamIam on July 10, 2010, 10:19:02 pm
Wow - Well reading this got me off the sidelines. :)

. . . We don't need people who think it's OK for . . .That's exactly the opposite of what we want, and exactly the kind of rent-seeking mentality we're fighting against.

the fact is that many people share your concerns.

Jason, on whose behalf are you speaking here? Sound's very collectivist. Seems to me the man drawing the largest crowds (excluding Ron Paul for obvious reasons) is Stefan. While I agree some activists could use more tact, it takes experience, learning and understanding. I'd ask you to take note of the "fighting" mentality present in your perspective as you read my responses. . .


After all, I was once an anarcho-capitalist who advocated what you suggest above, but at the time I was also a gradualist - better half a loaf than none, it's the only rational position. So we want to attract gradualists to the FSP

That's a Hobson's choice that doesn't acknowledge the infinite probabilities existing in the world. Notice the follow up statement the "only" choice. Totally false, It's the only rational choice from the limited options presented.

To advocate continuing prohibition in order to foster gray & black markets is to turn SEK3's philosophy upside down and backwards. It's like saying, "I'm going to join the CIA and torture more & more people until Americans get really hacked off at the CIA and maybe eventually decide to abolish torture!" It's nonsensical on its face and immoral to boot.

Maybe I missed something scanning through this, please forgive me if I did. Curtis didn't say he wanted to join a swat team to shoot peoples' dogs. Contributing to free markets strengthens them. Government intervention in peoples lives opens them up to a message they may have resisted previously because it affects them.

. . .I have to say - I can't think of a single law or government practice that has changed in NH because of civil disobedience. None. . . .

But the bottom line is that it's just inaccurate to claim that CD is accomplishing more in NH than legislative activism.

That's because the two forms of activism have very different methods of bringing about change. Political activism seeks to change the gang's laws so they threaten and initiate force less. Civil disobedience seeks to show people the gun in the room, the morality of one's beliefs and actions. It brings about long term change by expanding people's perspective in ways that encompass greater freedom. I have seen lot's of evidence that this is happening with people from all walks of life exposed to the activism centered in Keene.

How much aggression do you support as a mini-statist?
Ian, that question is just not constructive if you're talking to someone who already self-identifies as a libertarian.

I know you feel this was a valid and useful question for debate; indeed, it would be, if it were intended to enlighten 3rd parties (such as on the radio) -- at the expense of alienating the person to whom you are asking the question.

Denis how would you recommend explaining to politically minded individuals that the idea that government can protect the rights of the people by first taking them away? How does avoiding things like morals and principles honor lives destroyed by government? The reason it alienates people is because they want to pretend not to see the continuing harm caused by governments every single day.



Also, to not want to move to the Keene area simply because you're a politico would be foolish. 
Au contraire.
To be a politically active FSPer in Keene, you have two choices:
1) do not let it be known you are an FSPer
2) start out with the majority of the community biased against you, believing you are irresponsible and in no way representative of their morals or beliefs

Andy Carroll has a slight chance of winning -- he had the wisdom & inclination to be a Democrat in Keene, and he's doing all the right things in terms of volunteering in the community. He just has to not finish dead last in the primary -- which will be tough, given that people will, unfortunately and erroneously, associate him with the jackasses who were bullhorning Pumpkin Fest.  :'(

Is this the evidence that you want us to rely upon that government works? They are so open to ideas and dig deep to find the truth?

It's not that the cops ALMOST never hassle us @ the 4:20s, they NEVER hassle us.
There is video that contradicts this.
I think you mean, "the cops have decided not to bust any of us lately".

Also... I suspect you have no idea how close Keene was to having a lot less MJ prosecution, before the CDers came along and opened up a one-sided "conversation". Much damage was done.

Like Molly Kelly? The "honorable" senator who got on the radio and said she wanted to meet with constituents, then dodged my calls for weeks, met with the teachers union, and said weeks later on the radio that sorry she just didn't have any spots in her schedule. Sorry, the assurances of mostly dishonest people lacking moral character doesn't count for much with me. How many of them are excitedly talking about a solutions that eliminate government purview completely? All I hear are new regulation and tax schemes that grow government.

. . . Has Keene law enforcement actually changed its policies on general drug enforcement? If not, then the protests aren't having the desired effect yet. Maybe eventually they will, but it's premature to declare victory, wouldn't you say?

Sure, I have yet to have a single encounter with KPD that is even remotely close to the way they acted when I first arrived. Now they are courteous, they come up and talk to me, we have a discussion, they may actually be reading their statutes, and they have a very different attitude now that everyone is watching. They seem to be acting an awful lot more like peace officers lately.


Fair enough Seth.  Of course the exact same thing can be said of any political victory as well.  In CA, they won the right to get gay married, then that was taken away.  Wherever cannabis has had advancement in the govt's laws, there is always a push to bring back prohibition.  Look at Los Angeles banning hundreds of dispensaries.

Exactly, changing the laws is treating the symptoms of the disease - people's belief that government can effectively solve problems. While treating the symptoms can relieve suffering, it's correcting the root of the problem that will cure the patient.

On the scale of 1-10, where Jen's bill is a clear 9 or 10 for creating more liberty for 1.2+ million people in the State, from Westmoreland to Berlin, where would you like to self-rate your 4:20 victory?

I eagerly await hearing this answer.

I think the knife repeal is a great step forward. My question, how many people now understand why government regulating knives is an ineffective approach? Seth the moving the big rock analogy simply flies in the face of reality. One horror story of a guy attacking school children with a machete is all it would take to "move the big rock", again because political solutions mostly treat the symptoms in a knee jerk - run out in front of the parade - political response, rather than cure the disease.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: SamIam on July 10, 2010, 10:21:22 pm
Victorian Britain was far freer than the US ever was, perhaps the freest industrial society in history, and slavery and mercantilism were abolished through the legislative process there. Hong Kong. Switzerland. New Zealand's reforms in the 80s were great - although they've backslidden some. The Isle of Man, Cayman Islands, & many other micro-states and quasi-states are extremely low-tax jurisdictions. Drug tolerance happened peacefully in the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Portugal.

Sorry Jason, this is BULL-SHIT! Slavery was abolished by Quakers who reached out to the masses. They talked about the horrors of slavery; they organized boycotts; they popularized "free trade" for sugar; they showed people the products used to trade for human beings; they built a model of a slave ship so people could see the 4ft high decks slaves were crammed into; They shared stories of slaves jumping off the ship to drown out of fear; they got former slaves to give first hand accounts.

It was the politicians who were resistant to change, because many of them were absentee plantation owners and investors in shipping companies who were benefiting (so they believed) from the slave trade. It was the quakers who educated the people, expanded their perspective and changed the culture in a way that shamed the politicians into doing the right thing.

That is what freed the slaves. Long term change comes about by elevating people's understanding of the world around them.

Id suggest Bury the Chains:
http://www.amazon.com/Bury-Chains-Prophets-Rebels-Empires/dp/0618104690


Yep. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

So "Freedom is not Free?" Is indifference the only thing I'm not free to have in your "free" society where government is running things? Sorry, I don't buy that.

We've had incredible success with the 420 celebrations, including a huge feature in Cannabis Culture as well as DRCNet coverage and more.
That is not liberty it is publicity.
[...] Publicity means more movers to Keene, meaning more activism, meaning more liberty down the line.

Sorry, this "plan" sounds awfully like a pyramid scheme to me.

Perhaps even a bit uncomfortably close to other Utopian schemes...
"We will have peace... after all nations are committed to a program of universal socialism."

Pyramid Scheme? Denis, come on! More people means larger events, more locals hearing our views, more people understanding and choosing freedom. The state exists because most people believe in and fund it. Change peoples beliefs about the world around them, and it will change the world. Reality is simply a reflection of our collective beliefs about reality.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: rossby on July 10, 2010, 11:26:47 pm
Are there any FSP participants who are also active C4L members?
Apples and Oranges

Moving to NH and voting once will be more effective than years of C4L meetings and holding signs every Saturday.

C4L is pretty much a useless money sink. Ironic...
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: artienewport on July 11, 2010, 12:02:10 am
Are there any FSP participants who are also active C4L members?
Apples and Oranges

Moving to NH and voting once will be more effective than years of C4L meetings and holding signs every Saturday.

C4L is pretty much a useless money sink. Ironic...

I get exercise by tearing up their junk mail.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: "Hagrid" on July 11, 2010, 01:57:09 am
Fair enough Seth.  Of course the exact same thing can be said of any political victory as well.  In CA, they won the right to get gay married, then that was taken away.  Wherever cannabis has had advancement in the govt's laws, there is always a push to bring back prohibition.  Look at Los Angeles banning hundreds of dispensaries.

Exactly, changing the laws is treating the symptoms of the disease - people's belief that government can effectively solve problems. While treating the symptoms can relieve suffering, it's correcting the root of the problem that will cure the patient.

I'll contend that the current state of 420s (to be fair and only address Ian's own topic), is FAR from either 'cure' or 'symptom treating', it neither stops them from bothering you (the police can at any time, if they haven't), nor does it educates the people, it merely shows that 'they' (the powers that be) tolerate it until they won't.

Quote
On the scale of 1-10, where Jen's bill is a clear 9 or 10 for creating more liberty for 1.2+ million people in the State, from Westmoreland to Berlin, where would you like to self-rate your 4:20 victory?

I eagerly await hearing this answer.

I think the knife repeal is a great step forward. My question, how many people now understand why government regulating knives is an ineffective approach?

But it's NOT ineffective, it was one more tool in their arsenal, another in a long list of laws everyone violated without knowing they were doing it, so that they were outlaws by default.  Some want it that way.
If you meant that the laws were ineffective, you entirely missed the reason they were still on the books.  Nobody expected them to arrest scottish highlanders for their dirks... but they could have, if they'd wanted to.

Quote
Seth the moving the big rock analogy simply flies in the face of reality. One horror story of a guy attacking school children with a machete is all it would take to "move the big rock", again because political solutions mostly treat the symptoms in a knee jerk - run out in front of the parade - political response, rather than cure the disease.

A guy who attacks school children with a machete won't easily cause them to succeed in getting a machete ban, because he's _already_ breaking the law, and if we have some elected officials who are skittish enough to try and ban machetes, that is because folks like you and me are letting those skittish folks run things rather than doing our part in bringing sanity to the system.  You see insanity, and think it's impossible to make sane, so kill the patient.  I see insanity and want to treat it, because the patient is far from dying.

In fact, given that rumors are that some in Keene are considering banning toplessness, despite that it's already legal here in NH, you are the ones playing with machetes and are going to only prove how easy it is to _let_ skittish folks run things into the ground.
You, being against government, see that as a validation of your beliefs.  I see that as proof some of your activism is backfiring and causing _less_ liberty...


Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 11, 2010, 06:55:13 am
Victorian Britain was far freer than the US ever was, perhaps the freest industrial society in history, and slavery and mercantilism were abolished through the legislative process there. Hong Kong. Switzerland. New Zealand's reforms in the 80s were great - although they've backslidden some. The Isle of Man, Cayman Islands, & many other micro-states and quasi-states are extremely low-tax jurisdictions. Drug tolerance happened peacefully in the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Portugal.

Sorry Jason, this is BULL-SHIT! Slavery was abolished by Quakers who reached out to the masses. They talked about the horrors of slavery; they organized boycotts; they popularized "free trade" for sugar; they showed people the products used to trade for human beings; they built a model of a slave ship so people could see the 4ft high decks slaves were crammed into; They shared stories of slaves jumping off the ship to drown out of fear; they got former slaves to give first hand accounts.

It was the politicians who were resistant to change, because many of them were absentee plantation owners and investors in shipping companies who were benefiting (so they believed) from the slave trade. It was the quakers who educated the people, expanded their perspective and changed the culture in a way that shamed the politicians into doing the right thing.

That is what freed the slaves. Long term change comes about by elevating people's understanding of the world around them.

That's a good example of how education & political action can go hand in hand. You need both.

Quote
Yep. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

So "Freedom is not Free?" Is indifference the only thing I'm not free to have in your "free" society where government is running things? Sorry, I don't buy that.

Huh?
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FreeStyle on July 11, 2010, 07:56:21 am
glad to see that most of what Sam said can't be argued against very well.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: artienewport on July 11, 2010, 08:43:07 am
Fair enough Seth.  Of course the exact same thing can be said of any political victory as well.  In CA, they won the right to get gay married, then that was taken away.  Wherever cannabis has had advancement in the govt's laws, there is always a push to bring back prohibition.  Look at Los Angeles banning hundreds of dispensaries.

Exactly, changing the laws is treating the symptoms of the disease - people's belief that government can effectively solve problems. While treating the symptoms can relieve suffering, it's correcting the root of the problem that will cure the patient.

I'll contend that the current state of 420s (to be fair and only address Ian's own topic), is FAR from either 'cure' or 'symptom treating', it neither stops them from bothering you (the police can at any time, if they haven't), nor does it educates the people, it merely shows that 'they' (the powers that be) tolerate it until they won't.

They tolerate it because it's bad publicity and lots of protesting on the part of Free Keener's for the police department if they enforce the law.

I guess you think that's SOOOO BAD OMG though. Maybe you could have gotten the same effect working 10 years within the system. Maybe.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Stoker on July 11, 2010, 08:48:48 am

 Slavery was abolished by Quakers who reached out to the masses. They talked about the horrors of slavery; they organized boycotts; they popularized "free trade" for sugar; they showed people the products used to trade for human beings; they built a model of a slave ship so people could see the 4ft high decks slaves were crammed into; They shared stories of slaves jumping off the ship to drown out of fear; they got former slaves to give first hand accounts.

It was the politicians who were resistant to change, because many of them were absentee plantation owners and investors in shipping companies who were benefiting (so they believed) from the slave trade. It was the quakers who educated the people, expanded their perspective and changed the culture in a way that shamed the politicians into doing the right thing.

That is what freed the slaves. Long term change comes about by elevating people's understanding of the world around them.

Id suggest Bury the Chains:
http://www.amazon.com/Bury-Chains-Prophets-Rebels-Empires/dp/0618104690


Yep. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

So "Freedom is not Free?" Is indifference the only thing I'm not free to have in your "free" society where government is running things? Sorry, I don't buy that.


And unfortunately, after the Quakers set up a relatively free society, it was replaced with one of institutionalized tyranny *with window dressing and lots of fancy wording to make the masses believe otherwise.

Contrary to what is crammed down every US citizens throat in the indoctrination and conformity factories (mislabeled as "schools"), Slavery was NOT "abolished" in America, it has always been here. The 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America actually officially legalizes slavery and sets about the exact terms of its' implementation, exactly the opposite of what most Americans honestly believe:

Amendment 13

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

What this Amendment does is to remove the right to enslave from the individual, and firmly makes it part of the Governments toolkit. Slavery is Slavery whether an individual or a group does it (even if it's for a "good" reason), saying it was ABOLISHED is a complete lie. Slavery is illegal *EXCEPT, it is not. They beat Orwell to the punch with some fancy DoubleThink. ;)

This Amendment (along with all the others and the Constitution itself) is intentionally misleading and ambiguous. That which is wanted to be believed (the opposite of the actual legal meaning) is introduced as a negative : "Neither slaver NOR involuntary servitude" This is a common Con strategy, and is employed in nearly all ballot proposals today. It is a fact that many (most?) voters actually choose the opposite of what they desire when selecting ballot proposals because of this type of Con strategy.

From a legal standpoint the 13th amendment reads thus:

Slavery and involuntary servitude shall exist in the United States and any place under Congress' jurisdiction (* Now officially defined as EVERYWHERE on Earth in the "patriot act")and shall be  enforced solely  by Congress by appropriate legislation (what is appropriate is also defined by themselves) as a punishment for  a "crime" (* and what is a crime is also defined by Congress) whereof the party shall have been duly convicted (* The "patriot act" officially decrees that this is no longer necessary)

Boiled down even further removing doublespeak and including the "updates" in the powers of Congress and the entire Government in recent years it reads thus:

"Slavery and involuntary servitude shall exist everywhere on Earth, including in the United States, and and shall be  enforced  by Congress or the President, as a punishment by decreeing that someone has committed a crime."
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: creaganlios on July 11, 2010, 10:15:59 am
I htink you're being extreme, silly, and marginalizing yourself...it reminds me of the Hal Lindsay disciples of the 80s who KNEW based on specific words and phrases that the End Was Imminent.

I would take your arguement and turn it on its head:  That amendment specifically opens the way for Bondservice to replace Incarceration as a fit response to conviction for a crime, and from that perspective, advances liberty.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Stoker on July 11, 2010, 10:30:40 am
I htink you're being extreme, silly,

This is exactly what the Government wants you to think, and is the primary reason they can do any fucking thing they please and tell you that the opposite of what they are doing is true.

Have another Sugar Coated Dogturd, the Government says it is a Candybar! MMMM! Tasty! Can I have another PLEASE!?!?
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 11, 2010, 10:37:29 am
Bondservice as restitution makes sense to me. Also, consider the victims of a truly serious crime such as rape or murder. The victims of these crimes are not just the people against whom violence was actually committed, but virtually all local residents, who fear that such things might happen to them & therefore have to take precautions. So for building and repairing roads & other public duties, I see no reason why we shouldn't make serious criminals pay restitution to all their victims by assisting productively.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Ed on July 11, 2010, 10:40:25 am
yeah... - all you're saying is that the government legally has the right to imprison people and put them to work if they commit a crime. That, by itself, doesn't really scare me, or most other people.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: "Hagrid" on July 11, 2010, 10:50:59 am
They tolerate it because it's bad publicity and lots of protesting on the part of Free Keener's for the police department if they enforce the law.

I guess you think that's SOOOO BAD OMG though. Maybe you could have gotten the same effect working 10 years within the system. Maybe.

No, I see that as a bandaid over the wound, which can ripped off, not a cure...  And whether you care to admit it or not, Matt's near singlehanded political activism in a scant 2-3 years has made huge strides in legalizing MJ. (Props to all who have helped him especially the folks who do grunt work that goes unnoticed, there are some, and I don't want to ignore them, but I also know that he's certainly not saturated with volunteers and would welcome more)  If half of the folks who went to 420s were helping within the system these past 2-3 years, it might already be legal, for everyone, not unenforced in a Central Square in Keene.  Broken windows, dude.  You have no idea what your actions might have cost the community, since you chose to take the actions you did.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: SamIam on July 11, 2010, 12:04:41 pm
I'll contend that the current state of 420s (to be fair and only address Ian's own topic), is FAR from either 'cure' or 'symptom treating', it neither stops them from bothering you (the police can at any time, if they haven't), nor does it educates the people, it merely shows that 'they' (the powers that be) tolerate it until they won't.

I agree, the 420's are several magnitudes less effective than they were initially. However, we were out with about 10 people, when two middle aged people wandered up. They were on vacation from MA, and couldn't believe what they stumbled upon. While they may not reach the masses, you never know the difference one person can make.

What the 420's did show that I don't see you acknowledging, is in large numbers, the police/government will have no choice but to back down. Mass CD works.


But it's NOT ineffective, it was one more tool in their arsenal, another in a long list of laws everyone violated without knowing they were doing it, so that they were outlaws by default.  Some want it that way.
If you meant that the laws were ineffective, you entirely missed the reason they were still on the books.  Nobody expected them to arrest scottish highlanders for their dirks... but they could have, if they'd wanted to.

I completely agree.


A guy who attacks school children with a machete won't easily cause them to succeed in getting a machete ban, because he's _already_ breaking the law, and if we have some elected officials who are skittish enough to try and ban machetes, that is because folks like you and me are letting those skittish folks run things rather than doing our part in bringing sanity to the system.  You see insanity, and think it's impossible to make sane, so kill the patient.  I see insanity and want to treat it, because the patient is far from dying.

In fact, given that rumors are that some in Keene are considering banning toplessness, despite that it's already legal here in NH, you are the ones playing with machetes and are going to only prove how easy it is to _let_ skittish folks run things into the ground.
You, being against government, see that as a validation of your beliefs.  I see that as proof some of your activism is backfiring and causing _less_ liberty...

I'm saying the way to bring about lasting change is to expand peoples understanding. Changing the law alone treats the symptom, leaving the patient ignorant of his or her unhealthy life choices.

Without people understanding why knife freedom is a good idea, I think ti runs the risk of backfiring. In the event of a tragedy involving knives, the politicians will jump on it to say, See! Freedom doesn't work! Then they use the crisis to impose even greater restrictions.

There will always be busy bodies who want to run around screaming the sky is falling because of x. I'm focusing on the masses in order to educate them by first getting them to question their paradigm.

That's a good example of how education & political action can go hand in hand. You need both.

I have always believed the varying approaches working together will have a much greater impact than any single method alone. That's why I moved to NH.

Yep. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Quote
So "Freedom is not Free?" Is indifference the only thing I'm not free to have in your "free" society where government is running things? Sorry, I don't buy that.

Huh?

"The price of Freedom" - Freedom costs something according to that quote. In order to have freedom, I must pay something (eternal vigilance), which means I can't be indifferent to their system of government. So Freedom is not free, as I hear from so many statists, and under their system, they are right. Without people constantly fighting for freedom, the control freaks in government will continue to abuse the power people grant them. The ultimate solution is to eliminate "the system" that requires eternal vigilance, and choose something that allows true freedom. Hopefully that makes sense.

On the having criminals fix the roads, that doesn't take into account the individuals abilities and resources. What if a guy who owns a road construction company committed a crime. Would you have him do manual labor over donating his road repair entity's service in honor of his victim? Restitution over punitive punishment is the ultimate answer.





Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Stoker on July 11, 2010, 12:23:26 pm
Bondservice as restitution makes sense to me. Also, consider the victims of a truly serious crime such as rape or murder. The victims of these crimes are not just the people against whom violence was actually committed, but virtually all local residents, who fear that such things might happen to them & therefore have to take precautions. So for building and repairing roads & other public duties, I see no reason why we shouldn't make serious criminals pay restitution to all their victims by assisting productively.

yeah... - all you're saying is that the government legally has the right to imprison people and put them to work if they commit a crime. That, by itself, doesn't really scare me, or most other people.

I am not saying anything- the Government is, I was clarifying the intentional ambiguity and misleading nature of this law written by them.

So you think it is perfectly ok for the Government to enslave you for committing a "crime"??? Oh how the Hypocrisy Cup do runneth over!!

Here are some examples for you to "put in your pipe and smoke":

 Possession of Marijuana is classified by Federal Law as a FELONY ,(The most serious of crimes) and conviction thereof allows the United States Government to ENSLAVE you, forcing you to do such things as break rocks with a fucking sledgehammer to construct roads.

The President can label ANYONE on the planet(Including of course US citizens, this means YOU) a "Terrorist", obviously an atrocious crime, without having ANY proof, requiring a trial, or even charging you. If he decrees that you are a Terrorist, you are GUILTY, and obviously then eligible to be enslaved to break rocks for roads in your "FreeState", in between your "legal" TORTURE sessions.

There are currently Bills before Congress that will make posting in THIS FORUM a CRIME.They are even considering making "Anti-Government" writing a crime RETROACTIVELY! Better get fitted for your striped pajamas and Ankle Ball right now....

The 13th Amendment states that you can be enslaved for ANY crime, not just a serious one (even if it did- THEY would decide what is "serious"). Do you think your Mother or Sister or YOU should be enslaved for Jaywalking, parking violations or tearing the tags off of your mattress!?!? Maybe you should be sent to whatever country it is that we are attacking this week and put you all to work clearing Landmines!(Also perfectly "legal" according to this law of which you so glowingly approve)

What a bunch of Freedom oriented folks you are!! I don't think I want to live in YOUR "FreeState ". Old Sherrif Joe here in AZ looks like fucking Ghandi compared to what you two approve of.

P.S. A bit of Synchronicity: I just turned on the Tube and what is on?  Cool Hand Luke.........
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Uncle Walt on July 11, 2010, 02:14:55 pm
The ultimate solution is to eliminate "the system" that requires eternal vigilance, and choose something that allows true freedom. Hopefully that makes sense.


That's a misleading "solution", though. 
You would still have to maintain vigilance against somebody recreating "the system".
Or vigilance against those who would use the lack of a "system" to try setting themselves up as one.
Not to mention vigilance against those who would take what you have.

Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Ed on July 11, 2010, 02:47:16 pm
Quote
So you think it is perfectly ok for the Government to enslave you for committing a "crime" Oh how the Hypocrisy Cup do runneth over!!

Hypocrisy? Where was I being hypocritical? Did I ever say I didn't believe that?
Yeah I think it's perfectly fine that the government can arrest, imprison, and put to work criminals. It doesn't bother me that this happens to thieves, rapists and murderers. It's perfectly acceptable to put them in prison and make them work.

That other things are crimes, such as using certain drugs, or other "victimless crimes", are illegal, and that those activities affect the public or any other person negatively only in a very vague sense, and thus merit being classified as crimes a lot less, if at all, and that there are very serious repercussions to our society that we have these policies, is a different matter entirely. Well not entirely, but it's a different subject.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: "Hagrid" on July 11, 2010, 03:27:40 pm
What the 420's did show that I don't see you acknowledging, is in large numbers, the police/government will have no choice but to back down. Mass CD works.

Um, I don't acknowledge that.  You merely haven't experienced anything else up till now.  Your successes are merely small minor skimishes with a force that should it decide to, based on the judgement calls of a few, can and will lock up the contents of an entire park, detain an entire bar, or set up roadblocks and search and harrass folks they wish to.

The closest we've come, in one sense, is the Brown situation.  Yes, the police held up, until things cooled down, and then struck.
the net result was more people in jail (some for years), than would have been the case without the mass support.

Mass CD works only if the community support you.  If the community doesn't, calling in swat teams, plastic bullets, wrist straps, tear gas, etc, will happen sooner or later.  This isn't speculation, it's worldwide reality.  We can make a long long list of this happening, from the LA Riots to Waco and everything in between.

Quote
I'm saying the way to bring about lasting change is to expand peoples understanding. Changing the law alone treats the symptom, leaving the patient ignorant of his or her unhealthy life choices.

And I agree with you here.  Education is a goal regardless of the methods.

Quote
Without people understanding why knife freedom is a good idea, I think ti runs the risk of backfiring. In the event of a tragedy involving knives, the politicians will jump on it to say, See! Freedom doesn't work! Then they use the crisis to impose even greater restrictions.

There will always be busy bodies who want to run around screaming the sky is falling because of x. I'm focusing on the masses in order to educate them by first getting them to question their paradigm.

The above will happen _anytime_ the majority of decision makers are uneducated.  "So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause."

You have more faith in the masses, and I have more faith in educating a scant few thousands who actually drive political actions, and hopefully replacing the ones who scream the loudest about the sky falling.

Quote
I have always believed the varying approaches working together will have a much greater impact than any single method alone. That's why I moved to NH.

So you wouldn't consider yourself who thinks of political action as immoral?  Judging someone you think you are working together with as immoral is a recipe for disaster.

Quote
The ultimate solution is to eliminate "the system" that requires eternal vigilance, and choose something that allows true freedom. Hopefully that makes sense.

A nice goal... but quite hard to achieve.  And I think impossible without those of us working within the system to make changes.

Quote
On the having criminals fix the roads, that doesn't take into account the individuals abilities and resources. What if a guy who owns a road construction company committed a crime. Would you have him do manual labor over donating his road repair entity's service in honor of his victim? Restitution over punitive punishment is the ultimate answer.

Would you trust a doctor who committed crimes to provide your health care, with him as a slave?

I'm wary of the entire slave thing myself, frankly.  Restitution is nice, but also tricky to acheive, but I agree, likely a better choice.





[/quote]
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Stoker on July 11, 2010, 03:55:30 pm
yeah... - all you're saying is that the government legally has the right to imprison people and put them to work if they commit a crime. That, by itself, doesn't really scare me, or most other people.

Your comment about my dissertation on the 13th amendment was not directly hypocritical and I should not have grouped you in with JPS and I sincerely apologize for doing so. My post was primarily intended as a response to JPS' comments, which are directly hypocritical. Your comments in the post demanding an explanation of why I labeled a hypocrite does in fact argue that Enslavement is OK for others ("criminals") and that you of course should be exempt from this treatment. A point  I had made about the "legality" of Enslavement was the fact that this can now be applied to anybody, simply decreeing that they are a "terrorist" for instance, which means that we are all subject to Enslavement without actually having committed a crime at all. Stating that Enslavement is just fine for somebody convicted of a "crime" regardless of whether it is just or not (or if this person is wrongly convicted of a crime) and that you are exempt (even though you are not) is in fact hypocritical.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Ed on July 11, 2010, 04:11:19 pm
A) again - What? I seriously can't understand the way you write

B) I did say that there is an issue that things have been legislated to be crimes that shouldn't be. That's a separate issue. The government being able to arrest and imprison criminals in general, well I see that as pretty god damned important.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Stoker on July 11, 2010, 04:48:31 pm
A) again - What? I seriously can't understand the way you write

B) I did say that there is an issue that things have been legislated to be crimes that shouldn't be. That's a separate issue. The government being able to arrest and imprison criminals in general, well I see that as pretty god damned important.

Things that have been legislated to be crimes that shouldn't be is definitely an issue pertaining to the application of Enslavement for violation of these laws. The fact that everyone can be labeled a "criminal" by decree without breaking any laws is also definitely part of the Governmental Enslavement issue because it means that they can do this to anybody, for any reason. Right now this does not seem to be happening, but historically Draconian laws have always been used (or abused) by those that have the power to enforce them. Just imagine  if a Government building is blown up tomorrow, and that "FreeStaters" are identified as being responsible (whether they were or not). You, I and everybody else on this Forum would instantly be decreed to be "terrorists" and subject to what you imagine is only for "criminals" who "break laws" (Or are falsely convicted of crimes of course).
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: SamIam on July 11, 2010, 04:57:16 pm
What the 420's did show that I don't see you acknowledging, is in large numbers, the police/government will have no choice but to back down. Mass CD works.
Um, I don't acknowledge that. . . . Your successes are merely small minor skimishes with a force that should it decide to, based on the judgement calls of a few. . .

Mass CD works only if the community support you.  If the community doesn't, calling in swat teams, plastic bullets, wrist straps, tear gas, etc, will happen sooner or later.  This isn't speculation, it's worldwide reality.  

I certainly understand how you can have that viewpoint, only reading the MSM press and hearing about Keene from the politically minded. I on the other hand, live in the community. I talk to people on the streets, in the local store, my neighbors, and even strangers that recognize me. I hear a lot of thanks and appreciation once people get past the hate mongering. There are a lot, and I mean a lot of people supporting from the sidelines, because what we do is out there. I was walking though the parking lot and a guy was unloading his dog and 2 kids from the minivan. He recognized me and really supported what we (FK) are doing. Ian has a lot of similar stories.

I think that's also where the independent media is coming into play. Their system has never faced a public that manages to capture and share video of their actions. Add to that the honest conversations about their actions, and I think it's creating a very very strong deterrent. Eventually they may, and probably will crack down, and that's fine. We are still seeing the movers show up from my indefinite detention.

Quote
The above will happen _anytime_ the majority of decision makers are uneducated.  "So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause."

You have more faith in the masses, and I have more faith in educating a scant few thousands who actually drive political actions, and hopefully replacing the ones who scream the loudest about the sky falling.

The Quakers abolishing slavery in GB is a great example. The politicians were the last ones on board, dragging their feet the entire way, because they were the ones benefiting from status-quo. The Quakers changed the minds of the masses, and the politicians could either run out in front of the parade or loose all credibility. That's why governments have worked to control media, movies, commercials, schools, etc. It's brainwashing and mind control that we are freeing people from with this message. The truth only needs to be applied once, but the lies must constantly be reapplied. We have already won. The question is, how long to they plan to keep fighting?

Quote
So you wouldn't consider yourself who thinks of political action as immoral?  Judging someone you think you are working together with as immoral is a recipe for disaster.

I don't think we have to work together, i.e. coordinate, but there can be synergies created from that kind of collaboration. I look at political activism  on a case by case basis. I like Ron Paul because he's honest about the government. He calls it outright theft, admits that it's immoral to steal, and then has an open and honest conversation with people about where we go from here.

Ian wanted the city to acknowledge that the propert taxes were paid under duress at the threat of stealing his home. The City Manager refused to even admit it, saying "I don't know about that", then called his private mercenaries in to have us removed from his office. (because having armed men forcibly remove people that ask difficult questions makes him more accountable you see) I think that is unacceptable; it's being dishonest with himself and the people paying his salary.

I'm not into judging people, I accept them for who they are, and realize they are doing what they think is best. I can only be that little voice in their ear posing questions.

Quote
A nice goal... but quite hard to achieve.  And I think impossible without those of us working within the system to make changes.

Easier? yes. Impossible? No. Using the system to eliminate the system, now that's much closer to impossible.

Quote
Would you trust a doctor who committed crimes to provide your health care, with him as a slave?

Not really what I meant. I was simply pointing out that treating everyone the same under a punitive system fails to realize the unique gifts and talents that we all have as individuals. I think a system that worked to help people discover their gifts and put them into practice, would go a long way towards reforming the individual.

Well it's been fun. I need to get back to work. If you have further questions/discussion, I'm on FTL Tuesdays, your welcome to call in and discuss. Thanks for the civil discussion all!

Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Ed on July 11, 2010, 05:01:13 pm
@Stoker

OK, so because of that, you're against the government having the power to imprison people altogether? That doesn't seem to rationally follow. That's like saying "because I might crash, I'm never going to drive a car".

The bad parts of the laws can be repealed (and frankly they just don't work the way you're describing). And what are we supposed to do about serious criminals like rapists or murderers or fraudsters if we can't use force in retaliation (centralized state or anarcho-capitalist voluntary-membership state)?
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Ed on July 11, 2010, 05:05:15 pm
I fail to see what oatmeal has to do with abolishing slavery.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Stoker on July 11, 2010, 05:17:49 pm
I fail to see what oatmeal has to do with abolishing slavery.
A) again - What? I seriously can't understand the way you write
I think my posts are quite legible. If you "can't understand the way I write" and you think that I wrote about a connection between "Oatmeal and Slavery" I don't think there is any point wasting my typing skills re-typing what you obviously cannot understand.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: seamas on July 11, 2010, 07:15:50 pm
I can't resist again pointing out the difference between a goal or philosophical/moral stance and tactics.  Unless I'm missing something, by your definition (and mine) an anarchist is one who aspires to live in a place without government.  I fail to see how an anarchist who sees gaining political office as the best way of achieving anarchy is not an anarchist.  Such a person may be mistaken in their efforts but that's a dispute over strategy/tactics rather the person's aspiration.  So politician and anarchist are not mutually exclusive in the way that you believe; unless you conflate goals with tactics.

Furthermore, if an anarchist truly insists on living in a place with no government most people will point out that there are places like Somalia, the interior of the Congo, or the interior of the Amazon to move to.  Life under actually existing anarchy (as opposed to pie in the sky theorizing) ain't so sweet.  The parallel between actually existing anarchy and actually existing Communism is informative because both philosophies are morally seductive but ignorant of human nature.

Finally, having read the ridiculously doctrinaire comments of some anarchists on this thread; to paraphrase the Dead Kennedys, "In real anarchy, you would be the first to go."

My post wasn't meant to "nitpick" about semantics or to label anyone. Sensible debate requires using the correct terminology. I said nothing about any personal political stance (or yours for that matter) whatsoever.

an·ar·chy
   /ˈænərki/
–noun
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

Anarchy is an absolute condition, like Dead and Pregnant. Just as you can't be "a little dead" or "a little pregnant", you can not have a"little bit of anarchy". You CAN however have "a little bit of politics", "a small amount of government", or, "a limited amount of law". The term "Political Anarchy" contradicts itself, resulting in the condition coined by Orwell as "DoubleThink", i.e. believing that something both exists and does not exist at the same time . The "War is Peace" message from Big Brother is  a good example of DoubleThink  from Orwells' 1984.

A Politician is someone who runs for an elected office. Therefore the person you cited as having successfully ran for an elected office on the "Fuck Politics" platform is another example of a contradictory term. If you run for office you are a  Politician, regardless of your stance on "Politics". If I run for Sheriff on a "Fuck the Police" platform and win, am I not a Policeman?

Words are all we have to work with in Discussion and Debate, and using the correct terms matters.






Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Stoker on July 11, 2010, 08:24:18 pm
I fail to see how an anarchist who sees gaining political office as the best way of achieving anarchy is not an anarchist.  Such a person may be mistaken in their efforts but that's a dispute over strategy/tactics rather the person's aspiration.  So politician and anarchist are not mutually exclusive in the way that you believe; unless you conflate goals with tactics.

Furthermore, if an anarchist truly insists on living in a place with no government most people will point out that there are places like Somalia, the interior of the Congo, or the interior of the Amazon to move to.  Life under actually existing anarchy (as opposed to pie in the sky theorizing) ain't so sweet.  The parallel between actually existing anarchy and actually existing Communism is informative because both philosophies are morally seductive but ignorant of human nature.

Finally, having read the ridiculously doctrinaire comments of some anarchists on this thread; to paraphrase the Dead Kennedys, "In real anarchy, you would be the first to go."


Quote
I fail to see how an anarchist who sees gaining political office as the best way of achieving anarchy is not an anarchist.
I don't "fail to see" this at all. Does "Fighting for Peace" make you a Pacifist? NO. It makes you a FIGHTER, regardless of what the intended goal is. I mentioned something about people who have anarchist ideologies running for elected office in a different post than the one your currently trying to nitpick about. Get your nitpicking straight for gods sake!

Quote
if an anarchist truly insists on living in a place with no government most people will point out that there are places like Somalia, the interior of the Congo, or the interior of the Amazon to move to.

These places are NOT in a state of Anarchy, they are in a state of Chaos and are all under the control of a variety of quasi-Governmental entities ranging from "Warlords" to "Tribes" to Families". I pointed out in another post in this thread that true anarchy can only exist in a community of one. Once there is a group of people, it is human nature that either one of the members will assert dominance over the rest, or, the group will defer leadership to somebody (or a sub-group) whether he wants this position or not. By the way- just to clarify this AGAIN, I am not an Anarchist, I am simply pointing out inconsistencies and contradictions in peoples' statements and assumptions about Anarchy in this forum.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: "Hagrid" on July 11, 2010, 08:38:19 pm
Well it's been fun. I need to get back to work. If you have further questions/discussion, I'm on FTL Tuesdays, your welcome to call in and discuss. Thanks for the civil discussion all!

Ditto.  thanks for the discussion.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 11, 2010, 09:43:24 pm
Anarchy has a chaotic state to it.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FTL_Ian on July 12, 2010, 12:10:35 am
Nicely said, Sam.  It's amusing to see people talking trash about Keene activism who don't live in these parts.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: 10stateswithnh on July 12, 2010, 06:38:40 am
My post wasn't meant to "nitpick" about semantics or to label anyone. Sensible debate requires using the correct terminology. I said nothing about any personal political stance (or yours for that matter) whatsoever.

an·ar·chy
   /ˈænərki/
–noun
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

Anarchy is an absolute condition, like Dead and Pregnant. Just as you can't be "a little dead" or "a little pregnant", you can not have a"little bit of anarchy". You CAN however have "a little bit of politics", "a small amount of government", or, "a limited amount of law". The term "Political Anarchy" contradicts itself, resulting in the condition coined by Orwell as "DoubleThink", i.e. believing that something both exists and does not exist at the same time.

Words are all we have to work with in Discussion and Debate, and using the correct terms matters.


Stoker, I disagree.
I say it depends on the tense of the words being used, if political anarchy is a contradiction. What about a person who shares the ideal of definition 3 for their desired future society but does not see using politics as immoral WHEN focused on regaining liberty and reducing government? How would you label this person, if political anarchist is so wrong? I might have used the term political anarchist to describe myself as well, not because I thought the term fit, but because I didn't have a better one.

Another of your posts had, I thought, some extra assumptions about whether a person could be an anarchist who participates in a political system. I mean extra assumptions beyond how anarchy is defined. What is the basis for this extra assumption, and why should every other anarchist here bow to your superior knowledge of what we're allowed to think?

I wanted to quote your extra assumption but there have been so many posts since that it did not appear on the page after I started the reply. I will quote it in a separate post.

I agree with this point by another poster:

I can't resist again pointing out the difference between a goal or philosophical/moral stance and tactics.  Unless I'm missing something, by your definition (and mine) an anarchist is one who aspires to live in a place without government.  I fail to see how an anarchist who sees gaining political office as the best way of achieving anarchy is not an anarchist.  Such a person may be mistaken in their efforts but that's a dispute over strategy/tactics rather the person's aspiration.  So politician and anarchist are not mutually exclusive in the way that you believe; unless you conflate goals with tactics.

Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: 10stateswithnh on July 12, 2010, 06:41:52 am
What you are alluding to are examples of people who have have quasi-anarchistic idealogies , but again, if you are part of the governmental process you are not an Anarchist. If you vote or especially if you actually run for office- you are a de-facto part of an organized governmental process and therefore not Anarchist in principle or action. The only way to be an Anarchist is to not participate in any type of organized rule over others. I am personally not a proponent of true Anarchy, just pointing out misnomers that are commonly associated with the term "Anarchy".

This quote is the extra assumption I was referring to. The definition of anarchy I just quoted which you originally posted, Stoker, says nothing about a person who holds to the theory of anarchy and whether they can participate in a political system. It is an extra assumption that you have not provided any evidence to support.

By the way, I like that definition 3. It is the ideal of anarchy I want, not a here and now sudden jump into a state in which so many essential services previously monopolized by governments now have no provider. Nor is it a logically necessary view, I believe, to hold that voting to keep more of my own money, or telling others I won't let them force me to pay for stuff I don't want, is somehow forcing them to do anything. If I could view that as aggression then I would have to agree that participating in politics is immoral, but if it is force it is defensive only. I'm not going to stop my neighbors from having a coercive state, as long as they let me opt out.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: 10stateswithnh on July 12, 2010, 06:52:51 am
"Political Anarchist"?

Sure.  Back when I lived in TN, about half the people that attended the local LP meeting were anarchist.  You see, anarchy may be an ideology.  It doesn't have to be a way of life.  There are liberal Republicans and libertarian Democrats.  There are also plenty of anarchists that vote, or even run for office.  I've known them to run as Independents, Libertarians and even Democrats.  Some of them likely run as Republicans.  Sure, it may not be common, but anarchists in general aren't common so that isn't saying much.

I'll bring up an example of someone you have heard of, Ian Freeman.  He is a V, not an anarchist, though he used to be an anarchist.  Either way, he was and is still political.  He encourages others to run for office, helps them campaign and so on.  He even testifies in front of committees and contacts the state representatives in the district where he lives. Of course, he, like many anarchists, has voted.

Maybe you are new to the ideas of FSP.  Please stay around.  Lots of interesting stuff is happening here.

I agree with everything here. Except I don't understand this comment:
Ian is a V. What is a V?
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 12, 2010, 07:50:17 am
Voluntaryist. Anarchy can have both an orderly and chaotic outcome. Voluntaryism remits the chaotic outcome by the individual chosing to avoid aggressive behavior toward others.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Stoker on July 12, 2010, 06:11:58 pm
Voluntaryist. Anarchy can have both an orderly and chaotic outcome. Voluntaryism remits the chaotic outcome by the individual chosing to avoid aggressive behavior toward others.

And here I thought it meant "Visitor"

(http://static.flickr.com/3047/2369399061_0317c0c7d8.jpg)
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: citizen Winston on July 12, 2010, 09:28:19 pm
But, I consider those trying to change the system by voting to be deluded allies, scratching at the surface of injustice.

The feeling is mutual, but I can at least admit that CD (the tactic) is a useful tool when used in conjunction with voting.

How much aggression do you support as a mini-statist?
Ian, that question is just not constructive if you're talking to someone who already self-identifies as a libertarian.

I know you feel this was a valid and useful question for debate; indeed, it would be, if it were intended to enlighten 3rd parties (such as on the radio) -- at the expense of alienating the person to whom you are asking the question.

Denis how would you recommend explaining to politically minded individuals that the idea that government can protect the rights of the people by first taking them away? How does avoiding things like morals and principles honor lives destroyed by government? The reason it alienates people is because they want to pretend not to see the continuing harm caused by governments every single day.

Hi Sam, I can speak for myself. I saw that post and I ignored it because like Jason Sorrens said, I already identified myself as being a libertarian.  I took it as an obvious attempt at belittling me and sidetracking the thread early on. I don't pretend that this large and out of control government is destroying lives, however to equate that with all possible forms and scales of government is the sort of absolutist leap I don't take.

BTW I did contribute to the CD fund and I thought your story and the former police officer's were quite sincere and powerful.

that is really my biggest frustration with the CD folks: you could be doing that _anyplace_, NH's political system is unique to here, so you're making it harder for those of us who are trying to do it here because we CAN here.  If you decided to do 4:20 in Vermont, or Mass, or New York, you could do it.
We can't.  NH is _special_, for politics.  It's the last vestige of what politics should be, instead of the money/snake pit it's become.

That is why I am baffled at the sort of reception people like myself who are libertarians receive.  This sort of contempt is un-called for and doesn't seem compatible to what the FSP highlights as being reasons to move to New Hampshire in the first place.  Below are a couple of snippets taken from the official freestateproject.org website...

Quote
The success of the Project would likely entail reductions in taxation and regulation, reforms at all levels of government, to expand individual rights and free markets, and a restoration of constitutional federalism, demonstrating the benefits of liberty to the rest of the nation and the world.

Whether you are planning a legislative effort, grassroots campaign, formal conference, or public demonstration, you will find an enthusiastic legion of libertarian activists ready to help.

With 400 members, the largest state legislature in the US, providing the highest ratio of representation and easy access to politics.

So when I see anarchists at PorcFest disparaging legislative efforts to reform government, I feel it turns would-be movers off and only muddles what the FSP is really about - unless people on here are being disingenuous.  Then again I just recently found a video of PorcFest's rap competition (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgFAS6tFCxk) whereby the host says...

Host: "Fuck those guys...Rand Paul, Ron Paul"
Host: "Did you not realize there was an anarchist hosting this rap battle?"

Again, I interacted with many a anarchists while there that didn't resemble this guy at all.  If anything, this serves as a perfect example of the type of chauvinistic, "more anarchist than thou" attitude that disgusts me and is totally counter-productive to what I read were the goals and motivations of the FSP. 
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FTL_Ian on July 13, 2010, 12:50:10 am
Rand Paul is a wannabe thug.

Big Mike (the host) rocks.  What did you expect at a rap contest - clean lyrics?
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: citizen Winston on July 13, 2010, 01:42:46 am
lol, not at all.  I'm not a big fan of Rand Paul either.  Its the whole F Ron Paul just because he works within the system thing.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: BigJoe on July 13, 2010, 01:55:01 am
Rand Paul is a wannabe thug.

does that mean that he wants to be a libertarian but is actually a thug, or wants to be a thug but is a libertarian  ;D
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: freedomroad on July 13, 2010, 08:57:59 am
Rand Paul is a wannabe thug.

That's absurd.  There is no need to make fun of Rand Paul in such a way who will likely be the least bad Senator in the nation in decades if elected.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: freedomroad on July 13, 2010, 09:00:55 am
lol, not at all.  I'm not a big fan of Rand Paul either.  Its the whole F Ron Paul just because he works within the system thing.

There was lots of stuff like that during the Soap Box Idol.  I wouldn't take it to serious.  I'm pretty sure that some of those people were playing up the hate.  I doubt there is as much hate it that room as it appeared, as has been said in other places in this forum.  I really like that alternative events were scheduled at the same time though, so if someone had anyone problems with Soap Box Idol they could leave and still have fun events to enjoy elsewhere.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FTL_Ian on July 13, 2010, 10:23:34 am
Rand Paul is a wannabe thug.

That's absurd.  There is no need to make fun of Rand Paul in such a way who will likely be the least bad Senator in the nation in decades if elected.

Unless you are brown.  He seems to hate brown people.

Unless you don't want a police state with underground electric fences and helicopters everywhere.

Unless you don't want military tribunals.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: freedomroad on July 13, 2010, 10:38:34 am
Unless you are brown.  He seems to hate brown people.

Unless you don't want a police state with underground electric fences and helicopters everywhere.

Unless you don't want military tribunals.

I have seen zero evidence of Rand Paul hating brown people.  Making such a statement in a completely serious manor perhaps reflects more on you than Rand Paul. 

Maybe we use the term thug differently.  The commonly used definitions I usually hear people use are low level criminal or inner city cool person.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Argentum on July 13, 2010, 11:44:40 am
Rand Paul is a wannabe thug.

That's absurd.  There is no need to make fun of Rand Paul in such a way who will likely be the least bad Senator in the nation in decades if elected.

Unless you are brown.  He seems to hate brown people.

Unless you don't want a police state with underground electric fences and helicopters everywhere.

Unless you don't want military tribunals.

Why inject race into it?  I oppose immigration laws but recognize that most of the opposition to free movement of people is not based on race.  What evidence do you have that demonstrates that he seems to hate brown people?
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Stoker on July 13, 2010, 12:06:26 pm
Rand Paul is a wannabe thug.

That's absurd.  There is no need to make fun of Rand Paul in such a way who will likely be the least bad Senator in the nation in decades if elected.

Unless you are brown.  He seems to hate brown people.

Unless you don't want a police state with underground electric fences and helicopters everywhere.

Unless you don't want military tribunals.

Why inject race into it.  I oppose immigration laws but recogize that most of the opposition to free movement of people is not based on race.  What evidence do you have that demonstrates that he seems to hate brown people?

He heard it on from the mainstream media - probably msnbc . And we all know that anybody that doesn't believe every god damned word from the Media that is completely fucking owned by the Fascist Warmongers is a Wacko Conspiracy Theorist right???
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FTL_Ian on July 13, 2010, 01:03:22 pm
He advocates military tribunals against brown people and border security to keep brown people out.  I haven't heard him advocate a Canadian border fence.

Maybe he doesn't hate brown people, but is just pandering to those who hate brown people, how about that?

Anyway, the guy is just another republican.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Stoker on July 13, 2010, 01:38:09 pm
He advocates military tribunals against brown people and border security to keep brown people out.  I haven't heard him advocate a Canadian border fence.

Maybe he doesn't hate brown people, but is just pandering to those who hate brown people, how about that?

Anyway, the guy is just another republican.

Now, most of that I can agree with . I am certain he has voted against this in the past, and recently(last year or so) on Alex Jones he got into a quibble with AJ about this very thing as AJ advocates a Militarized Border fence- RP does not.  I am completely against "border fences", not because there aren't some people who should be kept out, but rather that I am quite aware that fences also are used to keep people in- and that means ALL of us. Putting up a fence will also not do anything about why people- particularly the ones that actually are a problem, meaning those that are cashing in on the morally corrupt policy of making things that people want illegal- are entering the country and are dangerous 100% because of this policy. Not to mention the fact that the very Government that makes these laws to divide our society by creating an "us and them" mentality and weaken it by locking up completely innocent (morally) victims of this tyranny also has our Military protecting poppy fields in Afghanistan (and probably helping to ship it here and to Europe) and also shipping in tons of Cocaine (Proven fact). 

Keep in mind that Ron & Rand Paul both advocate changing the corrupt policies relating to Drug Laws, and that is a check in the "Pros" column for them in my book.

  I am curious about the claim that either Rand or Ron advocate using "military tribunals against brown people". Do you mean that he/they are advocating this to be specifically targeted at 'brown people", or that he/they support the concept of "military tribunals" in general? If this is indeed true , and not a whole lot about politicians surprises me anymore, could you please direct me to where you got that information?
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: freedomroad on July 13, 2010, 01:52:26 pm
Do you mean that he/they are advocating this to be specifically targeted at 'brown people", or that he/they support the concept of "military tribunals" in general? I

In general.  Ian just likes to say brown people.  It seems a bit more of a macho flash, welcomes less people to be like-minded and is more off-putting to people in general.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Argentum on July 13, 2010, 01:56:34 pm
He advocates military tribunals against brown people and border security to keep brown people out.  I haven't heard him advocate a Canadian border fence.

Maybe he doesn't hate brown people, but is just pandering to those who hate brown people, how about that?

Anyway, the guy is just another republican.
Being for military tribunals is wrong but not necessarily racist.  Same for border security.  If we had a similar "problem" on the northern border and Rand Paul only called for a fence on the southern  border, then I would say you had a point.  

And how do you know what is the motivation for those who do want immigration restrictions?  I think it is wrong to tar the whole anti-immirgration movement with a racist brush.  Ther are many non-racist, but illegitimate, reasons for opposing free migration.  Unless someone explicitly expresses racist reasons, libertarians should refrain from mentioning race.  It's wrong and as well as being strategically a bad move if we are trying to win people over to our side.

For the record, I am not a Rand Paul supporter.  As an anarchist, I would support a principled minarchist but Rand supports too much gov't or my taste.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Argentum on July 13, 2010, 02:00:30 pm
Do you mean that he/they are advocating this to be specifically targeted at 'brown people", or that he/they support the concept of "military tribunals" in general? I

In general.  Ian just likes to say brown people.  It seems a bit more of a macho flash, welcomes less people to be like-minded and is more off-putting to people in general.

I agree.  The "hating brown people" quip is something I think libertarians shouldn't use.  There are plenty of people who support anti-liberty policies but who are not motivated by racial concerns.  Using the quip is accusatory and makes us sound like the typical PC liberal.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Ed on July 13, 2010, 02:04:37 pm
Referring to them as brown people means that's what you see them as - brown people - as opposed to illegal immigrants (or terrorists for the war thing).

I feel that having Mexicans and other South Americans (it's not just Mexicans anymore - two of the laborers I've been hiring recently turned out to be Peruvian) as our clostest neighbors is at least better than fucking commie Europeans. In Mexico and South America they at least have some freedom-oriented-glorified cowboy culture, and they've got some cojones on the whole. Europeans on the other hand...
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FreedomFred on July 13, 2010, 02:32:04 pm
Referring to them as brown people means that's what you see them as - brown people - as opposed to illegal immigrants (or terrorists for the war thing).

I feel that having Mexicans and other South Americans (it's not just Mexicans anymore - two of the laborers I've been hiring recently turned out to be Peruvian) as our clostest neighbors is at least better than fucking commie Europeans. In Mexico and South America they at least have some freedom-oriented-glorified cowboy culture, and they've got some cojones on the whole. Europeans on the other hand...

I dunno. Spain has had a history of hard-nose anarchism -- which would've worked if the despot Franco hadn't killed most of them off!!!!
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Stoker on July 13, 2010, 02:57:41 pm
I was pretty sure about Ron Paul and Rand Pauls' (their positions on most issues are nearly identical) position on the "border fence" when I wrote that last Post, so, I decided to check it out.

Here is what I found :
Quote
Those who attack bilingualism are jealous & feel inferior
Q: Do you think that there would be a practical value of making English our official language?

A: Well, it’s practical because we can all understand each other. I sometimes think that those who attack bilingualism sometimes are jealous, & we feel inferior, because we’re not capable. But we should have one language. But we, as federal officials, as a congressman or a president, we only have authority over the federal government. So I think all federal things should be in English. But when it comes to bilingualism in schools or the states, under our Constitution, it really is permissible. And the states can decide that. But under the conditions that we have today, I think it is good and proper to have one language, which would be English, for all legal matters at the national level. But this doesn’t preclude bilingualism in private use or in education or in local government.
Source: 2007 Republican primary debate on Univision Dec 9, 2007

No amnesty, but impractical to round up 12 million illegals
Q: Is it even practical to try to send 12 million illegal immigrants all home?

A: I would not sign a bill like [comprehensive immigration reform], because it would be amnesty. I also think that it’s pretty impractical to get an army in this country to round up 12 or maybe 20 million. But I do believe that we have to stick to our guns on obeying the law, and anybody who comes in here illegally shouldn’t be rewarded. And that would be the case.
Source: 2007 GOP Presidential Forum at Morgan State University Sep 27, 2007

Immigration problem is consequence of welfare state
I see the immigration problem as a consequence of our welfare state. We encourage people not to work here, but the welfare we offer the people who come--they get free medical care. They get free education. They bankrupt our hospitals. Our hospitals are closing. And it shouldn’t be rewarded. That means you don’t give them citizenship. You can’t solve this problem until you get rid of the welfare state, because in a healthy economy, immigrants wouldn’t be a threat to us.
Source: 2007 GOP Presidential Forum at Morgan State University Sep 27, 2007

No amnesty, but border fence isn’t so important
Q: You voted to support that 700-mile fence along the border with Mexico. Is there a need for a similar fence along the border with Canada?

PAUL: No. The fence was my weakest reason for voting for that, but enforcing the law was important, and border security is important. And we’ve talked about amnesty, which I’m positively opposed to. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. We subsidize illegal immigration, we reward it by easy citizenship, either birthright or amnesty.
So, it appears that he actually did vote for a bill of which part included funding for part of a fence with Mexico. He does oppose the complete closure and Militarization of the border however and advocates fixing the causes for the flood over the border instead , to be fair I think his stance on limiting border enforcement to something less than total closure is because of the cost, otherwise he might be for it.He did vote against other bills that had included provisions for a border fence previously, but again, I think that was because of a lack of funding. Also note some of these questions about immigration issues listed were with Univision- a Spanish language television Network- not many Politicians - particularly Republican ones, have the respect for "brown people" to do that.

Here is the link for "On The Issues" that has theissues information for pretty much all US Politicians  and is very well made. Bookmark this one. ;)
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm (http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm)
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: MengerFan on July 13, 2010, 04:09:52 pm
Ther are many non-racist, but illegitimate, reasons for opposing free migration.

I haven't heard any non-racist reasons for opposing people moving, except those that are just a cover for the underlying racism.

For example, you often hear "they're getting welfare", but you never hear these same people promote taking the born-here welfare recipients and kicking them across the border.

You hear "they're taking our jerbs", but these folks never talk about preventing the born-on-this-side folks from procreating.

Maybe you could call it born-here-ism rather than racism. but it sure doesn't seem any different to me.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FreedomFred on July 13, 2010, 04:20:19 pm
Humans are so silly.  >:D
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Stoker on July 13, 2010, 04:54:10 pm
 Here is Ron Pauls vote to NOT Militarize the border:

                                 
Quote
Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism.
Amendment to set up a task force on counter-terrorism and drug interdiction and allow military personnel to help patrol U.S. borders.
Bill HR 2586 ; vote number 2001-356 on Sep 25, 2001

And keep in mind, he still had the integrity to vote NO on this just days after 9/11 when dozens of unconstitutional and tyrannical "laws" were being slid through Congress.

A few comments on Ron Pauls' Drug Policy stance:

Quote
War on drugs is out of control; revert control to states
Q: In your 1988 campaign you said, “All drugs should be decriminalized. Drugs should be distributed by any adult to other adults. There should be no controls on production, supply or purchase for adults.” Is that still your position?

A: Yeah. It’s sort of like alcohol. Alcohol’s a deadly drug, kills more people than anything else. And today the absurdity on this war on drugs has just been horrible. Now the federal government takes over and overrules states where state laws permit medicinal marijuana 1 for people dying of cancer. The federal government goes in and arrests these people, put them in prison with mandatory sentences. This war on drugs is totally out of control. If you want to regulate cigarettes and alcohol and drugs, it should be at the state level. That’s where I stand on it. The federal government has no prerogatives on this.

Q: But you would decriminalize it?

A: I would, at the federal level. I don’t have control over the states. And that’s why the Constitution’s there.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series Dec 23, 2007

Repeal most federal drug laws; blacks are treated unfairly
Q: If you are elected president in 2008, what positive and significant legacy, if any, will you leave for Black Americans?

A: I would like to believe that if we had a freer society, it would take care of Blacks and whites and everybody equally because we’re all individuals. To me, that is so important. But if we had equal justice under the law, I think it would be a big improvement. If we had probably a repeal of most of the federal laws on drugs and the unfairness on how Blacks are treated with these drugs laws, it would be a tremendous improvement. And also, I think that if you’re going to have prosperity, it serves everybody. And if this is done by emphasizing property rights and freedom of the individuals, making sure that the powerful special interests don’t control Washington, that the military industrial complex doesn’t suck away all the wealth of the country, and then we would have prosperity.
Source: 2007 GOP Presidential Forum at Morgan State University Sep 27, 2007

Inner-city minorities are punished unfairly in war on drugs
Q: What policy would you support to guarantee young Black and Latino men a fairer equal justice system?

A: A system designed to protect individual liberty will have no punishments for any group and no privileges. Today, I think inner-city folks and minorities are punished unfairly in the war on drugs. For instance, Blacks make up 14% of those who use drugs, yet 36 percent of those arrested are Blacks and it ends up that 63% of those who finally end up in prison are Blacks. This has to change. We don’t have to have more courts and more prisons. We need to repeal the whole war on drugs. It isn’t working. We have already spent over $400 billion since the early 1970s, and it is wasted money. Prohibition didn’t work. Prohibition on drugs doesn’t work. So we need to come to our senses. And, absolutely, it’s a disease. We don’t treat alcoholics like this. This is a disease, and we should orient ourselves to this. That is one way you could have equal justice under the law.
Source: 2007 GOP Presidential Forum at Morgan State University Sep 27, 2007 

I don't see any enmity towards "brown people" anywhere here, as a matter of fact he is one of the few people in Washington that actually says the way "minorities" are treated by the government and country in general is atrocious.

Here is the link to a breakdown on his Pro-Libertarian stance about Americas Drug Policies:http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Drugs.htm (http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Drugs.htm)

Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: creaganlios on July 13, 2010, 07:04:31 pm
Quote
Those who attack bilingualism are jealous & feel inferior
Q: Do you think that there would be a practical value of making English our official language?

A: Well, it’s practical because we can all understand each other. I sometimes think that those who attack bilingualism sometimes are jealous, & we feel inferior, because we’re not capable. But we should have one language. But we, as federal officials, as a congressman or a president, we only have authority over the federal government. So I think all federal things should be in English. ....I think it is good and proper to have one language, which would be English, for all legal matters at the national level.

I wonder of that goes for Federal regulation in Puerto Rico.  Or on the Dine, Inuit, Native Hawaiian, and Lakhota Reservations.   And I wonder how his rationale would apply in Switzerland or Belgium.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Dreepa on July 13, 2010, 07:44:38 pm
Quote
Those who attack bilingualism are jealous & feel inferior
Q: Do you think that there would be a practical value of making English our official language?

A: Well, it’s practical because we can all understand each other. I sometimes think that those who attack bilingualism sometimes are jealous, & we feel inferior, because we’re not capable. But we should have one language. But we, as federal officials, as a congressman or a president, we only have authority over the federal government. So I think all federal things should be in English. ....I think it is good and proper to have one language, which would be English, for all legal matters at the national level.

I wonder of that goes for Federal regulation in Puerto Rico.  Or on the Dine, Inuit, Native Hawaiian, and Lakhota Reservations.   And I wonder how his rationale would apply in Switzerland or Belgium.

most americans are too lazy to learn another language... and we aren't Switerland or Belgium..

it would also save money so stuff isn't printed in lots of other languages
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: freedomroad on July 13, 2010, 08:34:29 pm
I was pretty sure about Ron Paul and Rand Pauls' (their positions on most issues are nearly identical) position on the "border fence" when I wrote that last Post, so, I decided to check it out.

Here is what I found :
Quote
Those who attack bilingualism are jealous & feel inferior
Q: Do you think that there would be a practical value of making English our official language?


Please don't post many words with such large text.  It is rude.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: creaganlios on July 13, 2010, 09:49:17 pm
most americans are too lazy to learn another language... and we aren't Switerland or Belgium..  it would also save money so stuff isn't printed in lots of other languages 

The point about a place like Switzerland is that it is NOT necessary for a nation to speak ONE language.

And the general Laziness of most Americans (and the failure of schools to prepare students for a Global Trade Economy) should not be an excuse to impose a national language by fiat.

 Considering Spanish was spoken in many parts of America before the first English-speaking settlers arrived....perhaps Spanish should be the 'offical' language of New Mexico or Texas or Arizona.  And regardless, it will ALWAYS be necessary to translate federal documents into SPanish due to our colonization of Puerto Rico...

You're too lazy to learn Spanish?  You lose out on the growing Hispanic market.  As you should

Tant pis pour vous.  Quel dommage.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: rossby on July 13, 2010, 09:52:19 pm
He advocates military tribunals against brown people and border security to keep brown people out.  I haven't heard him advocate a Canadian border fence.

Do we have a [perceived] "immigration problem" with Canada?

Then again, why inject color into the discussion?
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: rossby on July 13, 2010, 10:02:39 pm
And the general Laziness of most Americans (and the failure of schools to prepare students for a Global Trade Economy) should not be an excuse to impose a national language by fiat.

Laziness is an excuse I don't buy. Most Americans simply have no substantial reason to speak another language. And you really cannot speak a language if other people around you aren't speaking it.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Ed on July 13, 2010, 10:34:33 pm
Why should we be forced to pay for translations?

Frankly, I don't actually care about that, since it makes up a teensy part of state and national budgets (hiring translators). But I the argument doesn't make sense to me.

That is of course only in the case where "establishing a national language" only means that our government bureaucracies will deal only with English. Now, issues with schools, employment laws, and anti-discrimination laws are a whole 'nother bag of potatoes.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Ed on July 13, 2010, 10:40:36 pm
I want to learn Spanish - but all the classes always teach it with writing. Which adds an extra mental-processing step, so you don't really learn to speak the language.

Anyone know where the hell I can find ORAL Spanish classes? Does such a thing exist? I've only heard of Rosetta stone.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FreedomFred on July 14, 2010, 04:06:00 am
I want to learn Spanish - but all the classes always teach it with writing. Which adds an extra mental-processing step, so you don't really learn to speak the language.

Anyone know where the hell I can find ORAL Spanish classes? Does such a thing exist? I've only heard of Rosetta stone.

The best way to learn a language is by total immersion. If you can find a bunch of people that speaks Spanish on a regular basis -- not hard to do -- and befriend them, that would be perfect. Listen to Spanish programming daily. Just turn on the radio and play in in the background and listen.

I've been trying to learn French, but this is harder to do. Very few French radio stations in Southern NH for me to receive, and aside from a couple of French Meetups and what not, not much in the way of total immersion to be had. Tres mal.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: creaganlios on July 14, 2010, 05:55:41 am
Laziness is an excuse I don't buy. Most Americans simply have no substantial reason to speak another language. And you really cannot speak a language if other people around you aren't speaking it.

I'm not sure about that, BD...when you combine the number of Americans living in California, the Southwest, Florida, and the urban, ex-urban, and even suburban areas of the northeast, that's an AWFUU LOT of Americans living in proximity to those who speak a language other than English as a first language...
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: creaganlios on July 14, 2010, 06:00:15 am
I've been trying to learn French, but this is harder to do. Very few French radio stations in Southern NH for me to receive, and aside from a couple of French Meetups and what not, not much in the way of total immersion to be had. Tres mal.


There is actually a French radio station you can get in the Monadnock area (around 91.1, I think) early in th emorning (6 - 7:30 am) that i listen to fairly frequently. 

Where in the state are you?  I've actually run into three other people who wanted to get a French conversation group together (beginner's level).  I used to teach French and was considering facilitating it....
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: KBCraig on July 14, 2010, 12:09:27 pm
There is actually a French radio station you can get in the Monadnock area (around 91.1, I think) early in th emorning (6 - 7:30 am) that i listen to fairly frequently. 

XM channels 88 & 89 are French. There might be others.

Edit to add: 97, 125, and 172 are also French.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Uncle Walt on July 14, 2010, 02:37:49 pm
On my cable ... there's a Spanish station that shows movies/TV shows that have been translated to Spanish.
Try watching Seinfeld in Spanish.  lol

You can also use the foreign language installs on video games.  ;D

Other than Rosetta Stone ... I think Berlitz has a similar system?
I'm looking for a system that doesn't focus on writing, as well.

BTW - "Klingon" is a recognized language by the state of Oregon.  If you ask for an interpreter, they will provide one.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: 10stateswithnh on July 14, 2010, 03:15:50 pm

I've been trying to learn French, but this is harder to do. Very few French radio stations in Southern NH for me to receive, and aside from a couple of French Meetups and what not, not much in the way of total immersion to be had. Tres mal.

I had thought you might be able to get AM stations from Quebec there. Sometimes at night I get stations on my car radio from Denver, and that's about the same distance away for me. You might try shortwave I suppose.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: KBCraig on July 14, 2010, 08:05:04 pm
On my cable ... there's a Spanish station that shows movies/TV shows that have been translated to Spanish.
Try watching Seinfeld in Spanish.  lol

I went to a two week Spanish immersion course, and our nightly entertainment was movies that had been overdubbed in Spanish. The funniest was Forrest Gump. Imagine an exagerrated Southern accent speaking Spanish: "Corre, Forrest, corre!" (pronounced "koh-ray-uh"  ;D )
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FreeStyle on July 15, 2010, 12:04:13 am
Here in Tilton when we moved in there was nothing but radio.  We easily get a french speaking quebec station.  It was quite enjoyable.

I enjoy hearing languages other than my own.  If people like Ed feel that we need some sort of national language so that government has an easier job with paperwork and road signs then perhaps you'd feel the same if someone chose that language to be something other than English.  Maybe Chinese.

If you don't want to pay for the numerous translations, perhaps you should not pay at all, or force your government to stop requiring people to fill out their forms.  Road signs?  Weren't they moving towards pictures anyways?

I'm not interested in a national language.  It's a pretty pompous idea to force others into learning your language simply to make life easier for government people (and less costly to you, who choose to keep paying).
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FTL_Ian on July 15, 2010, 09:20:32 am
Sorry, but while Ron is for ending the War on Drugs, Rand is not.  The guy is nothing to write home about, and no friend to liberty.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Sovereign Laissez-faire LeRoux on July 15, 2010, 10:11:04 am
Voting might be a potential tool up in NH for affecting change toward more liberty, but progress seems slow. The governor vetoed the decriminalization of marijuana up there? One a-hole trumps how much work from the FSP? Now imagine the effectiveness of a political movement oriented towards voting and liberty in the national elections. There isn't even anyone to vote for. The only real tools in the hands of the People now to oppose the tyranny is jury nullification and civil disobedience, combined with intellectual activism. But, to be effective, the CD must be organized, united, and comprehensive. It shows great courage to risk or even intentionally obtain an arrest for yourself, but its a whole new level of Balls to go in to the 'court' and face the 'judge' in his mighty robe dress up on his grande pedestal of power. But, this is what it will take to really change things. The attorneys aren't going to surrender their power.

If you break the immoral statutes and then go in the 'court' and "plead" and otherwise obfuscate your purpose, accept their attorney as if you are a child who can not speak for yourself, you nullify the benefits of the CD in my eyes, you delegitimize yourself. If you are going to do CD and accept/instigate an arrest, than Stand up in 'court', without an attorney, and make your case that the statute/code/ordinance is unjust and/or unconstitutional. The 'attorney' will NOT make a case for jury nullification for you as it will put his unconstitutional "license to practice law" at great risk and may even get him a 'contempt' charge. They will NOT argue the injustice of the rule. They will throw you on the 'mercy' of the scumbags, delegitimizing the CD. Don't play their game.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: FreedomFred on July 15, 2010, 11:48:16 am
Voting might be a potential tool up in NH for affecting change toward more liberty, but progress seems slow. The governor vetoed the decriminalization of marijuana up there? One a-hole trumps how much work from the FSP? Now imagine the effectiveness of a political movement oriented towards voting and liberty in the national elections. There isn't even anyone to vote for. The only real tools in the hands of the People now to oppose the tyranny is jury nullification and civil disobedience, combined with intellectual activism. But, to be effective, the CD must be organized, united, and comprehensive. It shows great courage to risk or even intentionally obtain an arrest for yourself, but its a whole new level of Balls to go in to the 'court' and face the 'judge' in his mighty robe dress up on his grande pedestal of power. But, this is what it will take to really change things. The attorneys aren't going to surrender their power.

If you break the immoral statutes and then go in the 'court' and "plead" and otherwise obfuscate your purpose, accept their attorney as if you are a child who can not speak for yourself, you nullify the benefits of the CD in my eyes, you delegitimize yourself. If you are going to do CD and accept/instigate an arrest, than Stand up in 'court', without an attorney, and make your case that the statute/code/ordinance is unjust and/or unconstitutional. The 'attorney' will NOT make a case for jury nullification for you as it will put his unconstitutional "license to practice law" at great risk and may even get him a 'contempt' charge. They will NOT argue the injustice of the rule. They will throw you on the 'mercy' of the scumbags, delegitimizing the CD. Don't play their game.

Agreed.

We must all learn the details of going pro-se to protect our liberties in court. It takes some time to learn the  ropes, but you'll be better off for it.

And you can tell all those lawyers what to do with themselves. You can be just as effective as they can be, perhaps even more so.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Dreepa on July 15, 2010, 12:01:32 pm
Voting might be a potential tool up in NH for affecting change toward more liberty, but progress seems slow.

so move up and help.

actually lots of progress is being made on many fronts.

So things also take time to build.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Sovereign Laissez-faire LeRoux on July 15, 2010, 12:13:03 pm
I am considering the move. But, I couldn't help in voting. I don't believe in the morality of voting when individual rights are at stake. It is not my right to sanction such crimes by participating. Also, it is against my moral code to accept any benefits from the government, and voting in their elections is a benefit, a privilege according to these scumbags. Thats why you have to ask permission by "registering." If/when I get there, I would perform CD, as I do wherever I am whenever the circumstances are appropriate. ;)
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 15, 2010, 12:25:35 pm
I think the reason you register is so you don't vote as many times as you'd wish.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Sovereign Laissez-faire LeRoux on July 15, 2010, 12:35:35 pm
@John, I don't believe that. They could check/record your identity when you voted without any registering. By definition, if you have to register, its a privilege not a right. Rights don't need pre-permission. It is, based on my research, a voluntary contract, though a fraudulent one, which waives a certain number of your Constitutional Rights in exchange for the "benefit" of voting in their elections. In particular, it waives your right not to appear for Jury duty when called. Thus the system enforces its unlawful perversion of the jury trial by pre-selecting those who buy into the system and excluding those who are most skeptical of all that government does. To waive your rights not to appear when called certainly waives a great number of inalienable rights, perhaps just about all of them. No thanks. :)

Hard to care about a system that does crap like this systematically and basically exists to nullify individual rights: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-41752-Wilmington-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2010m7d15-Libertarians-taken-off-the-ballot-in-Delaware-Major-parties-ensure-voters-may-not-elect-3rd-party
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Uncle Walt on July 15, 2010, 12:54:47 pm
If voters weren't registered ... how would you make sure a person was eligible to vote?  EG; stop a candidate from bussing in supporters from outside the district?
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Sovereign Laissez-faire LeRoux on July 15, 2010, 01:05:02 pm
@Uncle Walt, it could be checked against the postal service address records, under penalty of fraud charges perhaps with a severe penalty. In fact, this is how it was done before the system of registrations and licensing (pledge slavery) was implemented in America. They used to simply check names against a central registry in the county library. As always, rules punishing the innocent ahead of the crime do not stop the crime but rather carry only unintended consequences. Of course, under the more limited minarchy intended by a portion of the "Founders", voting would be of little real consequence to the majority of the people and there would be little advantage to bussing them in. Indeed, once upon a time in America, very few people bothered voting since there was no one to be victimized by doing so and no one able to victimize you by doing so.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: time4liberty on July 15, 2010, 05:51:20 pm
Personally, I choose to register, not the least of reasons being that I very much want to be called for jury duty. It's a cost/benefit analysis, as far as I'm concerned. Is the small amount of added aggression you risk by registering worth the small amount of power it gives you, to throw a monkey wrench in the abuse? I say yes.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Sovereign Laissez-faire LeRoux on July 15, 2010, 08:54:56 pm
@ttie,

I respect that choice. I am the local coordinator for FIJA (Florida Informed Jury Association) here in Tampa/Pinellas. We stand outside the courtrooms and hand out jury nullification information. Still, I can't personally sanction voting given the situation. But for those that do, I hope they will serve on juries and nullify victimless "crimes" as it is indeed the only real benefit from voting and its a pretty big one.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: KBCraig on July 15, 2010, 10:47:06 pm
Sorry, but while Ron is for ending the War on Drugs, Rand is not.

Cite? Everything I've read says he opposes prohibition and supports legalization.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/05/20/2010-05-20_toast_of_the_tea_party_rand_pauls_so_conservative_he_scares_cheney.html
http://www.cameldog.net/war-peace/25134-rand-paul-educates-sean-hannity-about-drug-legalization-wins-him-over-end.html
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Ed on July 15, 2010, 11:03:37 pm
dude, don't bother him with facts

he needs to rag on people for not being PURE libertarians
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 16, 2010, 12:29:55 am
@John, I don't believe that. They could check/record your identity when you voted without any registering. By definition, if you have to register, its a privilege not a right. Rights don't need pre-permission. It is, based on my research, a voluntary contract, though a fraudulent one, which waives a certain number of your Constitutional Rights in exchange for the "benefit" of voting in their elections. In particular, it waives your right not to appear for Jury duty when called. Thus the system enforces its unlawful perversion of the jury trial by pre-selecting those who buy into the system and excluding those who are most skeptical of all that government does. To waive your rights not to appear when called certainly waives a great number of inalienable rights, perhaps just about all of them. No thanks. :)

Hard to care about a system that does crap like this systematically and basically exists to nullify individual rights: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-41752-Wilmington-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2010m7d15-Libertarians-taken-off-the-ballot-in-Delaware-Major-parties-ensure-voters-may-not-elect-3rd-party
They do. NH has same-day registration... that's the check of your identity and eligibility to vote.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Sovereign Laissez-faire LeRoux on July 16, 2010, 07:14:14 am
Same day registration indeed indicates there is no need for pre-registration. They do not need a contract binding you to waive your rights, if they can simply check your identity at the door, use that list to prevent repeat voters, and check that list against the postal addresses to confirm eligibility. They want you in that contract, so they can keep the 'court' business (tax collections) going, so they can keep that cash register cha-chinging.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 16, 2010, 03:46:33 pm
Those 'checks' of identity and residence is what registration is about.
I don't know what 'tax collection' your talking about.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Dreepa on July 16, 2010, 05:05:58 pm
love how far this thread as gone off topic.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: 10stateswithnh on July 16, 2010, 05:23:50 pm
I actually enjoy reading it more now that it has gone off-topic.  :D

I only read it to stay up to date with it and see if I can help alleviate some people's concerns.

Personally, I find the idea that people would judge the whole movement by one event, or online postings only, and then spend a lot of time talking about how afraid they are that the stuff they want to happen won't happen, or that the movement is being taken over by a certain group (there isn't really much to take over in such a decentralized movement), to me that is a huge waste of time and potentially turns off people who would in fact love living in NH, just as I loved visiting there for 6 days and didn't want to get on the plane back.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Sovereign Laissez-faire LeRoux on July 17, 2010, 06:41:15 am
Quote
Those 'checks' of identity and residence is what registration is about.

Ahh, no, its not. As I said, they were perfectly able to check the eligibility of voters before they began demanding pre-registration. Pre-registration wasn't done in America for about the first 100 years. And, if you believe it is being used to stop voter fraud now, well, I have a bridge to sell you. If anything, it provides false security allowing for far more voter fraud.

Quote
I don't know what 'tax collection' your talking about.

The 'courts'. They are all about business, collecting taxes. Certainly, there is no Justice to be found in them, aside from your occasional jury nullification.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Argentum on July 19, 2010, 06:54:03 pm
Ther are many non-racist, but illegitimate, reasons for opposing free migration.

I haven't heard any non-racist reasons for opposing people moving, except those that are just a cover for the underlying racism.

For example, you often hear "they're getting welfare", but you never hear these same people promote taking the born-here welfare recipients and kicking them across the border.

You hear "they're taking our jerbs", but these folks never talk about preventing the born-on-this-side folks from procreating.

Maybe you could call it born-here-ism rather than racism. but it sure doesn't seem any different to me.

Economics, an incorrect view of national sovereignty, and a incorrect reading of the Constitution as it relates to immigration are three that I can think of.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: BigJoe on July 19, 2010, 09:36:26 pm
Ther are many non-racist, but illegitimate, reasons for opposing free migration.

I haven't heard any non-racist reasons for opposing people moving, except those that are just a cover for the underlying racism.

For example, you often hear "they're getting welfare", but you never hear these same people promote taking the born-here welfare recipients and kicking them across the border.

You hear "they're taking our jerbs", but these folks never talk about preventing the born-on-this-side folks from procreating.

Maybe you could call it born-here-ism rather than racism. but it sure doesn't seem any different to me.

Economics, an incorrect view of national sovereignty, and a incorrect reading of the Constitution as it relates to immigration are three that I can think of.

would love to hear these supposed economic reasons
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: Argentum on July 22, 2010, 05:20:31 pm
The economic reasons are "low wages are undercutting Americans" thing.  I though that would have been the most obvious objection to immigration.  Again, I don't support these objections.  I am just pointing them out.
Title: Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 22, 2010, 06:54:01 pm
Quote
Those 'checks' of identity and residence is what registration is about.

Ahh, no, its not. As I said, they were perfectly able to check the eligibility of voters before they began demanding pre-registration. Pre-registration wasn't done in America for about the first 100 years. And, if you believe it is being used to stop voter fraud now, well, I have a bridge to sell you. If anything, it provides false security allowing for far more voter fraud.

Quote
I don't know what 'tax collection' your talking about.

The 'courts'. They are all about business, collecting taxes. Certainly, there is no Justice to be found in them, aside from your occasional jury nullification.
They don't demand pre-registration here. Actually for the first several years in NH, only property taxpayers could vote. And with a low population and everyone knowing everyone... didn't even really need to ID yourself.
And our courts, which have little involvement with taxes, don't have the power to tax.