Free State Project Forum

FSP -- General Discussion => Prospective Participants => Topic started by: Lochnivar on May 02, 2011, 04:45:20 pm

Title: FSP Concerns
Post by: Lochnivar on May 02, 2011, 04:45:20 pm
Good Day to all.

The wife and I are moving to NH in June, so my membership in the FSP is almost superfluous.  I'll be the closet 49ers fan.  >:D

I find the FSP idea very very very interesting.  The basic premise appeals to me.  My big concern is that, while I consider myself a very conservative individual, I seem to be more than a skosh more liberal than many here. 

The question is, if I do become involved, what am I getting myself into?  I will not be associated with a group of anarchists or other extremists.   I know the FSP doesn't support any political move or party, but I also know the branding that happens when one idiot member does something particularly stupid and mars the rest of the group.

I just want to know what I'm getting into here.

Thank you.
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: Denis Goddard on May 02, 2011, 05:00:44 pm
You nailed it exactly on the head.

You've chosen to come to New Hampshire to work for more freedom. That's good news and many hundreds of other people are doing the same.

The down side is, some of those people are doing things with which you want no connection whatsoever. Yes there are a few idiots. There are many more people who are very smart but perhaps not very mature, or not very good at presenting themselves in a way that engenders respect. And you don't want to be mixed in with the latter.

Personally, I do all I can to be a helpful, respected member of my new chosen hometown, to present my libertarian ideas in a nonthreatening manner, and to pay deference to the people who have lived in town many years longer than I have (even if I think they're wrong on certain political ideas). At the same time, I am quick and clear and public in my criticism of other FSPers when I believe their actions are counterproductive.

Be a good example and call 'em as you see 'em.
That's all there is.
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: CurtHowland on May 02, 2011, 05:43:26 pm
Be yourself. Get involved with what YOU wish to get involved with.

The individuals connecting through the FSP, ignoring their particularities, are good folks. Getting to know them is a good idea regardless of your opinion of their causes, because the FSP folks are a ready base of local knowledge wherever you land.

If you don't want to protest, don't. But don't avoid the chance to meet and befriend good folks just because some might go (relatively) overboard.
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: Liberty603 on May 02, 2011, 09:09:17 pm
There really isn't any need to associate with any particular groups. The sole purpose of the FSP is to get you to move to NH. Once you're here, act as an individual and involve yourself in whatever interests you.
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: FTL_Ian on May 02, 2011, 09:45:29 pm
Is it extreme to want peaceful people to be left alone?  Would you associate with voluntarists?
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: Polemic on May 02, 2011, 10:01:41 pm
Is it extreme to want peaceful people to be left alone?  Would you associate with voluntarists?

I don't think it's ever been about voluntarist v. minarchist. It's easy to see past a difference of goals.

It's method that makes people uncomfortable.
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: rossby on May 02, 2011, 10:20:02 pm
The question is, if I do become involved, what am I getting myself into?

Get involved with what?

You decide your own level of involvement in Project Free State Project.

Moving? That's usually the end of it!

but I also know the branding that happens when one idiot member does something particularly stupid and mars the rest of the group.

Sometimes...

But the FSP doesn't really do anything here.
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: Lochnivar on May 02, 2011, 10:55:28 pm
Quote
Is it extreme to want peaceful people to be left alone?  Would you associate with voluntarists?

No it is not extreme.  But, perhaps, you misunderstand my question/concern.

Quote
But the FSP doesn't really do anything here.

I understand that.  My concern is a little deeper than that.

Consider this.  As a conservative, I am considered a risk factor for homegrown terrorism.  Why?  Because some other nutjob decided to blow up a building in Oklahoma, or kill an abortion doctor, etc...  I didn't do it, I don't condone it and I'd kick the teeth in of the individual who did do it.  That doesn't change the fact that, to a significant number, I'm still stained because of the label.

I understand that FSP doesn't do anything except try to organize like-minded conservatives (technically anybody, but like-minded conservatives are the niche) into moving to NH.  Where the process goes after that is in God's hands.  I support that, and find it admirably genius.  It really makes me glad to see a movement like this really come to fruition.

But, like any group, FSP is made of people.  My question is not FSP, per se, it's the people within FSP that I want to be assured aren't going to betray my desire for peace in the name of pragmatism.
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: FTL_Ian on May 02, 2011, 11:04:52 pm
Is it extreme to want peaceful people to be left alone?  Would you associate with voluntarists?

I don't think it's ever been about voluntarist v. minarchist. It's easy to see past a difference of goals.

It's method that makes people uncomfortable.


What method?  Plenty of voluntarists are involved in politics.
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: freedomroad on May 02, 2011, 11:45:19 pm
I understand that FSP doesn't do anything except try to organize like-minded conservatives (technically anybody, but like-minded conservatives are the niche) into moving to NH.  Where the process goes after that is in God's hands.  I support that, and find it admirably genius.  It really makes me glad to see a movement like this really come to fruition.

But, like any group, FSP is made of people.  My question is not FSP, per se, it's the people within FSP that I want to be assured aren't going to betray my desire for peace in the name of pragmatism.

I am sorry, but I am unable to understand what you just wrote.  However, to answer your previous question, you can:
1. sign-up as a participant in the FSP
2. move to NH
3. update your address or send an email to moved@freestateproject.org to let the FSP know to update your address for you
4. not tell anyone else you are a fsper and not attend official FSP events in NH (Porcfest and Liberty Forum)

That way, you will move here as part of the FSP and no one will know.  People move to NH for more liberty all of the time, in fact, it is one of the top reasons stated by people that move from MA to NH and most of those movers from MA to NH are not fspers.
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: Lochnivar on May 03, 2011, 02:57:21 am
I have to apologize.

After rereading through these posts, I come across arrogant and almost insulting.  Please be assured that none of that was intended.  Sometimes my mouth/hands get ahead of my manners.
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: rossby on May 03, 2011, 03:05:23 am
But, like any group, FSP is made of people. My question is not FSP, per se, it's the people within FSP...

No, the FSP is not really a group (ignoring the actual corporation). There is no "within the FSP". The FSP is not like the ACLU, NAACP, NRA, et al. There is no real membership; the are no real activities (for participants that have moved). The FSP is only a "vehicle" that tries to convince people to move from State X to New Hampshire.

that I want to be assured aren't going to betray my desire for peace in the name of pragmatism.

Still not following what your concern is. Not sure what you're referring to about betraying peace for pragmatism.

There are some people in New Hampshire that like the FSP. There are some that don't. Others are indifferent. Some have never heard of the FSP. Some participants moved here because of the FSP but try to avoid being labeled as a "free stater" for various reasons. Others, like myself, don't really care. There is no real cohesive, centrally organized FSP community.
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: ny2nh on May 03, 2011, 07:57:37 am
There really isn't any need to associate with any particular groups. The sole purpose of the FSP is to get you to move to NH. Once you're here, act as an individual and involve yourself in whatever interests you.

^this

You will be a NH resident.....

You will be associated with those you choose to associate with.
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: Sovereign Curtis on May 03, 2011, 08:00:04 am

I understand that FSP doesn't do anything except try to organize like-minded conservatives (technically anybody, but like-minded conservatives are the niche) into moving to NH. 



You've got that wrong. The tagline is LIBERTY in our lifetime, not Conservatism in our lifetime.

From the website:
Quote
The Free State Project is an effort to recruit 20,000 liberty-loving people to move to New Hampshire.

LIBERTY loving people.

Do you as a conservative support my right to have sex with a man, while smoking pot, and giving an unlicensed manicure?


PS Anarchism is the "radical" philosophy that other people are not your property   :o    shocking
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: raymcgill on May 03, 2011, 09:03:32 am
Welcome! I was in your shoes two years ago. Right now, you see the FSP because you haven't moved. We will be there to heartily welcome you and your family. Then you will find that there are a few folks just like you, that have the same conservative label. You might chose to befriend them, and they might befriend you back. Or not. Either way, you may stop visiting this site or investigating NH, because, your like... here. Or, like me, you might settle in, have a new best friend (which is a FSPer that led me to Portsmouth, the best place I've ever lived!), and stay involved in what you consider important. FSP won't be involved, because unless its getting people to move, FSP isn't about politics.

Once up here, you might find that Liberty becomes more important.

Raymond
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: Andvari on May 03, 2011, 11:01:05 am

I understand that FSP doesn't do anything except try to organize like-minded conservatives (technically anybody, but like-minded conservatives are the niche) into moving to NH.


It aint a conservative movement (from a social standpoint), you're gonna find a whole variety of types from very liberal to very conservative (like myself). What binds us all is that we want Govt out of our lives.
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: Dave Mincin on May 03, 2011, 12:21:30 pm
I have always considered the FSP simply the bus to get freedom lovers to NH.  It is most helpful in getting you plugged into what is going on in NH.  If you choose you will have warm friendly folks to associate with from day one. 

At this point I consider myself a NH resident working to promote freedom, and while I continue to treasure the friendships I have developed with many freestaters, my concern is almost totally with being a good neighbor, and working locally and on the state level to get the government off the back of the Folks.

Dave,
Barrington
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: Lochnivar on May 03, 2011, 01:11:33 pm
I have always considered the FSP simply the bus to get freedom lovers to NH.

Now that is poetry, seriously.  I like it.
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: Denis Goddard on May 03, 2011, 01:27:17 pm
I come across arrogant and almost insulting.
Seriously, where?
Dude, you'll need to try a lot harder to be arrogant and insulting enough that a group of libertarians would even notice ;)

For example:
The tagline is LIBERTY in our lifetime, not Conservatism in our lifetime.
"Sovereign" Curtis' post was rude, demeaning, assholish in the extreme. Personally I think someone should take away his posting privileges for awhile and sure as hell he shouldn't be frontline organizer for any FSP function, not if he's going to shit all over people like that.




Anyway... come to NH and meet some of us in person. Even Curtis is a nice guy ... in person. Most of the time.
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: CurtHowland on May 03, 2011, 02:02:43 pm
not if he's going to shit all over people like that.

Shitting on people wasn't mentioned anywhere in his list of "things that tend to be objectionable to self-labeled Conservatives".

It was the manicure that got to me. Just the thought of nail files makes my skin crawl.
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: rossby on May 03, 2011, 02:04:34 pm
I come across arrogant and almost insulting.
Seriously, where?
Dude, you'll need to try a lot harder to be arrogant and insulting enough that a group of libertarians would even notice ;)

For example:
The tagline is LIBERTY in our lifetime, not Conservatism in our lifetime.
"Sovereign" Curtis' post was rude, demeaning, assholish in the extreme. Personally I think someone should take away his posting privileges for awhile and sure as hell he shouldn't be frontline organizer for any FSP function, not if he's going to shit all over people like that.

--wait, huh? What'd I miss here?
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: freedomroad on May 03, 2011, 02:14:43 pm
I come across arrogant and almost insulting.
Seriously, where?
Dude, you'll need to try a lot harder to be arrogant and insulting enough that a group of libertarians would even notice ;)

For example:
The tagline is LIBERTY in our lifetime, not Conservatism in our lifetime.
"Sovereign" Curtis' post was rude, demeaning, assholish in the extreme.

What both Lochnivar and what Curtis posted were not rude.  However, they could come off that way, depending on how they are read.  The is the internet and some people read things in a hypersensitive way.  I was actually going to post something similar to what Curtis wrote but then I thought some people might consider it rude.  Besides, Lochnivar is a new poster.  It's best to give him the benefit of the doubt.  He is just learning about this stuff and may not even know exactly what the FSP is.  It seems he now knows that it is just a bus.

On the other hand, I think the post by my friend Denis seems a little silly.

Anyway, just another day on the internet  ;D
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: time4liberty on May 27, 2011, 09:59:55 pm
Welcome loch :)

The FSP statement of intent requires people to support only 100% peaceful approaches, and I have never heard any NH activist support anything but the same.

I assume that's your concern (i.e. trade peace for pragmatism).

P.S. Can folks here please stop the bickering? Pretty please?
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: Sovereign Curtis on May 28, 2011, 09:39:23 am
I come across arrogant and almost insulting.
Seriously, where?
Dude, you'll need to try a lot harder to be arrogant and insulting enough that a group of libertarians would even notice ;)

For example:
The tagline is LIBERTY in our lifetime, not Conservatism in our lifetime.
"Sovereign" Curtis' post was rude, demeaning, assholish in the extreme.


Really? I think you're full of it. You've seen me at my most rude/demeaning/assholish and that post doesn't even come close.
What I posted wasnt a tenth as rude/etc as calling a fellow FSP mover a "Freak Stater". Get a clue, Denis.

PS. Still ZERO ticket sales thanks to the NHLA. I'm not sure I have time/space for Don Gorman. Sorry.
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: Friday on June 03, 2011, 06:05:28 am
I come across arrogant and almost insulting.
Seriously, where?
Dude, you'll need to try a lot harder to be arrogant and insulting enough that a group of libertarians would even notice ;)

For example:
The tagline is LIBERTY in our lifetime, not Conservatism in our lifetime.
"Sovereign" Curtis' post was rude, demeaning, assholish in the extreme.


Really? I think you're full of it. You've seen me at my most rude/demeaning/assholish and that post doesn't even come close.
What I posted wasnt a tenth as rude/etc as calling a fellow FSP mover a "Freak Stater". Get a clue, Denis.

PS. Still ZERO ticket sales thanks to the NHLA. I'm not sure I have time/space for Don Gorman. Sorry.

Denis... Curtis... you guys are kinda sexy when you're mad.  :-*

The NHLA (http://www.nhliberty.org) is greatly looking forward to PorcFest, which is going to be full of awesome for liberty-loving political wonks, anarchists, voluntaryists, and everyone in between.  For those of you who are interested in learning more about how you can work within the New Hampshire political system to advance liberty, be sure to check out the NHLA's presentation, featuring former state rep and NHLA Political Director Don "the Don" Gorman, now scheduled for Friday June 24 at 1:00PM!

Now I'm off to promote PorcFest.  When you sign up, be sure to use the discount code "NHLA" for 20% off!!

Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: sj on June 03, 2011, 10:32:22 am
Welcome!  If you want less government, I'm happy to have you.  Feel free to sign up!
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: Denis Goddard on June 05, 2011, 07:54:19 am
Denis... Curtis... you guys are kinda sexy when you're mad.  :-*
OMG hawt I am saving this post and never washing my computer screen again.   ;D

be sure to check out the NHLA's presentation, featuring former state rep and NHLA Political Director Don "the Don" Gorman, now scheduled for Friday June 24 at 1:00PM!
Now I'm off to promote PorcFest.  When you sign up, be sure to use the discount code "NHLA" for 20% off!!

AWESOME!
BTW... next week's Capitol Access (http://nhcaptv.com), broadcast in 14 towns (http://nhcaptv.com/schedule/broadcast) across NH, will be all about PorcFest.



Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: Argentum on June 17, 2011, 10:48:13 am
Is it extreme to want peaceful people to be left alone?  Would you associate with voluntarists?

I don't think it's ever been about voluntarist v. minarchist. It's easy to see past a difference of goals.

It's method that makes people uncomfortable.


I agree.  One of my concerns is the confusion by some activists between libertarian goals and social change.  They are not one in the same.  Libertarianism only concerns itself with the proper use of force.  Some seem to think that being a libertarian means that you have to fight "bigotry", denigrate the family, ignore social mores and customs, etc.  Of course, everyone has the right to do those things but it really has nothing to do with libertarianism.
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: dalebert on June 17, 2011, 11:31:27 am
I understand that FSP doesn't do anything except try to organize like-minded conservatives (technically anybody, but like-minded conservatives are the niche) into moving to NH.

That's interesting.  I've been here going on 4 years so one of the early movers.  I've socialized and engaged in activism with free-staters from all over the state.  I don't think of myself or most of those I know as "conservative" at all.  I wouldn't call us conservative simply because we, as liberty lovers, share some basic notions with conservatives like lower (or no) taxes and gun rights just as I wouldn't call us liberal because we favor ending the drug war and governments not intruding into people's private lives in various ways.  Therefore it's disturbing-- I feel it misleads people to use language like that, i.e. "conservative (slash) libertarian", as if they are synonymous when they're not. (http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2009/06/03/crashing-the-crashers/)

You actually sound like you're probably pretty liberty-loving and a great fit for the FSP, but I'm curious why you choose language like that or how you may have gotten the impression this was a conservative movement.
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: dalebert on June 17, 2011, 11:42:25 am
I guess I am repeating Curtis' concerns but hopefully in a more tactful, and therefore more conducive-to-communication manner.   :)
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: dalebert on June 17, 2011, 12:08:41 pm
One of my concerns is the confusion by some activists between libertarian goals and social change.  They are not one in the same.

They're not the same, but I don't see how you achieve libertarian goals without affecting social change.  Statism is a tool of people who have a desire to control other people.  I don't see how we're going to end it (or reduce it) without affecting a social change in people so that they are more accepting of people's differences and choices.  A free society requires people to believe that others should be free to live their lives as they choose.
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: MaineShark on June 17, 2011, 01:14:40 pm
Some seem to think that being a libertarian means that you have to fight "bigotry", denigrate the family, ignore social mores and customs, etc.

Other than the bigotry part, the only ones who seem to think that, are the ones who oppose libertarianism.  Very few libertarians don't oppose bigotry, simply because bigotry is (by definition) irrational, and libertarianism is a rational philosophy.  I'm not aware of more than a small handful of libertarians who "denigrate the family" or "ignore social mores and customs."

Joe
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: Argentum on June 17, 2011, 01:22:03 pm
One of my concerns is the confusion by some activists between libertarian goals and social change.  They are not one in the same.

They're not the same, but I don't see how you achieve libertarian goals without affecting social change.  Statism is a tool of people who have a desire to control other people.  I don't see how we're going to end it (or reduce it) without affecting a social change in people so that they are more accepting of people's differences and choices.  A free society requires people to believe that others should be free to live their lives as they choose.


I agree with what you are saying to the extent that the social change is libertarian.  As long as we're changing people's attitudes as to the appropriate use of force in society, we are acting in the capacity of libertarians or consistent with libertarianism.  Anything beyond that, whether laudable or not, is not libertarian.  I don't know what to call it.  For example, trying to change the minds of  people who think that certain behaviors or lifestyles, though non-aggressive, are immoral.

I don't think people have to be accepting of people's differences or choices.  In many cases, it would be nice.  In some cases, overtolerance could be a bad thing.  All that matters is that they are not going to use force to interfere with these choices.  If that is what you meant by accepting, I apologize.  I hate overanalyzing people's words and get into sementical games.  On the other hand, I value clarity in language.  It's a balancing act.
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: Argentum on June 17, 2011, 01:25:18 pm
Some seem to think that being a libertarian means that you have to fight "bigotry", denigrate the family, ignore social mores and customs, etc.

Other than the bigotry part, the only ones who seem to think that, are the ones who oppose libertarianism.  Very few libertarians don't oppose bigotry, simply because bigotry is (by definition) irrational, and libertarianism is a rational philosophy.  I'm not aware of more than a small handful of libertarians who "denigrate the family" or "ignore social mores and customs."

Joe

What about religion? Many libertarians think religion is irrational.  Does that mean that the rational libertarian must oppose religion? 
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: ptb on June 17, 2011, 01:47:14 pm
Yes.
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: MaineShark on June 17, 2011, 01:58:53 pm
As long as we're changing people's attitudes as to the appropriate use of force in society, we are acting in the capacity of libertarians or consistent with libertarianism.  Anything beyond that, whether laudable or not, is not libertarian.  I don't know what to call it.  For example, trying to change the minds of  people who think that certain behaviors or lifestyles, though non-aggressive, are immoral.

"Immoral" almost always translates to "I will forcibly stop this, because I believe it is universally wrong."

Libertarianism holds that the only universal wrong is to initiate force against others.  That's the sum total of the universal morality within libertarianism.

I won't say that anything is wrong, unless I might forcibly stop it.  I might say that certain things are things I don't support, or I prefer not to be around, or would actively avoid, or would cause me to ostracize those who do them, but I would not describe anything as "wrong" unless I believed that it involved an actual initiation of force.

To a libertarian, once you mention "morality," you are almost automatically talking about force.  "My personal ethics" or "the ethical standards of my religion" or such would be better terms.  If you try to claim that there are universal standards which others may be held to, merely because you happen to have certain beliefs, even though they never agreed to be held to those standards, libertarians will tend to react with indignation; we believe in the sovereignty of the individual, so trying to hold someone else to some personal ethic that he never agreed-to, and pretending that it's universal (despite the fact that he did not agree to it, so it clearly is not universal) is offensive to that sovereignty.

Some seem to think that being a libertarian means that you have to fight "bigotry", denigrate the family, ignore social mores and customs, etc.
Other than the bigotry part, the only ones who seem to think that, are the ones who oppose libertarianism.  Very few libertarians don't oppose bigotry, simply because bigotry is (by definition) irrational, and libertarianism is a rational philosophy.  I'm not aware of more than a small handful of libertarians who "denigrate the family" or "ignore social mores and customs."
What about religion? Many libertarians think religion is irrational.  Does that mean that the rational libertarian must oppose religion?

I guess that would depend upon the particular religion, and the rationality of the particular practitioner.  Most folks will tolerate a great deal, before they feel the need to actively oppose something.

There are certainly religious individuals who are more or less rational.  Libertarians do not tend to be anti-religion, in general.  Libertarians tend to be opposed to specific religious individuals and groups who pick certain passages to justify their prejudices, while ignoring the overall teachings of their religion, because that sort of irrational, hypocritical behavior is far more of an affront to rationality than simple religious belief.  At some point, that converts from "personal foible" to "annoyingly irrational" in the mind of the observer.

Those who admit that their beliefs are their own, don't tend to have problems with libertarians.  I recall a semi-recent discussion in which Russell said something like, "I don't believe in gay marriage, so I wouldn't attend a church while one was being held."  The gay, atheist libertarian he was talking to, did not seem to take offense.  Change it to, "gay marriage is wrong, so ...," and I bet he would have taken a good deal of offense.  Telling someone that they are automatically bound by your personal beliefs, is only a small sliver of a step away from using force against them.  Much as one might be upset if some guy was walking down the street with a gun in his hand, even if he hasn't shot anyone, libertarians tend to get upset when someone does the verbal equivalent.  Keep the gun holstered by making it clear that you are speaking only for yourself and those who agree with you, and you won't get that reaction.

Joe
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: dalebert on June 17, 2011, 04:48:29 pm
Anything beyond that, whether laudable or not, is not libertarian.  I don't know what to call it.  For example, trying to change the minds of  people who think that certain behaviors or lifestyles, though non-aggressive, are immoral.

Libertarian morality is about avoiding aggression.  Whether it's libertarian regarding other notions of morality depends on how you're trying to change people's minds.  If you're exercising free speech and not using any violence, then it's libertarian.  In that case you're using reasoned arguments.  Fining or taxing people for "immoral" behavior (like alcohol) is not libertarian.  Alternatively, taxing or regulating everyone and using some of that to selectively license or reward "moral" behavior is also not libertarian.  It's the same idea but more devious.

That said, it's hard to sell people on the message that they should base their actual behavior on one morality that says violence is only acceptable for defensive purposes (the libertarian message), while out of the other side of your mouth you're talking about a different code of morality that has completely different standards.  Libertarians believe defensive violence is justified for immoral acts, specifically aggression or fraud.  If you're out there convincing people that lots of non-aggressive activities are immoral, why would you not expect them to feel that violence is justified to deal with those "immoral" acts?

It seems obvious on its face that achieving social change, i.e. promoting tolerance of our differences, can help to achieve libertarian goals of living together peacefully.  It also seems obvious on its face that you're fueling statism when you convince people that some behaviors, though hurting no one, are immoral.

"Immoral" almost always translates to "I will forcibly stop this, because I believe it is universally wrong."

Word.
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: Argentum on June 17, 2011, 06:48:56 pm
"The fact is that libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life.

Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit, except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism.

It should not be surprising, therefore, that there are libertarians who are indeed hedonists and devotees of alternative lifestyles, and that there are also libertarians who are firm adherents of "bourgeois" conventional or religious morality. There are libertarian libertines and there are libertarians who cleave firmly to the disciplines of natural or religious law. There are other libertarians who have no moral theory at all apart from the imperative of non-violation of rights. That is because libertarianism per se has no general or personal moral theory. "

Murray Rothbard

It's better sometimes to quote the Master.


Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: Argentum on June 17, 2011, 06:54:42 pm


"Immoral" almost always translates to "I will forcibly stop this, because I believe it is universally wrong."


I disagree.  I think that it's more like a majority of the time.  And even so, that doesn't mean that you should assume that just because someone thinks something is immoral that they are likely going to employ force to remedy it.

If the NAP is the extent of your morality, fine.  But there are plenty of libertarians who have additional moral standards on top of the NAP.  Even many statists aren't complete statists.  Some of them might abhor certain things but still not call for it to be stopped by force. 

Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: MaineShark on June 17, 2011, 07:19:33 pm
"Immoral" almost always translates to "I will forcibly stop this, because I believe it is universally wrong."
I disagree.  I think that it's more like a majority of the time.  And even so, that doesn't mean that you should assume that just because someone thinks something is immoral that they are likely going to employ force to remedy it.

As in the case of the man walking down the street with a gun in his hand.  He might not do anything with it, but if it's in his hand, not a holster, odds are that sane people will be wary of him.

If the NAP is the extent of your morality, fine.  But there are plenty of libertarians who have additional moral standards on top of the NAP.

If they are not universal, they aren't worthy of being called morality.  They are ethical standards, particular to those individuals and the groups they belong to.

Even many statists aren't complete statists.  Some of them might abhor certain things but still not call for it to be stopped by force.

You can't be a little bit pregnant, and you can't be an "incomplete" statist.  Statism is a religion, predicated on the notion that when a group of individuals gets together and performs certain rituals, they are transformed into a "State," which grants them the ability righteously do things which none of them, individually, has the right to do.  One either believes that mythos, or does not.  No matter how small a State some particular Statist would like to see, if he wants to see any State at all, he is a Statist.

Joe
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: Denis Goddard on June 17, 2011, 07:31:33 pm
Even many statists aren't complete statists.
The difference between an effective winner of hearts and minds, vs. a masterdebater, is the masterdebater doesn't understand that his philosophical enemies are intelligent humans who believe they are acting for the good.
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: MaineShark on June 17, 2011, 08:30:06 pm
Even many statists aren't complete statists.
The difference between an effective winner of hearts and minds, vs. a masterdebater, is the masterdebater doesn't understand that his philosophical enemies are intelligent humans who believe they are acting for the good.

That definitely explains why you are unable to win hearts and minds, Denis.

Me, I understand that Statists are working for what they perceive as good; zealots always believe their cause is just.

Thus, the only way you can embrace liberty, is to give up your zealotry.  So long as you believe in Statism, you cannot possibly believe in liberty, because what Statism calls "good" is antithetical to liberty.  You will act towards what you believe is good, but that good is actually evil, when not viewed through the distorting lens of Statist belief.

Thus, only by abandoning Statism, can you stop working towards the evil that you imagine is good.

Joe
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: Russell Kanning on June 18, 2011, 10:46:33 am
Why would you be worried about being tied to the okc bombing when you are conservative? the guys that did that were government trained killers .... which you are not.

Yes, some of us associated with the FSP are extremist and anarchists. I guess you can tell your friends and the media that you don't agree with us.

My goal is to try and convince guys like you that the right path is an extreme one. A path that runs counter to the current culture. Jesus's early followers were considered troublemakers who obeyed a different god than Ceasar. I try to walk that same path.

Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: Russell Kanning on June 18, 2011, 10:52:30 am
I guess I am repeating Curtis' concerns but hopefully in a more tactful, and therefore more conducive-to-communication manner.   :)

and shall we say .... "conservative" manner? :)

I agree with Dale. In many ways most of us are not conservative because we want our society to change  .... and guys like Dale and I want the government to disappear (maybe by people not believing in it) :)
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: CurtHowland on June 25, 2011, 04:13:20 pm
I agree with Dale. In many ways most of us are not conservative because we want our society to change

Sadly, the -word- "conservative" has been warped to mean a particular set of beliefs.

For example, I have commented on the videos by "libertywriters", a YouTube poster whom Fox got all over for reposting Freedom Watch. Which is a real shame because that's the only way I get to see it.

Anyway, so long as it's not -his- cause I comment about, so long as I decry the statist efforts of the people -he- disagrees with, he considers me a "conservative".

But the moment I said, "I don't like Ann Coulter", he jumped in with, "I thought you were a conservative?"

I said, "I am. In fact, I think the Articles of Confederation worked a lot better than this Constitution has."

When I equated an irrational belief in Omnipotent Govt, which he was against, with an irrational belief in Omnipotent Sky Spirits, which he was for, suddenly I'm his enemy again, and no longer a "conservative".

Quote
and guys like Dale and I want the government to disappear (maybe by people not believing in it) :)

I do not like hypocrisy. That for one person coercion is illegal, and for another person coercion is not illegal, that I consider reprehensible. The definition earlier by MaineShark, that because people got together and bestowed upon themselves the "right" to coerce it is now "legitimate" for the group to do what no one member of that group had the right to do, is an excellent definition of the state.

The state itself is grounded in hypocrisy. Eliminate that hypocrisy, the state is eliminated.
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: twoms85 on June 28, 2011, 08:17:08 pm
I saw anarchists = extremists here. I guess I am a "radical" for capitalism, but am a bit insulted. I'm ready to move as soon as I find employment... But I am an anarchist, or Austro Libertarian (even though I realize govts will be around longer than we're alive), but I want to make sure that people like me would be welcome here. I'm a realist, but I also want to governed as closely to my own mind and body as possible.
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: MaineShark on June 28, 2011, 09:19:29 pm
We often call ourselves "voluntaryists" to seem less "extreme."

But anarchists are quite welcome.  The ones who complain about anarchists are mostly just a small handful of loud folks who have nothing better to do with their lives.

Joe
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: dalebert on June 29, 2011, 12:22:03 am
I saw anarchists = extremists here.

My impression from boots-on-ground here in NH is that we are the majority, but all types are welcome.  Plus, my impression may very well be biased based on the crowds that I tend to mingle with.  If I hung out at NHLA meetings or the state house, my impression might be very different.
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: twoms85 on June 29, 2011, 10:01:34 am
Ok great news. Thanks for the feedback and reinforcement. Hope to see you in NH soon!
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: BradKeyes on June 29, 2011, 10:04:49 am
anarchists = extremists
Anarchists are extremists in the literal sense of the word. With regard to government and use of force there is nothing more extreme than saying "it shouldn't exist" and "don't initiate" (except the other extreme which is total government control).

As far being welcome here, that shouldn't be a problem. There were 1000 people at PorcFest this past week split pretty evenly between anarchists and in-the-system, small government types. Everyone was welcome. There are discussions, disagreements, and you need to be able to defend your positions but we are able to get along and hopefully keep moving in the right direction.

Welcome.
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: time4liberty on July 01, 2011, 11:49:22 am
My opinion is that there is a very large number of people, perhaps a majority, that ascribe to the NAP, but also believe that inside the system pro liberty activism can be legitimate and effective.

Let's not forget that political activism does not imply a person endorses the state.

Ideals and tactics are different issues.
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: Russell Kanning on July 01, 2011, 09:33:29 pm
Ideals and tactics are different issues.
actually there are many of us that fit the voluntaryist name .... that think

"the means are the ends"

the tactics you use build the world of tomorrow

I try to follow great men that lived by that phrase.
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: Trenks on July 02, 2011, 02:00:52 am
This thread is funny. I think everyone should read the book " how to win friends and influence people" by Dale Carnegie. Especially the promotors. You attract bees with honey. You are a conservative? How wonderful! (And then you get them to talk about themselves for a little bit) I am a Voluntaryist myself. I was converted by some people on this forum a couple years ago.   
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: Argentum on July 03, 2011, 05:28:36 pm
This thread is funny. I think everyone should read the book " how to win friends and influence people" by Dale Carnegie. Especially the promotors. You attract bees with honey. You are a conservative? How wonderful! (And then you get them to talk about themselves for a little bit) I am a Voluntaryist myself. I was converted by some people on this forum a couple years ago.   

That may be better than accusing people of wanting to put brown people in cages and then bomb them. ::)
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: time4liberty on July 09, 2011, 11:10:18 am
Ideals and tactics are different issues.
actually there are many of us that fit the voluntaryist name .... that think

"the means are the ends"

the tactics you use build the world of tomorrow

I try to follow great men that lived by that phrase.

I agree that moral ends are not reached by immoral means. My view is that pro-liberty political activism is certainly not agression, and I think most of those I'm speaking about would agree.

I know there are some (perhaps including you) who do consider any political activism to be immoral, and that's fine too.
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: dalebert on July 09, 2011, 03:01:54 pm
I know there are some (perhaps including you) who do consider any political activism to be immoral, and that's fine too.

For me, morality is a tool intended to accomplish something and I base it on how well it works.  I don't have any faith in politics to accomplish more good than harm.  However, I wouldn't call someone immoral for engaging in politics if they sincerely believe they're doing more good than harm.  They obviously feel differently than I do and have a different level of faith in it as a tactic.

My views have changed somewhat over time, particularly in how I tend to discuss the subject.  I have, for instance, started a poo-storm a few years ago when I said voting was immoral, though I was specifying for myself and others with similar principles.  It's hard for that to not be taken personally and I am well aware of that now so I adjust my language.  If I say an action is immoral and someone has chosen to engage in that action, it certainly seems like I'm calling that person immoral.

And so I tend to avoid language of morality in general now.  If I do use it, I am careful to specify that I can only speak on behalf of myself.  I will say "I don't engage in that because FOR ME, it would be immoral based on my beliefs." while clarifying that I don't apply the same judgment to someone else who is doing what they sincerely believe to be the right thing or the best choice available to them.

So yes, it is immoral for me to engage in politics, but it not necessarily immoral for others to.  Depends on their motivations.  That's a complicated discussion.  For instance, a person can be engaging in an elaborate justification process when on some level they don't really believe what they're doing is right.  Even then, I probably wouldn't consider it an effective tactic to be confrontational and accusatory about that.  I'd rather engage them in a sort of Socratic method to help them resolve their own cognitive dissonance.
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: Dave Mincin on July 09, 2011, 03:13:31 pm
Dale, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said "FOR ME!"  To often people mean for me, and make blanket statements, whether knowingly or not, insulting their neighbors, and stating they are wrong, even if their neighbors hold the same strong convictions about freedom, but simply see a different road to attainment.

If I might quote someone who was much wiser than I, my grandma...."David, why can we all just get along," and if I might add, respect each other.  Personally I just think we should not be fighting with each other, because we all share the same goal, if our methods may differ. :)
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: Argentum on July 09, 2011, 04:32:35 pm
Dale,

I have to disagree.  I think some libertarians are reluctant to make moral judgments about others because they feel that's what statists do.  It doesn't necessarily follow that because I think X is wrong, that I think X should be illegal.  Granted, in many cases that's what happens.

It sounds like you're some sort of utilitarian (liberty works) and that's fine.  Some people can only be reached if they see evidence that liberty, and only, liberty can achieve their ends.

The NAP is a moral statement, though.  Libertarianism is a religion and I'm not afraid to admit it.  There's nothing wrong with judging people.  We do it everyday.

Some things are absolutely wrong.  Murder, theft, rape, etc.  We don't they those things are wrong for just ourselves.  In one way or another, whether through the existing State apparatus or in a Stateless society, those crimes will be addressed.
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: Russell Kanning on July 16, 2011, 09:16:05 pm
That may be better than accusing people of wanting to put brown people in cages and then bomb them. ::)
nah
they vote for and pay taxes towards people who
bomb brown people
and put the surviving males in cages
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: Russell Kanning on July 16, 2011, 09:20:54 pm
I know there are some (perhaps including you) who do consider any political activism to be immoral, and that's fine too.
if everything is fine .... then why choose one method over another ..... is it " whatever it takes to win"?
Title: Re: FSP Concerns
Post by: time4liberty on July 18, 2011, 11:29:58 am
I know there are some (perhaps including you) who do consider any political activism to be immoral, and that's fine too.
if everything is fine .... then why choose one method over another ..... is it " whatever it takes to win"?

I don't believe everything is fine, or moral.

I believe trying to work politically to reduce the aggression of government is moral.

I'm also fine with the fact that some people don't approve of it, or simply prefer other methods. I value their outside the system contributions as well.