Free State Project Forum

FSP -- General Discussion => Prospective Participants => Topic started by: Elizabeth on October 03, 2003, 06:15:06 pm

Title: Burning Questions
Post by: Elizabeth on October 03, 2003, 06:15:06 pm
[A member named Cosmos IMed me with this.]

Hi, sorry to ask questions this way but do not know how to post questions on the main board. feal fre to post my question publicly. I am a 38 year old father of two who has no affilliations with religion or violence and can not see how either of the two could play a role in your proposal. I have read through the FSP forum and see allot of anger and irrationality associated with certain subjects (abortion, gun control)
I do believe guns kill and dont like religious zealots becoming involved in personal affairs of the individual.
Can you tell me why these are such burning issues amongste your membership?
The FSP movement is a noble idea but can it survive if its membership is made up of people whom pose the same risk as the folks you are trying to move away from. If I needed to shoot a dear to survive I may do so, but that does mean that I intend on hoarding munitions or even like to hold/own them. As they are the main reason why there is such a tremendous amount of violence today.
Where does religion fit into the FSP?
How many of the FSP members sucbscibe to a religious doctrine/dogma?
I certainly do want to survive, but believe that survival is in cooperation not individualism and bigotry. Which I unfortunately associate with survivialists.
plenty of questions, hope all can be broached?
cosmos
Title: Re:Burning Questions
Post by: underwater on October 03, 2003, 06:31:46 pm
Hey cosmos,

I personally do not own a gun. I do support the 2nd Amendment and I believe that it applies to individuals. I rather have intelligent men and women carrying weapons than 18-year old military recruits. Basically, I really like the Swiss notion of national defense being rooted at the local level and not in a far off capitol. As for religion - I guess I am an agnostic or a really liberal Christian. I do not attend any formal worship services. I am pro-choice, but anti-abortion. That means that I would support adoption/charities that might help a woman complete a pregnancy. However, if she decides that abortion is her only option I will not condone the use of force/government to prevent her from carrying out her decision.

Oh, and like any organization, the FSP has a "right" and "left" wing. However, we all share the general goal of less government and the concept that the individual is the primary political unit.
Title: Re:Burning Questions
Post by: SteveA on October 03, 2003, 07:08:48 pm
I feel similarly as underwater.  I don't own a gun either but feel strongly that the protection of our right to bear arms is both helpful for crime and limits the admittedly slim possibility of tyranny in America.  Areas where we have the worse crime seem to be areas that have had strict gun controls.

Regarding religion, I believe religion has been a large influence in America for good and bad.  I don't particularly believe there is an all powerful being out there but others disagree.  From personal experiences I have seen a variety of religions and believe that they provide guidance in various ways to people though when reason is replaced with blind faith it seems detrimental.  I would prefer to see religions concentrate more on education and encouragement of its members with less reliance on God and more on themselves.

Quote
I certainly do want to survive, but believe that survival is in cooperation not individualism and bigotry. Which I unfortunately associate with survivialists.

Oh, and like any organization, the FSP has a "right" and "left" wing. However, we all share the general goal of less government and the concept that the individual is the primary political unit.

I'm sure you might see some overreactions from people but they have legitimate concerns about individual freedoms.  We are not all alike or agree on everything and that's actually the basis of the FSP.  You don't have to be much of any particular type of person except one who is willing to not expect government to have them conform to some democratically envisioned norm.  Liberatarians by definition do not forcefully impose themselves on others and the cooperation they promote is voluntary as opposed to enforced so you get the best of all worlds :)

Welcome Cosmo
Title: Re:Burning Questions
Post by: Daniel McGuire on October 04, 2003, 01:20:51 pm
Hi Cosmos,

You asked why religion and guns are of interest to FSP members.  Both are important to liberty.  The opposite of liberty is coercion.  The two groups who act coercively are criminals and government.  Of the two, government is the most pervasive; it takes 50% of our stuff, while crime's take is much smaller.  On the other hand crime is much harsher, sometimes violating our persons and our lives.

Both religion and gun ownership can play a role in reducing criminal and government activity and thus increasing liberty.  Clearly our founders understood this since they made these issues #1 and #2 in the bill of rights.  Let's start with philosophy and religion.

It's easy to see how religion can reduce crime by teaching morality.  Religion also tells us that our human rights, i.e. restrictions on government, are not granted to us by government, but by God (or nature if you prefer).  That is why there are certain liberties the majority cannot properly revoke.  Unfortunately as a pratical matter, when government does trample on our rights God does not take action to prevent it.  Only enough people with enough understanding of the issue can make a difference.

You say that you "don't like religious zealots becoming involved in personal affairs of the individual".  Is this really a significant problem?  Are Muslims preventing your butcher from selling pork chops?  Do Jews keep you from driving on Saturday?  Exactly how do religious people exercise control over your life?  The only way would be by getting government to do the dirty work for them.  I submit that a much more serious problem is the non-religious zealots who get government to control what kind of house you can live in, who is allowed to cut your hair, how many taxis are available to pick you up at the airport, who can help deliver your child, what medicines you are allowed to use, how much food is grown, etc, etc, etc.

Regarding the specific issue of abortion, the entire argument is over whether it is murder or simply a surgical procedure like removing a tumor.  No matter how you stand on the issue, it clearly is a matter for each individual state to decide; murder is not a federal crime.  I personally do think that abortion should be illegal because I can't see how an act that would be murder on Wednesday is only surgery on Tuesday.  I doubt if the majority of FSP members would agree.

On to guns.  You seem to take it as a given that private ownership of guns causes violent crime.  Both facts and logic are against you.  Places that have the most restrictive gun control laws, such as Washington DC, also have the highest murder rate.  In places without gun restrictions violent crime is less as criminals turn more to property crime. Even a small number of armed citizens can go a long way.  How long is someone going to last in the robbery business if he is going to get shot by one out of ten or even one out of twenty of his victims?  If you are squeamish, it is enough for you to oppose gun control laws and to encourage your neighbors to arm themselves.

Can gun ownership restrict government?  The examples that come to mind are not promising.  Guns didn’t prevent the Japanese from being sent to internment camps, they didn’t help the Branch Davidians, they didn’t keep Elian in the US, etc.  Only if we could somehow disarm the BATF, the T-men, the G-men, the X-men, ... and require the government to rely on local police for law enforcement would there be some possibility that armed resistance would be effective.  It seems a better bet that armed citizens will get a psychological boost; feeling more self-reliant they would be more likely to oppose government in the ballot box and the jury box.

I must also comment on your statement that “survival is in cooperation not individualism and bigotry”.  This seems confused to me.  Liberty is cooperation and individualism as opposed to coercion and collectivism.  Also bigotry is primarily a problem when practiced by government as with affirmative action.  Social pressure can deal with individual bigots.  For example, if my bus company wants to exclude filthy Vermonters, that is only a problem if the government has granted me the exclusive right to provide bus service in Nashua.  Otherwise, the way to deal with me is to ride with the competition and put me out of business.

Take care,
Dan
Title: Re:Burning Questions
Post by: Sardonicous on October 05, 2003, 07:01:23 pm
This guy ties Individualism with bigitry.

Also this person says Gun ownership cause violence.

To you Sir and others like you I say ...

Only a barbarian is afraid of an armed man.

Without a population owning guns violence and crime would be much worse.

I would love to put a commercal against gun control on TV or radio.
It would be a prision interveiw of a rapist thug talking about how he loves gun control.
Title: Re:Burning Questions
Post by: Tony on October 05, 2003, 08:36:56 pm
The original message is incomprehensible.  Given his  apparent disdain for individualism and for various liberties, I doubt he should join.  He sounds like he can't handle a libertarian society, or even a slightly libertarian state for that matter.

Quote
I certainly do want to survive, but believe that survival is in cooperation not individualism and bigotry.
::)  Isn't the entire point of this project to protect the rights of individuals?
Title: Re:Burning Questions
Post by: SteveA on October 05, 2003, 08:46:59 pm
Quote
Quote
I certainly do want to survive, but believe that survival is in cooperation not individualism and bigotry.
Isn't the entire point of this project to protect the rights of individuals?

I believe cooperation will exist more in a Free State because we will be less able to wait for government to take care of things.  Fewer bad habits will develop without government as a babysitter because society will play a more important role, whether that's family, friends, a spouse or other social group.
Title: Re:Burning Questions
Post by: Tony on October 05, 2003, 10:59:55 pm
Quote
Quote
I certainly do want to survive, but believe that survival is in cooperation not individualism and bigotry.
Isn't the entire point of this project to protect the rights of individuals?

I believe cooperation will exist more in a Free State because we will be less able to wait for government to take care of things.  Fewer bad habits will develop without government as a babysitter because society will play a more important role, whether that's family, friends, a spouse or other social group.

There probably will be more cooperation, but it will be voluntary and based on the interests of the individuals.  It will evolve based on the advances in individual liberty and responsibility.  The relationships that we have will probably be more meaningful and of a greater value.
Title: Re:Burning Questions
Post by: michLinoregon on October 05, 2003, 11:00:46 pm
To answer the man who posed the original questions.

I have no religious affiliations. I have explored a few religions in my time and never "felt" God. I do respect the rights of those who believe in God to do so. When it crosses the line into my life, that's when I have the problem.

The abortion issue is when it crosses the line with me. No one should tell me what to do with the foremost thing I should own outright, and that's my body. If I happen to make a mistake (condom breakage, pill failure) I and only I will determine what goes on with my body. Although I would probably never have an abortion, I should have the freedom to do so safely by a doctor who's willing to do it. To block this sort of thing is paternalistic. There is no justification to blocking abortion except to punnish someone for their mistakes, and last time I checked (according to religion) that's up to God. Let Him be my judge.

As for guns, that falls along the same lines as abortion. I should be able to protect myself (being a single woman) in the most effective way I can find. I do not own a gun, but am planning to get one as soon as I go through the government required training (I was in the army, but still have to take the training as a civilian). Besides, an armed society is a polite society.

These pro gun control people never really talk about all the violence guns help to prevent. Not even the government thinks guns are violent all the time. If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns, cases in point, Washington D.C., NY City, and England. They may have outlawed ownership of guns by the citizenry, but there is still quite a wealth of them to be found amongst the criminal element.
Title: Re:Burning Questions
Post by: yinyangdc on October 05, 2003, 11:46:14 pm
The abortion issue is when it crosses the line with me. No one should tell me what to do with the foremost thing I should own outright, and that's my body.
The problem here is that many who oppose abortion see the fetus as a separate living entity(proved by having different DNA) for which the woman is the guardian.
Of course, you do have the right to do with your own body as you see fit. I just see the baby as a different body.
Title: Re:Burning Questions
Post by: michLinoregon on October 05, 2003, 11:50:44 pm
That's where the matter of personal choice comes in. Making the ones you can live with.  ;) Ultimately YOU have to live with them, no one else.
Title: Re:Burning Questions
Post by: Tony on October 06, 2003, 02:24:24 am
Quote
. I do not own a gun, but am planning to get one as soon as I go through the government required training (I was in the army, but still have to take the training as a civilian).


You only need training to get a license to carry concealed in OR.  You could go out and buy any "legal" (of course every single one on Earth is legal, but tell that to the .gov) handgun, rifle, or shotgun you want tomorrow.   Furthermore, your military training just might meet the training requirement for an Oregon concealed carry license.  You might want to consider a high-quality training program whether you actually need it or not though.

Check out http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/oregon for more info on getting a conceal carry license in OR.

[edited for poor typing]
Title: Re:Burning Questions
Post by: SteveA on October 06, 2003, 10:45:17 am
Quote
That's where the matter of personal choice comes in. Making the ones you can live with.   Ultimately YOU have to live with them, no one else.

Some people may have a hard time living with their decision to not defend the baby.
Title: Re:Burning Questions
Post by: michLinoregon on October 06, 2003, 01:10:43 pm
Thanks Tony, I guess some more training wouldn't hurt, it's been a long time since I've fired a gun although It's like riding a bike really.

As for Steve, I'm sure those among us who would have a hard time living with not defending the baby would probably be those who would choose not to have an abortion. As for the others, are YOU going to stop them? That's a little paternalistic. Are you going to set yourself up as someone who knows what's best for them? How would you defend your position and prove yourself right? Not all women want to be mothers and not all women should be mothers.
Title: Re:Burning Questions
Post by: SteveA on October 06, 2003, 02:17:04 pm
Quote
As for Steve, I'm sure those among us who would have a hard time living with not defending the baby would probably be those who would choose not to have an abortion. As for the others, are YOU going to stop them? That's a little paternalistic. Are you going to set yourself up as someone who knows what's best for them? How would you defend your position and prove yourself right? Not all women want to be mothers and not all women should be mothers.

What I'm saying is that some people view it as murder.  It's an issue that isn't specific to any political party and has little to do with paternal instincts.  If someone is murdered we don't idly stand by in.

I'm not saying it is murder.  Just that those are views people have.
Title: Re:Burning Questions
Post by: jdavidb on October 07, 2003, 02:19:45 pm
Quote
That's where the matter of personal choice comes in. Making the ones you can live with.   Ultimately YOU have to live with them, no one else.

Some people may have a hard time living with their decision to not defend the baby.

The baby certainly has a hard time living with it.  :-\
Title: Re:Burning Questions
Post by: LeopardPM on October 29, 2003, 03:46:08 am
Regarding the specific issue of abortion, the entire argument is over whether it is murder or simply a surgical procedure like removing a tumor.  No matter how you stand on the issue, it clearly is a matter for each individual state to decide; murder is not a federal crime.  I personally do think that abortion should be illegal because I can't see how an act that would be murder on Wednesday is only surgery on Tuesday.  I doubt if the majority of FSP members would agree.

not to focus on abortion specifically, BUT...
regarding an act being murder on Wednesday but surgery on tuesday disregards the fact that as time passes, the world changes.  How can it be illegal on tuesday to drink alcohol, but legal on wednesday (your 21st birthday) for you to go out and get soused?  As time passes, things change, an egg an ovum unite, the split - many times, they start to become a distinct form and take on specific characteristics, and finally... a baby is born.  So the real question is not whether or not abortion is murder or a surgical proceedure, but rather WHEN it is one or the other.  Murder has to have a human being as a victim, so WHEN do a sperm and egg become a 'human'?  Both sides agree that murder is wrong... its in the definition of a human being where the problem lies... and will continue to lie for years/centuries to come...

BTW: in regards to original poster
hmmm, considering the views you typed, I don't see how exactly you would be attracted to the FSP... perhaps you could understand the concepts of what exactly the freedom is that we all desire, but, not in the time that would be required for you to pick up and move to new Hamshire and become an evangelistic activist of liberty.... I do hope you continue to ask questions and try to understand the answers you receive... if nothing else, it might be entertaining to you, at best, you might discover you have a hidden libertarian streak in you somewhere!

michael
michael
Title: Re:Burning Questions
Post by: ProteusLizz on October 30, 2003, 09:43:36 am
Quote
That's where the matter of personal choice comes in. Making the ones you can live with.   Ultimately YOU have to live with them, no one else.

Some people may have a hard time living with their decision to not defend the baby.

The baby certainly has a hard time living with it.  :-\

And this is why I believe abortion should NEVER be voted on.  The only part I will agree on is the manner in which the procedure is done.  The medical community has their own course of action to deal with those who do not follow guidelines.  Abortion shouldn't be on the law books as legal OR illegal, its a personal choice and should remain so.