Free State Project Forum

FSP -- General Discussion => Prospective Participants => Topic started by: liamfreeman on February 28, 2004, 01:52:24 pm

Title: Free State Policy for Government
Post by: liamfreeman on February 28, 2004, 01:52:24 pm
Comrades,
   I've been aware of the Free State Project for some time,   however only just recently started to investigate intensivly and joined today.  I have a few suggestions as well as questions for governmental policy in the Free State.  Please keep in mind that i am not a libertarian, per se, although I do support the idea.  Actually, I am an associate of both the Constitution Party in the USA and Fine Gael in Ireland(born and live mostly in the USA(Virginia)).
   First of all, while the stated intent of the Free State is to limit government to the preservation of life, liberty, and property,  I would suggest the following method for obtaining this.  While it would require a full-time legislature, I suspect that we would be better off in the long run.

The Legislature should be redisigned as a parliamentary system based on proportional representation and single transferable vote.

While all services such as public works ought to be conducted by private industry, not state organizations, the parliament ought to oversee and direct that which serves to promote "the general welfare," as it is painfully obvious that private industry never does anything "ought of the goodness of their heart," and wouldl likely never lay out roads, water lines, et cetera, in areas that it does not seam "profitable" to do so.

All taxes ought to be abolished but for a general 6% levy on consumption ought to be kept in order to pay the private contractors.

A question to you is:  does the Free State plan on eventual secession and establishment of an independent Republic outside of the union?  I expect that this might be in our benefit within the next 10-15 years.

A second question is, while gun controll is to be abolished, would be organize a citizen militia and uniformly equip them and whatnot?  That might also be to our benefit, in addition to, or as a replacement for, the National Guard.  If we replace the Guard, then there is nothing to federalize and we can remaine secure and independent without having to argue about it with the oppressive regieme of the Union.


----
Liam Freeman
http://www.anreabhloid.org
Title: Re:Free State Policy for Government
Post by: Eddie Willers on February 29, 2004, 03:45:19 pm
Quote
hile all services such as public works ought to be conducted by private industry, not state organizations, the parliament ought to oversee and direct that which serves to promote "the general welfare," as it is painfully obvious that private industry never does anything "ought of the goodness of their heart," and wouldl likely never lay out roads, water lines, et cetera, in areas that it does not seam "profitable" to do so.

I think you underestimate the concept of "enlightened self interest". Adam Smith fell into the same trap when he posited that certain construction could only be supervised by the State.

Also, ANY tax is regressive, and a consumption tax is very noxious - although an intrusive "income" tax is worse.

Since you assume that only the State can construct roads, power lines, bridges, and water pipes, a tax is necessary to fund these necessities since evil companies won't.

I suggest you reexamine the idea that anything worthwhile will be paid for. If I want a driveway, I will pay to have it paved. A road is an extension of a driveway. A group of neighbors will chip in to keep the road in good condition. If there are any slackers - people who refuse to pay - then we can charge a toll for use, and prevent trespassing.

Private property ownership solves all these problems.

'nuff said.

Eddie
Title: Re:Free State Policy for Government
Post by: liamfreeman on February 29, 2004, 08:59:13 pm
Another idea would be the issuance of bonds in order to raise the funds, although i suspect that with no revenue to the state from taxation, the only way to pay them back would be to take a portion of revenue raised and invest it into stocks and then pay back the bonds with dividend cheques.  
Title: Re:Free State Policy for Government
Post by: freedomroad on February 29, 2004, 09:43:15 pm
Comrades,
   I've been aware of the Free State Project for some time,   however only just recently started to investigate intensivly and joined today.  I have a few suggestions ...

Welcome to the FSP.  I am glad you are excited about the FSP and already thinking of ways to help.

Quote
All taxes ought to be abolished but for a general 6% levy on consumption ought to be kept in order to pay the private contractors.
It might be decades before the entire system of government can be changed.  Keep in mind that NH already has the best system of government and taxes of all 50 states.  It has many built in checks and balance already.

Quote
A question to you is:  does the Free State plan on eventual secession and establishment of an independent Republic outside of the union?  I expect that this might be in our benefit within the next 10-15 years.

The FSP will likely be gone in 10-15 years (everyone will have already moved).  Chances are that some of the people that will live in NH at that time will want to go for secession but that most of them will not.

Quote
A second question is, while gun controll is to be abolished
If all goes well (in a few weeks), people will be allowed to wear guns almost anywhere they want in NH, either out in the open or in their clothes.

Title: Re:Free State Policy for Government
Post by: SteveA on February 29, 2004, 10:24:02 pm
Glad to see another member :)

Other than getting 20K liberty loving people to NH, I think a generally agreed on successful result would be reducing the size of government by 2/3rds or more.  There may be taxes needed to maintain it, though voluntary support of a government can help that and many services can be privatized.  I don't think anyone can predict exactly what the results will be but having some more help getting there is great.  Welcome aboard!
Title: Re:Free State Policy for Government
Post by: liamfreeman on February 29, 2004, 10:32:44 pm
I am running at-large for my county(Gloucester, VA) board of supervisors on a Constitution Party ticket this year.  This move is mostly to get my name out so that I can run for Virginia state legislature once I am 21 (I am nearly 20 now).  I have experience in student government, and with the Sinn Féin and Irish Republican Socialist Parties in Ireland.
I am not a socialist.  I am more of a fascist, but as I am never likely to achieve that much power, there is no point in practicing it.  My brand of fascism would just stomp things out quickly and quietly, force the world into a highly liberated place, and then i'd retire to private life.  So i guess I am not really a fascist.  That is why I don't deal with those people.
My website, An Réabhlóid is almost fully redone.  It'll be completed by 11:30 p.m., 29 February.
Any contributions to my campaign fund would be greatly appreciated.  I have a small but growing grass-roots support group here.  I am working on the campaign page right now, including my platform and principles (download as .DOC)
Title: Re:Free State Policy for Government
Post by: Eddie Willers on March 01, 2004, 12:57:04 am
uh huh. Sure.

Quote
force the world into a highly liberated place, and then i'd retire to private life. 

You can't use force.

There's a quote you should understand:

"Take care of the means, and the end will take care of itself."

Which is the opposite of your proposal of "The end justifies the means."

'nuff said.

Eddie
Title: Re:Free State Policy for Government
Post by: Tracy Saboe on March 01, 2004, 02:01:43 am
If you use force to free people, all you'll end up doing is creating a new coersive government.

Have you seen Tolkien's Lord of the Rings?

You can't use evil, for good ends. The ends will be perverted and be evil themselves if you use evil means to achive it.

Tracy
Title: Re:Free State Policy for Government
Post by: SteveA on March 01, 2004, 03:08:36 am
I agree that you can't forcefully liberate people.  You can only open the door and try to convince them to come outside.  IMO, many California residents know there are problems happening in the state but don't where the source of it is.  You could likely come in, replace the entire government and rewrite every law but within a few decades it would be the same thing all over again.  People have to truly learn what works and what doesn't.  You can argue politics all day long but as long as most people have a decent income and few go to bed hungry there won't be much change.  We need to stop subsidizing governmental mistakes and expect people to take responsibility for their actions.  If one state decides there should be a law that noone needs work more than 30 hours per week, then let that state demostrate the merit of such a decision.  We only need to assure there is less overreaching federal influence that unavoidably affects all states so that states have the freedom to determine their own destiny.

This might've drifted off thread but I think a governmental hierarchy like this would work well:

1.  Federal laws require a very large percent agreement to be passed (i.e. 90%)
2.  State laws require a large percent (i.e. 80-95%)
3.  Local laws require a majority determined by the state (hopefully a good majority like 70-100%).

Add in a mandatory sunsetting of all laws so they don't accumulate and assure at least on a federal level everyone (including felons) has a vote to minimize abuse.

This would hopefully assure the overreaching and inescapable federal laws address issues that most everyone agrees, so few people feel oppressed by federal laws.  Though not purely libertarian, it seems that laws that have the support of a very large percent of the populace are effectively voluntary and likely part of the generally accepted social customs.  By requiring a very large percent of support for a law you can't pass a law unless you have a high enough concentration of people in that area that agree with it.  For example, there may be cities in Utah that would support the prohibition of alcohol to pass a law.  The few people in that city who have to drink, would likely move to another city that allowed it.  That second city would have a much harder time passing such a law.  In the end, one city has almost no drinkers and everyone there is relatively happy with the state of affairs.  The other city has a mixed crowd that can't justify prohibiting alcohol and people are relatively happy debating the merits of alcohol consumption with each other.  It's a bit of a hassle for the small minority of people that may have to move to live under a set of laws that's compatible with their lifestyle but much better than the current trend of everything being decided at the federal level and local communities having little or no representation at the federal level.

If the percent support to pass a local law was determined by the state, states could possibly even require 100% agreement by a community to pass a law and see how it turns out.

With this scheme, you'd have few people being forced to conform to a set of laws they disagreed with and also you'd have enough of a variety of local laws to allow their merits to be proved out in reality as opposed to theoretical political discussions (or political fashion statements LOL).
Title: Re:Free State Policy for Government
Post by: Terry 1956 on March 01, 2004, 02:13:04 pm
Comrades,
   I've been aware of the Free State Project for some time,   however only just recently started to investigate intensivly and joined today.  I have a few suggestions as well as questions for governmental policy in the Free State.  Please keep in mind that i am not a libertarian, per se, although I do support the idea.  Actually, I am an associate of both the Constitution Party in the USA and Fine Gael in Ireland(born and live mostly in the USA(Virginia)).
   First of all, while the stated intent of the Free State is to limit government to the preservation of life, liberty, and property,  I would suggest the following method for obtaining this.  While it would require a full-time legislature, I suspect that we would be better off in the long run.

The Legislature should be redisigned as a parliamentary system based on proportional representation and single transferable vote.

While all services such as public works ought to be conducted by private industry, not state organizations, the parliament ought to oversee and direct that which serves to promote "the general welfare," as it is painfully obvious that private industry never does anything "ought of the goodness of their heart," and wouldl likely never lay out roads, water lines, et cetera, in areas that it does not seam "profitable" to do so.

All taxes ought to be abolished but for a general 6% levy on consumption ought to be kept in order to pay the private contractors.

A question to you is:  does the Free State plan on eventual secession and establishment of an independent Republic outside of the union?  I expect that this might be in our benefit within the next 10-15 years.

A second question is, while gun controll is to be abolished, would be organize a citizen militia and uniformly equip them and whatnot?  That might also be to our benefit, in addition to, or as a replacement for, the National Guard.  If we replace the Guard, then there is nothing to federalize and we can remaine secure and independent without having to argue about it with the oppressive regieme of the Union.


----
Liam Freeman
http://www.anreabhloid.org
                                                                           
     I do think it better  if their is to be one legislative branch that each county regardless of population size have an equal number of represetives with  in the case of NH having 10 counties, it would take at least a 70% vote to make a law or budget. As a check on power  the people by direct majority vote could overturn a law passed by the legislature.                                                                        
            If there is to be 2 branches, a senate and house, in addition to the above the house could be proprational state wide. The house would also take at least a 70% vote to pass a law or budget, I think 80% would be even better.                                                      
  As far as taxes go the state would tax the counties in proprational to the number of people in the county.          
           As far as state and county property and public works, all of it would passed to the authority of the local neighborhood where it is located with a  annul settlement agreement payment to those not living in the neighborhood, thus  a neighborhood that took control of a state university would send payment to other state citizens not living in that area. A neighborhood that took control of a county water works in its area would send payment to citizens of the county.
Title: Re:Free State Policy for Government
Post by: Morpheus on March 01, 2004, 03:56:06 pm
Quote
Actually, I am an associate of both the Constitution Party in the USA and Fine Gael in Ireland(born and live mostly in the USA(Virginia)).

So you're a Theocrat, and an ultra-bigot. Good to know.

Quote
I have experience in student government, and with the Sinn Féin and Irish Republican Socialist Parties in Ireland.

And you're a Socialist, too. But true Theocrats are, as well, as they are Fascists.

Quote
I am not a socialist.  I am more of a fascist,

Just a form of Socialism. Socialism-lite, even, although 'lite' might be a bit inaccurate/superficial of a description.

And about your intention, as it would be, to "free the nation/world" if you were to become Dictator? Yea. I believe you. Right...
Title: Re:Free State Policy for Government
Post by: Morpheus on March 01, 2004, 03:58:42 pm
By the way.. I have observed your "principles" and your "platform". If what you have already said is not convincing enough to others- and to yourself, if you were truly familiar with Libertarian Philosophy as we follow it- then what you have already presented insofar as your political perspective is clearly enough to disqualify you as a Libertarian. Sorry.

That being said.. what are you doing here, Theo-Fascist?
Title: Re:Free State Policy for Government
Post by: <Patrick> on March 01, 2004, 07:36:21 pm
I am running at-large for my county(Gloucester, VA) board of supervisors on a Constitution Party ticket this year.  This move is mostly to get my name out so that I can run for Virginia state legislature once I am 21 (I am nearly 20 now).  I have experience in student government, and with the Sinn Féin and Irish Republican Socialist Parties in Ireland.
I am not a socialist.  I am more of a fascist, but as I am never likely to achieve that much power, there is no point in practicing it.  My brand of fascism would just stomp things out quickly and quietly, force the world into a highly liberated place, and then i'd retire to private life.  So i guess I am not really a fascist.  That is why I don't deal with those people.
My website, An Réabhlóid is almost fully redone.  It'll be completed by 11:30 p.m., 29 February.
Any contributions to my campaign fund would be greatly appreciated.  I have a small but growing grass-roots support group here.  I am working on the campaign page right now, including my platform and principles (download as .DOC)

I looked at your "principles"

Quote
here is no separation of Church and State.  The Constitution merely states that Congress shall make no law respecting the Establishment of a religion, nor prohibiting the exercise thereof.  That does not mean keeping religion out of the courts or schools.  As a practicing Catholic, I believe that religion has an important place in the day to day lives of individuals

So you want to force YOUR religion on the rest of us?!? What if we don't want to be told what to think?!? I suppose you also think it's ok to kill people in religious wars because their particular brand of blind faith is not the same as yours?

Quote
Voting is more than a right: it is a duty.  Those who are of age and not unexpectedly away from home at the time of elections have no excuse not to vote and ought to be very ashamed of them selves.

Don't you get it? Each individual has a right to live for themselves, to think for themselves, to make their own choices. We don't need you to tell us what to think or what to do. If a person chooses not to vote, that is their choice.
Title: Re:Free State Policy for Government
Post by: <Patrick> on March 01, 2004, 07:57:25 pm
Fascism is a form of socialism. The best example of Fascism was Nazi Germany. Fascism is the public ownership of all property except in name. It allows citizens to pretend that they own property, but they must use it in accordance with the wishes of the state. Since ownership means the ability to control a piece of property, the ownership is actually in the hands of the government.

In every significant way, Fascism resembles Communism. It also has a record of massive slaughter, scapegoats, starvation, and destruction of wealth. It has the same moral base as Communism. It is founded on Collectivism. They are different faces of the same evil system.

Collectivism is a form of anthropomorphism. It attempts to see a group of individuals as having a single identity similar to a person. The collective is claimed to have ideas, and can think. It has purpose, and it acts to achieve goals. It even has a personality, called culture. It claims to have moral rules the collective should follow. It claims to have collective rights, as well.

Since the collective is actually just individuals interacting, the collectivists have to change their views of individuals. They morally evaluate people according to the results of the collective. If the collective manages to accomplish something great like land on the moon, every individual is given equal credit. If a nation goes to war, everyone is to blame. And if an individual refuses to acknowledge the superiority of his collective, than he is a traitor and is eliminated. This is the result of collectivism.

http://solohq.com/Objectivism101/Evil_Collectivism.shtml

Title: Re:Free State Policy for Government
Post by: Morpheus on March 01, 2004, 08:40:19 pm
Wait. Here is more:

Quote
The right to keep and bear arms is more than just a right.  It is an absolute necessity that citizens own weapons and are well trained in their use.  In the language of the founding fathers, “well regulated” meant uniformly equipped with the standard issue long gun of the day.  Today that is the M16A2.  Therefore, all adult male citizens ought to be issued the M16A2 rifle and drilled at least once a month in its maintenance, operation, and in basic combat skills.

This implies involuntary servitude. Since when are Rights obligations?? Does not a Right to something- or, more specifically, TO something- necessitate the Right to NOT engage in it?

Despicable.

Quote
Marriage is for one man and one woman.  Even the very liberal Brehon Law of Pagan Ireland, while allowing for legal arrangements between same-sex couples, would not call the arrangement marriage due to the inability of the couple to produce children.  In the spirit of equal protection under the law I am for states allowing for civil unions for homosexuals.  However, the term marriage ought to be reserved for the bond between one man and one woman.  I would support a constitutional amendment along these lines, provided that the maximum amount of flexibility was provided to the states and that a fair shot is given to homosexual couples.  Many of my best friends are gay, however personal loyalties cannot overcome loyalty to the collective history of human culture.

Judeo-Christian bigotry at its finest. "Because it's the way it has been, boy!!" It was people like you who endorsed the ban on interracial marriage, who endorsed Governmental discrimination against non-whites- adhering to the "seperate but equal" doctrine- and SLAVERY because of TRADITION. And now you are supporting the Seperate but Equal doctrine for homosexual Marriage- out of political pragmatism, of course, as you fear towing the actual Constitution Party line.

By the way.. my best friends are black. I'm sure that some of yours are, too.  

Quote
Voting is more than a right: it is a duty.  Those who are of age and not unexpectedly away from home at the time of elections have no excuse not to vote and ought to be very ashamed of them selves.

Hey. The less Statists who vote, the better. I am confident that all TRUE and DEDICATED Libertarians vote, if they have the opportunity to do so. I, therefore, am hardly concerned.


Quote
Love, Loyalty, and Liberty are the three most important things in the world.  Love and loyalty are the foundations of any good relationship or family.

Awww...

Quote
Liberty is an essential human condition, which everyone in the world deserves.

Oh? Then why aren't you ADVOCATING it?

Quote
Community is subordinate to individualism.  Just as two people do not give up their own identity once there are married, one does not sacrifice their individuality while operating within the community at large.  It is important to the continuation of a healthy, free society that people do not lose themselves in the crowd.

You're a Theocratic Fascist. You have belonged to Irish Socialistic Parties, and now you belong to the Constitution Party: a Party which calls for, among other things [Which are all intertwined, verily], Judeo-Christian Theocracy and the death of homosexuals. You are an ENEMY[/I] of Individualism!

You disgust me.

Quote
All people are created equally in the eyes of God and should be treated equally under the law.  However, not all people are of equal capability.  While legally every person should be afforded the opportunity for achievement, it is one’s individual merits, which ought to give people their position in life.  I am apposed to affirmative action due to the fact that it gives an unfair advantage to people based on their race rather than their individual merits.  This is wrong and is in fundamental opposition to the concept of providing equal protection under the law.

Yea. Equal but SEPERATE. I got it.
Title: Re:Free State Policy for Government
Post by: Tyler V on March 09, 2004, 01:06:50 am
This is the first thread that I have read on this board, and I must say that i am very impressed.  This idea that most people have about a free market with "less" government regulation and intricate systems of "limited" market controls is running rampant in this country among those who call themselves freedom lovers and patriots.  It is very refreshing to see it isntantly shot down by numerous people on this thread.  I like the term Socialism-lite that i saw earlier; that is exactly what anything short of a totally free market is.  While this should be our ultimate goal, I would like to take this opportunity to warn against moving too fast.  The Free State Project is the best way I have ever encountered in my lifetime of acheiving real, non-violent, change in this country, and possibly reclaiming just a little of what our nation used to stand for.  However, we live in very different times than our forefathers, and must be very careful about how rapidly we execute this change.  The only thing worse than not having a Free State Project would be to build one, and then in our frenzy start changing everything at once, thus attracting too much attention from the federal government who will surely be trying to stop us at every turn.  Also, the American public is not what it used to be.  Too much change, too much turmoil all at once becuase of these changes, and we will not gain the support we need to enact any change in the future.  And there will be problems.  Cutting 2/3's of all state government is an admirable goal, and I for one will be fighting with everything i have to help that process along, but there will be immidiate negative effects with all cuts, and even if there are not negative effects, most average voters will preceive a threat anyway and not understand that these are the best choices for a healthy and free society in the long run.  Margaret Thatcher can attest to what a society will do when severe changes are made that directly, adversely, effect the general public, even if for only a limited time.  She basically saved England's economy in the 80's, but she had the power to quell the union uprisings, and general public opposition; we will not.  Privatizing government industry is absolutely necessary for a free society, but our current society will not like it one bit at first.  We must take great pains to spread out the change over time, slowly but surely moving in the right direction, giving people time to uderstand why these policies are beneficial.  

Well, if you've read this far, I thank you.  I am passionate about these ideals and about this organization, so please forgive the long posts.  In the writing of this message I have finally convinced myself to become a member of the FSP.  I never thought I would find so many other true patriots, didn't think there were this many left, but now that I have, and they are organized and passionate, I am looking forward to working with all of you to restore some much-needed freedom to this country.  

P.S.  And for all the pseudo-capitolists out there, who think that a society can be free in any aspect, without an absolutely free market, my suggestion is to read some Hayek, possibly some Friedman, then reexamine exactly what has happened to every single nation that has tried to regulate its economy.  The only characteristic of man that can be absolutely relied upon 100% of the time is that he will always do what is in his best interest.  The only system that allows for, even thrives upon, this is a free market.  
Title: Re:Free State Policy for Government
Post by: LeopardPM on March 09, 2004, 05:05:11 am
Excellent! and Welcome Tyler V!

yours in liberty,
michael
Title: Re:Free State Policy for Government
Post by: SteveA on March 09, 2004, 05:22:31 am
Hi there Tyler :)  Great to have you with us.

Quote
The Free State Project is the best way I have ever encountered in my lifetime of acheiving real, non-violent, change in this country, and possibly reclaiming just a little of what our nation used to stand for.  However, we live in very different times than our forefathers, and must be very careful about how rapidly we execute this change.  The only thing worse than not having a Free State Project would be to build one, and then in our frenzy start changing everything at once, thus attracting too much attention from the federal government who will surely be trying to stop us at every turn.

We're just getting excited but I don't think this will be an issue for a while.  There are going to be enough people digging in their heels for a while that we'll be doing one step forward for every two steps till we get up to speed.

I do agree that not everyone will keep up with the ideas as quickly as most the people here, so time and alternative solutions need to be presented to the public before making large changes ... but there's little reason to worry about that yet.  We're still learning how to crawl ... running is a long way off still ;)

Quote
P.S.  And for all the pseudo-capitolists out there, who think that a society can be free in any aspect, without an absolutely free market, my suggestion is to read some Hayek, possibly some Friedman, then reexamine exactly what has happened to every single nation that has tried to regulate its economy.  The only characteristic of man that can be absolutely relied upon 100% of the time is that he will always do what is in his best interest.  The only system that allows for, even thrives upon, this is a free market.

We can definitely use you!  Welcome aboard
Title: Re:Free State Policy for Government
Post by: thrivetacobell on March 10, 2004, 05:10:02 pm
Yes! Capitalism is the only economic system which actively promotes Individualism! Lets discover the Free Market, Free Enterprise, and all those other freedoms which Liberty is bound to let flourish!

Good to have you, Tyler.

How did you find your way to the FSP? We need to find more like you!
Title: Re:Free State Policy for Government
Post by: Tyler V on March 10, 2004, 07:55:46 pm
Quote
How did you find your way to the FSP? We need to find more like you!

Well, I have a business partner, and longtime personal freind, who first mention your organization to me.  I researched it, signed up, and he will be signing up very shortly, possibly even another of his associates.  His enthusiasm and dedication are equal, if not greater than, mine; and his principles on freedom and individualism are directly in line with what I have seen here.  

I am not very actively recruiting yet, but I can guarantee you at least one more freedom-loving activist willing to scarifice for the advancement of liberty.  Speaking of sacrifice, I was amazed at how many people were not willing to make the very small sacrifice of  moving to another state.  This is really very little to ask of someone who has already claimed to be fighting for individual liberty.  In fact, I can think of no smaller task that would effect any real change so simply and cheaply.  I'll stop here before I make any heavey-handed remarks and start offending people  ;D
Title: Re:Free State Policy for Government
Post by: LeopardPM on March 11, 2004, 09:27:44 am
you will find it much harder to offend those who believe in freedom than the usual statist - don't worry so much about that!  Express your views and others will agree or attack as they see fit... just don't take anything personally!

michael

PS: the only thing really offensive is proposing that the government ought to use force to put into action just about any program/moral guidance/etc