Free State Project Forum

FSP -- General Discussion => Prospective Participants => Topic started by: EJ on July 22, 2002, 09:57:13 am

Title: Problems with the Constitution
Post by: EJ on July 22, 2002, 09:57:13 am
If a state is selected, it still falls under the US Constitutuion.  I have no issues with that as long as we force the Federal government to follow it to the letter.  

Personally I think this idea of a living breathing document called the constitution is a way to move towards Mob(oops majority) Rule.  

I need to be sure that the rules are the rules.  No special treatments of this entity and that entity.  That we all read the document, and can with great consistancy understand it the same way, much as we understand that one is one, and not sometimes two.

So, would we be prepared to launch constitutional challenges as often as possible to get the Feds back to what the original role was meant to be?  

What are your thoughts?

EJ
Title: Re:Problems with the Constitution
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 22, 2002, 11:13:46 am
We would presumably launch many legal challenges at the federal government aimed at restoring state autonomy.  For example, we can fight for the right to opt out of the Social Security system on the grounds that the 10th Amendment reserves this function to the states.  The legal challenges could be backed up by popular pressure.  One idea I've had is to start an "Association for Federalism" that would issue a series of demands and circulate them for signatures in our state.  This is an idea similar to the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which successfully pressed for a Scottish parliament.
Title: Re:Problems with the Constitution
Post by: orgile73 on July 22, 2002, 01:37:40 pm
 My thoughs are that we are not aiming to convince the government of anything, most especially of constitutional definitions; that's a realm of duty for the Supreme Court.
Contending with the government on defining constitutional issues will most definately land in the SC, by wich all arguments should and likely will fall under recitals of past SC decisions. Those historical SC decisions that fall in favor of ruling to the FSP cause, if they exist, will put the FED on the path of contention with the SC itself, rather than directly with the FSP.

I think constitutional rights can initiate the challenge, but it will be the nature of the court that will ultimately decide and will be our major contendor, not the Fed. We would focus more so on ways to convince the SC of its own historical convictions in the best possible ways rather than aiming in forcing the Fed to our own interpretations, even though boths paths aim to the same conclusion.

As Jason noted, constitutional rights granting a state realm
to establish an autonomy to Federal interpretaions and practices of the constitution is the goal. At least I think it is...
Title: Re:Problems with the Constitution
Post by: Freestatepatriot on July 24, 2002, 05:52:19 am
Would you be referring to the same Supreme Court that allowed national Welfare to be instituted, despite Amendment 10.

The past Supreme Court decisions have not always been glowing examples of honest legal interpretation.

I am ALL FOR pressing the Federal government to get back to the constitutionally-defined limits.

Adam G.
Title: Re:Problems with the Constitution
Post by: EJ on July 24, 2002, 10:30:11 am
One of the many things wrong with the system today is that politicians can vote and pass items that are indeed unconstitutional.  A good starting point would be automatic expulsion of any free state politicians that vote for items that are unconstitutional, and overturned in court.

Perhaps they get the three strikes rule and you are out rule.

Today, there is not penalty for politicians that constantly vote for and support items that are blatently unconstitutional.  Therefore, they do not mind pushing as far as they can, and over the lines when possible.

Free State's elected representatives need to stick to the constitution first and put their personal wants aside.  I hope that shall be the case.

We have to get the elected officials to actually think about what the constitution is and what it represents.  Until then we will have local officials doing what they want, and using our money to defend their unconstitutional plans and programs.  

This is what happens where I currently live and it needs to end.

EJ
Title: Re:Problems with the Constitution
Post by: Freestatepatriot on July 24, 2002, 11:37:51 am
Glad to see that there are some other constitutionalists around (not to say members of the Party of the same name).  

Adam G.
Title: Re:Problems with the Constitution
Post by: orgile73 on July 24, 2002, 12:39:51 pm

Would you be referring to the same Supreme Court that allowed national Welfare to be instituted, despite Amendment 10.

Adam G.


Yes. That would be the one. The constitution states that the  interpretation of the constitution itself lays in the courts of law. When you have a little time on your hands, take a look at The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68 (1994).  This act is one of the most far-reaching federal statutes ever passed by Congress. That has to be challenged judicially (and it has been for years)  by proving violations to the constitution, you can't vote it in or out.  It is by the powers of the SC that government legislative acts are deemed constitutional or not.  

Remember hanging chads? The government cant even agree on what a vote is, and even after the SC decision, they still cant agree. Talk about herding cats....  ;D

--Mike

Title: Re:Problems with the Constitution
Post by: Mega Joule on July 24, 2002, 06:04:11 pm
One thing to keep in mind, is that while we certainly must at this point operate under the US constitution, it in itself was not established in fairness and consideration of "We the people...."  It was in fact never voted on by the vast majority of the people.  No women, children, or blacks were allowed to vote and of the white males permitted to vote on a small percentage met the property ownership requires of suffrage.  Our constitution that we all hail as the glory of the people was never actually ”by the people.”

Granted it is all we have now, but I think it is always prudent to recall the orgin of the document we all hold so dear.  This nation was founded on the idea of freedom for certain privileged individuals (adult, male, property owners) not in fact on the ideal of freedom for all.

Mega Joule
Title: Re:Problems with the Constitution
Post by: Chipper on July 25, 2002, 03:54:06 pm
EJ, et al,

First I would like to say hello and GREAT PLACE! I couldn't stand yahoo groups. I've been following FSP since it's beginning. Used to post at yahoo under another handle even before the Porcupine was adopted. By the way, that logo would make a cool embroidered patch for my range jacket. ;D

I'm am going to offer my opinion here and it is just that, an opinion suitable both for contemplation or for lining the bottom of your birdcage. Like Fox, I spew. You decide.

I know that FSP is made up of libertarians, Libertarians, anarcho-(fill in blank) and many others who are concerned first and foremost about liberty and their lack of it under fedgov. FSP offers a tremendous opportunity to reclaim some of that liberty.

Since the plan is to select a state and to politically "seize power" (for lack of a better term) I would think that participants in the FSP would be most concerned over the elements of the state's constitution. Sort of a "take care of your own house first" approach. As a state FSP'ers WILL NOT be able to control fed policy or law or judicial rulings current or future. Why waste time and effort on things out of your reach?

FSP'ers however WILL be able to control their state's interaction with the fedgov. The power of the FSP state will go far in limiting the tentacles of fedgov action in the chosen state. FSP'ers can and should consistently work as a state to stand against any and all things proposed by the fedgov. Your fed reps in congress are at your disposal to do as you agree to have them do. So tell them to just say no to anything proposed.

Once FSP'ers gain control of their chosen state their actual work will only just be beginning. This project does not afford you the opportunity to escape the grasp of fedgov but you will be able to make it much harder for them to get their hands on you.  There will many things at the disposal of the state to thwart the efforts and effects of the fedgov.

By becoming essentially THE libertarian state and sticking to libertarian principles you will be a mighty big thorn in uncle sham's side. You will have a national and, at times, international platform for the libertarian principles. You will have the opportunity to show the rest of nation that these principles can effectively work and for the most part much better than what we have now. The opportunities afforded by this project are incredibly great.

For the Libertarians among you, moreso than concerns about fedgov, I would be concerned about those who seek to be legitimized in the mainstream. These people with their baggage of rabid support for fedgov combined with their deep desire to be accepted and lauded by the press and the punditry and the easy way in which they justify their support for the state (nation)present a huge danger right now for the "big L" Libertarians. If you acquiesce to those who are now doing their best to make the Libertarian party the new home for ex-repubs like the boys at Cato or FEE, you will fail to achieve anything useful in standing for liberty and thwarting the dictatorial rule of fedgov. Your efforts will be diluted and your state will be just one more soldier in line at the beck and call of fedgov.

In another vein, what about contingency plans for FSP? Many things indicate a high probability of economic and/or political collapse of the US. Food, housing and jobs will be the concern of many, not just FSP'ers. Ideals tend to become "flexible" when faced with an empty stomach. Plans generally tend to be put on hold.

These and many more are the things that I would be most concerned about rather than the semi-feudal document that empowers fedgov. Sharpening your focus on your state and what it can do independently of or in spite of fedgov would seem the best place to start making the state a truly libertarian one.

Chipper
Title: Re:Problems with the Constitution
Post by: Bill on August 01, 2002, 11:15:27 pm
EJ, et al,
Since the plan is to select a state and to politically "seize power" (for lack of a better term) I would think that participants in the FSP would be most concerned over the elements of the state's constitution. Sort of a "take care of your own house first" approach. As a state FSP'ers WILL NOT be able to control fed policy or law or judicial rulings current or future. Why waste time and effort on things out of your reach?

Yes, I mentioned in a "secession" post that such talk was not only extremist in perception by newbies and outsiders, but that it was also VERY far fetched an quite premature. You (we if I sign on) will be fighting many battles just to incorperate some modest Libertarian reforms into the state and local government 's policy.
Quote
FSP'ers however WILL be able to control their state's interaction with the fedgov. The power of the FSP state will go far in limiting the tentacles of fedgov action in the chosen state. FSP'ers can and should consistently work as a state to stand against any and all things proposed by the fedgov. Your fed reps in congress are at your disposal to do as you agree to have them do. So tell them to just say no to anything proposed.

The secretary of state can and should select good cases that a state government could push into the supreme courts radar scope. This would of course benefit all states, not just the free one.

Quote
For the Libertarians among you,

I'm a BIG "L"
Quote
moreso than concerns about fedgov, I would be concerned about those who seek to be legitimized in the mainstream. These people with their baggage of rabid support for fedgov combined with their deep desire to be accepted and lauded by the press and the punditry and the easy way in which they justify their support for the state (nation)present a huge danger right now for the "big L" Libertarians. If you acquiesce to those who are now doing their best to make the Libertarian party the new home for ex-repubs like the boys at Cato or FEE, you will fail to achieve anything useful in standing for liberty and thwarting the dictatorial rule of fedgov. Your efforts will be diluted and your state will be just one more soldier in line at the beck and call of fedgov.

I don't like Libertarian Puritan rhetoric in the ranks of the LP, and I would hope that the folks associated with the FSP wouldn't start passing judgement on a participants motives or background either. One thing I appreciate about the LP's philosophy is that we judge people not on what flag they wave or what their bodies look like, or what language they speak, but we judge people only by their actions! If someone makes a committment to this effort, and follows through with it (and all of the sacrifice and risk that goes along with it) I would welcome them. The action of making the move speaks volumes about a persons motives and values.

Bill
Title: Re:Problems with the Constitution
Post by: mikegags on August 08, 2002, 03:52:03 pm
Chipper hit the nail on the head.

There is a *lot* more to this than just declaring ourselves to be a Libertarian-
controlled (politically) state. The courts will not simply declare 90% of the Fed
govt unconsitutional. Lets not forget that the courts are part of that govt. To
think that the courts will listen or that the Federal govt will negotiate with our state is naive.

-=-=-

As I surf through the various topics here I see people talking about the environment, same-sex marriages, "voluntary socialism" (a conundrum if there ever was one), etc. These discussions have nothing to do with restoring our lost freedoms. We must put aside our personal agendas, as did our founding fathers, and focus on the single goal of restoring our freedom.

We need to think like pilgrims. Not a bunch of horny 18 year-olds looking to drink beer and smoke marijuana.

And we need leadership. We need a small group of articulate, charismatic idealists like ourselves that we can rally around and focus on when things get rough. We need a champion for our cause. And we need him/her before we select a state and begin our
movement. Who will be our Washtington, Jefferson or Adams?

Title: Re:Problems with the Constitution
Post by: eldorado on August 08, 2002, 07:02:33 pm
Quote


As I surf through the various topics here I see people talking about the environment, same-sex marriages, "voluntary socialism" (a conundrum if there ever was one), etc. These discussions have nothing to do with restoring our lost freedoms.



how do you figure?

Quote


We must put aside our personal agendas, as did our founding fathers, and focus on the single goal of restoring our freedom.



freedom to do what, since we're not supposed to be concerned with specific types of freedom like same-sex marriage ect.

Quote


We need to think like pilgrims. Not a bunch of horny 18 year-olds looking to drink beer and smoke marijuana.



if we're willing to fight, move, support, and mobilize to get freedom for those things, seems to me like YOU would benefit from it, since you would get more freedom too.  

Quote


And we need leadership. We need a small group of articulate, charismatic idealists like ourselves that we can rally around and focus on when things get rough. We need a champion for our cause. And we need him/her before we select a state and begin our
movement. Who will be our Washtington, Jefferson or Adams?



no, because if you put in a "leader" and something happens to him  - either physically or he's disgraced or jailed or whatever - the movement will die too. besides, i can think for myself. i don't need someone else telling me what i should think or do.
Title: Re:Problems with the Constitution
Post by: Bill on August 08, 2002, 07:29:09 pm
Quote

no, because if you put in a "leader" and something happens to him  - either physically or he's disgraced or jailed or whatever - the movement will die too. besides, i can think for myself. i don't need someone else telling me what i should think or do.


I couln't agree more. The people who will arise as our leaders will be the people we nominate for the various state/county/city/district offices that our influx of registered voters is going to give us access to! The whole idea is to put freedom leaning people in the positions of policy making throughout the states government. We will follow their lead by supporting them/ holding their feet to the fire/ being candidates/managers/volunteers/ supporters of our local city councils/ etc. We don't have to build forts and make peace with Indians, but we may have to make peace with the indigenous population of the state that we "invade". I'm still not signed yet, but I'm leaning your way!
Title: Re:Problems with the Constitution
Post by: Mega Joule on August 08, 2002, 10:56:31 pm
Quote
Quote from: mikegags

There is a *lot* more to this than just declaring ourselves to be a Libertarian-
controlled (politically) state. The courts will not simply declare 90% of the Fed
govt unconsitutional. Lets not forget that the courts are part of that govt. To
think that the courts will listen or that the Federal govt will negotiate with our state is naive.


You are quite right in that the task before us is as monumental as was that of our founding fathers.  Once any government seizes power it is utterly opposed to relinquishing even the slightest measure of its control.  Our cries for justice in the chambers of the Supreme Court may well fall upon deaf ears.  The odds are stacked against us, but are we willing to forsake the battle?  I think not.  We will have to fight for every ounce of freedom we procure.  We will be hard pressed to convince the powers governing this nation to listen to us.  We will petition the courts, elect representatives, and invoke the powers of mass media to make our cause heard.  We will pass state and local laws securing liberty to the extending we are permitted under the tyranny of the federal government.  We will hold true to the ideals of our founding fathers and like them we will work peaceably so long as we are able to secure the blessings of liberty to which we are entitled under the constitution, bearing always in mind these words:

”When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

Quote

As I surf through the various topics here I see people talking about the environment, same-sex marriages, "voluntary socialism" (a conundrum if there ever was one), etc. These discussions have nothing to do with restoring our lost freedoms. We must put aside our personal agendas, as did our founding fathers, and focus on the single goal of restoring our freedom.

On the contrary, they have everything to do with our lost freedoms.  If we do not seek to protect the freedoms of all of those who are with us, we will be as a house divided.  â€œWe must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. (Ben Franklin)”

Quote

We need to think like pilgrims. Not a bunch of horny 18 year-olds looking to drink beer and smoke marijuana.

For the colonists who proclaimed their independence so long ago, the issue of molasses (used to make rum, the common mans liquor) and taxation on the same, was among the things they willing to fight for.  

Quote

And we need leadership. We need a small group of articulate, charismatic idealists like ourselves that we can rally around and focus on when things get rough. We need a champion for our cause. And we need him/her before we select a state and begin our
movement. Who will be our Washtington, Jefferson or Adams?


We do indeed need such people.  Not one leader, but many.  Not one voice, but a multitude of voices crying out, all different, yet ringing with the harmonious sound of liberty for us all.  â€œWho will be our Washington, Jefferson or Adams?”  That is yet to be seen, but if we are diligent in our efforts to secure freedom, we will find among our ranks, those men and women possessing the talent to illuminate our cause.

Stay the course.

Meg
Title: Re:Problems with the Constitution
Post by: mikegags on August 09, 2002, 07:29:47 am
Quote

As I surf through the various topics here I see people talking about the environment, same-sex marriages, "voluntary socialism" (a conundrum if there ever was one), etc. These discussions have nothing to do with restoring our lost freedoms.



how do you figure?



I figure we already agree that too many of our freedoms are being sacrificed in the name of security, fairness and safety. Complaining about them here is a waste of energy. Go read "John Adams". When the F.F. got together in Philly they didn't sit around and b*tch about taxes. They decided what they were going to DO about it.

Quote

We must put aside our personal agendas, as did our founding fathers, and focus on the single goal of restoring our freedom.


Quote

freedom to do what, since we're not supposed to be concerned with specific types of freedom like same-sex marriage ect.


I didn't say we're not supposed to be concerned with them. The FSP should be a place where people can come who are ready to do something, not just talk about it. Those people are free to come to the state after the movement has begun.

Quote

We need to think like pilgrims. Not a bunch of horny 18 year-olds looking to drink beer and smoke marijuana.


Quote

if we're willing to fight, move, support, and mobilize to get freedom for those things, seems to me like YOU would benefit from it, since you would get more freedom too.  


Please. You're telling me you're willing to sacrifice everything, possibly even your life, for a six-pack?
Like I said above, those people can come to the
state after the movement has started. The 20,000 needs to be made up of people who are true patriots. I *know* it sounds corny, but this is serious stuff we are talking about here.

Quote

And we need leadership. We need a small group of articulate, charismatic idealists like ourselves that we can rally around and focus on when things get rough. We need a champion for our cause. And we need him/her before we select a state and begin our
movement. Who will be our Washtington, Jefferson or Adams?


Quote

no, because if you put in a "leader" and something happens to him  - either physically or he's disgraced or jailed or whatever - the movement will die too. besides, i can think for myself. i don't need someone else telling me what i should think or do.


I agree this is the scary part. The leaders of today aren't driven by principles, but rather a lust for power. I'm also not talking about one leader, but leadership - our Founding Fathers (and Mothers!) if you will. People who don't necessarily want to lead, but just are the most passionate about freedom.

As for your 2nd statement, its not about telling you what to do. Its about keeping everyone focused on one goal.
Title: Re:Problems with the Constitution
Post by: mikegags on August 09, 2002, 07:47:44 am
Quote
There is a *lot* more to this than just declaring ourselves to be a Libertarian-
controlled (politically) state. The courts will not simply declare 90% of the Fed
govt unconsitutional. Lets not forget that the courts are part of that govt. To
think that the courts will listen or that the Federal govt will negotiate with our state is naive.
You are quite right in that the task before us is as monumental as was that of our founding fathers.  Once any government seizes power it is utterly opposed to relinquishing even the slightest measure of its control.  Our cries for justice in the chambers of the Supreme Court may well fall upon deaf ears.  The odds are stacked against us, but are we willing to forsake the battle?  I think not.  We will have to fight for every ounce of freedom we procure.  We will be hard pressed to convince the powers governing this nation to listen to us.  We will petition the courts, elect representatives, and invoke the powers of mass media to make our cause heard.  We will pass state and local laws securing liberty to the extending we are permitted under the tyranny of the federal government.  We will hold true to the ideals of our founding fathers and like them we will work peaceably so long as we are able to secure the blessings of liberty to which we are entitled under the constitution, bearing always in mind these words:

”When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
I couldn't agree more. I think I have finally found my movement.  :)
Quote
As I surf through the various topics here I see people talking about the environment, same-sex marriages, "voluntary socialism" (a conundrum if there ever was one), etc. These discussions have nothing to do with restoring our lost freedoms. We must put aside our personal agendas, as did our founding fathers, and focus on the single goal of restoring our freedom.
Quote
On the contrary, they have everything to do with our lost freedoms.  If we do not seek to protect the freedoms of all of those who are with us, we will be as a house divided.  “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. (Ben Franklin)”
One thing is different than 200+ years ago. Those guys met in *person*. Talking via chat loses all emphasis.

My emphasis here is on *restoring* freedoms - not identifying which freedoms are lost or which we want. We can bicker about that, as did the F.F, *after* we have our freedom.
Quote
We need to think like pilgrims. Not a bunch of horny 18 year-olds looking to drink beer and smoke marijuana.
Quote
For the colonists who proclaimed their independence so long ago, the issue of molasses (used to make rum, the common mans liquor) and taxation on the same, was among the things they willing to fight for.  
I agree. Maybe I need to re-think my position in this area.  ??? As long as someone shares my passion and desire for freedom, that is all that matters. I am just concerned that when the going gets tough, and it will, those with less conviction will abandon us. And that is far more damaging than losing a leader(s).
Quote
And we need leadership. We need a small group of articulate, charismatic idealists like ourselves that we can rally around and focus on when things get rough. We need a champion for our cause. And we need him/her before we select a state and begin our
movement. Who will be our Washtington, Jefferson or Adams?
Quote
We do indeed need such people.  Not one leader, but many.  Not one voice, but a multitude of voices crying out, all different, yet ringing with the harmonious sound of liberty for us all.  “Who will be our Washington, Jefferson or Adams?”  That is yet to be seen, but if we are diligent in our efforts to secure freedom, we will find among our ranks, those men and women possessing the talent to illuminate our cause.

Agreed. Beware of those who volunteer  ;)

Quote
Stay the course.

I will.

Mike

Title: Re:Problems with the Constitution
Post by: Halo on August 16, 2002, 10:59:33 pm
I'm new here and after reading a number of posts on various topics, would like to give my impressions and see what your responses are. First, I'm familiar with this environment of forums on the internet and have learned that people say things here that they would never say in person. It seems there is a certain degree of invulnerability in this virtual world. It is not my intention to flame anyone or offend anyone.

First of all I gather that most people here are either Libertarians or have libertarian inclinations. But, I see a lot of people who want a "Free State" so they can do whatever they want; using drugs, running around naked, arming their SUVs with rocket launchers, etc. That leans towards anarchy. Second, there seems to be a lot of atheists who don't like Christians and want to live in a state without religion and don't want to even hear "God" uttered by anyone. That doesn't sound like freedom to me; that's what I call a Burger King state - having it your way. Can't we all just get along?

I thought the purpose of the Free State was an effort to return to a Constitutional form of government since there is no other way to get the current system "fixed" by any other proposed means. Our Constitution isn't perfect, but it isn't the problem either. It's the people who have been running, and ruining this country for the past two centuries that are the problem. When Benjamen Franklin was asked what had been wrought replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it." Obviously, we haven't kept it. The question is, can we get it back? The freedoms we need to be concerned with are life, liberty and property.

Title: Re:Problems with the Constitution
Post by: SnowDog on August 17, 2002, 08:43:01 am
I agree.

Fringe ideas, as justifiable as they can be worded, will not endear our endeavor to the American People, nor to others whom would support our cause. We need to concentrate solely on broad libertarian goals. We need to choose our battle to be one that we can win.
Title: Re:Problems with the Constitution
Post by: percy, aka tntsmum on August 17, 2002, 04:08:23 pm

First of all I gather that most people here are either Libertarians or have libertarian inclinations. But, I see a lot of people who want a "Free State" so they can do whatever they want; using drugs, running around naked, arming their SUVs with rocket launchers, etc. That leans towards anarchy. Second, there seems to be a lot of atheists who don't like Christians and want to live in a state without religion and don't want to even hear "God" uttered by anyone. That doesn't sound like freedom to me; that's what I call a Burger King state - having it your way. Can't we all just get along?

This has been a great concern of mine. In my mind there is a difference between wanting to establish a free state where people can live in harmony, with individual liberties intact, where noone is forced to support anyone else; and ranting and drooling at the mouth in anticipation of free-basing heroin in open and standing on your front lawn with your RPG launcher looking for government aircraft. I've been hearing an aweful lot of the latter. I've also watched as anyone who dares voice an opinion with a Christian slant be routinely torpedoed. It doesn't even matter if that opinion is threatening anyone elses liberties or not.

We all get that one should be able to use the drug of their choice as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone elses rights. We all get that individual citizens should have the right to arm themselves without jumping through hoops set up by the government. I don't think it's necessary to constantly resort to hyperbole and vitriole to make these points.
Title: Re:Problems with the Constitution
Post by: bud on August 17, 2002, 07:05:51 pm
Beware of legalized prior restrains.  Hundreds and hundreds of laws and rules and regulations aimed at arresting and punishing people for what they "might" do.
That's a big part of what got us into the mess we face in the US today.  For every "crime" prevented by the "idea police" you will need to maintain this tyranny of the majority
there will be hundreds or thousands of innocent people robbed of their rights and freedom by the state.  We'll be right back to where we are now.  Maybe we need a dozen or more "free states", one for each special interest group that wants everybody to do everything their way. They won't all be real free states, of course. Libertarians? Yeah, sure.
I guess I'll have to wait and see what the "free state" actually turns out to be before I commit to permanently living there.   I think we need a LOT of real libertarians, cause a lot of the people on this forum don't quite get it yet.
Maybe that comes from decades and lifetimes of being manipulated and controlled by Big Brother.  If you don't know better, what else can you expect.
Title: Re:Problems with the Constitution
Post by: Cowboy on November 15, 2002, 08:30:11 pm
 One of the many 'first' things to do, is educate people about Jury Nullification.
 Everyone charged under an UnConsitutional Law, needs to insist on a Jury Trial.
 Don't keep re-electing incumbent Prosecutors and Judges.
 Only elect honest Constitutional Sheriffs who will only enforce Constitutional Laws, and will be willing to investigate and present for Prosecution of UnConstitutional actions by elected Officials.
 Impeach all those who dishonor their Oath of Office.

 Note that most of these activities can be started now, in your current State, just for practice.
Title: Re:Problems with the Constitution
Post by: Zxcv on November 17, 2002, 02:49:34 pm
It's understandable that some folks talk about "using drugs, running around naked, arming their SUVs with rocket launchers, etc."  It's understandable to be mad, considering how this country has gone down the toilet. Let's not get too concerned about scaring off others when such sentiments are made. Anyone who joins this movement will have to have tougher skin than that, because it won't be easy when we go into our state.

On the other hand, the wild ones have to be patient. It took a while to get us into this statist sh*thole where we are now, and it will take a while to dig us back out. We have to be in this for the long haul, folks.

I am on the libertarian purist end of the spectrum, but I understand it takes time and experience to get there (if not a little insanity ;) ). I don't aim to piss off others who haven't got quite to where I am on the spectrum, that is pointless. Especially Christian-bashing, that just has to stop. I used to do that when I was younger but I finally wised up (many of my friends now are quite religious even though I'm not). We will probably be going into a state that has a lot of conservative Christians, and FSP'ers who make a habit of bashing them certainly ought to be taken behind the woodshed...
Title: Re:Problems with the Constitution
Post by: Dave Mincin on December 04, 2002, 01:57:20 pm
Halo,

Libertarians?  No, believe we are a group of people who believe as the founding fathers...that government must be limited, so the individual has the opportunity to reach his full potential!

A 'free state' is not a licience to lie, cheat, and steal, but about limiting government interference in your personal affairs.  Sex, drugs, and rock and roll may be fine for awhile, but it's not the real world.  It's not the governments job to establish your morality.

Hey....I am a Christian and I'm here!  If you don't like me because of it  "Oh Well" not my problem!

The founding fathers understood the potential evil of government, thats why they did there best to limit it.  Simpy stated less government .....less evil.

Believe it would benefit all to spend a little time reading and learning about those incredible people!
Title: Re:Problems with the Constitution
Post by: Wild Pegasus on December 26, 2002, 12:16:24 am
The main problem with the Constitution was outlined perfectly by Lysander Spooner, a 19th century anarchist.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/NoTreason/NoTreason.html

- Josh