Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jeanius]

Let's make sure that we don't propagate mean spiritedness here.  Let's agree to disagree with our more argumentative liberty minded posters and keep our comments on a positive note.  I think we will get back what we put out.  Yes? 

I very much agree that how we work for liberty is a personal choice.  How we work towards it varies from person to person and from time to time.  I do what I can when I can.  I have had stretches of time where it is all I can do to vote.  Then there are stretches when I can do far more.  I may be involved with some of the more structured approachs in NH (NHLA, etc.).  And I may be involved in more personal ways.  Everyone has to do this the way that works best for them and the value of what we do isn't really for others to judge.  I don't work for liberty for public aclaim.  I don't work for liberty for the approval of my peers.  I work for liberty because I believe it is the right life for me and my family and I'm grateful there are others who feel the same. 

Jean

[Russell Kanning]

This guy isn't working for liberty. He isn't working for limited government. He likes regulation.
If I own a vehicle and hurt noone, then I should be left alone, not regulated.

[Brien]

This guy isn't working for liberty. He isn't working for limited government. He likes regulation.
If I own a vehicle and hurt noone, then I should be left alone, not regulated.

  You like to judge me but I will ignore that because I consider the source and you know nothing about me except what you have read so far.  You seem to always talk when you don't know what you are talking about.

If you own a vehicle that hires out for the public good, and you use the public roads, then you should be subject to regulation for public safety.  You have no right to go out on those roads, with your own idea of safety, and wind up killing innocent people.  We all pay for the roads and we as Americans are entitled to regulate those public roads for the safety of ALL people.  Your self centered myopic view of your role on the public roads is pure rhetoric.  It makes no sense at all.  How can you state that you will hurt no one?  Can I borrow your crystal ball?  I would like to buy a lottery ticket on the powerball.  I don't know of any truck driver that intentionally kills people with his truck.  But it happens.  And if you leave every individual to decide what is safe and what is not, then the incidence of fatalities out on the public roads will increase for sure.  This is not an issue of liberty but rather an issue of public safety.

You have no idea how to separate the issue of liberty from public safety.  It is no wonder you can't understand necessary regulation.  You write like an anarchist.  And if this is your idea of Libertarianism, I think you are very mistaken.  I could be mistaken, but I believe the Libertarian philosphy specifically states that if something in your idea of liberty can hurt another fellow American, then there needs to be some consideration for regulation.  So if you pretend to speak for Libertarianism, then I wonder who agrees with you?

[Russell Kanning]

It is no wonder you can't understand necessary regulation.
You write like an anarchist.
And if this is your idea of Libertarianism, I think you are very mistaken.  I could be mistaken, but I believe the Libertarian philosphy specifically states that if something in your idea of liberty can hurt another fellow American, then there needs to be some consideration for regulation.  So if you pretend to speak for Libertarianism, then I wonder who agrees with you?

There is no necessary regulation
I am an anarchist
I am not a Libertarian
...or try to speak for them
 

[Russell Kanning]

"You have no idea how to separate the issue of liberty from public safety."

I don't want to be "public safety"ed into no liberty.
Your vision of "freedom" .... is not

[unplugged]

Ok, is it just me, or does it seem like we get more productive discussions when we don't pick on or berate each other?  When we are respectful and accepting of other's opinions, even if they differ from our own, we have a better dialogue and an open road to understanding, even if we keep our opinions afterward.  When someone starts nitpicking and tearing apart another person's post, practically word for word, I don't see any positive outcome from it.  I am quite sure that these folks who post these rather negative messages are quite intelligent and have some interesting things to say; however, I am hard pressed to actually find these things buried in their 'attacks'.  If I want to witness continual attacks I'll go see War of the Worlds again.   ;D   Don't get me wrong, not every post has to be sweetness and light - I just think that disagreements can be presented in a civilized tone to get the sender's message across and to invite a response.  Besides, too much negativity makes your heart and head pound too much, like a bad hangover...

Sandra

[Brien]

It is no wonder you can't understand necessary regulation.
You write like an anarchist.
And if this is your idea of Libertarianism, I think you are very mistaken.  I could be mistaken, but I believe the Libertarian philosophy specifically states that if something in your idea of liberty can hurt another fellow American, then there needs to be some consideration for regulation.  So if you pretend to speak for Libertarianism, then I wonder who agrees with you?

There is no necessary regulation
I am an anarchist
I am not a Libertarian

...or try to speak for them
 

Mr Kanning:  If you are indeed an anarchist, then nothing I write will ever be respected by you.  I am only thankful you are in the minority of the far right political spectrum and can be identified as such.  It also prompts me to question your intentions here on the FSP forum.  I don't object to your presence, particularly since you are an admitted anarchist.    Those here, who are serious hard working people that respect our quest to regain the liberties that we have lost in our society over the last century, all will understand your political philosophy.  It is my opinion that you have no idea of the true consequences of anarchy.  There is an old saying:  "Be careful what you wish for because it may come to pass."  I thank my stars that you will never gain any political power or influence in our society.

[Brien]

Hey Brien,

I'm sorry you had trouble elsewhere in the forum.  I read the thread you referred to.  You did touch on one of the hot buttons that can cause a reaction.  Many of our participants are on the anarchist end of the spectrum.  Many are on the "limited government" side.  The anarchist side doesn't have much (well, maybe not *any*) tolerance of even limited government.  They will fly up in arms immediately about any state restrictions/limitations, etc.  That's the exciting and challenging aspect of creating a free society.  I *really* liked what you said about privatizing.  I, personally, think that's the best end solution.  I don't know if you've read Stossel's book, "Give Me a Break:  How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media ...".  In this book Stossel brings up Underwriter Laboratories (UL) as an example.  They've tested and approved electrical devices for ages .. and well too.  I've used Consumer Reports fairly regularly for purchases.  Anyway, I don't want to get too far off topic but my point is that some folks write before thinking and don't always read carefully.  And also folks are very passionate about their viewpoints.  I do expect that such conversations can be civilly conducted here is a way that allows us to explore different angles of topics.

Jean

Privatization is one of the cornerstones of Libertarianism.  I believe the Libertarian philosophy states that most government agencies could be replaced and reconstructed in the private sector.  I believe this is the positive direction of the Libertarian Party.  We must work to convince the skeptics that almost anything the government does in a "agency", the private sector can do better and on less of a budget.  John Stossel is a good friend of the Party and the philosophy.  He even pointed out that his own home on the beach in the Hamptons, NY, was destroyed by a coastal storm only to be rebuilt in the same area through mandatory "government" flood insurance, ie taxpayers money.  Private insurance companies will not touch coastal homes because they know eventually they will be destroyed at some point by mother nature.  Furthermore,private insurance companies know that if they insure such risky investments, when they do have to pay the claims, it increases the rate for all others insured by that company.  They have the right to refuse to issue the  insurance and that is why the government steps in to offer the flood insurance funded by OUR taxpayer's money.  What benefits do we as citizens and taxpayers derive from insuring multi million dollar homes along the ever changing ocean front?  NONE.  If the people who purchase expensive homes along waterfronts knew they would have to pay their own reconstruction costs after storms, then I doubt there would be as many "waterfront" homes as we have now.  Of course, large privately funded organizations could purchase waterfront property and spread the risk among all of the participants, but it would still be exempt from OUR tax dollars. It would also mean more "open spaces" for the general public to enjoy because the waterfront wouldn't be gobbled up by "keep out" signs.  Some of the "private" single home beaches would not exist and thus the waterfront would be more accessible for the general public to enjoy.                                      

 Mr Stossel is a sincere man who credibility goes a long way in my thought process.

He has given some of the best press for the Party for many years now.   Consumer Reports, The Insurance Institute for Automobile Safety,( I think that is their name), and the Underwriters Laboratory, are all fine examples of how the private sector can play vital roles in protecting consumers from dangerous products offered to the public.  They play an important role in "public safety" and do not take any money whatsoever from the government.  They prove that "privatization" works better than government in these areas.

[SteveA]

Something to think about regarding the small government/anarchy/privatization comments:

Most private interactions operate within an anarchic framework - families, community organizations, churches, businesses have very little reliance on laws and enforcement.  There are many ways social behaviors are controlled without explicit laws and police to maintain relatively peaceful associations with others.

If you consider a business, for example, and look at the desire of most the individuals involved to maintain a productive and healthy or otherwise beneficial arrangement between themselves, there's little need for any real physical enforcement of anything except the ability to remove those disturbing this arrangement from being part of this association.  The same goes for families and voluntary private organizations.  I believe these arrangements are relatively naturally occuring, though you can't always guarantee forceful interactions won't occur, they are generally limited if the organization is based upon voluntary association and doesn't forcibly include people against their desires.

The main problems arise when you try to expand upon this to include a system of various possibly conflicting ideologies - too many cooks make a broth that few people feel satisfied with.  That's why many people append a description to the term "anarchy" to describe how they envision such a system.  Most people aren't supporting anarchochaos or anarchomilitarism etc.   and I think the reason why terms like anarchocapitalism or anarchosocialism are used is that anarchy, I guess by definition, allows a diverse range of ideologies and so to avoid conflict, people are saying ahead of time, when they use these modifiers to the word anarchy, what sort of private interactions they prefer, if some form of anarchy were to exist.

The point I'm trying to make is that anarchy, within limits, as shown in many private institutions, works quite well.  There are few areas in day to day life where forceful interactions are needed, and given time, a society that grew up in such an environment would likely adapt to these circumstrances.  I do agree with libertarian and minimal government views that there are some forms of restraint that people should agree upon ahead of time and be willing to enforce (the #1 factor to me seems to be the need for people to agree to respect the independence and property of others ... or life, liberty and property as libertarians often put it).  Pure anarchists likely envision these arrangements arising inevitably so even these don't need to be explicitly agreed upon ahead of time - differences of opinion, that we aren't likely to see tested in reality for quite a while.  Of course oftentimes people mistake a minimal government or anarchy as not providing public services, but this isn't the case - these services are just not assumed to be forcibly selected for everyone by "The People" or aren't required to be forcibly supported via. taxes or mandatory community service etc.  The acknowledgement that everyone is ultimately individual and independent (if somone desires to be) seems to be the underlying rational for proponents of anarchy (basically a rejection of any, at least human, establishment being to some extent deified), and I think there's merit to that viewpoint.  I'd hazard a guess the primary complaint anarchists would have of a libertarian government would not be so much at the specific form of government (though I'm sure some anarchists might disagree) but at the underlying assumption that everyone is still assumed to be rightfully subject to the desires of society, however it happens to define rights to life, liberty and property at the time (I mean, take the recent Supreme court ruling where private property ends up being not so private anymore ... it seems inevitable that if noone ever were willing to violate a law or if all laws were 100% enforced (maybe mind control for people who attempted to violate a law ), we'd quickly find a tyrant making laws that noone would stand against, so the underlying view that social institutions were founded in anarchy and built up from there by generally voluntary interactions and that these institutions are still human and fallible seems, to me, an important view).

Something else to consider:  There's little concern that governments are going to disappear in the near future and sometimes you've got to aim a little higher than the target you're shooting for because gravity/a.k.a reality is going to pull things down some, so if people want to see smaller government, they've got to shoot for something even smaller.  Some people might worry that all the schools will be privatized or that Social Security will disappear ... there's little to fear, even having a President and Congress relatively supportive of these things not only doesn't make a dent, we're likely further away now than before (does anyone remember school vouchers or privatized social security? ... not that those ideas are necessarily ideals for the FSP but it doesn't appear that campaign promises of smaller government are going to be realized ... yet again).

I think once people see past the political titles and realize that in terms of what real results are likely to be seen, we're almost all on the same page, there's little concern except over which part of government to chip away at.

I hope my post fell with the definition of "civilized conversationalist" for the forum .  (Not a bad idea actually for a forum).

[Brien]

SteveA

I think one must first define anarchy.  From the American Heritage Dictionary.

Anarchy:  An absence of any form of political authority.  Political disorder and confusion. Absence of any cohering principle, as a common standard or purpose.

Anarchism:  The theory that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable, and should be abolished.  Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.  Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority.

Now, how does this fit with families, churches, and business?

Modern families have to operate within a social/ political framework if they are to be productive members of an organized society.  There has to be a framework within which the family must operate in modern society.  Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending upon your viewpoint, not all people see their roles in society the same way.  Therefore there is a need for rules.  Then, if there is a need for rules, there is a need for enforcement of those rules.

You wrote: There are many ways social behaviors are controlled without explicit laws and police to maintain relatively peaceful associations with others.

This can be true in some instances.  But there are so many instances where it is not true because others do not interact peaceably in society.  Enter enforcement and police.  They are a necessary part of any modern society.  No police?  What happens when your grandmother is raped and robbed and even worse, murdered by some thug who has no respect for another human being?

Business has to operate within a political framework if they are to be productive in a modern economy. I will explain later.

Churches, business, and families have to operate under a coherent principle as a common standard or purpose.

Families exist as a social unit.  Businesses exist as an economic entity.  And churches exist as a common meeting place by those who freely choose to act in such a manner.  No rules or common understandings then nothing will be accomplished except chaos.

you wrote:If you consider a business, for example, and look at the desire of most the individuals involved to maintain a productive and healthy or otherwise beneficial arrangement between themselves, there's little need for any real physical enforcement of anything except the ability to remove those disturbing this arrangement from being part of this association.

What about U.S.Customs?  Do you promote just allowing anything imported into the United States without inspection with regard to the safety of all US citizens just because a US business and a Chinese business care to trade?  Or let's say a Arab business trading with ABC company of Podunk, Kansas?  This is a recipe for the destruction of our society.


you wrote:The point I'm trying to make is that anarchy, within limits, as shown in many private institutions, works quite well.  There are few areas in day to day life where forceful interactions are needed, and given time, a society that grew up in such an environment would likely adapt to these circumstrances.

"Anarchy within limits"?    This is an oxymoron.  It make no sense because by definition there are no limits in anarchy. 

There are many areas in modern American society where "forceful interactions" are required.  I think you are looking at modern day society through rose pink glasses.  Given the opportunity, historically speaking, large corporations have polluted our environment.  Remember love canal?  Kerr McGee killed Karen Silkwood and radiated other workers.  Common street hoods commit crimes everyday in American cities.  Given time, in your scenario, the "outlaws, anarchists, and the physically strong would rule society and the peaceful citizen would be a fossil.

You wrote:  I think once people see past the political titles and realize that in terms of what real results are likely to be seen, we're almost all on the same page, there's little concern except over which part of government to chip away at.

This may be true but modern American society is far to pre-occupied with countering terrorism, earning a decent living, raising and protecting their families, and "living day to day life" to be concerned about Utopian ideas of peaceful coexistence.  Unfortunately this is true for our political systems as well.  Politicians are concerned with only one thing:  keeping themselves in power.  So until the voters realize that politicians seek only to perpetuate their power by making and extending a myriad of laws to justify that end, then there will be no real change.  Change must come from within and at the micro political level.

This is what I think the FSP is about;  change of a form of government at the smallest level so that it can evolve into town change, then into state level change, and eventually, to the national level.  This is not anarchy, nor is there any room for such a chaotic form of society.  Anarchists seem to me, to be selfish, myopic and politically naive people, who given the opportunity would allow society as we know it, to break down into a nightmare scene of social war allowing those who wish to control others, do so through any means possible.  Who wants to sit at the door of their home with a 50mm machine gun to protect their family from villlans who wish to rob, rape, maime and kill others to satisfy personal aberrant illusions of their role in a society based upon anarchy.

Please keep in mind that I don't speak for anyone but myself.   

[unplugged]

I hope my post fell with the definition of "civilized conversationalist" for the forum .  (Not a bad idea actually for a forum).

It is too bad that a forum has to be created for the purpose of being 'civilized'...kind of like having a 'free speech zone' - there should be no such thing.  It should be a given...

[Brien]

Jean:  I see you're taking heat for attempting to have MATURE, INTELLIGENT, and MEANINGFUL discussions from individuals who probably neither understand "free speech" nor do they practice it.  I have seen so much rhetoric on some forums, I feel as though I have swallowed a bottle of ipecac.

I posted an intelligent answer to a post involving anarchy, and what did I see?  Absolutely nothing.  I take that to mean :

1)  The poster can't argue against my points.
2)  The poster isn't interested in real discussion
3)  The poster isn't serious about discussion of anarchy and how anarchists are archaic.

Futhermore, I notice a "poll" being taken with regard to your forum.  Perhaps this type of activity is attempting to turn the forum into a circus like atmosphere.  If this is true, then it only demonstrates the immature and silly intentions brought to this site by individuals who can't be creative enough to either participate of just go away.  If they wish to have a "joking forum" let them create one, but to attempt to sandbag this forum shines the light of free speech hypocricy right back upon themselves from the mirror of their own making.  Too bad, for them.

In 1776, the Loyalists hung Thomas Jefferson in effiigy.  And during the next eleven years, those same people ridculed everyone from Jefferson to John Hancock, Sam Huntington, to John Adams.   "Hang" in there Jean.  No pun intended.

[SteveA]

Anybody here who cries censorship or whines about lack of freedom of speech on this forum has little to no experience with trying to make arguments with letters to the editor, talk radio (or TV) in media that are privately owned.  Like many anarchists, they usually destroy rather than build.  Anarchists are long on theory, ideals, and criticisms but they are woefully short on successful long-term experience. Examples of anarchism have ended disasterously.

You want anarchism. Do some research on mafioso-run Sicily.

Anarchism is a great dream -- for a community, nation and planet populated by one person.
Have two people and one of them becomes a leader.
Have three people and two are a tyrannical majority over the third.
Beyond that you get into monarchy, tyranny, aristocracy, oligarchy, democracy, anarchy -- in that viscious circle that Machiavelli described from his experience and knowledge of history.  The first, third, and fifth can be very good; the second, fourth, and sixth often are extremely bad.

Societies are a product of the people and their values.  If you have people that accept such institutions and don't oppose them, then yes, you'll find people subcomb to them but every group of people would be willing to accept such a situation passively without resisting it.  America has a tradition of opposing such things, whereas in some places people have resigned themselves to it and only oppose them when things get bad enough that they have little choice except to change things.

[matt4f]

What is this smash the anarchist forum? 

 I would suggest the critically acclaimed book "Anarchy,State, and Utopia" to understand that  the one kind of anarchist society that could remain  without the force of government and with out the force of mob rule  would be anarchy through free association. This is the idea that you agree to a societies rule if you decide not to follow these rules you become an outcast and the people simply won't deal with you.If no one will deal with you then you will leave. These rules include property rights, respect for contract, and respect for self-ownership and the right to defend yourself and your property.Murray Rothbard one of the founders of the Libertarian Party fell into this group.

[Russell Kanning]

I thank my stars that you will never gain any political power or influence in our society.

I don't seek political power, but I would like to influence society. I must be doing it wrong....it isn't working on you.
Thanks for the replies....my volunteerist brothers