Print

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

[eukreign]

When I speak for the FSP, I can only offer our mission statement, and perhaps hint at how it applies to a given situation.

The Republican Party says it's for small government. The FSP says it's also for small government.

Without looking at the people and their actions of either group you do not really know what they stand for. Most people have become jaded (especially those looking for an alternative like the free state) by nice sounding mission statements and promises.

I'm sure plenty of people read the Free State Project mission statement and see it as that, just another promise, unless they can see what the members are doing.

If I had stumbled on the FSP website before hearing about it from activists I would have chucked it up to just another organization trying to get our hopes up to later turn on us.

But the FSP is just a bus you say. I don't think it's "just" a bus. If it was "just" a bus we could all go to Greyhound and spare ourselves the trouble of starting another bus company. The FSP IS POLITICAL. And since it is political it has to look different from all the other political parties to gain attention by showing that it not only talks about Freedom but also has activists supporting freedom.

The issue of FSP members having opposing beliefs is not totally correct. Yes, we may approach it differently but at the core we still believe the same thing. If the media asks why is one FSP member supporting taking Souters house and another opposing you explain that that they both oppose eminent domain but approach the situation differently. Furthermore, I don't think we can afford having someone as an FSP member who does not oppose eminent domain and thus I see no problem for the FSP in taking a stance on this. Lauren Canario should have been supported, I don't think there is a single FSP member who would disagree with what she is trying to do in New London.

[Morey]

These specific suggestions for recruitment are great stuff, possibly more important than the idea of overcoming the absent/secretive/anti leadership issue.  But they are still a bit off course for this thread.  I'm grateful that we have seen some response here, but a little disappointed that the heart of the message has been abandoned so quickly.  When we face criticism from a prominent buraucrat, will we scatter like mice, or stay unified, refine the message and press on?  I hope it is the latter.

So far we have the following positives to show for this effort:

• Possible revival of press releases that applaud (but not endorse) NH activists efforts.
• Willingness to share more details of BoD discussions in notes
• One board member willing to consider elected representation

This is a great start.  Obviously not all detractors are in agreement with the best course of action, but it would be great to see a few more people step up and support the ideas here or provide their own.

Dreepa said people who don't have time should step aside, with our thanks for everything they have done.  I couldn't agree more.  I would also add that if the fire is too hot, you shouldn't be in the kitchen.

Seth, I'm not going to spar with you this time.  There is already too much defensiveness in play here.

[ThomasPaine]

The issue of FSP members having opposing beliefs is not totally correct. Yes, we may approach it differently but at the core we still believe the same thing. If the media asks why is one FSP member supporting taking Souters house and another opposing you explain that that they both oppose eminent domain but approach the situation differently. Furthermore, I don't think we can afford having someone as an FSP member who does not oppose eminent domain and thus I see no problem for the FSP in taking a stance on this. Lauren Canario should have been supported, I don't think there is a single FSP member who would disagree with what she is trying to do in New London.

Unfortunately the opposing beliefs center around the paradoxical idea of using civil disobedience/anarchism as a political strategy. So yes there can be people within the FSP who look at Lauren's actions as hurting the political strategy that will be needed to build an eventual majority political party.

The FSP has a problem. It doesn't know whether it should promote the state's maximum role as protecting life, liberty and property or the state's minimum role. One precludes anarchism while the other doesn't. The early movers who are now being critical of the FSP direction appear to be mostly anarchists.

Can someone please explain to me why this was changed on the SOI?

TeePee

[eukreign]

So yes there can be people within the FSP who look at Lauren's actions as hurting the political strategy that will be needed to build an eventual majority political party.

I didn't know it was a goal to eventually have a majority political party. I mean, a long time ago the Republican party was much better so what would prevent any political party that we come up with from taking the same course?

[Steve]

Not attacking...  Some of that can be done and some can't; we can't promise, for example, to help a political party if they mention us.  That doesn't mean that we can't find some other way to make an endorsement (of us) attractive to them...  But the reality also is that as national parties, these folks do better spread out; imagine the reaction of 49 state LPs if the national LP told everyone to move to New Hampshire.  I don't know how to work around that, but I know it's a problem.

We do have a bazillion resources that I don't think we're using to the hilt, and I've posted about that on the forum ad nauseum.  I still believe that the Liaisons program should be completely overhauled, and I believe that effective group outreach might depend on that.  (See http://forum.freestateproject.org//index.php?topic=10472.0)  Doesn't appear to be a popular idea, and I'm too busy with other things to lend enough of a hand. 

No Kate I don't think you are attacking me
But the National LP could put out a small blurb saying that they think that the FSP is a good idea/experiment etc etc and provide a link on their website.

Dreepa, the national LP has decided it is not their place to formally endorse us, but they do publish articles about us in the LP News, which amounts to the same thing.  No offense, but all your ideas and more are already on the list, and have been for years.  Cato? We've been lobbying them for a long time--I just sent them my annual contribution, and enclosed an FSP refrigerator magnet as a reminder.  But they wouldn't touch us with a ten-foot pole as long as we've got a forum as swampy as this one.  What we need is *manpower*, with competence and commitment.  There are a lot of boxes on the org chart without names attached:
http://www.freestateproject.org/about/organization.php
We need people to assume responsibility for a specific area, and pursue it full speed.

[Steve]

The FSP has a problem. It doesn't know whether it should promote the state's maximum role as protecting life, liberty and property or the state's minimum role. One precludes anarchism while the other doesn't. The early movers who are now being critical of the FSP direction appear to be mostly anarchists.

Can someone please explain to me why this was changed on the SOI?

TeePee

What are you talking about? I'm the one who changed the phrasing from "sole role" to "maximum role".  "minimum" was never in there.

[atr]

So far we have the following positives to show for this effort:

• ...
• ...
• One board member willing to consider elected representation

This is a great start.  Obviously not all detractors are in agreement with the best course of action, but it would be great to see a few more people step up and support the ideas here or provide their own.

Two points of clarification--

First, I was already willing to consider Board elections (and have proposed them), but I would not characterize it as "elected representation." The Board's job is not to represent Participants, but to oversee the organization's mission--getting pro-liberty activists to move to New Hampshire.

Second, I am no longer a member of the Board, having resigned about a week ago.

[atr]

When I speak for the FSP, I can only offer our mission statement, and perhaps hint at how it applies to a given situation.

The Republican Party says it's for small government. The FSP says it's also for small government.

Without looking at the people and their actions of either group you do not really know what they stand for. Most people have become jaded (especially those looking for an alternative like the free state) by nice sounding mission statements and promises.

The Republican Party works to get its candidates elected (and appointed) to positions in government.

The FSP works to get pro-liberty activists to move to New Hampshire, a lot of them.

["Hagrid"]

Seth, I'm not going to spar with you this time.  There is already too much defensiveness in play here.

Morey, no offense intended... as far as I'm concerned, you're one of the rare few who DO stuff... not just talk.  We're on the same side.

As for sparring, I'm only pointing out that way too many of the suggestions aren't new, have been tried, or sound great but have no real substance.  "Get the membership more involved" is a great idea... we all agree on it... HOW?  You come up with a real, fresh previously unconsidered or tested PLAN, and watch how many of the 'leadership' back you up on making it happen.  So much for standing in the way....

What I do see is some of the same old detractors piping up in their semi-regular manner, criticizing the FSP leadership (nothing new there), and once again, they have no plan just want anarchy or fundmentalism, they only want "something different".  Never mind that they aren't saying anything new or different for ideas.  I have said it before and will again: if you volunteer, and you PERFORM (and not just talk), you will get somewhere.

The FSP is full of negative nellies.... Conservative?  Reactionary is more like it.
We need more positive souls to take the jobs that need to be done...

Volunteer and be part of the solution... or sit on the sidelines and namecall and hold up protest signs and burn FSP flags... your choice.
 

[eukreign]

The Republican Party works to get its candidates elected (and appointed) to positions in government.

The FSP works to get pro-liberty activists to move to New Hampshire, a lot of them.

So you agree then that they are both almost identical in shape. They both have a message and try to get people to agree with the message and support them (in the Rep. case it's through voting and donations and in the FSPs case it's through sign ups and donations).

The core at both of them is a PR Firm.  A PR Firm can make or break an organization of this type.

And we NEED A REALLY GOOD PR Firm to make the FSP succeed.

Look at the MINI Cooper, it's too expensive for what you get, takes 3-4 months of waiting to order one, small 4 cyl. engine, yet BMW has sold more than twice as many as predicted! The reason is simple, they hired the best PR Firm they could and the PR Firm really did their research on the car and it's history and created a community around the car and made it fun to be part of the community. Without the success of their PR Firm I doubt there would be any MINI Coopers in America much less in almost every country in the world.

We probably will not be able to hire a firm with that much talent but I think if we find one that is willing to guide us and work with us so that we can do some of the grunt work and possibly we could lower the price and still get the benefit of professionals.

Just a thought...

[Steve]

So far we have the following positives to show for this effort:

• Possible revival of press releases that applaud (but not endorse) NH activists efforts.
• Willingness to share more details of BoD discussions in notes
• One board member willing to consider elected representation

This is a great start.  Obviously not all detractors are in agreement with the best course of action, but it would be great to see a few more people step up and support the ideas here or provide their own.

Dreepa said people who don't have time should step aside, with our thanks for everything they have done.  I couldn't agree more.  I would also add that if the fire is too hot, you shouldn't be in the kitchen.

Morey, how do those things get us closer to 20K? What we need are more people *doing* things.  Not rehashing old ideas, not talking, not criticizing, but doing.  There are plenty of open opportunities:
http://www.freestateproject.org/about/organization.php
http://freestateproject.org/getinvolved/activistcenter.php
Not a one of the things you mention above compares with your having created the FSP matchbooks that were so popular at MassCan, or the presence at MassCan of Sandy, Amanda, Lloyd and others, which got us several new signups and the endorsement of Keith Stroup, national director of NORML:
http://photos.freestateproject.org/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=5019
We need more of this constructive action, not talk.

[ThomasPaine]

The FSP has a problem. It doesn't know whether it should promote the state's maximum role as protecting life, liberty and property or the state's minimum role. One precludes anarchism while the other doesn't. The early movers who are now being critical of the FSP direction appear to be mostly anarchists.

Can someone please explain to me why this was changed on the SOI?

TeePee

What are you talking about? I'm the one who changed the phrasing from "sole role" to "maximum role".  "minimum" was never in there.

OK -- Thank you. I stand corrected but my point still stands -- sole role precludes no role. Why was it changed?

TeePee

[Steve]

The FSP has a problem. It doesn't know whether it should promote the state's maximum role as protecting life, liberty and property or the state's minimum role. One precludes anarchism while the other doesn't. The early movers who are now being critical of the FSP direction appear to be mostly anarchists.

Can someone please explain to me why this was changed on the SOI?

TeePee

What are you talking about? I'm the one who changed the phrasing from "sole role" to "maximum role".  "minimum" was never in there.

OK -- Thank you. I stand corrected but my point still stands -- sole role precludes no role. Why was it changed?

TeePee

Precisely. It used to be "sole role", and then an anarchist (rightly) complained, so we changed it to the elegant "maximum role".  We're in violent agreement.

[ThomasPaine]

So yes there can be people within the FSP who look at Lauren's actions as hurting the political strategy that will be needed to build an eventual majority political party.

I didn't know it was a goal to eventually have a majority political party. I mean, a long time ago the Republican party was much better so what would prevent any political party that we come up with from taking the same course?

How are you going to roll the state back to it's constitutional limits if not via a majority political party after you get off the bus?
How are you going to do that when half the people getting off the bus don't believe in the legitimacy of the state at all and the others are minarchists?

TeePee

[ThomasPaine]

Precisely. It used to be "sole role", and then an anarchist (rightly) complained, so we changed it to the elegant "maximum role".  We're in violent agreement.

And this in my opinion is the problem in a nutshell. There has never been a successful project of this kind inwhich the social movement and the political aspirations were not in complete alignment around the most fundamental question - what is the role of the state? You have unknowingly set the project up for the "violent" disagreement that is already starting to play itself out between early mover "anarchists" and the silent majority of "minarchists" who would like to sign on but can't because they don't agree with the early movers strategy. That is why this ultimately may not be sustainable.

TeePee