First of all, I apologize for speaking incorrectly. I was making statements off of memory. I was wrong and I do sincerely apologize.
It's OK, people make mistakes. Kudos for admitting you were wrong. That's hard to do (especially in a protracted debate), and you stepped right up and did it. I certainly appreciate that
I still disagree though. Lauren did not JUST speed and not speak to the officer. She didn't have a license and a registration. It is a law. Whether you agree with it or not, you don't just ignore it. You go for a seat in the House of Representatives and change it, you lobby people, put signs up, etc. You don't just ignore it and do whatever you want. I have never smoked pot. I think it should be legal...I am not going to smoke it just because I want to though...
If part of your core belief is resistance against unjust laws, then yes -- you do just ignore those laws you feel are unjust. I can understand 100% that you aren't comfortable with civil disobedience, or think it's a bad idea. You know what? I'd wager that a majority of free staters aren't really into it either. However, please consider the 'harm' that Lauren actually did. She traveled without government authorization.
That's it. One of her big issues is 'right to travel', and so it's no surprise that she feels it's unjust to be required to pay the government and get government permission to travel. I challenge you (as in, please take the time to carefully think it through without any kneejerk reactions) to name one person that Lauren was harming by driving without registration. I'm not asking you to agree with her, feel sorry for her (after all, she knew there was a good chance she'd end up in jail, and she willingly took that risk), or to have some epiphany and start thinking civil disobedience is a smart idea. I'm only hoping that you'll be able to see her point and realize that she was harming nobody.
You might still be having trouble accepting the fact that some people have a more direct, risky way of dealing with injustice. Your preference might be to try to have the law changed, petition the government, etc. But I think it would be a little hasty to dismiss civil disobedience as an ineffective or foolish approach. Doing so would also mean that you think Thoreau, Gandhi, and MLK were ineffective and/or foolish. Most people would disagree with you however. In fact, most view these people with admiration and respect for their willingness to endure hardships while standing up to injustice. It's fine if you don't think 'right to travel' is on par with the issues that others were willing to commit civil disobedience to protest. But I'm sure you could acknowledge that different people have legitimate reasons for feeling strongly about one cause or another.
Listen, some of my "facts" were HIGHLY distorted due to me going off of memory of something I watched a while back, but my bottom line stands.
Thanks again for owning up to your mistakes.
I really think FSP needs to reevaluate their method of dispersing their message. FSP is coming off as a bunch of gun toting whackos. I KNOW this isn't the case, but if you ask the majority of the people outside the group, that is what they think.
Again, please consider that the FSP doesn't have any control over how individuals act. You're citing perhaps the most extreme activities by a free stater, and using them to paint the entire FSP. That's a broad brush. You might be right that a majority of people who see those videos think that Lauren and Russell are wackos, and maybe a lot of them even assume the FSP is hence comprised by all wackos. But from my experience, most of the people living in NH who have actually dealt with free staters regularly do not feel this way.
The only reason I think you guys need to seriously address that is because of the effectiveness of your message. As I stated in the beginning, I think you guys have some GREAT standpoints, I don't agree with how you put it out there. I think if you changed strategy a little you would get more people on your side and probably get some good changes in this state.
I certainly agree that the delivery of a message is important in shaping how that message is received. Unfortunately we're not talking about a
single message as delivered by the FSP. We're talking about a multitude of messages, each delivered by individuals who happen to be in the FSP. There is no way to control what each individual does, and if a handful of individuals are sending a message that makes some people uncomfortable -- so be it. What do you want anyone to do about it? That wasn't meant as a sarcastic question -- I'm being quite serious.
I don't think that is harsh criticism...I have a tough time getting across what I am trying to say, but I hope this came off as helpful and not attacking....
In my opinion, this last post of yours was the most reasonable I've seen. I do understand your concern: that mainstream observers of decidedly non-mainstream tactics and tacticians will have a negative view of the FSP. It's a valid concern, and I can't deny that it happens. That's really outside of anyone's control though. I think a fair observer will look at the entire body of evidence rather than cherry picking the most extreme examples, and will come to a different conclusion about the FSP. Those who are not fair-minded enough to do so are likely people who aren't going to be friendly to the FSP anyway. That's how I see it at least.
