Print

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

[Scoobie Snaxxx]

Yesterday I read Dr. Williams' article and I saw him on Hannity and Colmes.  I've visited the website and I like what I saw, mostly.
The premise that the federal government (all three branches) has constantly breached the Constitution, especially the 10th Amendment, is something that I wholeheartedly agree with.  The idea of a bunch of folks moving to a sparsely populated state and peacefully taking over sounds good as well.
But the question is, what kind of state will be created.  I have been looking through this BB and I don't like a lot of what I see.  I'm a conservative, not a libertarian.  Some rules are good.  I am sick of the old libertarian line, "We are losing the drug war, so let's just give up and legalize it."  what a stupid argument!  That's like saying, "Well, we have laws against murder, but people are still being murdered, so let's just leagalize it and watch the crime rate go down!"  Well sorry folks, drugs are bad, so is kiddie porn and abortion.  Yes, that's a value statement, its MY value statement, and yes, I try to impose it on others, peacefully of course.      
While I sympathise with this cause, if the majority of folks here are libertarian minded, I'll have to say, "Thank you but no thanks."  I would of course support their idea of a "free republic," but I am not sure that a anarchisitc libertarian society is preferrable to status-quo.
What can I tell ya, I'm currently reading "Amimal Farm"
Before I commit myself to such a serious endeavor, I guess I need to find out more about the poobahs behind this endeavor.
Any comments would be gladly appreciated.

The Hammer of God

[Reaper]

Well, we have a lot of people from various political ideologies who all agree that the federal government currently has taken too much power, ignores the constitution and controls to much of our lives.  I think most of us in the FSP agree that we want to move towards more individual control and less government control.  Where we disagree is how far to move that direction.

I do not think you will find much support from FSP members with regard to continuing the drug war.  By the way the argument you posted about, "The drug war is a failure let's so lets abandon it" being equal to abandoning laws against murder is what is known as a "straw man argument".  Most libertarians dont wish to stop the drug war just because it's a failure.  They wish to stop it because: a) The drug war has killed more people than all illegal drugs combined, b) the drug war has been the major contributor to loss of our constitutional rights, c) the drug war is immoral in that it seeks to seize control of individuals who are harming nobody and dictate what they can do to their own body or some combination of those factors.  There are many other reasons to object to the drug war.

Now private individuals, organizations and groups would be free to use any peaceful means of persuasion to convince people not to use the currently illegal drugs.  

However, I think the vast majority in the FSP are opposed to continuing the use of law, law enforcement personel, jails, etc. in the war on drugs.  Not only does it not work but it also has in fact become a greater problem then the one it was meant to solve.  Sort of the proverbial "The cure is worse than the disease".

I don't speak for the FSP.  My opinions are my own.  I would definitely like to hear from any FSP members who want to continue the drug war in a free state.

"The care of every man's soul belongs to himself. But what if he neglect the care of it? Well what if he neglect the care of his health or his estate, which would more nearly relate to the state. Will the magistrate make a law that he not be poor or sick? Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves. God himself will not save men against their wills." - Thomas Jefferson -


Reaper
Proud Member of the FSP's lunatic fringe
"An Equal Opportunity Offender"

[mikegags]

I am sick of the old libertarian line, "We are losing the drug war, so let's just give up and legalize it."  what a stupid argument!

As Reaper stated, that is most definitely not the LP argument for ending the Drug War.

Well sorry folks, drugs are bad, so is kiddie porn and abortion.  Yes, that's a value statement, its MY value statement, and yes, I try to impose it on others, peacefully of course.      

1) Yes, all those things are bad. But just because something is bad doesn't mean there needs to be a law against it.

2) In your example, 2 of the 3 acts involve a victim, and to me a crime requires a victim (other than one's self, as is the case with drug use).

3) Preaching is peaceful (and protected as in free speech), imposing implies some use or force or coercion. In our current society people use the govt to impose their views on others. That is what we want to get away from.

In a free society people with similar views, beliefs, values and morals should and will form smaller communities. If you think about it, that is how many of the states were founded. It is when the Fed govt came in and tried to make everyone "the same" in the name of equality, political correctness, security and fairness that this natural process was corrupted.
(There is more to it than that, but that's a big part).

IMNSHO, you do not come to this state if you want to impose your values on others. You come to this state if you want to share your values with others.

[Scoobie Snaxxx]

First of all, thank you for the quick replies.  Maybe I should do a better job of clarification.
1)  I do not dislike libertarians.  In fact on a large majority of issues, I find agreement; especially on the premise of the FSP.  So maybe I am being petty with my criticisms.  But then again, if the FSP does not want to be considered a bunch of "wackos (not my words, my wife's  )" there needs to be open debate about the specifics; which you folks are gracious to engage.
2)  The whole "Drug War" thing.  Look, my limited knowledge of libertarianism is limited to Neil Boortz and a little of Harry Browne (who gives me the willies, quite honestly).  Don't tell me to read Ayn Rand (I'm too damn busy  ), I've listened to enough Rush songs to understand her gist.  I know that the argument for legalization is valid.  But so is the argument against legalization; I am not so convinced that it is a "victimless crime."  And please save me the "Straw Man schtick," my moral relativist friends use that all the time.  But please understand, I am not accusing you of being a moral relativist.  Let's face it, it's a complicated issue; I've been waffling on it for over 10 years.  But this is another argument for another day.
3) I guess I am curious of just how exactly the new state would be administered.  Would the US constitution be simple Xeroxed and implimented?  And then would the counties of the occupied state become "states themselves" and granted 10th Amendment autonomy?  If that is the case, then most of my fears would be allayed.  Because, as one of you mentioned, I could simply pick the community "county/state" where the majority of residents have a similar ideology to my own.  Our community, via the 10th Amendement would be self-governing with the exception of those responisibilities explixitly assigned to the federal authority via the Constitution.  As we all know, one way that the current US Federal government gains access to state sovereignty is to make more and more federal laws, thereby granting them jurisdiction; this is clearly unconstitutional but is done anyhow.
4)  There is a distinct difference between "government imposing its views on others" and "goverment representing the views/morals of those empowering the gov't."  I used the term, "impose" with tongue planted firmly in cheek.  However, I could not stand idly by as those in authority operate with blatent disregard for my morals.

Hope I have make myself clearer.

The Hammer

[Reaper]

First of all, thank you for the quick replies.  Maybe I should do a better job of clarification.
1)  I do not dislike libertarians.  In fact on a large majority of issues, I find agreement; especially on the premise of the FSP.  So maybe I am being petty with my criticisms.  But then again, if the FSP does not want to be considered a bunch of "wackos (not my words, my wife's  )" there needs to be open debate about the specifics; which you folks are gracious to engage.

Well, I think you'll find that we do not ALL agree on the specifics of any particular policy (there may be a majority here or there), we do all agree on the direction we want things to go.  The only question is how far, which we enjoy debating vigorously, openly and civilly.

2)  The whole "Drug War" thing.  Look, my limited knowledge of libertarianism is limited to Neil Boortz and a little of Harry Browne (who gives me the willies, quite honestly).  Don't tell me to read Ayn Rand (I'm too damn busy  ), I've listened to enough Rush songs to understand her gist.  I know that the argument for legalization is valid.  But so is the argument against legalization; I am not so convinced that it is a "victimless crime."  And please save me the "Straw Man schtick," my moral relativist friends use that all the time.  But please understand, I am not accusing you of being a moral relativist.  Let's face it, it's a complicated issue; I've been waffling on it for over 10 years.  But this is another argument for another day.

I think once you eliminate the welfare state and the black market there is no objective case to be made in favor of drug prohibition.  If I'm wrong I'd greatly appreciate someone showing me.  For example, if I had a plot of land with my house on it and wanted to grow some marijuana plants, dry them and smoke them on my porch after work while playing my guitar and relaxing in the sunset.  Who am I harming besides myself?  What objective case could be made for arresting such a person?  Who would benefit from their incarceration?

3) I guess I am curious of just how exactly the new state would be administered.  Would the US constitution be simple Xeroxed and implimented?  And then would the counties of the occupied state become "states themselves" and granted 10th Amendment autonomy?  If that is the case, then most of my fears would be allayed.  Because, as one of you mentioned, I could simply pick the community "county/state" where the majority of residents have a similar ideology to my own.  Our community, via the 10th Amendement would be self-governing with the exception of those responisibilities explixitly assigned to the federal authority via the Constitution.  As we all know, one way that the current US Federal government gains access to state sovereignty is to make more and more federal laws, thereby granting them jurisdiction; this is clearly unconstitutional but is done anyhow.

We're all curious on that one.  We have a lot of different theories on how it may happen.  But to be honest I dont think anyone really knows.  After all it's never been done before.  We dont even know for a certainty if seccession will be necessary.

4)  There is a distinct difference between "government imposing its views on others" and "goverment representing the views/morals of those empowering the gov't."  I used the term, "impose" with tongue planted firmly in cheek.  However, I could not stand idly by as those in authority operate with blatent disregard for my morals.

Okay, then I do not understand.  What difference is there?  Please give me some examples.

[JasonPSorens]

Judah - thanks for your comments; you sound like a reasonable & fair person.  However, the Free State Project may not be the thing for you at quite this time.  The deregulation of narcotics is an issue that most of us feel very strongly about.  The Constitution gives government no authority to regulate the substances adults put into their bodies, and the government's massive overreach in this area has led to the horrors of rampant asset forfeiture, botched raids & the murder of innocents, a massive bureaucracy, engagement in foreign quagmires like Colombia, and a host of other evils.  (Read James Bovard's blood-boiling "Lost Rights" and you will never think the same way about the Drug War again, I guarantee it.)  In other words, most of us view the legalization of drugs for consenting adults as a major plank in any attempt to rein in government to its proper functions.  That does not mean we condone drug abuse.  As a morally conservative Christian, I would like to see drugs nonexistent: through the work of God, the Church, and treatment centers.  Using the violence of the state for this purpose is both immoral and counterproductive.

[mikegags]

Judah - thanks for your comments; you sound like a reasonable & fair person.  However, the Free State Project may not be the thing for you at quite this time.  The deregulation of narcotics is an issue that most of us feel very strongly about.  The Constitution gives government no authority to regulate the substances adults put into their bodies, and the government's massive overreach in this area has led to the horrors of rampant asset forfeiture, botched raids & the murder of innocents, a massive bureaucracy, engagement in foreign quagmires like Colombia, and a host of other evils.  (Read James Bovard's blood-boiling "Lost Rights" and you will never think the same way about the Drug War again, I guarantee it.)  In other words, most of us view the legalization of drugs for consenting adults as a major plank in any attempt to rein in government to its proper functions.  That does not mean we condone drug abuse.  As a morally conservative Christian, I would like to see drugs nonexistent: through the work of God, the Church, and treatment centers.  Using the violence of the state for this purpose is both immoral and counterproductive.

Excellent response Jason. I know I couldn't have said it better.

I still have one concern: through all these topics and threads everyone is still talking about what they believe freedom is, what they should be free to do (etc). That's great to talk about, and I agree we all need to place to vent our frustrations, share our ideas and debate issues with others.

But none of that will get us the freedom we need to have any of those things. As with the arguments for and against a face-to-face meeting (yes, I finally found that thread) I have concerns about energy, resources and focus.

I am not a history expert, but I don't believe the F.F. met in Philly to talk about what to do about the environment and other moral issues. They waited until after they had won their freedom to figure out what to do with it.

Maybe I'm just impatient. I suppose that until we have the minimum number of members all we can do is talk. I just don't want to see our ranks filled with those simply for freedom to do something specific. I don't believe that is the kind of conviction required for what lies ahead. Although once the ball is rolling that is exactly the kinds of "citizens" we need.


Thanx
Mike

[Scoobie Snaxxx]

"However, the Free State Project may not be the thing for you at quite this time.  The deregulation of narcotics is an issue that most of us feel very strongly about."

I am sorry that this issue is so important to the majority of the group as to provide a lynchpin to its success.  
One of the reasons, whether you believe it or not, that the Libertarian party has never achieved mainstream status, is that most folks out there dismiss them as, "The Drug people."  Of course this characterization is not fair, however it is the reality.
Do I have a problem with someone growing their own pot and smoking it at their leisure?  No I don't.  I'd be a hypocrite to say that I haven't used narcotics myself.  But I've also driven safely above the speed limit, but I don't go crusading for a change in speeding laws.  Insert "straw man counterargument here".
This is the problem, most folks have no problem with legalizing pot, maybe even hash and opium.  But that about acid, crack, meth, heroin, coke? and so on and so on.
I know that you only need 20,000 so you probably all can find 20,000 people looking to legalized drugs.  But this begs the question, if this issue is so important to you, I can easily find you 20,000 in favor of drug legalization who only CARE about drug legalization.  What kind of society do you wish to forge when a large number of the citizenry are only concerned with their own euphoric state of consciousness.
I was really disappointed when it was suggested that the group, "really wasn't for me" do JUST to this one issue.  
I fear that you may ostracize many folks, like me, who probably can make a significant contribution to the organization.  I thought the possibility of dissenting voices were welcomed in a free society.
I've been to the drug meetings (NORML springs to mind), for every 1 person who believes in the moral/ethical arguments for legalization, there are 10 who just want to get stoned and free needles.
And as for, my questions of how exactly the new government will be run I see the following reply...
"We're all curious on that one.  We have a lot of different theories on how it may happen.  But to be honest I dont think anyone really knows.  After all it's never been done before.  We dont even know for a certainty if seccession will be necessary."
First of all, seccession WILL BE necessary.  Are you all Pollyannish enough to believe that one small state of radicals would cause instituitonal change?  The state to be occuipied will have 2 votes in the Senate and only 1 vote in the house (most likely).  The VAST majority of folks in Alaska want drilling in the ANWR, yet they never can get Congressional approval, even with the fact that Ted Stevens is one of the most powerful men in the Senate.
Secondly, I much admit, I am not prepared to give up my citizenship for something which has not been though out completely.  I understand that it is an experiment.  But most successful experiments are thought out ahead of time.
Don't get me wrong, I'll say again, I support the PREMISE, however; the more I see, the more I sense this is a single-issue group pushing an agenda without consideration of it's perception to others or a sensible plan for the future.
"The best laid plans of mice and men...."

Judah

[marciesmom]

I don't think we're a "one-issue" group.  It's been presented that way by various and sundry individuals.  But the drug issue is a good litmus test, if you will, because the MAIN issue is restoring constitutional freedoms.  The idea is getting government out of people's everyday lives, and allowing them to experience the consequences (good or bad) of their decisions--WITHOUT everyone else footing the bill!  There are a variety of issues being discussed here on the website.  We're starting to "hash out" what it might mean to be part of a free society, in an age where information and travel are much more available than they were in 1776.  I know you're busy, but hang out awhile and find out what's going on in the various sections of the forum.

[Dex Sinister]

2)  The whole "Drug War" thing.  Look, my limited knowledge of libertarianism is limited to Neil Boortz and a little of Harry Browne. <snip> I know that the argument for legalization is valid.  But so is the argument against legalization; I am not so convinced that it is a "victimless crime."  

It might be easier to understand the FSP's views on the drug war by looking at the history of Prohibition.

Not just the Prohibition was a failure and repealed, but that just 70 years ago people who thought that alcohol was evil and wanted to ban it knew that the only Constitutional way of doing so was to pass an amendment to the Constitution, authorizing the government the powers to control alcohol.

Then take a look at the amendment itself: It says nothing whatsoever about use, only manufacture, transportation, and sale. Even those who wanted to ban alcohol completely didn’t believe that they had the right to regulate what you, personally, consumed – only whether it was sold to you.

Only 40 years or so later, the Government declared “war” on drugs. If they needed a Constitutional amendment in the 1930’s, where did they acquire the rightful authority 40 years later?

And without the rightful authority to declare this “war,” against the American people as individuals, how is it that they spend billions of dollars a year “fighting” it?

I’m all for a “War on Drugs” – just as soon as that Prohibition on Drugs amendment is passed in a Constitutional manner, and ratified by the requisite number of States. [I’m not all for it philosophically, but that’s a different story.]
   
In the free state that the FSP proposes, we would merely be returning the government to its Constitutional boundaries on any number of issues. After all, there are any number of “wonderful” things that might be [theoretically] accomplished passing a law against this or that, or the other thing, but there are a very limited number of things that our government is actually authorized to do.

If you think, as I do, that the Founding Fathers had a pretty good handle on what was necessary to achieve freedom, then perhaps you may have to let go of some laws that may seems like a nifty idea to you, but that the government was never supposed to control in the first place.

Dex }:>=-


P.S. You might also consider that the wonderful legacy of Teddy Kennedy, and the whole rest of Kennedy clan, was made possible by the vast fortunes the family made smuggling illegal alcohol - during Prohibition.

[Mega Joule]

I think most of us in the FSP agree that we want to move towards more individual control and less government control.  Where we disagree is how far to move that direction.

I don't speak for the FSP.  My opinions are my own.  I would definitely like to hear from any FSP members who want to continue the drug war in a free state.

Giving up the war on drug?  Isn’t that like giving one’s approval to people to destroy their minds and bodies, steal to support their habit, sit around stoned all day collecting handouts from entitlement programs and private individuals and organizations?  Is not such blanket consent of the destruction of human lives morally reprehensible?  Should we not stand firmly on our moral convictions regardless of the ideals, morals, and personal choices of others?  Should not intervene with the full force of law to protect others even from themselves?  Should we not also protect everyone from everything that might be considered by them to be wrong, immoral, distasteful, or offensive?  While we are at should we not, while enforcing a ban on the currently illegal drugs, also ban (or at least strictly regulate) most if not all firearms, fireworks, “R” rated movies, some if not all herbal health supplements, pornography, nudity, drugs not explicitly tested and approved by the FDA, cross-dressing, homosexuality, same-sex-marriage, ad infinitum….?

 <Awakening from a deep trance>   :o“Oh no, I was temporarily possessed by the evil, tyrannical, usurpers known as the "feral" government”

Reaper
Proud Member of the FSP's lunatic fringe
"An Equal Opportunity Offender"

I am proud to count you among us loonies.

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
Albert Einstein

Meg

[Matthew]

Scared me for a second!  I kept looking at the name of the poster.  Didn't sound like you talking...  I had a whole argument about to be written...  Thank god you were possesed.

[Mega Joule]

Scared me for a second!  I kept looking at the name of the poster.  Didn't sound like you talking...  I had a whole argument about to be written...  Thank god you were possesed.

LMAO Gotcha

Meg

[Mega Joule]

But then again, if the FSP does not want to be considered a bunch of "wackos (not my words, my wife's  )" there needs to be open debate about the specifics; which you folks are gracious to engage.

I was really disappointed when it was suggested that the group, "really wasn't for me" do JUST to this one issue.  
I fear that you may ostracize many folks, like me, who probably can make a significant contribution to the organization.  I thought the possibility of dissenting voices were welcomed in a free society.

Let me see if I follow this correctly.  We are "wackos (not my words, my wife's  )" because we openly discuss the multitude of legal and philosophical issues that can and will inevitably arise in an endeavor so great as this, but you assert that you should be able to express a “dissenting voice” (as indeed you should), apparently without the rebuttal of those who oppose your views (which is absurd).  If one among us is free to express themselves without condemnation, then so must we all be equally free.

I used the term, "impose" with tongue planted firmly in cheek.  However, I could not stand idly by as those in authority operate with blatent disregard for my morals.
The Hammer

You have every right to your morals.  They are yours and no one can rightfully deny you them.  You however, have no legal or moral right to force them on anyone else.  As to standing idly by, if those in authority truly and accurately represent the majority (or more ideally the supermajority) of the people at large, you will have the following choices: to live by their decisions, to vote for change, to peaceably assemble for a redress of your grievances, or to leave.

I've been to the drug meetings (NORML springs to mind), for every 1 person who believes in the moral/ethical arguments for legalization, there are 10 who just want to get stoned and free needles.

I will not argue your statistics (however unsupported by references conferring their accuracy), but I will say that I believe there are many FSP supporters who do not use drugs and yet see good cause to support an end to the war on drugs.  I for one do not see how locking someone up in jail for years because they were convicted on drug charges is an improvement to their quality of life.  

And as for, my questions of how exactly the new government will be run I see the following reply...
Reaper replied, "We're all curious on that one.  We have a lot of different theories on how it may happen.  But to be honest I dont think anyone really knows.  After all it's never been done before.  

” Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
Thomas Jefferson

"The best laid plans of mice and men...."

Judah

Tell that to the founding fathers.

"Every generation needs a new revolution."
Thomas Jefferson



“Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.”

Albert Einstein
Meg

[mikegags]

I am sorry that this issue is so important to the majority of the group as to provide a lynchpin to its success.

I too am afraid that just one issue, or several dozen issues, are the focus of this movement. That's the wrong approach. It won't work.

We need to focus on one goal: Freedom. Liberty. Pick your term. Only after that has been achieved can we sit down at the table and use that freedom to decide how we want to live.

I know that you only need 20,000 so you probably all can find 20,000 people looking to legalized drugs.  But this begs the question, if this issue is so important to you, I can easily find you 20,000 in favor of drug legalization who only CARE about drug legalization.  What kind of society do you wish to forge when a large number of the citizenry are only concerned with their own euphoric state of consciousness.

Thank You! Another voice of reason. This movement isn't, and can't be, about: drugs, abortion, welfare, same-sex marriage (etc). Its about freedom. Anyone who is joining just for these causes is in for a nasty surprise.

I was really disappointed when it was suggested that the group, "really wasn't for me" do JUST to this one issue.  
I fear that you may ostracize many folks, like me, who probably can make a significant contribution to the organization.  I thought the possibility of dissenting voices were welcomed in a free society.
I've been to the drug meetings (NORML springs to mind), for every 1 person who believes in the moral/ethical arguments for legalization, there are 10 who just want to get stoned and free needles.

I too am getting concerned that people are getting involved for the wrong reasons. This is NOT about creating a society with no morals or values, but a society based on personal freedom and responsibility where we don't need hundreds of laws because most people share the same level of morals and values. The founding fathers weren't perfect, but they shared a common set of basic morals and values.

We are most definitely not trying to create a party state (note that is exactly how the press will portray us).

First of all, seccession WILL BE necessary.  Are you all Pollyannish enough to believe that one small state of radicals would cause instituitonal change?  The state to be occuipied will have 2 votes in the Senate and only 1 vote in the house (most likely).  The VAST majority of folks in Alaska want drilling in the ANWR, yet they never can get Congressional approval, even with the fact that Ted Stevens is one of the most powerful men in the Senate.
Secondly, I much admit, I am not prepared to give up my citizenship for something which has not been though out completely.  I understand that it is an experiment.  But most successful experiments are thought out ahead of time.
Don't get me wrong, I'll say again, I support the PREMISE, however; the more I see, the more I sense this is a single-issue group pushing an agenda without consideration of it's perception to others or a sensible plan for the future.
"The best laid plans of mice and men...."

Another direct hit!

No one seems to want to talk about that here Judah.