Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 24   Go Down

Author Topic: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP  (Read 80572 times)

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5725
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
« Reply #45 on: July 06, 2010, 08:41:52 am »

I'm going to be honest. The schism is significant and deep. IMO, if Curtis really holds those views and wasn't just playing devil's advocate, he doesn't belong in the FSP.

It's my understanding that the condition for being an FSP member is the SoI, not agreement with Matt Simon's strategy and tactics.

Were you at the debate? This wasn't about tactics. Curtis said that he opposed marijuana legalization and supported prohibition, because it created a black market in which he and other agorists could operate. Rich Paul appropriately responded that by that logic everything should be banned. Now, I suspect Curtis was just trying to stir things up, playing devil's advocate in order to get people thinking. But if he really supports drug prohibition - well, I find it hard to square that with the SoI, don't you?

Quote
Yes, well that argument has been had and settled in the libertarian movement back in the 70's. Libertarians are for rights and are inherently against majoritarian voting of people's rights away, so it's an absolute anti-concept to then advocate "voting for freedom". The argument politicals who call themselves "libertarians" make is that, "well, I think we should do it because it'll work", ie, the pragmatic argument. Of course it's evil to engage in voting for candidates and legislation - that was settled a long time ago. The issue for most to consider is will I do just a little evil, because I think it'll do more good? If you can live with your conscience, then, go ahead (but, best to call yourselves something other than a consistent libertarian).

I disagree. There's nothing even a little bit evil, intrinsically, about voting or holding public office. If one opposes those things, one should do so on pragmatic but not moral grounds.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

slayerboy

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 47
Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
« Reply #46 on: July 06, 2010, 08:46:40 am »

Were you at the debate? This wasn't about tactics. Curtis said that he opposed marijuana legalization and supported prohibition, because it created a black market in which he and other agorists could operate. Rich Paul appropriately responded that by that logic everything should be banned. Now, I suspect Curtis was just trying to stir things up, playing devil's advocate in order to get people thinking. But if he really supports drug prohibition - well, I find it hard to square that with the SoI, don't you?

I'm going to ruffle some feathers here, but if legalizing marijuana meant taxing the hell out of it like what is currently happening with tobacco, I'd support prohibition as well.  If it was a repeal on prohibition, just wipe the law off the record, then I'd be in favor of it.   Legalize it without taxing it and treat it just like any other drug that we call a food, then by all means go for it.
Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
« Reply #47 on: July 06, 2010, 09:06:56 am »

Were you at the debate? This wasn't about tactics. Curtis said that he opposed marijuana legalization and supported prohibition, because it created a black market in which he and other agorists could operate. Rich Paul appropriately responded that by that logic everything should be banned. Now, I suspect Curtis was just trying to stir things up, playing devil's advocate in order to get people thinking. But if he really supports drug prohibition - well, I find it hard to square that with the SoI, don't you?

I don't even see the relation to that and the SOI.  BTW, from what I've seen, on a liberty scale of 1 to 100 with 1 being no liberty and 100 being complete liberty, Curtis would likely be quite a bit higher on the scale than you.  Nevertheless, I still think your views square up very well with the SOI.
Logged

Sovereign Curtis

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 485
  • I <3 PorcFest
Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
« Reply #48 on: July 06, 2010, 09:12:13 am »

I'm going to be honest. The schism is significant and deep. IMO, if Curtis really holds those views and wasn't just playing devil's advocate, he doesn't belong in the FSP.

It's my understanding that the condition for being an FSP member is the SoI, not agreement with Matt Simon's strategy and tactics.

Were you at the debate? This wasn't about tactics. Curtis said that he opposed marijuana legalization and supported prohibition, because it created a black market in which he and other agorists could operate. Rich Paul appropriately responded that by that logic everything should be banned. Now, I suspect Curtis was just trying to stir things up, playing devil's advocate in order to get people thinking. But if he really supports drug prohibition - well, I find it hard to square that with the SoI, don't you?

Rich Paul purposefully misstated the Agorist position in order to win points with the panelists and the crowd. That is the FIRST time I've ever heard Prohibition compared to Subsidy.

AGAIN, I am COMPLETELY opposed to the The State and its Violence. To blame an Agorist for the violence of The State is a logical fallacy. The goal of the Agorist is to consciously participate in the counter-economy, growing it to the point that private defense FROM THE STATE is required. More Prohibition means More Counter-Economy and a hastening of the demise of The State. Less Prohibition and more Minarchism delays the demise of The State and gives it new funding (lifeblood).

Now that I've made this clear, I could incorrectly accuse YOU of supporting the Violence of The State...


Furthermore I've never publicly stated how I am involved with the Counter-Economy, and to assume I am a pot dealer (while facing felony pot dispensing charges...),
just because I oppose Legalization and Regulation, is another logical fallacy.

A further logical error is to assume that pot dealers/etc would be opposed to legalization because they stand to lose "THOSE PROFIT$!". Just look at Amsterdam, Switzerland, Spain, California, even Canada. No amount of de-regulation, legalization, tolerance, etc, has lead to a significant decrease in the retail price of marijuana. Medical patients in California still pay the same as 19 y/o college students on the East Coast. In fact, the price of good marijuana hasnt changed significantly IN THIRTY YEARS. Just think about what has happened to the Dollar in the past three decades.      [sarcasm] Yea those Pot Dealers sure are getting Rich... [/sarcasm]


PS Why is Gary Johnson the only Politico (or so it seems) who understood what I was saying? I was responding to the "We're all in favor of legalization" meme.
I do not actively oppose the efforts of minarchists. Even if I believe that were they successful, they would just be paving the way for the next bigger more powerful Nanny State.


I intellectually oppose the neutering of the Agora, in order to "Save The State".

Prohibit EVERYTHING, start acting like Free Men, and let The State fail. TOTAL FREEDOM.


AGORA, ANARCHY, ACTION!
Logged
"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them.
I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."

JaqEboy

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 318
    • the Alternatives Expo
Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
« Reply #49 on: July 06, 2010, 09:35:20 am »

Yes, well that argument has been had and settled in the libertarian movement back in the 70's. Libertarians are for rights and are inherently against majoritarian voting of people's rights away, so it's an absolute anti-concept to then advocate "voting for freedom". The argument politicals who call themselves "libertarians" make is that, "well, I think we should do it because it'll work", ie, the pragmatic argument. Of course it's evil to engage in voting for candidates and legislation - that was settled a long time ago. The issue for most to consider is will I do just a little evil, because I think it'll do more good? If you can live with your conscience, then, go ahead (but, best to call yourselves something other than a consistent libertarian).

I disagree. There's nothing even a little bit evil, intrinsically, about voting or holding public office. If one opposes those things, one should do so on pragmatic but not moral grounds.

OK, so we've clearly identified the issue, and we needn't bog this forum down with this, but I will refer you to a variety of articles that make it clear that "a ballot is a bullet", etc., ie, it's an act of agression (that libertarians oppose). Once that connection is clear, then we've identified "the gun in the room", as Stefan says.
Logged

JaqEboy

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 318
    • the Alternatives Expo
Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
« Reply #50 on: July 06, 2010, 09:43:02 am »

I'm going to be honest. The schism is significant and deep. IMO, if Curtis really holds those views and wasn't just playing devil's advocate, he doesn't belong in the FSP.

It's my understanding that the condition for being an FSP member is the SoI, not agreement with Matt Simon's strategy and tactics.

Were you at the debate? This wasn't about tactics. Curtis said that he opposed marijuana legalization and supported prohibition, because it created a black market in which he and other agorists could operate. Rich Paul appropriately responded that by that logic everything should be banned. Now, I suspect Curtis was just trying to stir things up, playing devil's advocate in order to get people thinking. But if he really supports drug prohibition - well, I find it hard to square that with the SoI, don't you?

I wasn't at the debate - I'll have to catch the video. I was busy tending to the back of the bus.

I said strategy and tactics. Voting (and promotion of legislation) is a strategy to reach freedom. It is immoral and won't work - 2 good reasons to move libertarians towards effective action with strategies consistent with the desired end and away from strategies that corrupt their moral sense and dissipate their money and energies.
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5725
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
« Reply #51 on: July 06, 2010, 10:09:59 am »

I'm going to be honest. The schism is significant and deep. IMO, if Curtis really holds those views and wasn't just playing devil's advocate, he doesn't belong in the FSP.

It's my understanding that the condition for being an FSP member is the SoI, not agreement with Matt Simon's strategy and tactics.

Were you at the debate? This wasn't about tactics. Curtis said that he opposed marijuana legalization and supported prohibition, because it created a black market in which he and other agorists could operate. Rich Paul appropriately responded that by that logic everything should be banned. Now, I suspect Curtis was just trying to stir things up, playing devil's advocate in order to get people thinking. But if he really supports drug prohibition - well, I find it hard to square that with the SoI, don't you?

Rich Paul purposefully misstated the Agorist position in order to win points with the panelists and the crowd. That is the FIRST time I've ever heard Prohibition compared to Subsidy.

AGAIN, I am COMPLETELY opposed to the The State and its Violence. To blame an Agorist for the violence of The State is a logical fallacy. The goal of the Agorist is to consciously participate in the counter-economy, growing it to the point that private defense FROM THE STATE is required. More Prohibition means More Counter-Economy and a hastening of the demise of The State. Less Prohibition and more Minarchism delays the demise of The State and gives it new funding (lifeblood).

So you're saying that the end justifies the means. Aggression against innocent people is OK because in the long run you think it will lead to the demise of the state.

Quote
PS Why is Gary Johnson the only Politico (or so it seems) who understood what I was saying? I was responding to the "We're all in favor of legalization" meme.

IIRC, Gary's response to your statement was essentially: Forgetting everything else, marijuana prohibition means that 1.8 million innocent people are arrested each year, and we should support legalization to end that moral horror. I thought it was a very compelling response to your pie-in-the-sky theorizing.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

JaqEboy

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 318
    • the Alternatives Expo
Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
« Reply #52 on: July 06, 2010, 10:56:19 am »

Jason, please save yourself the repeated embarrassment of mis-stating the agorist position over and over again and getting bitch-slapped each time. Just read the New Libertarian Manifesto, which is the document that defines agorism. It's available in various forms, including audio book. You can find links to all of the forms at the Shire Agorists' site on Fr33 Agents: http://fr33agents.ning.com/group/shireagorists

We all know about the voting/parliamentary political action strategy and, by now, most are hep to the fact that it's a failed meme for the freedom movement. To act in that realm is just to be a string-puppet in a staged drama intended to dissipate our time, money and energies - keep playing and keep losing while you're being channeled down the cattle chute. Please just read up on the only strategy that has consistency of end and means. Agorism is the further evolution of libertarian thought that solves the moral dilemma that is posed by the parliamentary political system. After reading, you'll understand the set-up for this discussion (and you won't go back to being a parliamentary political string-puppet  ;D ).


So you're saying that the end justifies the means. Aggression against innocent people is OK because in the long run you think it will lead to the demise of the state.

Quote
PS Why is Gary Johnson the only Politico (or so it seems) who understood what I was saying? I was responding to the "We're all in favor of legalization" meme.

IIRC, Gary's response to your statement was essentially: Forgetting everything else, marijuana prohibition means that 1.8 million innocent people are arrested each year, and we should support legalization to end that moral horror. I thought it was a very compelling response to your pie-in-the-sky theorizing.
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5725
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
« Reply #53 on: July 06, 2010, 11:06:07 am »

I've read it, long ago, & I think Curtis' position as stated does not reflect anything SEK3 would have endorsed.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

Sovereign Curtis

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 485
  • I <3 PorcFest
Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
« Reply #54 on: July 06, 2010, 11:21:05 am »

I'm going to be honest. The schism is significant and deep. IMO, if Curtis really holds those views and wasn't just playing devil's advocate, he doesn't belong in the FSP.

It's my understanding that the condition for being an FSP member is the SoI, not agreement with Matt Simon's strategy and tactics.

Were you at the debate? This wasn't about tactics. Curtis said that he opposed marijuana legalization and supported prohibition, because it created a black market in which he and other agorists could operate. Rich Paul appropriately responded that by that logic everything should be banned. Now, I suspect Curtis was just trying to stir things up, playing devil's advocate in order to get people thinking. But if he really supports drug prohibition - well, I find it hard to square that with the SoI, don't you?

Rich Paul purposefully misstated the Agorist position in order to win points with the panelists and the crowd. That is the FIRST time I've ever heard Prohibition compared to Subsidy.

AGAIN, I am COMPLETELY opposed to the The State and its Violence. To blame an Agorist for the violence of The State is a logical fallacy. The goal of the Agorist is to consciously participate in the counter-economy, growing it to the point that private defense FROM THE STATE is required. More Prohibition means More Counter-Economy and a hastening of the demise of The State. Less Prohibition and more Minarchism delays the demise of The State and gives it new funding (lifeblood).

So you're saying that the end justifies the means. Aggression against innocent people is OK because in the long run you think it will lead to the demise of the state.

Wrong again. (Keeping this up makes me wonder if you are purposefully trying to smear my reputation/character).

I am 100% opposed to the Violence of The State. I wish to end it FOREVER, not just the next few years or decades, FOREVER.

Accusing me of being supportive of the State Violence that goes along with Prohibition is to accuse me of supporting my own incarceration for a victimless act (twice).
Since that first incarceration started me on the path to liberty, and that second incarceration is providing me an opportunity to stand up to the Violent State,
I'd have to say your accusation is VERY VERY wrong.

Quote
PS Why is Gary Johnson the only Politico (or so it seems) who understood what I was saying? I was responding to the "We're all in favor of legalization" meme.


IIRC, Gary's response to your statement was essentially: Forgetting everything else, marijuana prohibition means that 1.8 million innocent people are arrested each year, and we should support legalization to end that moral horror. I thought it was a very compelling response to your pie-in-the-sky theorizing.

"pie-in-the-sky" Nice. Thats kind of how I feel about Empowering violent men with a monopoly on legitimized violence, to stop all the violence... Talk about a fairy tale.

And I was referring to the conversation Gary and I had the next day.
He wanted to stop and thank me for introducing him to Agorism and thank me for the Agorist Activism I am a part of.
We made clear our positions, and we are not opposed to one another in the slightest.



I DO NOT SUPPORT THE VIOLENCE OF THE STATE, NOR DO I SUPPORT THE CAGING OF PEACEFUL PEOPLE
Logged
"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them.
I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."

WendellBerry

  • Guest
Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
« Reply #55 on: July 06, 2010, 11:40:50 am »

Quote
It's my understanding that the condition for being an FSP member is the SoI

Jason, all of this could have been avoided if the SoI had NOT been changed!

It HAD said when I signed it...

"I hereby state my solemn intent to move to the state of New
Hampshire. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort
toward the creation of a society in which the maximum SOLE role of
civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property."

I believe it was changed to "maximum role" because the President of the organization at the time (Amanda Phillips) was a self-described "anarchist".

Please someone correct me if I am wrong.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2010, 12:00:09 pm by WendellBerry »
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
« Reply #56 on: July 06, 2010, 11:53:48 am »

Not really.
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
« Reply #57 on: July 06, 2010, 11:56:47 am »

Yes, well that argument has been had and settled in the libertarian movement back in the 70's. Libertarians are for rights and are inherently against majoritarian voting of people's rights away, so it's an absolute anti-concept to then advocate "voting for freedom". The argument politicals who call themselves "libertarians" make is that, "well, I think we should do it because it'll work", ie, the pragmatic argument. Of course it's evil to engage in voting for candidates and legislation - that was settled a long time ago. The issue for most to consider is will I do just a little evil, because I think it'll do more good? If you can live with your conscience, then, go ahead (but, best to call yourselves something other than a consistent libertarian).

I disagree. There's nothing even a little bit evil, intrinsically, about voting or holding public office. If one opposes those things, one should do so on pragmatic but not moral grounds.

OK, so we've clearly identified the issue, and we needn't bog this forum down with this, but I will refer you to a variety of articles that make it clear that "a ballot is a bullet", etc., ie, it's an act of agression (that libertarians oppose). Once that connection is clear, then we've identified "the gun in the room", as Stefan says.
Huh?
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5725
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
« Reply #58 on: July 06, 2010, 12:25:47 pm »

I'm going to be honest. The schism is significant and deep. IMO, if Curtis really holds those views and wasn't just playing devil's advocate, he doesn't belong in the FSP.

It's my understanding that the condition for being an FSP member is the SoI, not agreement with Matt Simon's strategy and tactics.

Were you at the debate? This wasn't about tactics. Curtis said that he opposed marijuana legalization and supported prohibition, because it created a black market in which he and other agorists could operate. Rich Paul appropriately responded that by that logic everything should be banned. Now, I suspect Curtis was just trying to stir things up, playing devil's advocate in order to get people thinking. But if he really supports drug prohibition - well, I find it hard to square that with the SoI, don't you?

Rich Paul purposefully misstated the Agorist position in order to win points with the panelists and the crowd. That is the FIRST time I've ever heard Prohibition compared to Subsidy.

AGAIN, I am COMPLETELY opposed to the The State and its Violence. To blame an Agorist for the violence of The State is a logical fallacy. The goal of the Agorist is to consciously participate in the counter-economy, growing it to the point that private defense FROM THE STATE is required. More Prohibition means More Counter-Economy and a hastening of the demise of The State. Less Prohibition and more Minarchism delays the demise of The State and gives it new funding (lifeblood).

So you're saying that the end justifies the means. Aggression against innocent people is OK because in the long run you think it will lead to the demise of the state.

Wrong again. (Keeping this up makes me wonder if you are purposefully trying to smear my reputation/character).

I am 100% opposed to the Violence of The State. I wish to end it FOREVER, not just the next few years or decades, FOREVER.

Accusing me of being supportive of the State Violence that goes along with Prohibition is to accuse me of supporting my own incarceration for a victimless act (twice).
Since that first incarceration started me on the path to liberty, and that second incarceration is providing me an opportunity to stand up to the Violent State,
I'd have to say your accusation is VERY VERY wrong.

I'm trying to understand your position. So far it's leaving me confused. Let's get our terms straight.

"Marijuana legalization" means "marijuana's becoming legal." "Marijuana prohibition" means "marijuana's remaining illegal." To keep something illegal requires state violence. Legalization and prohibition are mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories. To oppose something means to support the absence of it. Therefore, to oppose marijuana legalization is to support marijuana prohibition. Therefore, to oppose marijuana legalization is to support something that requires state violence.

That syllogism seems airtight. Which premiss is wrong? Or are you going to recant your support for prohibition/state violence? I hope so.

Quote
I DO NOT SUPPORT THE VIOLENCE OF THE STATE, NOR DO I SUPPORT THE CAGING OF PEACEFUL PEOPLE

I wish you had said that during the debate. You gave a lot of people the wrong impression.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2010, 12:29:28 pm by JasonPSorens »
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5725
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re: PorcFest 2010 raises reservations about joining the FSP
« Reply #59 on: July 06, 2010, 12:27:38 pm »

Quote
It's my understanding that the condition for being an FSP member is the SoI

Jason, all of this could have been avoided if the SoI had NOT been changed!

It HAD said when I signed it...

"I hereby state my solemn intent to move to the state of New
Hampshire. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort
toward the creation of a society in which the maximum SOLE role of
civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property."

I believe it was changed to "maximum role" because the President of the organization at the time (Amanda Phillips) was a self-described "anarchist".

Please someone correct me if I am wrong.

I think you're wrong! There's nothing wrong w/ anarchism or anarchists. There is something wrong with anarchists who support maintaining state violence because they think that if you keep state violence going, one day the state will magically disappear. Those of us who are gradualists are not going in the same direction as those people. We're working at cross purposes.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 24   Go Up