Print

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

[thrivetacobell]

<<Some want us to pad our numbers at any cost, welcoming anyone willing to fill out a web form, so long as they say nice phrases like "I believe in smaller government." >>

Well, Justin, what would you suggest? Should we have a more extensive form asking one to explain why one believes in small government- and a special committee to deem who is or is not believable?

And in saying we shouldn't go after the 90% people, that its gotta be all or nothing, would I no longer be welcome? I despise today's government. Not as empty hatred, but in understanding what is right, and why, and what makes it so.

However, I refuse to seriously support public fat orgies. I do not yet see that being a necessary gain for the realization of liberty to be possible. And I think anyone would be hard pressed to prove that not being able to have a fat orgy on the streets or masturbate outside a school at recess is oppressive.

Please note that I would not especially support legislation against such things as much as I would expect a free society of responsible individuals would learn that morality is not just a bunch of rules that someone else made up and your condemned to follow, but the guidelines to live a full life of character, worth, self esteem and happiness. Not to mention keeping it open for others to achieve the same.

[penguinsscareme]

Pardon my blathering, Justin, I was trying to illustrate a point which was apparently lost on you.

Evidently it is also lost on you that we are moving to NH BECAUSE it is populated by liberty-leaning people, and apparently most of the people in the fsp do feel that we do need more of those or we would have moved to a state with nicer weather.

Ultimately, Justin, what it comes to is that I believe that it is possible, in fact easier, to be a liberty activist without being a philosopher.

[kater]

So, it's somehow beneficial to promote liberty from a position of ignorance?  Christ.

I'm not going to argue that we should have some sort of approved reading list or a litmus test for members, but for god's sake, you can't actually argue that knowledge of the philosophy behind libertarianism is a detriment.  How do you expect to get up and convince someone of the truth?  When they say "why?" will you have an answer?  Other than some knee-jerk appeal to emotion that would sound an awful lot like modern liberals?

I agree that having our heads buried in the collected works of Ayn Rand and Bastiat probably isn't the most productive move ever.  But being able to explain why we read those things, why there is truth in them, and how they could open someone else's eyes--that IS how we (or at least some of us) explain and hopefully spread our beliefs.  

So, penguinsscareme--rather than bashing "philosophers" why don't you go see if your philosophy-free version of libertarianism is spreadable.  Get your three members, and let other people get theirs.  

Oh, and if you want to remind us (rightfully in some cases) that we waste too much time arguing with each other, it might be better if you just said so and let it drop.  (Unless your extended arguments are meant to be ironic?)

[penguinsscareme]

Well, you've got a point, kater.  I have become what I beheld.
I'm going to shoot for a lot more than three members, though.
I see where I may come across as promoting ignorance.  That was never my intent, but then that's part of the reason I don't like philosophical debates -- my point always seems to get lost.
I can only assure you that I take our goals very seriously, and only want to find the most effective way to achieve them.
If I were in government, I'd probably be in the executive branch, not the judicial branch, you savvy?  It's just my experience that the way to get stuff done is to freakin' do it, not dream and argue it to death.
Anyway, your point is well taken.  Didn't mean to exacerbate the problem.  I can see I'm not going to get any further with this approach.
I'll see you all in NH -- the first round will be on me, and you can all educate me on libertarian philosophy.

Andrew

[rdeacon]

But if one does understand freedom (without self-contradiction, or using the word to cover your own socialistic goals) then logically one would must accept the zero-aggression principle.  If someone "isn't there yet" philosophically, there is a wealth of info out there to help them, encourage them to move to NH.  We just don't need them falsely padding the FSP membership count.

It's a false assumption that belief in freedom automatically requires adherence to the ZAP.  There are plenty of people who would love to reduce government by 2/3rd but who aren't ready to say "bring on the donkey sex shows".

How one gets to a philosphical point of development is largely irrelevant.  The fact that they are at that point is what counts.  Those who have not yet fully realized where liberty must logically lead them are not at that point yet.

I disagree that *your opinion* of freedom is the opinion that must be shared by all FSP members.  I don't agree with your opinion, but I plan to work hard for liberty.  And there are thousands of people out there who would really love to see a much smaller government, but who are shown the door by libertarian groups because they don't believe in a certain arbitrary philosophical statement.

You're making my point for me.  Reason takes effort.  Primitivism, emotionalism, and socialism do not.  Welcoming those without rational mettle might increase our numbers, but only by putting principles of liberty as a secondary priority.  If there are not 20,000 reasoned liberty activists then the FSP should fail.  

Bah.  Socialism takes just as much effort to push as liberty - appealing to somebody's inner laziness is just as entincing as appealing to their inner libertine.  The fact that we see socialism spreading is not a result of the ease of implementation, but rather the success of implementation.  In truth you're making the point for me.  

Mobilize for what?  Lower taxes?  Bah!   Opening the doors to all-comers will only give us false hope.  Better to fail and know there aren't enough people in the world that care about freedom, than to wander naively into a conflict ill prepared.

Not all comers, but open the doors to more than the aryan-libertarians.  The fact that you'd rather fail than have a partial victory is sad, and it does not speak well for our chances of success - because when you insist on everything you will always end up with nothing.  

[adam86]

 I had some ideas on smoking bans and can/bottle deposits that not everyone agrees with, and virtually got beaten away with a stick! I hate most taxes as much as the next guy, but a few non-libertarian ideas get someone ostracised in the forum.

[Mike Lorrey]

I had some ideas on smoking bans and can/bottle deposits that not everyone agrees with, and virtually got beaten away with a stick! I hate most taxes as much as the next guy, but a few non-libertarian ideas get someone ostracised in the forum.

Nah, you don't know ostracism. What you got was just a mild virtual caning. If you are an FSP member, you signed a statement of intent that you agreed to adhere to a non-initiation of force principle. You need to understand what you agreed to. Smoking bans on public areas, or on private areas imposed by government, and government requirements about bottle/can deposits are initiations of force.

Advocating such is contrary to your SOI agreement. Now, it isn't terribly wrong that you didn't understand this. Consider it an educational experience, and shame on those who automatically assume everyone here is totally versed in what ZAP means. Adam here is likely, as Tim Bauman says, a "recovering statist".

Good teachers don't slap down their students.

[penguinsscareme]

Hey, this was fun.
http://similarminds.com/
Helped me figure out why I find people so annoying.
http://cogen.mit.edu/crusso/intj.htm

[Mike Lorrey]

Keep in mind that your scores can change day to day, depending on whether you are relaxed or agitated, among other factors.

[Terry 1956]

But if one does understand freedom (without self-contradiction, or using the word to cover your own socialistic goals) then logically one would must accept the zero-aggression principle.  If someone "isn't there yet" philosophically, there is a wealth of info out there to help them, encourage them to move to NH.  We just don't need them falsely padding the FSP membership count.

It's a false assumption that belief in freedom automatically requires adherence to the ZAP.  There are plenty of people who would love to reduce government by 2/3rd but who aren't ready to say "bring on the donkey sex shows".

How one gets to a philosphical point of development is largely irrelevant.  The fact that they are at that point is what counts.  Those who have not yet fully realized where liberty must logically lead them are not at that point yet.

I disagree that *your opinion* of freedom is the opinion that must be shared by all FSP members.  I don't agree with your opinion, but I plan to work hard for liberty.  And there are thousands of people out there who would really love to see a much smaller government, but who are shown the door by libertarian groups because they don't believe in a certain arbitrary philosophical statement.

You're making my point for me.  Reason takes effort.  Primitivism, emotionalism, and socialism do not.  Welcoming those without rational mettle might increase our numbers, but only by putting principles of liberty as a secondary priority.  If there are not 20,000 reasoned liberty activists then the FSP should fail.  

Bah.  Socialism takes just as much effort to push as liberty - appealing to somebody's inner laziness is just as entincing as appealing to their inner libertine.  The fact that we see socialism spreading is not a result of the ease of implementation, but rather the success of implementation.  In truth you're making the point for me.  

Mobilize for what?  Lower taxes?  Bah!   Opening the doors to all-comers will only give us false hope.  Better to fail and know there aren't enough people in the world that care about freedom, than to wander naively into a conflict ill prepared.

Not all comers, but open the doors to more than the aryan-libertarians.  The fact that you'd rather fail than have a partial victory is sad, and it does not speak well for our chances of success - because when you insist on everything you will always end up with nothing.  

                                                                              People do not have to believe in ZAP but when they Commit Agression against you thats important.                  
   People generally come to libertarian ideas from two prespectives political ethics or economics. The gradualist  approrach fails on both, its bad ethics, its bad for the economy and its also bad politically in keeping poltical sucess, its counter productive politically.                                                                              
        If people don't want donkey shows( and I don't) restrict them by private property and covenants not state law. You see most people I've talked to can understand that when it is explained to them, don't sell people short so much.

[penguinsscareme]

Gradualism has worked pretty nicely for the socialists.

What are covenants?  This is a new idea to me.  If it works then I like it.

[rdeacon]

People do not have to believe in ZAP but when they Commit Agression against you thats important.                  
   People generally come to libertarian ideas from two prespectives political ethics or economics. The gradualist  approrach fails on both, its bad ethics, its bad for the economy and its also bad politically in keeping poltical sucess, its counter productive politically.                                                                              
        If people don't want donkey shows( and I don't) restrict them by private property and covenants not state law. You see most people I've talked to can understand that when it is explained to them, don't sell people short so much.

Not true, many people who are libertarian (but who are shown the door by the national LP) are simply socially liberal and fiscally conservative.  These are the people who can arrange for major party status for the LP.  Remember, we shouldn't concentrate on an endgame.  Everybody's endgame is radical.  but the people who win show the crowd their practical first steps.  And that is exactly why they win.  It is the strategy that we need to adopt, because you can't just go from current society to libertarianism in one fell swoop.

[adam86]

I'm only 17, so I haven't joined yet. Perhaps ostracism was too strong a term. I might just want to be Republican.

[Morpheus]

And what exactly does that entail? There are multiple types of Republicans.

[adam86]

An almost libertarian one of course!  The FSP takes Republicans, right?  I thought this wasn't a "lockstep movement." I'll be 18 in November.