New Hampshire Underground

A Stateless Society By 2020

by Menno Troyer


I have a vision for the future.

I envision a world where I can interact peacefully with you, in whatever manner you and I consent; and not have to look over my shoulder to make sure no one with an ulterior motive is watching.

I envision a world where I can be secure in retaining the fruits of my labor; and not be confronted with the non-choice of either being a labor slave to the State, being forced to live in a cage, or dying at the hands of federal agents.

I envision a world where I can purchase a piece of land with my hard-earned money, and own it fair and square; and not live in danger of armed thugs usurping it because I refuse to pay them rent on land that belongs to me.

I envision a world where my home and auto are respected by all as my personal space; and I need not fear an invasion by a gang of thugs, on suspicion of breaking any one of their countless arbitrary rules.

I envision a world where friendly, professional security services compete for my business and exist to protect me; and roving bands of gangsters with badges and egos exist only as fading memories.

I envision a world where it is commonly recognized that where there is no victim, there is no crime.

I envision a world where I, and I alone, choose who provides me with whatever healthcare and health advice I seek; and neither I nor the practitioner of my choice needs to worry about intrusive bureaucrats ending our voluntary relationship by force, for not having obtained their permission first.

I envision a world where healthcare is cutting edge, fast, and affordable -- thanks to a universal environment of creativity and healthy competition that can only exist in a truly free market.

I envision a world where I, and I alone, choose what goes into my own body, and what stays out; with no danger of being assaulted for simply minding my own business.

I envision a world where schools are private enterprises where I and my (future) children and grandchildren can obtain a quality, customized education at an affordable price, and attendance is voluntary; rather than mandatory propaganda mills that drain the economy.

I envision a world where chronic poverty is the just consequence of laziness and incompetence; rather than the unfair condition of being trapped under a crushing economic burden imposed by a class of elite parasites that owe their existence to a combination of cunning deceit and brute force.

I envision a free and prosperous world with a vast voluntary safety net of both insurance services and private charities; instead of the incompetence of the nanny state, where laziness is rewarded and the least fortunate among us receive minimal assistance or none at all.

I envision a world where the Earth's environment is jealously guarded by sovereign property owners who are highly motivated to preserve their own little piece of it; in place of artificial stewards in Washington, who not only have no incentive to preserve it -- they do not think twice about striking a deal with the devil for personal gain.

I envision a world permanently at peace, where 'war' is an obsolete, forgotten word; and national boundaries are curious relics of the dark ages.

I envision a world where disease and aging are things of the past, rendered obsolete through the fierce competition of profit-motivated scientist-entrepreneurs who face neither intimidation by a State, nor the immense economic burden of a parasitic elite.

I envision a world where solutions are developed virtually in advance of the problems themselves, through the sheer competitive energy of master entrepreneurs who are driven to spot an opportunity for profit before the competition, and act on it; instead of a world where entrepreneurs are routinely drained of their energy and motivation by the futility of operating at the pleasure of those who neither produce anything of value nor understand the dynamics of value production.

The first-class world I envision can only exist in the complete absence of State.  Period.

That world is a free-market civilization.

Goals help transform visions into reality.  I have a goal.

It is a goal that supersedes the oft-repeated goal of freedom in our lifetime.  Instead of freedom at some undefined point in my lifetime, I want a lifetime of freedom beginning while I am yet in my prime!

More importantly for both you and me, we are locked in a struggle to the death between good and evil.  Right now it is only a matter of time before the evil forces of State destroy human civilization, thereby tragically setting back the clock of human progress by possibly tens of thousands of years.  Civilization simply cannot survive another world war, fought with today's weapons.  It must either abandon the institution of State, or itself soon cease to exist.

The goal is a Stateless, free-market civilization by the year 2020.  That is only thirteen years away.

When I look around, I see absolutely no mechanism in place, or being developed, which offers even a remote possibility of achieving such an ambitious goal.  Yet there exists an urgent need for such a mechanism.

One individual designing this mechanism, acting alone, would have to be nothing less than an absolute genius.  There is no time to wait for such an individual to emerge.  We must generate our own alternative to genius -- many minds working in unison toward a singular goal have a synergistic effect.  It is up to us, the few who share this vision, to come together and design the mechanism – quickly!

I am certain that this goal is well within the realm of possibility.  In the immortal words of Napoleon Hill, "Whatever the mind of man can conceive and believe, it can achieve."

If you share this vision, and find inspiration in the goal of a free-market civilization by 2020, I invite you to join me at the drawing board to help design the mechanism for bringing about the most spectacular revolution since the Industrial Age:

http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=10944.0

This call to action may be reposted in its entirety including hyperlink and without changes in wording.  -MT

Am I really the only one here who is interested in such a lofty goal?

I was going to wait and see what kind of suggestions and comments come in, then throw in some of my own.  Since there have been none so far, I will offer some of mine for discussion:

1) Dismantling State institutions "legitimately" from within by electing large numbers of free marketeers/anarchists to office.

2) Outcompeting the State through the development of advanced, secret John Galt-like technology, (reversing the technology gap).

3) A worldwide, universally accessible, free-market driven Criminal Ostracism Database, independent from the State.   There would be an honor score for each participant, similar to one's credit score, based upon total estimated values produced for others, as well as harm done to others (true crime).

4) New monetary system, as described in Larry K. Mason's online book, Invisible Hand: http://www.unc.edu/~mason/hand.html

5) Uncompromising civil disobedience, i.e. refusing to submit to the State's demands under any condition.  If enough people did this, the State would vanish rapidly.

One option that I will not discuss in this thread is violent resistance.  While I am not opposed to self-defense in principle, and the State certainly does routinely violate the rights of individuals, resisting the State by force is almost certainly the surest and fastest route to defeat.  I am in this to succeed.

Let the discussion begin!

There is a few anarchists on this board.  Me included.   :)

I appreciate your beautiful well thought out post and I'm all about anarcho-capitalism, but to be honest, I'm just too busy working on promoting freedom and a free market, small step by small step, to have a huge philosophical discussion about it.

What ever civil disobedience, non-violent non-cooperation, civic or political action you wish to take is only yours to decide.

Quote from: Rosie the Riveter on September 23, 2007, 08:20 PM NHFT
I appreciate your beautiful well thought out post and I'm all about anarcho-capitalism, but to be honest, I'm just too busy working on promoting freedom and a free market, small step by small step, to have a huge philosophical discussion about it.

What ever civil disobedience, non-violent non-cooperation, civic or political action you wish to take is only yours to decide.

Awesome... keep up the good work!

I am not interested in endless debate, either.  My objective here is to bring a hard-nosed business-like discipline to the process, in order to outflank the State as quickly as possible.  This requires (IMO) brainstorming and refining of the resulting ideas through mutual discussion, followed by carefully planned action ASAP. 

I just feel that I have been coming up short on a good strategy myself, and I do not see anyone else having an adequate solution to this very real and urgent problem.  This is why I am now turning to the free market for the answer.

Quote from: srqrebel on September 23, 2007, 08:38 PM NHFT

Quote from: Rosie the Riveter on September 23, 2007, 08:20 PM NHFT
I appreciate your beautiful well thought out post and I'm all about anarcho-capitalism, but to be honest, I'm just too busy working on promoting freedom and a free market, small step by small step, to have a huge philosophical discussion about it.

What ever civil disobedience, non-violent non-cooperation, civic or political action you wish to take is only yours to decide.

Awesome... keep up the good work!

I am not interested in endless debate, either.  My objective here is to bring a hard-nosed business-like discipline to the process, in order to outflank the State as quickly as possible.  This requires (IMO) brainstorming and refining of the resulting ideas through mutual discussion, followed by carefully planned action ASAP. 

I just feel that I have been coming up short on a good strategy myself, and I do not see anyone else having an adequate solution to this very real and urgent problem.  This is why I am now turning to the free market for the answer.

I got'ca strategic plan with a little SWAT analysis and an action plan.... You would enjoy taproom tuesdays. It seems like that is where so many great ideas are hatched. http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=8812.0

There are hundreds of little pieces of the movement that are working toward a stateless (or otherwise anti-state or at least state-ignoring) society. Perhaps trying to coördinate some of them might be helpful, or perhaps it could just make each piece needlessly dependent on others, and make it easier to attack and disrupt the movement. Each piece being independent should probably be considered a strength.

Dismantling State institutions "legitimately" from within by electing large numbers of free marketeers/anarchists to office.

Subverting existing institutions is a great idea... but there are a number of obstacles.

Many anarchists view the political process as a distraction, or worse, a black mark on their purity

These people may be right.  Few people are strong enough to escape absorption into institutional culture.   Remember Robespierre (http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/chodorov_robespierre.html).  Hell, Greenspan once advocated the gold standard.

How do you remain focused on long-term political gains? 

Or understand whether acceptance or rejection of a half-measure will deplete political capital or stunt progress toward your goal?

How do you keep the enemy outside his experience in the political arena?  (Their home turf -- an area outside our experience.)

Does the foundation exist for effective political change?  If not, what needs to be built?

How do you garner publicity and provoke amusement/ridicule?

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on September 23, 2007, 08:51 PM NHFT
There are hundreds of little pieces of the movement that are working toward a stateless (or otherwise anti-state or at least state-ignoring) society. Perhaps trying to coördinate some of them might be helpful, or perhaps it could just make each piece needlessly dependent on others, and make it easier to attack and disrupt the movement. Each piece being independent should probably be considered a strength.

That is certainly possible.  The best solution may well be one that is carried out without any central organization, yet operates with a common basic goal and strategy.  A perfect example of that is the Ron Paul revolution taking place currently.

The solution or mechanism resulting from this effort could be implemented alongside existing efforts.

Quote from: picaro on September 23, 2007, 09:28 PM NHFT
Dismantling State institutions "legitimately" from within by electing large numbers of free marketeers/anarchists to office.

Subverting existing institutions is a great idea... but there are a number of obstacles.

Many anarchists view the political process as a distraction, or worse, a black mark on their purity

These people may be right.  Few people are strong enough to escape absorption into institutional culture.   Remember Robespierre (http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/chodorov_robespierre.html).  Hell, Greenspan once advocated the gold standard.

How do you remain focused on long-term political gains? 

Or understand whether acceptance or rejection of a half-measure will deplete political capital or stunt progress toward your goal?

How do you keep the enemy outside his experience in the political arena?  (Their home turf -- an area outside our experience.)

Does the foundation exist for effective political change?  If not, what needs to be built?

How do you garner publicity and provoke amusement/ridicule?

These are the very reasons I tend to think the political approach is not a very viable option for actually getting rid of the State.  A Ron Paul presidency, and Free Staters in office throughout NH, probably only buys us some time at best.

Does anyone have any good answers to the questions posed by Picaro, to show how the political approach could be a viable option?

I don't mean to dismiss politics... just draw attention to the pitfalls. :)

Involvement in politics doesn't need to be dirty -- if your goal is education and not exercising power.   It is a decent platform for spreading ideas.   Though, the people here involved in newspapers, radio, and television may be even more effective.  One truly excellent YouTube clip may be more persuasive yet.

What you say about compromise undermining our own support is a very valid concern, however. The example I always think of is what happened to the Socialists (the anti-state, libertarian-minded ones) in the nineteenth century: they had a pretty big movement going in Europe, major support among the ordinary people, and then the government stepped in with their "welfare state" idea, which gave the peasants the same material benefits Socialism promised—alleviating poverty, providing care for people out of work or retired, &c.—but without overthrowing the state in the process. Needless to say, the ordinary people abandoned Socialism, and even began to resist the idea of overthrowing the state—after all, who's providing for them now?

So we definitely need to make sure any half-measures and incrementalism we engage in isn't leaving behind supporters, or perhaps even making them resist our future direction.


Ron Paul seems to be a good example of someone who hasn't been corrupted by being part of the system. He's a strict constitutionalist despite being surrounded by 434 corrupted, power-hungry bastards.

I think getting involved in legislative politics is good in the short term, and will be most effective at overturning bad laws, but beyond that, probably not so much. Can we get the state to overturn such-and-such a tax, or this-or-that law? With enough effort, certainly. Will we ever get them to vote themselves out of existence after accomplishing all of the rest of this? Of course not.

Small-government conservatives have this saying about shrinking the government down until it's weak enough to "strangle the government in the bathtub." I think this is a good strategy: if we reduce their funding enough, and repeal enough of the bad laws, and get laws passed that strengthen privacy, strengthen religious freedom, strengthen parental rights (especially with regards to educational choice), we're on our way to simply leaving the government behind. If they can't watch us to see what we are doing, or can't stop us when they do see us, to hell with them, right?

Imagine this scenario:—

There are still laws forbidding certain business transactions, but if the government is forbidden from monitoring bank transactions or receiving yearly income statements from people, how are they going to enforce these?

There are still laws forbidding certain chemical substances, but if anyone can claim "it's a religious ceremony!" to use them, how are they going to enforce these? Oh, and the local PDs have been stripped of all drug-enforcement funding, too.

There still statutory rape laws, but if the parents don't mind their 15 year old daughter dating a 19 year old, and the state can't prosecute unless there's an actual complaint filed by the "victim," how are they going to enforce these?

Thank you! That is excellent food for thought.

I refuse to make my life's goal something I cannot control.  The foundational aspect of government is illusion: people believe it has authority, so it does.  These illusions don't start with the government, they start in our own lives.  We need to start being libertarians in our own lives before we become libertarians politically.  We have to join the Free Self Project before we worry about the Free State Project.  Taxation is evil because it is an unchosen positive obligation -- I didn't sign a social contract obliging me to pay taxes.  We need to apply that principle -- no unchosen obligations -- to our own lives first if we want to be really effective and to really create a stateless society.  There are NO "have to"s.  The fundamental, core illusion that allows the state to exist is the belief that there ARE "have-to"s.  Freedom starts at home, it starts with our personal relationships.  Our priests, our parents, our teachers, our friends, our lovers.  Try to be free with them.  Try to be free with yourself.  Release yourself of all the "have-to"s in your personal life, because you can do that TODAY.  Then try to be free in society.

And THAT is how a truly free society will come about.  We're focused on dismantling the illusion of the state, but in communities without strong states there are and have historically been strong, oppressive families and religions.  Is the object to dissemble the state, or to be free?  I'd rather have 50% or 80% taxation than have to continue seeing my abusive parents, or date women who don't respect me, or believe in religious fairy tales.  We don't have to wait for the collapse of the government to be free.  And if you make "a stateless society by 2020" your goal, if you make that your master, you will be frustrated and disappointed, and you may become so full of bitter rage for the "sheeple" that you will be less free than they are.

I guess my answer to your poll is "Absolutely not!", I cannot in good conscience support that goal.  What I will support is "Liberty in our lifetime" -- personal liberty, personal freedom, not by 2020, but today!

These are all good points.  You see, in my personal life I have already separated myself from everyone who would restrict my freedom in any way.  I was raised in a fanatically christian home and am now atheist.  I have long refused to tolerate any external authority in my personal life.

The only thing left standing between me and natural freedom, as human life was meant to be lived, is the State.  Being the freedom seeker that I am, I have been quite entrepreneurial in the past, in order to escape external authority even in the workplace.  I have since lost interest in owning my own business due to all the State regulations and paperwork involved, and harsh penalties for "disobedience".  My latest dream is to own a small acreage and master the art of self-sufficiency at every level (food, energy, etc.).  Yet I run headlong into oppressive property taxes, which means that as long as the State exists, I cannot realize my dream of true self-sufficiency.

I am at the point now where I am ready to drop everything and get this monkey off my back.  If you are not at that point in your life, that is fine.  The goal of a stateless society by 2020 is for those who have reached that point, and are ready to forge ahead and claim their rightful heritage.

The legitimacy of the government is indeed an illusion. But the government itself is not an illusion, and still needs to be dealt with. Behaving as if the lion that is about to maul you simply doesn't have the authority to maul you isn't going to help you when it does so.

The bolded option is the one I voted for, right? Right now 'great idea, but pie in the sky' is bolded for me, and that's not what I voted for. Is something going on with the polls? Bugs in the forum?

Quote from: srqrebel on September 23, 2007, 08:00 PM NHFT
Am I really the only one here who is interested in such a lofty goal?

I'm with you, and I'm glad you're here in Keene.  The transition from the Information age to the age of Liberty is beginning here and now.

Quote from: Lasse on September 24, 2007, 11:57 AM NHFT
The bolded option is the one I voted for, right? Right now 'great idea, but pie in the sky' is bolded for me, and that's not what I voted for. Is something going on with the polls? Bugs in the forum?

Sorry about that... it should be fixed now.

Quote from: FTL_Ian on September 24, 2007, 12:09 PM NHFT

Quote from: srqrebel on September 23, 2007, 08:00 PM NHFT
Am I really the only one here who is interested in such a lofty goal?

I'm with you, and I'm glad you're here in Keene.  The transition from the Information age to the age of Liberty is beginning here and now.

I like that. ;D

The twentieth century will be remembered as the era in which the State tried to take control over every last square millimetre of land, either by explicitly drawing borders around it, or holding the land "in common" through wide-ranging treaty arrangements (e.g., Antarctica, the Moon, &c.).

And the twenty-first century will be remembered as the era when we took it back.

One would hope. Personally, I think the transition will be one in which the security state grows for the medium term, up until the point that it can no longer be funded, largely due to international fiat failure. Tax resistance, etc. are also very good, and are to be encouraged (I do it every day), but the effect is much greater for improving the individual's independence, than for 'bringing down the system' itself. Mathematically, the numbers are too high. The only thing we can really do on that front is wait for the financial-governmental-military complex to burn itself out, as the Soviet Union did 16 years ago.

Unlike during the 30s, or even the late 1980s, we have the organizational and communication abilities to build a support network. When people (perhaps a majority, or just a very loud minority) wants even more of the same (ie, even bigger government to save them from disaster), we'll have a viable alternative in place that people can turn to instead. What does this mean?

Essentially, alternative institutions, as others have mentioned, plus the black market. After all, when everything's illegal in some way, much of what's "bad" actually becomes good. This means honest and mutually beneficial trade in all areas of products and services, including drugs/med procedures, self-defense tools/services, alternative monetary/account keeping mechanisms, etc. If you have two equally trustworthy suppliers, and one is 'above board' and the other 'below', it makes sense to support the latter, as he is being productive, all while minimizing your/his contribution to the state apparatus. You therefore reward good behavior, while punishing the bad. In a curious way, millions of 'small' actions have a larger effect than a few 'large' ones. The whole is surely larger than the sum of its parts.

An associate of mine, Dave McGregor, wrote an interesting essay about this topic. He focuses more on the international/global scale, but the nutshell version of his thesis is that as globalization continues, state power will continue to be undermined. Over a period of perhaps several decades, the state will gradually phase out as a significant model for human organization. In his view, the most significant advances for freedom will not be dramatic and rapid, but rather subtle and long term, much as the transgressions on our freedoms in the last century were. I would post a link to the whole article, but it seems to have been moved to his 7-part "FreedomShift Newsletter" (http://www.sovereignlife.com/?ref=08406182) promo a while ago. It's free, so what the hell- you might learn something :P.

Personally, I agree with McGregor that transition will take place over several decades. Maybe this is an ageist statement, but I think that Liberty in Our Lifetime will be more applicable to people of my generation ('Gen Y') than for those who are already middle aged plus. If you look at history, socialism really took about 50 years to 'hit the big time' in American politics, and there's no reason to assume that the modern freedom movement would be any different. Yes, we have a much more coherent and comprehensive intellectual argument than pro freedom people did in past centuries, but our roadblocks to freedom are also much higher, making everything pan out, IMHO. Can we get freedom by 2050 or 2060? Sure, I'd put some money on that. By 2020? Hell no, but prove me wrong! I'd rather go bankrupt loosing this bet than face state sponsored bankruptcy later on!

First of all there are definitional issues to work through.

1. anarchism doesn't mean just being against the state, it means being against all illegitimate authority that is inalterable...that includes most religion and much of what passes today as legitimate property relations.

2. the "state" is different than local governance as legitimate agency.

Secondly one has to change the terms of the debate between those who want to use the state to redistribute wealth as part of social justice that acknowledges the problem of illegitimate concentrations of wealth and the resulting power that flows from it.

Unless these issues are acknowledge and agreed upon how to sensibly move forward then the freedom movement in NH is at an impasse I am afraid.

Quote from: EthanAllen on September 29, 2007, 05:03 PM NHFT
Unless these issues are acknowledge and agreed upon how to sensibly move forward then the freedom movement in NH is at an impasse I am afraid.

srqrebel:—

By "impasse," he means that he and the rest of the freedom movement don't agree. At least thirteen people have sensibly moved forward by putting EthanAllen on ignore.

Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on September 29, 2007, 05:10 PM NHFT

Quote from: EthanAllen on September 29, 2007, 05:03 PM NHFT
Unless these issues are acknowledge and agreed upon how to sensibly move forward then the freedom movement in NH is at an impasse I am afraid.

srqrebel:—

By "impasse," he means that he and the rest of the freedom movement don't agree. At least thirteen people have sensibly moved forward by putting EthanAllen on ignore.

I am a member of the alliance for left libertarianism that includes:

1. agorists
2. mutualists
3. geoists

The principal ideological difference between agorists and mutualist is property theory.

Mutualists advocate a usufruct approach to property law, agorists advocate Rothbardian property theory (a radically anti-state version of Lockean property theory -- call it Lockeanism 2.0) and non-Rothbardian an-caps tend to have no theory of justice in property beyond existing property titles (what they think of as legitimate property relations).

Mutualists and Agorists that get along well tend to look at the two property theories as two separate legal doctrines that could amicably compete in a stateless free market for arbitration services (i.e. "law" and "courts").  There are other differences though. Most are just cultural or terminological.

In academic terms, one could count the economic dispute over subjective value theory (agorists) versus the labor theory of value (mutualists). If we take Kevin Carson's work on the labor theory of value as
the best modern take on it and the "plumb-line" for modern mutualist political economy doctrine, this becomes an irrelevant difference in practical terms. Carson's understanding of the labor theory of value
that he promotes in his book is heavily subjectivized. LTV stops being a rationale for statist forcible redistribution of wealth as social justice advocates on the left call for and instead describes/predicts how free markets will tend to even out wealth concentrations naturally. A tendency or opinion subjectivists can also hold -- they just don't incorporate that into an economic theory of value.

I swear he isn't using real words.

Anyhow, This type of idea will only work in numbers (obviously.) You have to start with your own house, family, and mind. Once you have freed your body, mind, and spirit you can move on to a larger area. Some people know this already.

You can not tell other people what to do, you can merely lead by example. Under that idea when it comes to a free society, it will spread if it works. That's all there really is to it. Structuring it properly requires a lot of thought and the anarchist founders of the country had a lot of good ideas.

But we must remember to define the difference between the local state and the federal state. The local state is the only place where you could have a positive affect until your movement reached a large enough audience, that is, where the people who love freedom outnumber the sheeple. We must always remember that we can not force people to do a thing, we can only show them a better way and hope they choose it.

The one saying that helps me figure out what to do is this: "While people crave positions of power there will never be peace." And I think we must always remember that the fight never ends so long as people desire power. The best we can hope for is personal freedom that doesn't violate another's property; A worthy goal.

Quote from: enloopious on September 30, 2007, 05:47 PM NHFT
I swear he isn't using real words.

You learn well, grasshoppa... your next stage of development is to learn to use the "ignore" button.  8)

Let's get back to the topic: What did YOU do today to advance liberty?

I went for a walk.

Quote from: enloopious on September 30, 2007, 05:47 PM NHFT
I swear he isn't using real words.

If you can read 'em, they are real.

I borrow these letters and words freely from the social commons.

Quote from: EthanAllen on October 01, 2007, 08:08 PM NHFT

Quote from: enloopious on September 30, 2007, 05:47 PM NHFT
I swear he isn't using real words.

If you can read 'em, they are real.

I borrow these letters and words freely from the social commons.

:rofl:  That's a good one!

Quote from: PowerPenguin on October 01, 2007, 02:39 AM NHFT
Let's get back to the topic: What did YOU do today to advance liberty?

I spent two hours working on the range and spent a couple hours editing an interview Matt Simon did.

I also made soup, from scratch, for dinner.  :P

Quote from: PowerPenguin on October 01, 2007, 02:39 AM NHFT
Let's get back to the topic: What did YOU do today to advance liberty?

Put more information up on this website (http://cursor.eprci.com/), and prepared to go to another Manchester aldermanic meeting tomorrow, in order to get them to kill (or at least table for another month) this bill (http://cursor.eprci.com/events/manchester/).

Do y'all think promoting liberty is a moral imperative, or is it just sort of like a hobby?

Quote from: Braddogg on October 01, 2007, 08:54 PM NHFT
Do y'all think promoting liberty is a moral imperative, or is it just sort of like a hobby?

Its a lifestyle choice  ;D

Right, but it is a moral imperative?  If I decided to give up the liberty activism thing, drop away from the libertarian scene, just started working at a McDonald's and reading books on theoretical physics instead of starting a newspaper, posting here, and reading LewRockwell, would I be acting morally, immorally, or neutrally?

I continue to push forward on my business, The Ancap Agency, which provides non-governmental solutions (i.e. non-coercive conflict resolution, security consulting, etc.)

I continue to increase my self-sufficiency via adding to my skills, in particular I am learning machinist skills, which will come in hand to myself and the freedom movement in any number of ways in the near future.

I continue to try to recruit some good people for the Free State Project.

I continue to run contingency planning in my head for various possibilities, so as to be prepared should any of them occur (prefer not to be more specific at this time).

I exchanged FeRNs for Liberty Dollars.

I paid a couple of Porcupines for their labor, instead of hiring non-Porcupines to do the job.

And so forth.

Quote from: Braddogg on October 01, 2007, 09:06 PM NHFT
Right, but it is a moral imperative?  If I decided to give up the liberty activism thing, drop away from the libertarian scene, just started working at a McDonald's and reading books on theoretical physics instead of starting a newspaper, posting here, and reading LewRockwell, would I be acting morally, immorally, or neutrally?

Your life belongs to you.   One course may be more admirable than the other, but it would be difficult to categorize either as immoral. 

Well Menno, I told you I would read this.

Just a little note to let ya know I did.

Well written and your passion shows through.

If my little brain thinks up any thing to contribute
I will post it here.

Quote from: Braddogg on October 01, 2007, 09:06 PM NHFT
Right, but it is a moral imperative?  If I decided to give up the liberty activism thing, drop away from the libertarian scene, just started working at a McDonald's and reading books on theoretical physics instead of starting a newspaper, posting here, and reading LewRockwell, would I be acting morally, immorally, or neutrally?

The only immoral behavior, in my opinion, is causing harm to—committing aggression against—others. Dropping out of a movement doesn't exactly fall under that, unless perhaps you dropped out in the middle of something when some people were relying on you or expecting you to have done something, and the act of quitting itself caused harm.

In general I don't criticize people who stand by and do nothing. Cowardly, yes, but morally wrong, no.

I talk a lot about a porc house in keene for two reasons; one, I think one is very much needed as a gateway for new movers, and two, while I can help by moving in and paying bills, I am not in a position to get the ball rolling because I do not make enough money.   :-\  Or a more permanent setup with anarchists in one house, 4 or 5, stubbornly in favor of civil disobedience.  (I'm not interested in violent revolution).   :)

Keene definitely needs a porc house.  Manchester is getting way too many new movers and a porc house would allow some of those movers to come here...

Manchester has at least 3 porc houses.  I couldn't help but notice the number of new movers migrating there.   :-\ 

Quote from: David on October 03, 2007, 11:14 PM NHFT
Manchester has at least 3 porc houses.  I couldn't help but notice the number of new movers migrating there.   :-\ 

We're eventually going to take over this city. >:D

Quote from: FTL_Ian on October 03, 2007, 01:09 PM NHFT
Keene definitely needs a porc house.  Manchester is getting way too many new movers and a porc house would allow some of those movers to come here...

I'm going to be moving to Portsmouth probably. Does that make you feel better? ;)

wrong direction.  ;D (thinks to self, "I wonder if I told new mover that portsmouth is west of manchester just past peterborough off of route 101, would he believe me?  and would he be mad if he found out I lied just to get him to move to keene?" end of thought)   >:D

My main deal w/ the western/northern areas is that they are the middle of nowhere, IMHO. I've lived in various West Coast cities, and I think some small, isolated place would be boring, not financially beneficial, AND... not near a large body of water. Just my 2 cents though!