New Hampshire Underground

http://www.strike-the-root.com/71/molyneux/molyneux3.html

Ah, my son, my son . . . .

He's 40 years old, and really needs to change careers.

When he was 20, he joined the Ku Klux Klan, because he was concerned that the Klan was getting too big, too aggressive. In those days, they were lynching some poor man every week, which he felt was wrong. He felt that the Klan should limit itself to a lynching every month, and that things were getting waaaay out of hand.

I've spent my life arguing that the Klan should be abolished, so I had mixed feelings about his decision. Without a doubt, I would rather the Klan lynch someone once a month rather than once a week, so I was somewhat tempted by his "work from the inside" approach, but I had some significant doubts that it could work.

"But dad," he said, those many years ago, "I can get the word out that the Klan should only be lynching someone once a month, rather than once a week, which will be a step in the right direction, right?"

"Well, I'm not sure," I said uneasily. "Won't people be getting the message that lynching is good, rather than that lynching is bad? You're legitimizing the principle."

"But I want to reduce the number of lynchings, dad!" he replied. "In an ideal world, sure, there should be no lynchings at all, but I'm going to bring that number down, which is a step in the right direction, right? I mean, it's better if fewer people get lynched, right?"

I was uneasy, because something just sort of – seemed wrong with his approach, but I couldn't put my finger on it.

For the past 20 years, my son has been notorious in the Klan. He draws a paycheck, goes to meetings – and has been given control over his very own district of Klan loyalists.

To his credit, whenever the Klan Council votes on whether to have a lynching, my son usually votes "no." Often he's the only one casting a negative vote.

Still, since he joined the Klan with the goal of reducing lynching, lynching has gone up and up and up.

Now, the Klan that 20 years ago only lynched a man a week is now lynching a man a day.

And my son's district? Has he been able to reduce the lynching in the area he has control over?

No. In fact, the lynching in his own district has actually gone up over the years.

When I ask him about this, his answer is always the same: "Sure, dad, but I don't have that much control over who gets lynched in my district. I oppose it, of course, but there's not a whole lot I can do."

A few months ago, my son came over and told me he was running for Grand Wizard.

"If I become Grand Wizard," he said, "I will be able to veto most of the lynchings that come up for a vote. Then I'll really have the power to reduce the number of people getting killed or beaten up."

"But son!" I exclaimed in horror. "People – other than you, let's say – only join the Klan so they can lynch people. If all they want to do is lynch people, why on earth would they vote you in? And if you somehow got in, the moment you stopped them from lynching, they'd just toss you out! If you stop the Klan from lynching, it's not the Klan anymore!"

"No," he said earnestly, "it's still the Klan – it's just a smaller Klan that lynches less!"

"Twenty years ago," I said softly, "you said that in a perfect world, there would be no lynching at all . . . ."

"Sure," he said, coloring slightly. "But I can't talk about that. About there being no lynching at all. I mean, that would be mad – I'd never get elected Grand Wizard!"

"Right, so you're on a 'pro-lynching' platform, you just want less lynching."

"Yes," he said, nodding vigorously, immune to irony.

"So it's wrong to lynch a lot, but it's right to lynch a little."

"Well, ideally, there should be no lynching at all . . . ."

"But that's not what you're telling people. You're telling people that the right thing to do is lynch less."

"Sure – because less lynching is better than more lynching."

"But no lynching is better, right?"

"Yes, in an ideal world . . . ."

"So why don't you tell people that? That you want to take over the Klan in order to abolish it!"

He laughed. "Oh, I don't think that's the right idea. Right now, we need the lynchings. We need the Klan. It's just gotten too big."

Round and round we went, from pragmatism to principle, back and forth . . . . It was most exasperating!

After a public debate where my son roused a real ruckus by openly stating that the reason that certain minorities hated whites was because of white support for the Klan that lynched them, his numbers shot up from somewhere near 0% to around 3%.

He came right over, ecstatic. "I'm really getting the message out, dad!"

I grimaced. "Well – I hate to say this, son, but I think you just shot yourself in the foot."

"Wh – what?" His voice hardened instantly.

"You say that minorities hate the Klan because of the lynchings, right?"

"Right!"

"But the number of lynchings has gone up like five or six times since you joined the Klan – and the number of lynchings in your district has also gone up!"

"But I vote against most of the lynchings!"

"But son! You are in the Klan! You support lynchings! How can you say that the Klan is immoral?"

"Because, as I've said about ten thousand times over the past 20 years, dad, there's too much lynching!"

"So you think that minorities will love you now? When you say they have every right to hate the lynching that you support less of? My God, son – when did it happen that the best possible outcome a good man could hope for was to present himself as the lesser of two evils?"

"Because change has to be gradual, dad!" he cried out. "Has your podcasting and scribbling stopped even one lynching? At least I'm out in the real world trying to get something done!"

"And what, after 20 years, have you achieved? You said to me, long ago, 'Dad, I'm in this to reduce the numbers of lynchings. And you've been taking Klan money and hanging out with these thugs for decades, and what is the outcome? More lynchings. More Klan power! So what have you achieved?"

He jumped up. "Well, yeah, sure, there are more lynchings now, but can you imagine what would have happened if I hadn't joined the Klan? Instead of just one lynching a day, there could be two or three!"

"How do you know that? That's just something you tell yourself, so you don't feel that you compromised your principles for nothing. There's no evidence of that!"

"I've voted against most of the lynchings!"

"And the lynchings happened anyway! And still you stay with these thugs!"

Suddenly he changed tactics. "Why do you care so much what I do? We're both for less lynching, we're both on the same side of the fence, we shouldn't be fighting each other."

"But you are fighting me," I said softly. "Don't you understand that?"

There was a long silence. Our mutual anger was spent.

"What do you mean?"

"Son, you think that lynching should be reformed, I think it should be abolished. It's like slavery." I sighed. "In the 19th Century, a lot people were very uneasy about slavery. Deep down, they knew that it was wrong. But they also were afraid of real change.  And there were two groups: the reformers and the abolitionists.  The reformers promised people that slavery could be made more humane, that the slaves could be treated better, beaten and raped less – and so slavery did not have to be eliminated. They worked to pass laws against the extreme mistreatment of slaves, held rallies, raised money – an enormous amount of time, energy and resources were wasted trying to reform slavery. And, as they worked and worked, for decades and decades, more slaves got beaten and raped, conditions got worse and worse, and – the worst thing in  my view – people uncomfortable with slavery were given the comforting illusion that it did not have to be abolished.

"The abolitionists, on the other hand, knew that slavery could not be reformed, that it was evil through and through, and that it had to be abolished. And their most dangerous opponents were not those who were unabashedly pro-slavery. Their most dangerous opponents were the reformers."

He rolled his eyes. "So – you're saying that I'm your enemy now?"

"No, because we've never had this conversation. And for that I'm sorry. But what you're doing, what you've been doing for 20 years, is telling people that the Klan can be good if only the right person is in charge. You're giving people false hope, because the Klan can never be good. And so they shrink back from abolishing the Klan, because that seems extreme, because here's this smart, well-spoken person who's been in the Klan for 20 years, who's saying that the Klan is good and necessary, and all we have to do is put him in charge of it. So when I come along and say that the Klan is immoral, and needs to be abolished, you know what people say to me? They say, 'Nahhh, I'm going to support your son, he has great plans to reform the Klan, I agree with a lot of what he says, there is too much lynching – we don't have to abolish the Klan, that's too extreme.' And that's been going on for the last 20 years, son. You're giving people a false choice that helps them avoid the necessity of change, from confronting the evil in their midst. And you legitimize the Klan by claiming to be a good man and being part of it. I'm telling you this from the bottom of my heart, son: if you did not exist, the Klan would have to invent you."

There was a long pause.

"All right, dad," said my son eventually, raising his eyes to mine. "I'll drop my run for Grand Wizard. On one condition."

"Anything!" I cried out, overjoyed.

"You drop your support for Ron Paul."

Good one!

Many anarchists should see a huge opp in Ron Paul.

Ron Paul (in my opinion) is the last hope for National Politics.... if he fails there will be hundreds of supporters who will have no where to turn.  Now is the time to meet them....greet them and maybe teach them.

Could be 1000s of 'new recruits'.

Jim.  I don't know in what form your NH activism takes place, but, I wouldn't spend one electron criticizing it or trying to talk you out of it.

Get ready to embrace 'The Disaffected'

Ron Paul isn't an anarchist. He's a constitutionalist. He doesn't view the government as the Klan. He sees a difference between constitutional acts of government and unconstitutional acts (most of them), much like some see a difference between aggressive force and defensive force. In his eyes, one is acceptable and the other is not. He's among the vast super-majority of people who havn't yet been able to view how the world could work without a state. He's not perfect, but he's also not a hypocrite and that's where your analogy comparing him to the son running for the Klan falls apart.

No one said Ron Paul was an anarchist.  The author of the article is.

Quote from: dalebert on May 30, 2007, 10:29 AM NHFT
Ron Paul isn't an anarchist. He's a constitutionalist. He doesn't view the government as the Klan. He sees a difference between constitutional acts of government and unconstitutional acts (most of them), much like some see a difference between aggressive force and defensive force. In his eyes, one is acceptable and the other is not. He's among the vast super-majority of people who havn't yet been able to view how the world could work without a state. He's not perfect, but he's also not a hypocrite and that's where your analogy comparing him to the son running for the Klan falls apart.

Exactly.  Ron doesn't see the government as evil and unnecessary.  He sees it as used incorrectly based on the rules established by those who founded it.

That article was kinda silly.  One difference between it and the 'real world' is that people actually do have a chance at reducing, even *GASP eliminating many programs, taxes and public jobs.  Didn't FSPers work together to get the Homeschool laws changed?  Didn't people help to fight REAL ID?  If everyone who packed up and moved to NH for more freedom decided not to vote or get involved in the political process then the state would forever be turning into a 'less free' place to live.

Personally, I'm working to make it 'more free' in the hopes that it will someday 'be free'.
;)

He also reads it in one of his videocasts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcdxuxufAKY
It certainly made me realize that supporting Paul would make more damage to the cause of liberty and removal of the state. Just like supporting slave law reformers would hurt abolishement of slavery.

Quote from: dalebert on May 30, 2007, 10:29 AM NHFT
Ron Paul isn't an anarchist. He's a constitutionalist. He doesn't view the government as the Klan. He sees a difference between constitutional acts of government and unconstitutional acts (most of them), much like some see a difference between aggressive force and defensive force. In his eyes, one is acceptable and the other is not. He's among the vast super-majority of people who havn't yet been able to view how the world could work without a state. He's not perfect, but he's also not a hypocrite and that's where your analogy comparing him to the son running for the Klan falls apart.

Really? Is it only I who have heard him speak of the Evil people moving to USA and the tyranny of the state needs to crack down on these people and of course the existent of some taxation and even the state itself. Totally hypocritical to the principles of liberty. Just like an slave abolisher would say it's not okay to have more than one slaves. He might not realize it but he is acting hypocritically to liberty by just supporting the state.

i like all articles that have the word 'ron paul' in them

Quote from: DadaOrwell on May 30, 2007, 12:45 PM NHFT
i like all articles that have the word 'ron paul' in them

You'll enjoy my latest then:

http://www.nhinsider.com/richard-barnes/calling-all-independents.html

Quote from: Kat Kanning on May 30, 2007, 10:46 AM NHFT
No one said Ron Paul was an anarchist.  The author of the article is.

Right, that much is clear. The point I was making is that he's trying to compare Ron Paul to the son in the article but it doesn't fly. The son in the analogy story is an anarchist, which is made clear when he admits to his father that no government (comparable to lynchings in the author's eyes) is the goal. The son in the story is clearly a hypocrite, preaching things that he doesn't really believe in order to get elected, presumably in order to get less lynchings. That's not Ron Paul. Now if someone convinces Ron Paul of the anarchist position instead of a constitutionalist position and he continues to run on a position of constitutionalism, then yes, he'd be a hypocrite.

In the meantime, I'm not going to assume that everyone who supports any kind of government is evil. Most of them are ignorant slash brain-washed. Trying to preach no statism to a public school indoctrinated-all-his-life socialist is practically speaking in a foreign language. I went from Democrat to Republican to Libertarian to being against all aggressive force.

My own path toward the realization that all aggressive force is wrong was one of incrementalism so I know it can work. I think that's why these arguments about the futility of incrementalism fall flat with me. I'm a living example to the contrary. This is just an emotionally charged (via the comparison to lynchings) rehash of the same tired old argument about the tactics we each choose in order to achieve true freedom.

Quote from: lildog on May 30, 2007, 12:59 PM NHFT

Quote from: DadaOrwell on May 30, 2007, 12:45 PM NHFT
i like all articles that have the word 'ron paul' in them

You'll enjoy my latest then:

http://www.nhinsider.com/richard-barnes/calling-all-independents.html

I liked it so much I put it here:
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Calling_all_Independents

Quote from: Lloyd  Danforth on May 30, 2007, 10:05 AM NHFT
Jim.  I don't know in what form your NH activism takes place, but, I wouldn't spend one electron criticizing it or trying to talk you out of it.

Lloyd,

I much prefer "James."  "Jim" is my father's name.  :)

I don't agree that we should be entirely uncritical of each others' attempts, especially if those attempts seem to be ultimately counterintuitive.  I'm not necessarily advocating a centralized front, but certainly if each individual is open to criticism, then said individuals have the ability to refine their technique or alter it entirely if necessary.

That said, I think you just burned a few electrons on me.

I may as well mention the fact that I'm no longer a FSPer... though that shouldn't matter one bit.  What should matter is, does the above article make a salient point?

That said, I was debating whether I should post this or not.  I did consider putting it in "Ron Paul 2008," but even I thought that would be tweaking people's noses a bit more than I felt comfortable with.

Furthermore, I decided to do it because I think that it's a very important point for those who are serious about achieving liberty.  Support him, and vote for him, and it's support and a vote for the system that allows him to exist in the first place.  It's a step in the wrong direction.

Quote from: dalebert on May 30, 2007, 01:40 PM NHFT
Right, that much is clear. The point I was making is that he's trying to compare Ron Paul to the son in the article but it doesn't fly. The son in the analogy story is an anarchist, which is made clear when he admits to his father that no government (comparable to lynchings in the author's eyes) is the goal. The son in the story is clearly a hypocrite, preaching things that he doesn't really believe in order to get elected, presumably in order to get less lynchings. That's not Ron Paul. Now if someone convinces Ron Paul of the anarchist position instead of a constitutionalist position and he continues to run on a position of constitutionalism, then yes, he'd be a hypocrite.

I think that's reading a bit too much into the story.  The point is, the support of Ron Paul for the Presidency is parallel to what would be the support of the Grand Wizard for the Ku Klux Klan.  If the son suddenly realizes the parallel between the Klan and the State, perhaps that's why he asks his father to drop the support.  In either case, that point is not central to the story and I'll claim ignorance by not seeing how that invalidates the distinction between reform and abolition.

Quote from: dalebert on May 30, 2007, 01:40 PM NHFT
In the meantime, I'm not going to assume that everyone who supports any kind of government is evil. Most of them are ignorant slash brain-washed. Trying to preach no statism to a public school indoctrinated-all-his-life socialist is practically speaking in a foreign language. I went from Democrat to Republican to Libertarian to being against all aggressive force.

I don't think that what's being said is that everybody who supports any kind of government is evil.  In light of outright evil, however, concessions to it cannot possibly be construed as a good act.  Slavery did not cease by reform--it ceased by calling for its abolition.  This point is too important to be glossed over.

Quote from: dalebert on May 30, 2007, 01:40 PM NHFT
My own path toward the realization that all aggressive force is wrong was one of incrementalism so I know it can work. I think that's why these arguments about the futility of incrementalism fall flat with me. I'm a living example to the contrary. This is just an emotionally charged (via the comparison to lynchings) rehash of the same tired old argument about the tactics we each choose in order to achieve true freedom.

The question is, what was it that finally convinced you to be fully against aggression?  Was it truly the "incremental" approach?  How do you convince somebody that something is slightly evil, kind of evil, really evil, and then just plain evil?  Why not call it for what it is?  It doesn't help us in the long run if everybody were to just become big-L Libertarians.

If you don't think that the state is evil, then obviously the discussion has to be knocked back a bit.

I also don't think it's an unwarranted charge to compare the actions of government, which hurt people for basically no good reason, to lynchings, which basically happen for no good reason.

Quote from: James A. Pyrich on May 30, 2007, 02:55 PM NHFT

I may as well mention the fact that I'm no longer a FSPer... though that shouldn't matter one bit. 

What does this mean?  Did you ask the FSP to take your name off the books or do you mean that you moved to NH so now you are a NH liberty lover?

Quote from: James A. Pyrich on May 30, 2007, 03:21 PM NHFT
The question is, what was it that finally convinced you to be fully against aggression?  Was it truly the "incremental" approach?

Like most people, I grew up thinking an authoritative government was just a natural part of a society. It HAD to exist for people to get along. In time I was convinced that certain activities of government were more harmful than helpful like progressive taxation and welfare. Once I was convinced of the idea that less government was better than big government, I started analyzing more and more areas of society that I thought government should keeps its nose out of. It eventually took on the status of "necessary evil". Now I hate that term. It sounds quite ridiculous to me, but I wasn't able to grasp how ridiculous it was until I could dispel the thoroughly ingrained notion that it was absolutely necessary in some form and to some degree.

Until Ron Paul, I haven't seen a candidate in years that's guided by principle and puts their principles higher than their desire to be elected. I've already said that without him as an option, I refuse to just vote for the lesser of two evils of two unprincipled typical politicians. Ron Paul is reaching the people who are just at the start of the same journey I made. I'll never run for office again because that would require dishonesty on a massive scale, but SOMEONE is going to be president and is going to have a lot of power whether i'm involved or not. Even if he doesn't win or even if he can't win, Ron Paul is introducing people to ideas that have the potential to put them on the same path that I began years ago. The typical politicians and many in the media see him as a threat to the mind game they've been using to maintain their power and that's a very good thing.

QuoteHow do you convince somebody that something is slightly evil, kind of evil, really evil, and then just plain evil?  Why not call it for what it is?  It doesn't help us in the long run if everybody were to just become big-L Libertarians.

The small government people DO see it as evil, but they see it as a "necessary" (try not to puke) evil. That's a big hump to get over for a lot of people and I doubt very many people get over that hump in one leap starting off from a socialist or neocon position.

It should be noted that the FSP is not an anarchist movement - it posits the maximum role of government is the protection of an individual's life, liberty, and property from aggressors.  Hence, it posits that there may be, in fact, a role for government.

The effort towards abolition of slavery in England formally began in 1787, and did not succeed until 1833, after nearly 50 years of tireless legislative and persuasive effort by activists and members of parliament.  The first vote on an abolition bill in 1791 was 163 to 88 against.

To think that abolition of slavery could have succeeded more quickly by an attempt to overthrow the English Parliament, or some such, seems pretty implausible to me.

Quote from: mvpel on May 30, 2007, 04:16 PM NHFT
It should be noted that the FSP is not an anarchist movement - it posits the maximum role of government is the protection of an individual's life, liberty, and property from aggressors.  Hence, it posits that there may be, in fact, a role for government.

The FSP also does not set a minimum role of government, so anything below the maximum --including no government at all-- is within the FSP's goal.

Quote from: KBCraig on May 30, 2007, 04:54 PM NHFT

Quote from: mvpel on May 30, 2007, 04:16 PM NHFT
It should be noted that the FSP is not an anarchist movement - it posits the maximum role of government is the protection of an individual's life, liberty, and property from aggressors.  Hence, it posits that there may be, in fact, a role for government.

The FSP also does not set a minimum role of government, so anything below the maximum --including no government at all-- is within the FSP's goal.

mvpel is right--the FSP is not an anarchist movement, which is why I'm not part of it any longer.  :)

As for Kevin, that's an inappropriate use of the logic, for "zero government" is qualitatively different than "some government."  It implies that anarchism is a subset of minarchism which I really don't think is the case.

Start an anarchist movement in NH :)

Quote from: Dreepa on May 30, 2007, 03:21 PM NHFT

Quote from: James A. Pyrich on May 30, 2007, 02:55 PM NHFT

I may as well mention the fact that I'm no longer a FSPer... though that shouldn't matter one bit. 

What does this mean?  Did you ask the FSP to take your name off the books or do you mean that you moved to NH so now you are a NH liberty lover?

The former.  I didn't want to be part of the "body count," though ultimately I can't stop them from counting me, it's not important enough for me to care beyond asking for my profile to be removed (the "already in New Hampshire" counter hasn't moved for quite some time now, though, so who knows what data they're counting).

I guess it's a good thing I didn't get that one job with that pseudo-government agency!  ;D

Quote from: Kat Kanning on May 30, 2007, 05:12 PM NHFT
Start an anarchist movement in NH :)

We'll see.  :)

Quote from: James A. Pyrich on May 30, 2007, 05:29 PM NHFT

Quote from: Kat Kanning on May 30, 2007, 05:12 PM NHFT
Start an anarchist movement in NH :)

We'll see.  :)

There already is an anarchist movement in NH! And :o it's full of Free Staters!!

Quote from: error on May 30, 2007, 05:33 PM NHFT

Quote from: James A. Pyrich on May 30, 2007, 05:29 PM NHFT

Quote from: Kat Kanning on May 30, 2007, 05:12 PM NHFT
Start an anarchist movement in NH :)

We'll see.  :)

There already is an anarchist movement in NH! And :o it's full of Free Staters!!

Oops!  Messed that one up!

Quote from: KBCraig on May 30, 2007, 04:54 PM NHFT

Quote from: mvpel on May 30, 2007, 04:16 PM NHFT
It should be noted that the FSP is not an anarchist movement - it posits the maximum role of government is the protection of an individual's life, liberty, and property from aggressors.  Hence, it posits that there may be, in fact, a role for government.

The FSP also does not set a minimum role of government, so anything below the maximum --including no government at all-- is within the FSP's goal.

It could, just get lost in the shuffle

What is said organization of anarchists full of Free Staters?

Quote from: lordmetroid on May 30, 2007, 05:56 PM NHFT
What is said organization of anarchists full of Free Staters?

James is going to start it.

Good luck organizing Anarchists ;D

Well, hey, that was merely Kat's suggestion, let's be clear on this.  ;)

I don't mind continuing the discussion, but as a parting note for now, I will mention that one must do what one feels is right.  For me, it's not a question of efficacy, but a question of morality.  I do not think that it is moral to impose a vision of "freedom," no matter how well-intentioned.  Furthermore, I think that a universal morality exists, and part of the process is figuring out what that is.

"Freedom" isn't a destination, so whatever it is I end up doing will only be part of the journey.

I'm just this guy, you know?  I do not want to be a political leader.  The power of politics is incredibly dangerous--just look at the world we live in.

I said there was a movement, not an organization. :)

Quote from: James A. Pyrich on May 30, 2007, 06:12 PM NHFT
Well, hey, that was merely Kat's suggestion, let's be clear on this.  ;)

Sorry, you've been drafted :P

Quote from: Lloyd  Danforth on May 30, 2007, 06:26 PM NHFT

Quote from: James A. Pyrich on May 30, 2007, 06:12 PM NHFT
Well, hey, that was merely Kat's suggestion, let's be clear on this.  ;)

Sorry, you've been drafted :P

*James burns his draft card and moves to Canada*

Quote from: James A. Pyrich on May 30, 2007, 06:12 PM NHFTI do not think that it is moral to impose a vision of "freedom," no matter how well-intentioned.

I think you've got things backwards.

For example, Senator Burling, Senator Hassan, and their cohorts are in the process of trying to impose their vision of "freedom" on the state - mandatory seat belts so that you can have the "freedom" to survive a car wreck.  (Senator Burling will play Ellsworth Toohey in the New Hampshire production of Atlas Shrugged - "it is only through total compulsion that you can gain total freedom!")

What we are trying to do here, working within the political process using persuasion and activism, is prevent them from succeeding in imposing their vision on everyone in New Hampshire.

Toohey will have to jump from one novel to another to pull that off



I'm thinking that, although, political systems can't bring people freedom, they aren't going away overnight.  Getting good legislators and good legislation can be enhanced by running (many)good candidates combined with non political types demonstrating  against and ignoring existing bad laws.
This can be a good combination.  It is early days.

Quote from: mvpel on May 31, 2007, 08:33 AM NHFT

Quote from: James A. Pyrich on May 30, 2007, 06:12 PM NHFTI do not think that it is moral to impose a vision of "freedom," no matter how well-intentioned.

I think you've got things backwards.

For example, Senator Burling, Senator Hassan, and their cohorts are in the process of trying to impose their vision of "freedom" on the state - mandatory seat belts so that you can have the "freedom" to survive a car wreck.  (Senator Burling will play Ellsworth Toohey in the New Hampshire production of Atlas Shrugged - "it is only through total compulsion that you can gain total freedom!")

What we are trying to do here, working within the political process using persuasion and activism, is prevent them from succeeding in imposing their vision on everyone in New Hampshire.

The underlying principle behind "working within the political process" is imposition.  It's not possible to dress it up as anything else.  If you think that it's moral to coerce "freedom," then I'm not sure there's anything more to discuss.

QuoteI'm thinking that, although, political systems can't bring people freedom, they aren't going away overnight.

As I mentioned before, it took 50 years of activism and parliamentary work for England to abolish chattel slavery, and when they did, they further used their legendary naval might to enforce such abolition upon any other nation or individual engaged in maritime slave trade, anywhere in the world.

James - was that coercion moral in your view?  Did it bring greater freedom to humanity?

Quote from: Lloyd  Danforth on May 30, 2007, 06:04 PM NHFT
Good luck organizing Anarchists ;D

I heard they were planning a meeting at the Kosher Bacon Factor.   ;)

Quote from: mvpel on May 31, 2007, 09:25 AM NHFT

QuoteI'm thinking that, although, political systems can't bring people freedom, they aren't going away overnight.

As I mentioned before, it took 50 years of activism and parliamentary work for England to abolish chattel slavery, and when they did, they further used their legendary naval might to enforce such abolition upon any other nation or individual engaged in maritime slave trade, anywhere in the world.

James - was that coercion moral in your view?  Did it bring greater freedom to humanity?

You must compare apples to apples.  In the example of slavery, only specific kinds of slavery were outlawed by the state--the more subtle slavery of a wife to her husband or children to their parents are entirely overlooked and still go on in large part today.

Furthermore, the example of a coercive act banning a coercive act does not prove anything about the elimination of coercion altogether.  After the so-called abolishment of slavery, coercion still exists, and some forms of slavery were entirely ignored.  Can you say the same thing about the abolition of socially-acceptable coercion?

Answer me how you can coerce non-coercion.  How will you, in the end, force somebody to not force others?  How can we have two moral standards in which one applies to the holder of a socially-acceptable implement of force and the other applies to everybody else?

Don't get me wrong.  I understand the desire to do something, and to do it now.  But if we're going to talk about efficacy, I think that incrementalism only serves to legitimize coercive processes already in effect.

Of course, if you do not think that the ultimate goal ought to be the elimination of socially-accepted coercion, then, again, there's not much more to discuss here.  I hold that coercion is immoral no matter what form it takes.

James what steps are you taking towards your ends?

Quote from: Dreepa on May 31, 2007, 10:03 AM NHFT
James what steps are you taking towards your ends?

I can't promise it'll be satisfying!  I also can't predict how long it will take.

The first thing I'm trying to work towards is to formulate (along with others) a universal morality which is empirically verifiable.  This sounds pretty pie-in-the-sky, but it has very real consequences.  It involves how I treat others around me and how I respond to them.  I think that the basis of the state, for example, is due to the indoctrination of the acceptance of arbitrary authority.  It's not rational, not in the slightest, and this can be seen if you challenge the legitimacy of the state.  I wouldn't say that this characterizes absolutely everybody, but I've definitely come across some people who get upset, use non sequiturs, and never address the points I've made in a logical, rational manner.

This formulation really cannot be done in isolation, so the second part is to discuss the ideas with others, obtain criticism, respond, hone my arguments and adjust my stance if need be.  It is that discussion which, disseminated through society, will eventually bring the downfall of the state.

Now... if, somehow, the use of state power eliminates the existence of the state, that would be fantastic!  If there's a consistent way in which this proves my efforts to be wrong, then I'd love to hear about it, because not only do I have to be consistent and rational, but I have to make sure that whatever it is I spout off conforms to what is observable.

This doesn't mean that everything will be intuitive.  Free-market economics, for example, aren't intuitive, but they sure seem to be true.  The earth looks flat.  Saying it's a sphere is non-intuitive.

So, truly, it's a journey.  I don't have a 12-step plan for achieving freedom, because "freedom" is not a destination any more than "free will" is a destination, to borrow from Stefan Molyneux.  There is most certainly a long way to go, and I won't try to stop others from doing what they feel is right, but I'm not willing to back down if I think they're wrong.

Étienne de La Boétie had an incredible insight when he discussed the toppling of the tyrant over 450 years ago, and I'm sure you've seen this around the board:

Quote from: Étienne de La Boétie
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed.  I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.

QuoteI wouldn't say that this characterizes absolutely everybody, but I've definitely come across some people who get upset, use non sequiturs, and never address the points I've made in a logical, rational manner.

I wish I was smart enough to understand your points let alone address them in a logical, rational manner! ;D

Honestly this whole thread has pretty much confused the heck out of me.   :D

Quote from: James A. Pyrich on May 31, 2007, 09:41 AM NHFTYou must compare apples to apples.  In the example of slavery, only specific kinds of slavery were outlawed by the state--the more subtle slavery of a wife to her husband or children to their parents are entirely overlooked and still go on in large part today.

Okay, I'm not even going to go down that rathole.

QuoteAnswer me how you can coerce non-coercion.  How will you, in the end, force somebody to not force others?

By using defensive force against anyone who attempts to force others.

QuoteHow can we have two moral standards in which one applies to the holder of a socially-acceptable implement of force and the other applies to everybody else?

By having a moral standard that defensive force is always, and always will be, acceptable, as a first law of nature.

Quote from: raineyrocks on May 31, 2007, 10:53 AM NHFT

QuoteI wouldn't say that this characterizes absolutely everybody, but I've definitely come across some people who get upset, use non sequiturs, and never address the points I've made in a logical, rational manner.

I wish I was smart enough to understand your points let alone address them in a logical, rational manner! ;D

Honestly this whole thread has pretty much confused the heck out of me.   :D

I bet that you're much smarter than you think.  One thing that really gets to me is when people say about themselves, "I'm not smart enough."  You've already set the tone by which you'll evaluate the discussion.  It's like cutting yourself off at the knees before a footrace.

I think the reason this really bothers me is because I got that vibe from my parents even though I knew I was smart.  I think I was especially sensitive to this because I remember a significant moment when my father assumed that he knew what I was thinking and proceeded to lie to me outright.  What an insult to my intelligence, even as a young child!  (I used to fall into the same "duhhh" patterns with my father until recently... it's almost like a display of intelligence makes him feel threatened somehow, and the tension is palpable.)

So I encourage you to examine why you say that... I mean, I've seen you say it a number of times, and while you don't need to tell me why, I think it would be beneficial if you were able to figure that out.

Quote from: James A. Pyrich on May 31, 2007, 11:04 AM NHFT

Quote from: raineyrocks on May 31, 2007, 10:53 AM NHFT

QuoteI wouldn't say that this characterizes absolutely everybody, but I've definitely come across some people who get upset, use non sequiturs, and never address the points I've made in a logical, rational manner.

I wish I was smart enough to understand your points let alone address them in a logical, rational manner! ;D

Honestly this whole thread has pretty much confused the heck out of me.   :D

I bet that you're much smarter than you think.  One thing that really gets to me is when people say about themselves, "I'm not smart enough."  You've already set the tone by which you'll evaluate the discussion.  It's like cutting yourself off at the knees before a footrace.

I think the reason this really bothers me is because I got that vibe from my parents even though I knew I was smart.  I think I was especially sensitive to this because I remember a significant moment when my father assumed that he knew what I was thinking and proceeded to lie to me outright.  What an insult to my intelligence, even as a young child!  (I used to fall into the same "duhhh" patterns with my father until recently... it's almost like a display of intelligence makes him feel threatened somehow, and the tension is palpable.)

So I encourage you to examine why you say that... I mean, I've seen you say it a number of times, and while you don't need to tell me why, I think it would be beneficial if you were able to figure that out.

Thanks James! :)  My sister says the same thing about me even though she was the A student and can whip a 20 page college paper out in one night and get an A.  It takes me days to do something like that but on the happier side I have gotten B's and A's maybe it just takes longer for me.
Growing up with a genius twin and constantly being compared to her was annoying so maybe that's it, I don't know. :-\

Quote from: James A. Pyrich on May 31, 2007, 10:44 AM NHFT

Quote from: Dreepa on May 31, 2007, 10:03 AM NHFT
James what steps are you taking towards your ends?

I can't promise it'll be satisfying!  I also can't predict how long it will take.

The first thing I'm trying to work towards is to formulate (along with others) a universal morality which is empirically verifiable.  This sounds pretty pie-in-the-sky, but it has very real consequences.  It involves how I treat others around me and how I respond to them.  I think that the basis of the state, for example, is due to the indoctrination of the acceptance of arbitrary authority.  It's not rational, not in the slightest, and this can be seen if you challenge the legitimacy of the state.  I wouldn't say that this characterizes absolutely everybody, but I've definitely come across some people who get upset, use non sequiturs, and never address the points I've made in a logical, rational manner.

This formulation really cannot be done in isolation, so the second part is to discuss the ideas with others, obtain criticism, respond, hone my arguments and adjust my stance if need be.  It is that discussion which, disseminated through society, will eventually bring the downfall of the state.

Now... if, somehow, the use of state power eliminates the existence of the state, that would be fantastic!  If there's a consistent way in which this proves my efforts to be wrong, then I'd love to hear about it, because not only do I have to be consistent and rational, but I have to make sure that whatever it is I spout off conforms to what is observable.

This doesn't mean that everything will be intuitive.  Free-market economics, for example, aren't intuitive, but they sure seem to be true.  The earth looks flat.  Saying it's a sphere is non-intuitive.

So, truly, it's a journey.  I don't have a 12-step plan for achieving freedom, because "freedom" is not a destination any more than "free will" is a destination, to borrow from Stefan Molyneux.  There is most certainly a long way to go, and I won't try to stop others from doing what they feel is right, but I'm not willing to back down if I think they're wrong.

Étienne de La Boétie had an incredible insight when he discussed the toppling of the tyrant over 450 years ago, and I'm sure you've seen this around the board:

Quote from: Étienne de La Boétie
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed.  I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.

You answered Dreepa with the answer I expected

Quote from: Lloyd  Danforth on May 31, 2007, 11:35 AM NHFT
You answered Dreepa with the answer I expected

Am I already that predictable?  :)

Or were you referring to my long-windedness? ;D

I suspect Dreepa was looking for concrete actions, not philosophy.

Quote from: Kat Kanning on May 31, 2007, 11:51 AM NHFT
I suspect Dreepa was looking for concrete actions, not philosophy.

That is why I said that my answer would probably not be satisfying.

I'm just not sure that there is a specific, concrete action that I can hang my hat on that I feel confident about putting forward.

Just about the only concrete thing I can say is to hold a discussion and draw as many people as I can into it.  Get them talking, get them thinking, because that's where it all starts.  That's where the actions come from.

I mean, I'm not talking about something that I think will happen in a very short amount of time.  If somebody manages to come up with The Plan, that's great!  I just think it has to be morally consistent, otherwise, what is the point of the goal?

Quote from: Kat Kanning on May 31, 2007, 11:51 AM NHFT
I suspect Dreepa was looking for concrete actions, not philosophy.

Yeah.  There is already a lot of good philosophy, from which you can adapt your own 'alla carte' version.  I think Dreep was looking for concrete actions.  Resisting the system,  ignoring gov fees or paperwork, and laws that don't make any sense to you is concrete.

Bingo Kat and Lloyd.

Libertarians and Anarchists, Minimalists and Constitutionalists... all have great bodies of writing and theories... and certainly more of each would be welcome. However action is what it is all about.  Writiings and theories are only that... unless action is put behind it.
I don't agree with all the actions that people take but it is action.  And that is the name of the game.  And when I see some action  I say wow that person is brave I couldn't/wouldn't do that.  Then I think some more and it makes me a little braver.... and I increase my actions.  Some may say my actions are useless (political even).

I think to the dozens and dozens of threads on the FSP forum of people who will never move to NH.... and tell us (those in NH) what we should be doing. 

Quote from: James A. Pyrich on May 31, 2007, 11:58 AM NHFTJust about the only concrete thing I can say is to hold a discussion and draw as many people as I can into it.  Get them talking, get them thinking, because that's where it all starts.  That's where the actions come from.

The General Court put forth a bill that would have gutted shall-issue concealed carry licensing in New Hampshire, and hundreds of people were drawn into the discussion, packing the statehouse lobby and hallways thanks to activism by GO-NH, the NHLA, and others.

There you go!  You'll have to do this again.
I  know there isn't much gang activity in NH, but, perhaps we need to name the gangs there are and where they are.  We can start with that police chief association, and work are way thru the bureaucrat unions.

When one of the posters on this forum told me he was an anarchist, in my mind I said "great.  That means you'll do nothing and 20 years from now you'll still be as much a part of the system as you are now."  So basically, unless you're like Russell who is acting almost entirely on principle, you are of very little help to those of us still trying to work within 'the system'. 

I mean, if you buy gasoline, then you support gas taxes so you are a part of the system.  If you don't believe in 'the system' yet drive on roads paid for by the system, are you not a hypocrite?  Reducing your dependency on 'the system' should be the one common goal that every single one of us has.  If you have the opportunity to reduce that dependency by voting for a candidate, or voting to strike down a tax increase, then why would you not?  It's the strategically correct thing to do and it's very easy.

"My enemy's enemy is my friend."
We should be working together instead of arguing about things we disagree on.  If you want no government, then help us get a smaller government first...

:soapbox: 

The only way you'll have anarchy is by a natural or man-made disaster, and I'd prefer neither of those happened...

Quote from: Quantrill on May 31, 2007, 08:11 PM NHFT
When one of the posters on this forum told me he was an anarchist, in my mind I said "great.  That means you'll do nothing and 20 years from now you'll still be as much a part of the system as you are now."  So basically, unless you're like Russell who is acting almost entirely on principle, you are of very little help to those of us still trying to work within 'the system'. 

There again, though, there is the corallary:  20 years from now, you too will still be within the system (unless you decide to leave it) and the system will be much, much more oppressive. Many a patriot has wasted an entire lifetime fighting the downward current of this system (think Thomas Jefferson).

At what point do we cash in our chips and say that the system itself is the problem?

Another thing I've been thinking about is this:  Everyone keeps saying that the FSP is *not* an anarchist group.  If you read the statement of intent, then sure, the FSP isn't strictly an anarchist group.  But if you also include the FSP's statement that a member of the FSP is not allowed to advocate the initiation of violence,

Then you come to a sudden realization that your beloved government will not have a funding source (since taxes, by definition, are the coercive taking of private property, and hence an initiation of force, and therefore no FSPer can advocate for any sort of taxation.)

Isn't this, in practice, anarchy? Does any "voluntary" government even merit the name "government"?

Quote20 years from now, you too will still be within the system (unless you decide to leave it) and the system will be much, much more oppressive.

:)

No chance of anything even close to this happening.  Assuming of course, that the 20,000 people who move here actually show up to vote.  If half the FSPers who move here choose not to vote or do anything other than maybe an occasional 'demonstration', then yes, I'd say you may have a point.   20,000 voters saying NO to all taxes and electing like-minded individuals would have a far greater impact than the few so-called "anarchists" who will still end up either buying a house and paying "property tax" on it or rent from someone who pays property tax.  And of course these people will still drive on "our" streets so they will still be hypocrites. 

I apologize for sounding so negative, but again, what are these people doing to help "the cause"?  Someone like me who is generally opposed to completely open borders would do much more to further the cause of liberty than the people who are for "free everything" that only hypothesize about how things "should be" but do very little (if anything) to change the way things are.

Personally, I say we follow the U.S. Constitution.  It's a great "starting point".  And someone like me could be talked into completely open borders.  But unfortunately, too many FSPers refuse to do much of anything, aside from

Quotehold a discussion and draw as many people as I can into it.

I really don't want to waste too much cyberspace, but if you signed up and moved to NH because of the FSP, then hopefully you will do something while you're here.

And to take this even a step further.  I ADVOCATE CONSTITUTIONALISM.  THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE MY ULTIMATE GOAL.

Ugh, some people.

Yes, "my enemy's enemy is my friend."

Quote from: Quantrill on June 01, 2007, 10:28 PM NHFT

Quote20 years from now, you too will still be within the system (unless you decide to leave it) and the system will be much, much more oppressive.

:)

No chance of anything even close to this happening.  Assuming of course, that the 20,000 people who move here actually show up to vote.  If half the FSPers who move here choose not to vote or do anything other than maybe an occasional 'demonstration', then yes, I'd say you may have a point.   20,000 voters saying NO to all taxes and electing like-minded individuals would have a far greater impact than the few so-called "anarchists" who will still end up either buying a house and paying "property tax" on it or rent from someone who pays property tax.  And of course these people will still drive on "our" streets so they will still be hypocrites. 

"No chance"?  Do you really mean "no chance"?  Quantrill, to quote my friend Jefferson, "all experience hath shewn" that governments progress naturally towards more and greater tyranny. This is the natural order of things, and men in far greater position than any of us (such as Jefferson, Madison, et al) have already made the case for reduction in government, and spent their whole lives fighting for it, and yet here we are today living within the world's sole remaining empire. In the early 1800's, Jefferson was writing secession resolutions.

For me, the turning point, where I turned from being a "work within the system" guy to rejecting the system (for the most part, anyway; I support Ron Paul because I think he is good advertisement for some of our ideas.) At any rate, the turning point for me was realizing the depth of Jefferson's failure. I have always been a big Jefferson fan. He was a man of brilliance, the likes of which the world may never see again. How can we hope to succeed where he failed so miserably?

It cannot be otherwise. The deck is stacked against you, because the system naturally proceeds towards tyranny. You can slow it, but you can't stop it. For every step you take forward, you will be pushed two steps back. That is the immutable nature of government, because it is not based on truth and justice, but rather on brute force.

QuoteI apologize for sounding so negative, but again, what are these people doing to help "the cause"?  Someone like me who is generally opposed to completely open borders would do much more to further the cause of liberty than the people who are for "free everything" that only hypothesize about how things "should be" but do very little (if anything) to change the way things are.

What would you have them do? No one has the answer. Some have come to the realization that if we keep going where we're going, we'll end up where we are. (I apologize for the bumper sticker quote.) But the empire has a vested interest in not going away.

Quote"No chance"?  Do you really mean "no chance"?

Honestly Caleb, I mean there is a 0 percent chance that things will suck even half as bad as they do now if 20,000 liberty-oriented people who vote move to NH.  I realize that the FSP does not specifically encourage 20k voters.  But if I thought that the people joining the FSP would not exercise their right to vote, then I wouldn't have joined the FSP.  Maybe my foolish mistake, I was signer #2 after all.

I don't see much good coming from people who espouse no gov't yet don't do much about it.  I will agree that 20,000 people who drive without licenses (a la Russell) would do even more good than 20k voters.  But again, the so-called anarchists are not really anarchists at all.  They may want no government, but I sure don't see them doing much of anything about it.  If they like the 'security' of the system, then they should humor themselves and participate in the system.

So, 20k voters versus however many people who want no government but still rely damn-near entirely on the system.  Who could affect the most positive change?

Dammit, if I hadn't been drinking tonight I wouldn't even be wasting my time arguing this point in cyberspace.  Ah well, we're all allowed to waste time now and then...

Quote from: mvpel on May 31, 2007, 12:10 PM NHFT
The General Court put forth a bill that would have gutted shall-issue concealed carry licensing in New Hampshire, and hundreds of people were drawn into the discussion, packing the statehouse lobby...

;D

+1

Quote from: Caleb on June 01, 2007, 07:04 PM NHFT

Quote from: Quantrill on May 31, 2007, 08:11 PM NHFT
When one of the posters on this forum told me he was an anarchist, in my mind I said "great.  That means you'll do nothing and 20 years from now you'll still be as much a part of the system as you are now."  So basically, unless you're like Russell who is acting almost entirely on principle, you are of very little help to those of us still trying to work within 'the system'.

There again, though, there is the corallary:  20 years from now, you too will still be within the system (unless you decide to leave it) and the system will be much, much more oppressive. Many a patriot has wasted an entire lifetime fighting the downward current of this system (think Thomas Jefferson).

At what point do we cash in our chips and say that the system itself is the problem?

As president Jefferson became part of the problem and initiated some of the worst parts of the system we have today.

I wouldn't say that "the worst parts" are from Jefferson ... but yes, that is the nature of government. It tends to corrupt even the best of people.

QuoteHonestly Caleb, I mean there is a 0 percent chance that things will suck even half as bad as they do now if 20,000 liberty-oriented people who vote move to NH.  I realize that the FSP does not specifically encourage 20k voters.  But if I thought that the people joining the FSP would not exercise their right to vote, then I wouldn't have joined the FSP.  Maybe my foolish mistake, I was signer #2 after all.

The 20,000 voters won't make a difference. We can't even agree amongst ourselves. Mvpel, for instance, wants to invade as many countries as possible to establish global neocon hegemony. I want the feds to go bye bye and want to secede. Frank Chodorov wants to set up a Georgist society. Some people only want low taxes and gun rights, and are willing to sacrifice all other issues on the altar of Politics to achieve that, whereas for others gay marriage and the right to go nude trump all other issues. Shrewd politicians will do with us what they have always done:  played one group against the other, courted a specific part of the electorate at the expense of the others, so as to achieve their own power. You might make modest gains in some areas, but it will be by taking two steps back in other areas. Any actual forward progression will be made, not by political tactics, buy by the evolution of society, through which political events will also be carried along, albeit kicking and screaming.

And at some point, the globalists will stage another false flag operation to take away even more of your rights in such gigantic chunks that you'll spend your whole life trying to get back even a tenth part of your lost rights. It is the way of things.

I don't think Caleb is 'basking' in the security of the system.   20,000 people ignorring the government might have as much of an effect as 20,000 voters. 

Quote from: Lloyd  Danforth on June 02, 2007, 10:17 AM NHFT
I don't think Caleb is 'basking' in the security of the system.   20,000 people ignorring the government might have as much of an effect as 20,000 voters. 

I agree with this.  I already stated that 20k non-voting activists (i.e. people who ignored the government the way Russell does) would probably fare better than 20k voters.  But the problem is, as someone has already stated, what "actions" are these anarchists doing to further the cause?  A demonstration now and then?  Talking to people about their views?  Voting can have an immediate impact, as fellow PORCs have already been to town meetings and slashed local taxes and spending.  That is a positive effect.  If people are doing things that affect positive change, then great! 

But the anarchists who do nothing but talk about their utopian dream don't seem to be getting anywhere.  With the number of non-voting PORCs in NH, you would think there would be demonstrations every day of the week all over the state.  Or another way to put it, those of us who don't have the courage to drive around without a license can still do many positive things while working in the system. 

So again, let's work together.  Find the people who agree with the issues you are passionate about and do protests, talk to people, vote, call your representatives, write articles, and whatever else can be done.  At some point, I may drive around without a license.  I will still be exercising my right to vote. 
:peace:

The FSP has been careful to point out that 20,000 votes isn't enough to make a big difference for liberty. They're counting on 20,000 activists and they gave some examples. They're talking about running for office or working for pro-liberty campaigns, going door-to-door, etc. They're talking about people who show up and speak at town meetings against expantions of government. I think even anarchists can do that much without violating our principles. There are acts of civil disobediance that anarchists can do to raise people's awareness about the nature of government. There are protests to raise awareness. There are plenty of things that people can do besides vote.

Personally there are a few situations where I will vote but in most cases I will not. For instance, I'll vote against a measure that clearly expands the power and/or reach of government. I'll even vote for Ron Paul because he's such a unicorn amongst politicians.

Even anarchist ideals aside, I think you're putting way too much emphasis on voting as a means of change. A hundred visible and vocal activists have already proven useful whereas 20,000 more people who just show up to vote won't mean a hill of beans. We have to promote some powerful memes.

Quote from: dalebert on June 02, 2007, 12:05 PM NHFT

Even anarchist ideals aside, I think you're putting way too much emphasis on voting as a means of change. A hundred visible and vocal activists have already proven useful whereas 20,000 more people who just show up to vote won't mean a hill of beans. We have to promote some powerful memes.

A dozen people in a small town can have a HUGE influence.

Q  +1

Quote from: mvpel on May 31, 2007, 12:10 PM NHFT
The General Court put forth a bill that would have gutted shall-issue concealed carry licensing in New Hampshire, and hundreds of people were drawn into the discussion, packing the statehouse lobby and hallways thanks to activism by GO-NH, the NHLA, and others.

Exposing people to the concepts of liberty is definitely a positive.  As for the ends of maintaining your ability to ask permission for a peaceful act, that I'm not so sure about.

Quote from: Dreepa on June 02, 2007, 02:58 PM NHFTA dozen people in a small town can have a HUGE influence.

Two people in one of the largest towns in New Hampshire (my wife and I, in Merrimack) cut the town budget by $1.5 million with our two votes.  The tally was 155 to 154 in the deliberative session.

Quote from: mvpel on June 03, 2007, 08:23 AM NHFT

Quote from: Dreepa on June 02, 2007, 02:58 PM NHFTA dozen people in a small town can have a HUGE influence.

Two people in one of the largest towns in New Hampshire (my wife and I, in Merrimack) cut the town budget by $1.5 million with our two votes.  The tally was 155 to 154 in the deliberative session.

AWESOME!
:icon_pirat:



+1 for action

There's nothing to stop an anarchist from voting or "working within the system."  An anarchist rejects the system, so he cannot accept the "voting legitimizes the system" nonsense.  That is part of the system, and anyone who believes in it has implicitly accepted the system.

I will vote.  Usually, I will vote "none of the above," because I don't typically believe that any of the available candidates will actually reduce the government.  However, I would vote for someone like Ron Paul, because I believe that having someone like him for President would actually reduce the role of the government, and help us on the way to anarchy for all.  This will be a long process.  The State will not evaporate overnight.  The State will not evaporate in the next decade.  If we work really hard, maybe it will evaporate within a century, but I wouldn't place odds on that.

The short-term goal is to set the stage to allow that to happen.  Reduce the role of government in people's lives, so they realize that it is not truly "necessary," and only evil.  Not all people will recognize that quickly.  It will take time for the State to atrophy away.  We need to set up a social system by which that can happen.  Political/social chemotherapy, if you like analogies, to treat the cancer that is government.

Joe

I've been a 'voting' Anarchist since '72.  I've voted for any LP guy or lady running, every opportunity I have had.

Quote from: wholetthedogin? on June 04, 2007, 10:45 AM NHFT
The initial post was a crappy analogy---read it and hoped that it was  really a turning point for some racist politician alive or long dead.... just pure donkeycrap....

What do you mean "donkeycrap"? If you vote, it's just like running for Grand Wizard of the Klan!

Quote from: dalebert on June 04, 2007, 11:10 AM NHFT

Quote from: wholetthedogin? on June 04, 2007, 10:45 AM NHFT
The initial post was a crappy analogy---read it and hoped that it was  really a turning point for some racist politician alive or long dead.... just pure donkeycrap....

What do you mean "donkeycrap"? If you vote, it's just like running for Grand Wizard of the Klan!

The key problem with the analogy is everyone outside the Klan would agree lynching is bad.  Only those in the clan would agree they are good.  With government most people outside the government officials (the Klan) feel the government is good.  Many feel there is too much of it but they feel it is over all something they need.

A better analogy would be like saying someone wanted a single scoop of ice cream as that was all they could eat or want.  Instead they are given only one option and that's a 4 gallon drum of ice cream which is far more then they ever wanted or needed and costs a lot more then they want to pay.

 :o

I'm not so sure that "ice cream" is a fitting analogy for something as rancid as government. Maybe raw sewage would be a better analogy than ice cream.

Quote from: Caleb on June 04, 2007, 06:31 PM NHFT
:o

I'm not so sure that "ice cream" is a fitting analogy for something as rancid as government. Maybe raw sewage would be a better analogy than ice cream.

I'm not sure Ice Cream is the best fit either but I was looking for something most people "feel" they need and would want in some moderation.  If you stopped 100 people on the street randomly in any town in America the overwhelming majority would say we need some level of government.  No one would say we need some level of lynchings though.

Slavery was a basic human institution in the Western world from the dawn of civilization until just a couple hundred years ago, and still exists in some places.  Monarchy and aristocracy was a basic human institution in the Western world from the dawn of civilization until about a hundred years ago, and still exists to this day.  Government itself - the formalized process of certain people wielding force over others - has also existed since the dawn of civilization.

Give yourself a break if you don't completely end government in your lifetime.

Have you ever talked to a young member of the US armed forces?  How about any Midshipmen or Cadets?

You abuse the term "conscript," here.

Quote from: mvpel on June 05, 2007, 10:14 AM NHFT
Have you ever talked to a young member of the US armed forces?  How about any Midshipmen or Cadets?

You abuse the term "conscript," here.

He hasn't abused any term.  The US military has long been criticized for its manipulative, deceptive, racist and classist recruitment program.

Quote from: Free_Marketeer on June 05, 2007, 11:09 AM NHFT

Quote from: mvpel on June 05, 2007, 10:14 AM NHFT
Have you ever talked to a young member of the US armed forces?  How about any Midshipmen or Cadets?

You abuse the term "conscript," here.

He hasn't abused any term.  The US military has long been criticized for its manipulative, deceptive, racist and classist recruitment program.

Manipulation, deception, racism and classism are not conscription.

I could, at one time, feel sympathy for someone who got into the military and decided later they didn't like it, or it wasn't what they expected. But not in the age where Google is accessible to every single one of those people -- if not at home, then at least at school and the public library.

Not taking advantage of the voting tool to tell "representatives" that what you want them to do is not coerce others, is wasting a tool.

I don't think it's hypocritical to shoot a raving maniacal murderer whose sole intent, whose sole purpose is to kill and maim and hurt as many people as they can for as long as possible.  NOT shooting them is clearly idiocy.

I'm open-minded, I'm idealistic.  I'm not so open-minded that my brain falls out, or so idealistic that I will not use a handy cheap-ass pot metal chinese screwdriver (a tool) because I'm waiting until I've saved enough money to buy an amazing perfectly sized Bucky-tube composite screwdriver with the ergonomic Kung-fu grip.  The enemy of my enemy might in some strange way be my friend, but the perfect sure as Hell is the enemy of the good.

I want freedom.  For me.  I accept that the best way to get that is to acheive freedom for everyone else.  For everyone else who wants freedom that is.  The healthy organisms in our society are the ones who need help and nurture and rescue.  The deranged statists and slavers and abusers need to be removed like a disease from a healthy organism.  I honestly don't care what happens to them since they obviously don't give a gnat's shit about me.  God help them if they decide to stand in the way when we decide to end our own enslavement.  They make a choice of their own free will.  It's kind of like deciding to step in front of an oncoming bus.  They volunteered to do the deed, so they volunteered to submit to the outcome.

Oh Well.  TO HELL WITH 'EM.

Let's get on with this liberty thing by whatever means WORKS.  If holding hands with Russell Kanning and singing Kumbaya - even though Kate really hates Kumbaya - WORKS, then frimping hell, I'll hold hands and sing Kumbaya.  I really will.  But if something else WORKS better, then that's what we ought to be doing.  If something else DOESN'T work better, then we go back to holding hands and singing and try doing it in 3 part harmonies. La la la la la.

And I mean this.  We need to look at the whole picture, the big enchilada.  We can't pick the path of the maze that gets us to a dead end right next to the exit one path away.  We can't be fooled into going one direction by by the local maxima of the freedom equation if in that direction lies the global minimum.  We need to identify the truly effective means of acheiving freedom.  And USE them.  Find the weak points of the system and SMASH them.  Keep in mind that there is no system.  There are only people brainwashed into believing that what they do is part of a "system."  Smash them.  Monetarily, psychologically, economically, spiritually.  Drive them out of NH like the filthy dogs that they are and never welcome their diseased carcasses back.  Don't acknowledge them as humans, don't feed them, don't sell them fuel, don't provide them with services, don't heal their sick, don't fix their cars, don't share knowledge with them, and degrade everything they and their families do.  Make living in NH a living hell for them so that they give up and leave.  Or commit suicide.  Shun them.  Utterly.

If you want to WIN - and I want to WIN - we need to use every means available to us like Archimedes' lever.  We plan on moving a world.  A world of megalomaniacs and their brain-dead followers - out of our way.  If I could point them at a piece of bait that would cause them to run into a black hole on their way to attacking it, I would. In a heartbeat.  I say we bait them with anything handy and let their own twisted minds and lifestyles and systems destroy them.  Let them find other states to prey upon. Pay them to move out of NH to somewhere else, anywhere else.  I don't care.  As long as they're not in NH.  Imagine if they were abusing you and your family IN YOUR OWN HOME.  Just because they're operating their Mafia game in a bigger arena than your home doesn't change the way the game ought to be played.

Fine, so some people advocate non-violence.  Great.  I can do that and still be MEAN.  I can fight dirty.  I can use Vietnam-Era guerilla warfare tactics and leave sabotaged ammunition and weapons for my enemy to find and use.  The peaceful will not be harmed since they have no interest in weapons.  Those who pick them up to use against me will ... feel my righteous indignation.  I can sit and hold hands and sing in front of a camoflaged pit of punji stakes.  Come beat on me and my peaceful protesters - we're right here, waiting.  Pthhhhh.

I think that voting for Ron Paul, enough to get him a significant percentage of the national vote, would embarrass the other evils and force the media to discuss the candidate that made a good enough showing that he can't be ignored.  So it doesn't get rid of the system.  So what.  That doesn't mean we can't fuck with the system and make it chase it's own tail or sit in a corner and drool on itself.  If the system rages on - but in a manner that doesn't effect us - then what do we care?  If we can program the system to unproductively occupy itself, instead of actively hunting us down and feeding on our substance, then I say that's what we do - until we find something better like a rural black hole we can sell vacation tickets to. 

Send your slings and arrows and flames - I'm here to learn.  I know that in groping for freedom and liberty that I'll make mistakes.  So will you.  Hopefully overall the statist opposition will make more and worse mistakes, and fail to learn as quickly and as well as we do.

Blessing upon you all in this journey.  Just help me find out how to ACTUALLY GET RID of "the klan."

Rant on, Bill.  8)

Oh gosh, was I ranting again?

Do we need a filibusterer in the State House?  If someone could hook me up with a Camelback filled with 7-11 hazelnut coffee and just keep it filled....

:blush:

Sorry, I get wound up working around the agents of tyranny all day.

Quote from: KBCraig on June 05, 2007, 11:27 AM NHFT

Quote from: Free_Marketeer on June 05, 2007, 11:09 AM NHFT

Quote from: mvpel on June 05, 2007, 10:14 AM NHFT
Have you ever talked to a young member of the US armed forces?  How about any Midshipmen or Cadets?

You abuse the term "conscript," here.

He hasn't abused any term.  The US military has long been criticized for its manipulative, deceptive, racist and classist recruitment program.

Manipulation, deception, racism and classism are not conscription.

What do you call a contract you can't buy your way out of?

"Binding?"

Quote from: Lloyd  Danforth on June 06, 2007, 01:29 PM NHFT

Quote from: KBCraig on June 05, 2007, 11:27 AM NHFT
Manipulation, deception, racism and classism are not conscription.

What do you call a contract you can't buy your way out of?

A contract. Conscripts don't get contracts.

I like this Bald Eagle fellow.  Excellent post!
:icon_pirat:

+1

Quote from: KBCraig on June 05, 2007, 11:27 AM NHFT

Quote from: Free_Marketeer on June 05, 2007, 11:09 AM NHFT

Quote from: mvpel on June 05, 2007, 10:14 AM NHFT
Have you ever talked to a young member of the US armed forces?  How about any Midshipmen or Cadets?

You abuse the term "conscript," here.

He hasn't abused any term.  The US military has long been criticized for its manipulative, deceptive, racist and classist recruitment program.

Manipulation, deception, racism and classism are not conscription.

Yeah, sorry for the idiot post.  If I hung out here, more, I would have apologized sooner.  >:/

Quote from: Free_Marketeer on September 27, 2007, 07:23 PM NHFT

Quote from: KBCraig on June 05, 2007, 11:27 AM NHFT

Quote from: Free_Marketeer on June 05, 2007, 11:09 AM NHFT

Quote from: mvpel on June 05, 2007, 10:14 AM NHFT
Have you ever talked to a young member of the US armed forces?  How about any Midshipmen or Cadets?

You abuse the term "conscript," here.

He hasn't abused any term.  The US military has long been criticized for its manipulative, deceptive, racist and classist recruitment program.

Manipulation, deception, racism and classism are not conscription.

Yeah, sorry for the idiot post.  If I hung out here, more, I would have apologized sooner.  >:/

Apology not needed, but gladly accepted. Come hang around here more!

Quote from: sjhipple on September 27, 2007, 10:36 PM NHFTYeah, I've been thinking about that.  If - and yes I hate thinking about it - but if RP doesn't get the nomination, it would be an excellent marketing opportunity for the FSP.

Even if he just gets the nomination in New Hampshire, it'll be an excellent marketing opportunity for the FSP.  And the process itself has undoubtedly been an excellent marketing opportunity as well.

BUMP

Quote from: eques on May 30, 2007, 08:24 AM NHFT
http://www.strike-the-root.com/71/molyneux/molyneux3.html

Ah, my son, my son . . . .

He's 40 years old, and really needs to change careers.

When he was 20, he joined the Ku Klux Klan, because he was concerned that the Klan was getting too big, too aggressive. In those days, they were lynching some poor man every week, which he felt was wrong. He felt that the Klan should limit itself to a lynching every month, and that things were getting waaaay out of hand.

I've spent my life arguing that the Klan should be abolished, so I had mixed feelings about his decision. Without a doubt, I would rather the Klan lynch someone once a month rather than once a week, so I was somewhat tempted by his "work from the inside" approach, but I had some significant doubts that it could work.

"But dad," he said, those many years ago, "I can get the word out that the Klan should only be lynching someone once a month, rather than once a week, which will be a step in the right direction, right?"

"Well, I'm not sure," I said uneasily. "Won't people be getting the message that lynching is good, rather than that lynching is bad? You're legitimizing the principle."

"But I want to reduce the number of lynchings, dad!" he replied. "In an ideal world, sure, there should be no lynchings at all, but I'm going to bring that number down, which is a step in the right direction, right? I mean, it's better if fewer people get lynched, right?"

I was uneasy, because something just sort of – seemed wrong with his approach, but I couldn't put my finger on it.

For the past 20 years, my son has been notorious in the Klan. He draws a paycheck, goes to meetings – and has been given control over his very own district of Klan loyalists.

To his credit, whenever the Klan Council votes on whether to have a lynching, my son usually votes "no." Often he's the only one casting a negative vote.

Still, since he joined the Klan with the goal of reducing lynching, lynching has gone up and up and up.

Now, the Klan that 20 years ago only lynched a man a week is now lynching a man a day.

And my son's district? Has he been able to reduce the lynching in the area he has control over?

No. In fact, the lynching in his own district has actually gone up over the years.

When I ask him about this, his answer is always the same: "Sure, dad, but I don't have that much control over who gets lynched in my district. I oppose it, of course, but there's not a whole lot I can do."

A few months ago, my son came over and told me he was running for Grand Wizard.

"If I become Grand Wizard," he said, "I will be able to veto most of the lynchings that come up for a vote. Then I'll really have the power to reduce the number of people getting killed or beaten up."

"But son!" I exclaimed in horror. "People – other than you, let's say – only join the Klan so they can lynch people. If all they want to do is lynch people, why on earth would they vote you in? And if you somehow got in, the moment you stopped them from lynching, they'd just toss you out! If you stop the Klan from lynching, it's not the Klan anymore!"

"No," he said earnestly, "it's still the Klan – it's just a smaller Klan that lynches less!"

"Twenty years ago," I said softly, "you said that in a perfect world, there would be no lynching at all . . . ."

"Sure," he said, coloring slightly. "But I can't talk about that. About there being no lynching at all. I mean, that would be mad – I'd never get elected Grand Wizard!"

"Right, so you're on a 'pro-lynching' platform, you just want less lynching."

"Yes," he said, nodding vigorously, immune to irony.

"So it's wrong to lynch a lot, but it's right to lynch a little."

"Well, ideally, there should be no lynching at all . . . ."

"But that's not what you're telling people. You're telling people that the right thing to do is lynch less."

"Sure – because less lynching is better than more lynching."

"But no lynching is better, right?"

"Yes, in an ideal world . . . ."

"So why don't you tell people that? That you want to take over the Klan in order to abolish it!"

He laughed. "Oh, I don't think that's the right idea. Right now, we need the lynchings. We need the Klan. It's just gotten too big."

Round and round we went, from pragmatism to principle, back and forth . . . . It was most exasperating!

After a public debate where my son roused a real ruckus by openly stating that the reason that certain minorities hated whites was because of white support for the Klan that lynched them, his numbers shot up from somewhere near 0% to around 3%.

He came right over, ecstatic. "I'm really getting the message out, dad!"

I grimaced. "Well – I hate to say this, son, but I think you just shot yourself in the foot."

"Wh – what?" His voice hardened instantly.

"You say that minorities hate the Klan because of the lynchings, right?"

"Right!"

"But the number of lynchings has gone up like five or six times since you joined the Klan – and the number of lynchings in your district has also gone up!"

"But I vote against most of the lynchings!"

"But son! You are in the Klan! You support lynchings! How can you say that the Klan is immoral?"

"Because, as I've said about ten thousand times over the past 20 years, dad, there's too much lynching!"

"So you think that minorities will love you now? When you say they have every right to hate the lynching that you support less of? My God, son – when did it happen that the best possible outcome a good man could hope for was to present himself as the lesser of two evils?"

"Because change has to be gradual, dad!" he cried out. "Has your podcasting and scribbling stopped even one lynching? At least I'm out in the real world trying to get something done!"

"And what, after 20 years, have you achieved? You said to me, long ago, 'Dad, I'm in this to reduce the numbers of lynchings. And you've been taking Klan money and hanging out with these thugs for decades, and what is the outcome? More lynchings. More Klan power! So what have you achieved?"

He jumped up. "Well, yeah, sure, there are more lynchings now, but can you imagine what would have happened if I hadn't joined the Klan? Instead of just one lynching a day, there could be two or three!"

"How do you know that? That's just something you tell yourself, so you don't feel that you compromised your principles for nothing. There's no evidence of that!"

"I've voted against most of the lynchings!"

"And the lynchings happened anyway! And still you stay with these thugs!"

Suddenly he changed tactics. "Why do you care so much what I do? We're both for less lynching, we're both on the same side of the fence, we shouldn't be fighting each other."

"But you are fighting me," I said softly. "Don't you understand that?"

There was a long silence. Our mutual anger was spent.

"What do you mean?"

"Son, you think that lynching should be reformed, I think it should be abolished. It's like slavery." I sighed. "In the 19th Century, a lot people were very uneasy about slavery. Deep down, they knew that it was wrong. But they also were afraid of real change.  And there were two groups: the reformers and the abolitionists.  The reformers promised people that slavery could be made more humane, that the slaves could be treated better, beaten and raped less – and so slavery did not have to be eliminated. They worked to pass laws against the extreme mistreatment of slaves, held rallies, raised money – an enormous amount of time, energy and resources were wasted trying to reform slavery. And, as they worked and worked, for decades and decades, more slaves got beaten and raped, conditions got worse and worse, and – the worst thing in  my view – people uncomfortable with slavery were given the comforting illusion that it did not have to be abolished.

"The abolitionists, on the other hand, knew that slavery could not be reformed, that it was evil through and through, and that it had to be abolished. And their most dangerous opponents were not those who were unabashedly pro-slavery. Their most dangerous opponents were the reformers."

He rolled his eyes. "So – you're saying that I'm your enemy now?"

"No, because we've never had this conversation. And for that I'm sorry. But what you're doing, what you've been doing for 20 years, is telling people that the Klan can be good if only the right person is in charge. You're giving people false hope, because the Klan can never be good. And so they shrink back from abolishing the Klan, because that seems extreme, because here's this smart, well-spoken person who's been in the Klan for 20 years, who's saying that the Klan is good and necessary, and all we have to do is put him in charge of it. So when I come along and say that the Klan is immoral, and needs to be abolished, you know what people say to me? They say, 'Nahhh, I'm going to support your son, he has great plans to reform the Klan, I agree with a lot of what he says, there is too much lynching – we don't have to abolish the Klan, that's too extreme.' And that's been going on for the last 20 years, son. You're giving people a false choice that helps them avoid the necessity of change, from confronting the evil in their midst. And you legitimize the Klan by claiming to be a good man and being part of it. I'm telling you this from the bottom of my heart, son: if you did not exist, the Klan would have to invent you."

There was a long pause.

"All right, dad," said my son eventually, raising his eyes to mine. "I'll drop my run for Grand Wizard. On one condition."

"Anything!" I cried out, overjoyed.

"You drop your support for Ron Paul."