Questions for the Free State Project People

[SethCohn]

2. Is Russell the leader of the Free State Project? Looking at your videos, he seems to be the one who is the leader. Maybe that's why they wanted to turn him into a political prisoner.

The President of the Underground rules with an iron fist. We do not speak his name. At some point, he may choose to grace you by allowing you to meet him, but until then, it's probably best to speak no more of this matter. 

When the cops ask who is in charge, it is best to simply say, "Denis Goddard tells me what to do." 

Actually, when the cops arrest you, if you are male, it is recommended you say "My name is Russell Kanning" [if female, "My name is Lauren Canario"], and show no ID, take no fingerprints, etc.  Not because anyone wants to confuse the authorities, but because there are a large number of signs/banner already printed up and ready to go.. If people have to make new signs saying "Free John Smith", that's a lot of work.  It'll be fun when there are two or three people all claiming they are Russell Kanning at once.  No, I am Spartacus.

[This post is not an endorsement of being arrested, lying about who you are, or Russell Kanning.  Your mileage may vary.  Batteries not included. Etc.]

[JonM]

Not voting is what they want, better to show up and write in "None of the above" in every race than not vote.  If enough people start to do this NOTA will begin to win multi-way races, and the fun will begin.

[John Edward Mercier]

Its really helpful in the primaries, as it screws their delegate percentages.

[John Edward Mercier]

Of course I haven't opened any bank accounts or worked at a regular job since then either.

Freedom is not free.

She could get a new one. Of course, then they could make the 'burning' an annual tradition.

[porcupine kate]

Quote from: Joining on Today at 06:49 PM
My wife ran for state rep.  She worked her ass off and when the votes were counted it turned out that she received the smallest number of votes
Don't let that beat you down ... try again in NH, and she'll have a much better chance of winning her race!
Well, except that there's no "Cool Moose" party here, but hopefully she can get over that Wink

I've been trying to get her there and I think it is only a matter of time.  She knows that I can't work as a contractor here anymore.  I've pointed out to her that there is no contractor registration board up there, and that I can work as I've always worked - under my Common Law Right to contract.  We just have a lot going on here and many things to do.  I hope to be ready by September, but I can't speak for her.

If at all possible try to get your wife to the Porcupine festival this June.  If she doesn't camp reserve a room at the Gunstock Inn quickly.  You have no idea how powerful a visit to Porch Fest is.  The reason it is so powerful is the spouses and families that come to the event.  When she meets the quality of the people and all the things they do that are not political it is easier to find New Hampshire a home.
http://www.freestateproject.org/festival

[Luke S]

5. I will admit that I am not a libertarian, but to me, opposing the U.N., favoring replacing the income tax with a national sales tax or similiar, opposing Social Security, opposing most of the "alphabet agencies", etc., reducing the size of the government, are not libertarian issues. They are issues which to me are common sense, bipartisan issues.

How has that working out for you? The part about the parties taking care of that.

I have to admit not too well. It's more of a theoretical "ought" than an "is". What I was trying to say is you'd think that people from both sides of the political spectrum would favor a reduction in government over an increase in size of government (even the liberals to some extent, since the ACLU, as much as I loathe that organization sometimes, often tries to get rid of big government when it infringes on civil liberties.) I mean who wants "bigger government"? The problem, though, is that I think many people don't realize the connection between getting more handouts and the government getting bigger.

[David]

Russell is not a leader in the choosen or elected sense.  He has been the most active out of the system activist, and an early mover.  He is a 'leader' because he does stuff, and many people admire him. 

[d_goddard]

who wants "bigger government"?

Anyone with a grade of "D" or below in this list:
http://www.nhliberty.org/2007_liberty_rating

[JJ]

Of course I haven't opened any bank accounts or worked at a regular job since then either.

Freedom is not free.

Actually being free is the natural state of being, a state of rest in scientific terms, which costs nothing.  It requires energy/effort to limit freedom thus a cost is incurred.  Once liberty has been subverted a cost in energy/effort is necessary to bring one back to the state of being free.

[Luke S]

5. "I am not a libertarian" ... how can you be so sure 

I am a traditional conservative (not a neoconservative!)

This means that I favor limited government and the preservation of US national security and national sovereignty, the right to keep and bear arms, preservation of personal privacy, and of private property. These have long been part of the traditional conservative platform.

This is why I hate Social Security and the U.N. The U.N. is a threat to both US national security and national soverignty for obvious reasons. And Social Security is a threat to personal privacy because someone can steal the number and use it to get into your private information, and it is also a national ID card, which is unfitting of a free nation. It is also for that reason why I am very much against Real ID, just as you are.

I, however, do not favor the legalization of marijuana as libertarians do. There is a popular political saying that "a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged". In the case of marijuana, perhaps it can be said that a conservative is a libertarian who has had to face the reality of drug-related crime.

I also am not in favor of Ed Brown. While I don't favor the income tax and think it should be cut way down, and the remainder replaced with a national sales tax, what Ed Brown did was both extreme and very illegal. Many libertarians seem to be in favor of Ed Brown, but I certainly am not.

I also favor a wall being built which will block off the US-Mexico border to stop the flow of illegal immigrants, which is a measure I can't see too many libertarians, especially not the ones here, agreeing with me on.

So in essence, conservativism departs from libertarianism whenever libertarianism comes up with a plank that is utopian in nature, and which would only work in a perfect world (which is not what we live in).

Now I do realize that this is a libertarian forum and not a conservative forum, and I also realize that I'm not the one who pays the bills for this forum, so therefore I will respect all of you and not mention the things I have mentioned on this post again. But I felt like I had to mention them just once to answer the question that I was asked of why I am not a libertarian.

[d_goddard]

I am a traditional conservative

Nothing wrong with that... I was a conservative, once
And that was back before Bush Jr. fucked up the Republican Party, so it didn't have to be called "traditional"

This means that I favor limited government and the preservation of US national security and national sovereignty

Since government is by definition dumb, slow, expensive, and bureaucratic, why do you want government to protect our national security and sovereignty?

Why is it that the Second Amendment of the US Constitution says, quote, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."  ?
At the time, "militia" meant, literally, every able-bodied man between 16 and 60, and "well-regulated" meant that all such men had to own a weapon and know how to use it.

Seems to me that the Founders understood that the people keep us free and sovereign, not the government.

preservation of personal privacy, and of private property.

Yes.
Except when they disagree. (eg: war on drugs, war on terror)

I, however, do not favor the legalization of marijuana as libertarians do.

Answer this question: who owns your body?

If it's you, and you agree that private property rights are paramount, then you must conclude that government has no valid role dictating how you manage your body.

If you do believe that government has a valid role determining how your body is managed, than you implicitly believe that the government owns your body -- and that's the worst kind of Communist, statist, totalitarian bullshit there is. I will lay down my life, if necessary, to fight such evil.

I also am not in favor of Ed Brown.

Me neither. I think he & his wife did a very stupid thing.

That said, I don't think we all should be forced to pay the expense of persecuting them, nor that they did anything worthy of such serious persecution. Couldn't the government simply refuse to render him any services? Freeze any bank accounts? In general, tell him if he doesn't want to pay, he doesn't get any benefit?

I also favor a wall being built which will block off the US-Mexico border to stop the flow of illegal immigrants

... which it won't stop.
Remember the bit about "government is bureaucratic and bumbling?" Why do you think this agency will be different?
What the Wall will do, is enable the creation of a police state.
Sorry -- that's just how government works, baby.

After all -- don't you think Lyndon Johnson was 100% sure Social Security would eliminate poverty in the elderly?

Now I do realize that this is a libertarian forum and not a conservative forum

Actually this is a radical anarchist forum, though some pansies here may run from the term.
FYI, there are plenty of true conservative forums in NH where people will agree with you a lot more than with me (and I'm good friends with those people, FWIW).

Try the RLC-NH group. They are good people, and they are activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RLCNH/

[Kat Kanning]

Russell and I burned our actual social security cards.

[Tom Sawyer]

Social Security Card Burn
produced by politicalGRAFFITI

[J’raxis 270145]

This means that I favor limited government and the preservation of US national security and national sovereignty, the right to keep and bear arms, preservation of personal privacy, and of private property. ...

I, however, do not favor the legalization of marijuana as libertarians do. There is a popular political saying that "a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged". In the case of marijuana, perhaps it can be said that a conservative is a libertarian who has had to face the reality of drug-related crime.

Up until September 11, the most common excuse behind every privacy invasion the government engaged in was the effort to fight drugs. The biggest attack on private property rights is a result of the same efforts, too.

You have no financial privacy nowadays due to laws passed in efforts to stop money laundering by drug traffickers. The same goes for communication privacy (drug dealers using cell phones), and many of the infringements the government has placed on firearms ownerships (drug dealers using automatic weapons).

As for private property—ever heard of civil forfeiture? If you're arrested on drug charges while in your car, they can seize your car. If you're ever arrested with "large amounts" of cash on you, they can seize the cash—because it's treated as suspicion of involvement in the drug trade. They can take your house and land if drug activity occurs on the property, whether or not you were involved or even knew it was taking place. And in all cases, even if they drop the charges, or even if you're acquitted, they get to keep what they seized.

We're never going to get privacty, or property rights, back in this country if we don't end the drug war.

[ReverendRyan]

As for private property—ever heard of civil forfeiture? If you're arrested on drug charges while in your car, they can seize your car. If you're ever arrested with "large amounts" of cash on you, they can seize the cash—because it's treated as suspicion of involvement in the drug trade. They can take your house and land if drug activity occurs on the property, whether or not you were involved or even knew it was taking place. And in all cases, even if they drop the charges, or even if you're acquitted, they get to keep what they seized.

No, it's even worse than that.

If you're found to have a large amount of cash, they can "arrest" the cash on charges of drug trafficking (its mere existence in large amounts is proof enough) without even pretending to charge you with anything. A trial is swiftly prosecuted - with the money as defendant. Because cash is not not guaranteed human rights, it isn't allowed to present a defense, so of course loses every time, and goes into the hands of the arresting agency. I wish I weren't making this up.