"you poison the well for the rest of us"

[Jim Johnson]

I give up on this thread, it's clear the people most in need of hearing this have blinders on...

Why do blinders affect your hearing... ya fargin quitter.

[dalebert]

I give up on this thread, it's clear the people most in need of hearing this have blinders on...

Or maybe we just continue to disagree with you because you've failed to convince us otherwise.

[SethCohn]

But if you don't want people telling you that your way is evil, why do you come on here and say things like that about Ian?

I never said Ian was evil, nor that his methods were evil, merely that the true end product of his actions merely makes many others' proliberty actions harder and substantially less effective, but not 'evil'... so the sheer fact that you've decided to turn this into a good versus evil issue, and put people who are working in the same direction (if not the identical end goal) into the 'evil' category...  that says SO much more than anything else:  fundamentalism at its' worst...

I did say I was done with this thread, so I'll stop now.

[Caleb]

sigh.

Did you actually read what I wrote. I used evil in connection with governments (Nazi and Feds specifically). If believing that those two states were objectively evil makes me a fundamentalist, then count me as a zealot.

I didn't call you evil, Seth, the only mention of evil in your respect was to deny that I view you that way. This because recent posts of others have mentioned the so-called schism as being a perception by some politically active people that they are viewed as "evil" by the out of the system activists. Hence the reference to the whole other thread, which I know you read because you commented on it.

Why does this always happen? I can't figure it out. It seems that when I try to make a point, there is a tendency of other people to take something incidental that I say and make that the main issue while ignoring my main point. Do I not communicate effectively or something? Do I need to change the way I say things? Do you care to comment on what was my main point, namely, why criticize someone else when you don't appreciate others criticizing your methods? I'm not talking about constructive criticism where you bring out points that maybe someone hasn't considered. I'm talking about belaboring a genuine disagreement, and harping on someone who you know sees things differently, and who you know isn't going to respond positively to your criticism. What did you gain?

[K. Darien Freeheart]

There are people who will be turned off to liberty because Ian is a nutjob. There are people who will be turned off to liberty because they see people being "soft" and not really sticking up for the principals of liberty. Fear to act because it might piss people off is the perfect excuse to do nothing.

If something is important to you, push for it.

Actually, I'm beginning to think he may be there already, as in doesn't believe in the authority of the State anymore. He may not have abandoned political activity altogether, but he seems to be losing faith in that as well to some extent at least.

I'm in this boat, I think I know where Mark is at. I reject that the state has authority over me. I don't ignore that there are people who view the state as having authority over them. To me, political action as a means to "correcting" the problems is fruitless. Political activity as a means to awakening a desire to liberty in other victims of government, however, is quite valuable. All the forms of activism that happen are symbiotic.

[FTL_Ian]

merely that the true end product of his actions merely makes many others' proliberty actions harder and substantially less effective,

The actions of market-based activists like myself are already effective and make our future actions more effective.  Your perception of the ease of the political process is not a factor in me working toward what I want.

You politicos should focus on dealing with whatever effects you believe we are having on the "system" as opposed to complaining about it.   

[SethCohn]

sigh.
Did you actually read what I wrote. I used evil in connection with governments (Nazi and Feds specifically). If believing that those two states were objectively evil makes me a fundamentalist, then count me as a zealot.

Sorry, but by that logic, anyone working 'within the system', even to change it, is supporting 'evil'...
And that fuels the gap between the apoliticals and the politicals.  Minarchists are 'evil' supporters by your logic.  This is the classic anarchist/minarchist split all over again.

I didn't call you evil, Seth, the only mention of evil in your respect was to deny that I view you that way.

I never said you said that about me, but you did imply that I said it about Ian's methods, and you certainly did imply it about anyone who isn't an anarchist or anarchist leaning.

Why does this always happen? I can't figure it out. It seems that when I try to make a point, there is a tendency of other people to take something incidental that I say and make that the main issue while ignoring my main point. Do I not communicate effectively or something? Do I need to change the way I say things? Do you care to comment on what was my main point, namely, why criticize someone else when you don't appreciate others criticizing your methods?

I never said I didn't appreciate others criticizing my methods, and lord knows, they have in the past...

I'm not talking about constructive criticism where you bring out points that maybe someone hasn't considered. I'm talking about belaboring a genuine disagreement, and harping on someone who you know sees things differently, and who you know isn't going to respond positively to your criticism. What did you gain?

I attempted to point out how the logic/perceptions of his "parking ticket" tactic isn't going to win him anything, and conversely makes it harder for others... Denis, and others chimed in with similar sentiments.     
So by the above logic you use, I should have kept my mouth shut, instead of speak truth.

Yup, the recent Tolkien thread had a good Orwell quote that entirely fits with your mindset:

''[T]he totalitarian tendency' is implicit in the anarchist or pacifist vision of society.  In a society in which there is no law, and in theory no compulsion, the only arbiter of behaviour is public opinion.  But public opinion, because of the tremendous urge to conformity in gregarious animals, is less tolerant than any system of law.'

Ding ding ding.  Orwell scores!  And that is one reason why I am not an anarchist at heart, but a minarchist:  I don't believe in public opinion, nor trust it.

[Tom Sawyer]

While the absolutists argue...

I have been noting the Ron Paul signs that "anarchist" displayed, the run for political office that made the front page of the paper, etc...

I am a pragmatist, I'll help if something looks to be worthwhile. I have and will help political efforts. I just won't be one of the gullible that think that "if" the person gets elected it will create significant change.

[dalebert]

My FSM*, Seth, you're throwing a tantrum. Your opinion has been noted. Like I said before, there's nothing wrong with expressing your opinion about Ian's activities, but if you feel people are going to create an association between you and he and that it will reflect poorly on you, then dissociate yourself publicly. Publicly state that you don't approve of what he's doing and would never engage in such behavior yourself. If you REALLY think Ian's activities are so bad, then dissociate completely. I don't think you want to do that because you want to ride his coattails of success while at the same time preaching to him (ironicly) about how he's doing everything wrong.

Ian, as an act of good will, would you be willing to make a statement on your show on their behalf to clarify their disagreement, perhaps the next time you're talking about this act of CD?

This idea was beaten to death when this debate began, that people were going to automatically associate us. We can't control what people think and we aren't responsible if they come to stupid conclusions. To my knowledge, Ian hasn't spoken for anyone else in this particular act than himself.

Look, let's not have any delusions here. I think political activity is harmful to the freedom movement (not speaking for Ian, obviously). You know I feel that way. But I've also said that I still want to be friends. Where you and I are different is I don't think your (you, Denis, NHLA, etc.) political activities are especially bad or particularly harmful to what I'm doing. It's spitting into an ocean of harmful political activity as far as I'm concerned. BUT! But, have I gone over the political forums and harped on about it? Have I done it one single time? Has anyone here? I'm honestly asking because I'm pretty confident that I haven't but I don't keep up with those forums very well and maybe someone else did. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're not going over to your "house" and shitting all over everything with negativity.

*I'm trying to get in the habit of substituting Flying Spaghetti Monster whenever I would be inclined to say "god" due to my thorough brainwashing throughout my developing years.

[AntonLee]

my god says love pro-political and a-political equally.

as for myself. . .I'll take small government

but I want NO governement.

[Caleb]

Just to clarify, Seth, I don't believe in evil people. Only evil actions.

I tend to think that the tendency to view other people as evil is what enables evil actions in the first place. In other words, "That guy is evil, I am good, I must stop him!"

There ain't no good guy. There ain't no bad guy. There's only you and me and we just disagree.

[Caleb]

I attempted to point out how the logic/perceptions of his "parking ticket" tactic isn't going to win him anything, and conversely makes it harder for others... Denis, and others chimed in with similar sentiments.     
So by the above logic you use, I should have kept my mouth shut, instead of speak truth.

If you remember correctly, I was one of the ones who agreed that the particular way that he posed the argument was probably not the best way in terms of convincing other people.

But if you can stop viewing you and me as enemies for just a second and consider what I'm trying to tell you.

Your concept of poisoning the well/ruining it for the rest of us is, at its core, collectivist thinking. It's based on the idea of "us". That somehow you and I and Ian and whoever else are the same, that what one of us does somehow magically reflects on other people. You do what you want. I've never been in a conversation where someone said, "Oh, you are horrible, I know because I know something Seth Cohn did"  On the contrary, my conversations with people have shown that they are quite capable of distinguishing between me and other people. I attended a forum of some very liberal democrats who were telling me how much they despise Jane. I assured them that I like Jane, that she makes a great spaghetti dinner, but that Jane and I do have some pretty major fundamental philosophical differences. The response: "Oh, trust me, we know. We're watching."

[Atlas]

my god says love pro-political and a-political equally.

as for myself. . .I'll take small government

but I want NO governement.

Well said bro.   

[Kat Kanning]

I give up on this thread, it's clear the people most in need of hearing this have blinders on...

<plugs ears>  "Lalalalalalala!"

ROFL!