Live Free or Die Festival Boycott *WITHDRAWN*

[shyfrog]

Sweet! We can have a book burning too! We can burn Mein Kampf, Das Kapital, and The Little Red Book!

Have you read what Rothbard wrote about "Freedom of Speech", if not, you should. Because you clearly do not understand the difference between positive and negative rights. Or have I misunderstood your comment?

EDIT (with quotes):

"Freedom of speech is supposed to mean the right of everyone to say whatever he likes. But the neglected
question is: Where? Where does a man have this right? He certainly does not have it on property on which
he is trespassing. In short, he has this right only either on his own property or on the property of someone
who has agreed, as a gift or in a rental contract, to allow him on the premises. In fact, then, there is no
such thing as a separate "right to free speech"; there is only a man's property right: the right to do as he
wills with his own or to make voluntary agreements with other property owners."

- Murray N. Rothbard (Man, Economy, and State)

"Let us consider, finally, the classic case that is supposed to demonstrate that individual rights can never be
absolute but must be limited by "public policy": Justice Holmes' famous dictum that no man can have the
right to cry "fire" in a crowded theater. This is supposed to show that freedom of speech cannot be absolute.
But if we cease dealing with this alleged human right and seek for the property rights involved, the solution
becomes clear, and we see that there is no need at all to weaken the absolute nature of rights. For the person
who falsely cries "fire" must be either the owner (or the owner's agent) or a guest or paying patron. If he
is the owner, then he has committed fraud upon his customers. He has taken their money in exchange for a
promise to put on a motion picture, and now, instead, he disrupts the performance by falsely shouting "fire"
and creating a disturbance among the patrons. He has thus willfully defaulted on his contractual obligation
and has therefore violated the property rights of his patrons."

- Murray N. Rothbard (Man, Economy, and State)

Actually, this entire thread is miscommunication. And what needs to happen is Jean and the people involved (FSP, Rich, Ian, etc.) need to sit down in person and discuss what the miscommunication is/was, etc. Jean works very hard to put this thing together and all he gets is grief from all sides. Ian has just added to the grief. Perhaps the couch enforcer incident has him walking around with a chip on his shoulder looking for other hobgoblins of the same ilk? I certainly know Jean is not cut from the same fabric as the CE. Jean was only trying to get the FSP involved again. That is the communication I have received from him in the past: "Why aren't your people here with a table?" To which I really did not have a response because I really did not know.

Yes...I'm keenly aware of negative vs. positive rights and you need to lay off the preach button.  

[FTL_Ian]

I wasn't fighting, Seth, just ostracizing.  Big difference.  I enjoyed myself at the event because I didn't know aggressors were vending.  He's the one who clued me in. 

[FTL_Ian]

He canceled PokerFace after he was made aware of a potential boycott.  Should I not have done that either?

[FTL_Ian]

You spent a significant amount of time talking about Ron Paul on FTL this last year...yet Ron Paul supports a strong border enforcement policy.  And unlike Jean, you actively promoted Ron Paul.  Jean simply took money from and gave a table to a group that, as I understand it, was simply about supporting TWO SPECIFIC border agents who the government put in jail for an act of self defense (I may be mistaken about that).

Paul was being a pandering politician, from what I could tell.  I chose to support him to help bring new people onboard with a mostly pro-liberty message.  You're right in your point that LFoD could do the same, but as it's a smaller event than Ron Paul's campaign, the boycott of liberty activists here can have a greater ostracism influence.  It's really a simple situation:

If it's a pro-liberty event, keep anti-liberty groups from vending, and you'll have more pro-liberty people attending.
If it's not a pro-liberty event, that's fine.  I have plenty of other things to keep me busy.

I find the anti-free traveler crowd to be mostly bigots, and I'd prefer to not be associated with those advocating aggression, and those enabling them.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Lou has got some good points. I think boycotting the event until anybody gets to actually talk with Jean in person is going to far. This festival and Jean has done a lot of good and I believe everyone owes him a chance to talk it out instead of e-mail communication which can be confusing.

[shyfrog]

Lou has got some good points. I think boycotting the event until anybody gets to actually talk with Jean in person is going to far. This festival and Jean has done a lot of good and I believe everyone owes him a chance to talk it out instead of e-mail communication which can be confusing.

Stop being reasonable.

[J’raxis 270145]

Ian, will you be boycotting the event if there are any pro-freedom tables there that espouse political activism as opposed to market activism? (You consider politics to be nothing more than a form of aggression, don't you?)

I for one would like to support "exclusively pro-freedom" events, but I would also support "free speech" events even if (perhaps especially if) they invite unpopular groups whose views most people don't agree with. That's sort of the whole point of free speech, and I'd consider supporting a free speech forum to be more important than making sure I actually agreed with all the vendors there.

[ArvinJA]

Ian, will you be boycotting the event if there are any pro-freedom tables there that espouse political activism as opposed to market activism? (You consider politics to be nothing more than a form of aggression, don't you?)

I for one would like to support "exclusively pro-freedom" events, but I would also support "free speech" events even if (perhaps especially if) they invite unpopular groups whose views most people don't agree with. That's sort of the whole point of free speech, and I'd consider supporting a free speech forum to be more important than making sure I actually agreed with all the vendors there.

Just a question, would you support a FoS event if the organizer didn't know how FoS works nad why it "came to be"?
Jean seems really confused in his letters to Ian, does he even know that FoS is  result of property rights?

Even though your question was meant for Ian I'd like to give my opinion: I will be part of anti-war protests even if the participants are mostly socialists. I will not however go to a Freedom Celebration where anti-freedom groups will get tables. The reason I think, Is kinda obvious.

[J’raxis 270145]

Just a question, would you support a FoS event if the organizer didn't know how FoS works nad why it "came to be"?
Jean seems really confused in his letters to Ian, does he even know that FoS is  result of property rights?

It's true that freedom of speech derives from property rights (specifically self-ownership), but I don't think that's particularly relevant here. What an event that promotes freedom of speech is going to be about is giving a voice to people who have been censored in other venues, regardless of what that speech is. It's not a freedom of speech event if you're only going to allow people to speak freely about topics that you agree with them on. It becomes a your-speech event, nothing more.

Honestly, if I were trying to create a freedom of speech event, I wouldn't even exclude racist/anti-Semitic groups. For reasons of public perception (since so many racist groups like to set up their own "freedom of speech" events which are merely fronts for spreading their views), I would then try to balance the number of racist and anti-racist groups I give tables to.

Even though your question was meant for Ian I'd like to give my opinion: I will be part of anti-war protests even if the participants are mostly socialists. I will not however go to a Freedom Celebration where anti-freedom groups will get tables. The reason I think, Is kinda obvious.

I think that's the misunderstanding here: It's not an event to promote freedom, it's an event to promote free speech, including the allowance of speech that's not particularly pro-freedom itself.

I'd rather see something like this handled like Sununu's appearance at last year's Liberty Forum: Don't boycott the event, go there and protest the anti-freedom vendors.

[ArvinJA]

Just a question, would you support a FoS event if the organizer didn't know how FoS works nad why it "came to be"?
Jean seems really confused in his letters to Ian, does he even know that FoS is  result of property rights?

It's true that freedom of speech derives from property rights (specifically self-ownership), but I don't think that's particularly relevant here. What an event that promotes freedom of speech is going to be about is giving a voice to people who have been censored in other venues, regardless of what that speech is. It's not a freedom of speech event if you're only going to allow people to speak freely about topics that you agree with them on. It becomes a your-speech event, nothing more.

Honestly, if I were trying to create a freedom of speech event, I wouldn't even exclude racist/anti-Semitic groups. For reasons of public perception (since so many racist groups like to set up their own "freedom of speech" events which are merely fronts for spreading their views), I would then try to balance the number of racist and anti-racist groups I give tables to.

Even though your question was meant for Ian I'd like to give my opinion: I will be part of anti-war protests even if the participants are mostly socialists. I will not however go to a Freedom Celebration where anti-freedom groups will get tables. The reason I think, Is kinda obvious.

I think that's the misunderstanding here: It's not an event to promote freedom, it's an event to promote free speech, including the allowance of speech that's not particularly pro-freedom itself.

I'd rather see something like this handled like Sununu's appearance at last year's Liberty Forum: Don't boycott the event, go there and protest the anti-freedom vendors.

Well, Freedom of Speech has nothing to do with letting everybody speak on your FoS event, what it means is that you're free to do as you please on your piece of land, hold any beliefs you want to hold, and say whatever you want to say.
To claim that not letting people speak on your FoS event is just silly if FoS is properly understood as derived from property rights.
I have to quote the fictional character Hank Rearden, even though I'm no Objectivist. "In my house?" - Hank Rearden

[AntonLee]

I'd rather see something like this handled like Sununu's appearance at last year's Liberty Forum: Don't boycott the event, go there and protest the anti-freedom vendors.

why not stand in front of their tables, walk back and forth with pro-immigration, pro-liberty themed shirts or signage?  This was the most reasonable thing I've read in this thread, thanks J!

[jaqeboy]

Just curious, Ian...do you know what exactly the table was about?  What organization bought it?  What exactly their message was?

I don't recall it, as I said in my email to Jean.  I'm going on what he told me.

Yeah...I didn't think so.  But don't let that stop you from starting an argument with a person who's invested significant time and money into hosting an event that helps spread the ideas of freedom to the inhabitants of New Hampshire.  Fighting with your friends and complaining about events that are 99% positive accomplishes so much, wouldn't you say?  After all, we wouldn't want to encourage anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% of the time.

You spent a significant amount of time talking about Ron Paul on FTL this last year...yet Ron Paul supports a strong border enforcement policy.  And unlike Jean, you actively promoted Ron Paul.  Jean simply took money from and gave a table to a group that, as I understand it, was simply about supporting TWO SPECIFIC border agents who the government put in jail for an act of self defense (I may be mistaken about that).

There was also a Ralph Nader table at the event, a candidate with whom I disagree on TONS of issues.  Somehow, I was still able to walk by the table and enjoy the good that was being done that day.  Geez...everyone's a critic.  It's so easy to drive from the back seat.  Sometimes, I think some people just like to fight for the fun of it, regardless of whether the result is positive or negative.

Better than that, I don't think Mike took money from vendors (at least I didn't pay for one!) What seems to be missed so far was this was a heck of an outreach, a great party and a fun campout! Good music at the Jaffrey Common and until 6AM at the Lodge (OK, I wussed and only made it 'til 3:30AM, but I woke up and heard the last song, "Imagine" at 6). It was a great networking event and I met and had good times with a lot of new folken. Jean (Mike) welcomes help and volunteers for next years' bash and has gotten an even bigger and better location lined up. It would be great if Poker Face could be there, too, but the bands he had were musically better anyway, methinks. Anywho, I'll be there next year, probably as a vendor, and if not, as a volunteer, and promoting it among my circles and will donate time and money to making it bigger and better than ever - Hoping to see the same gang there X2 or 3!

Inclusion seems to be working and growing the movement - Constantly refined exclusion leads down the path to being a movement of one! (Picture carrying the banner, waving your arm forward and saying "OK, boys, follow me over the barricades! Boys.... boys (looking over shoulder) ... where did they go?)

[jaqeboy]

btw, here's next year's postcard graphic:



Hmm, shows up sometimes and not other?

[Russell Kanning]

In that case, I think we're saying the same thing.  The 90/10 rule still applies, right?

I don't have a 90/10 rule ... what is yours?

[Russell Kanning]

Jean Coutu will never completely agree with you Ian ... there will always be issues with the LFoD rally.
He and some of his Jaffrey buddies don't like some of what the government does, but they do not mind the whole idea of government. For instance they think development should be controlled near Mount Monadnock. i will always have differences of opinion.
For me ... I just don't attend the events. But I can't see boycotting them or telling others not to enjoy them ... these guys are not the big enemy.
Enjoy the festival my friends ... or enjoy your boycott.