Grassroots beginning to the Free State Party

[AntonLee]

lol the STATIST Party

[Russell Kanning]

Maybe someone needs to hit the ground running with the "Free Lunch Party" as the opposition.

Two extreme groups in the heat of debating battle say, outside of the "real" debates where the "real" candidates won't let you in, would be newsworthy.

Satire, mockery and free publicity...

they might already exist
I know California had Green and socialist, maybe even commie parties.
Some guys inside the Free State Party might really enjoy debates like that. I don't really do debates. It could be funny.
The fun with our stuph is that we actually believe this freedom thing will work, so we can passionately advocate it ... especially if we are not having to please a national party which is part of the problem.

[AntonLee]

I believe the freedom this is the ONLY thing that can work. 

[bigmike]

[/quote]they might already exist
I know California had Green and socialist, maybe even commie parties.
Some guys inside the Free State Party might really enjoy debates like that. I don't really do debates. It could be funny.
The fun with our stuph is that we actually believe this freedom thing will work, so we can passionately advocate it ... especially if we are not having to please a national party which is part of the problem.
[/quote]

I used to get emails from a new party group that wanted to recruit Ron Paul in 2012 to have a three point platform consisting of taxes as theft and constitutionally illegal, monetary policy and a third, yet undecided, hot-button issue that most Americans agreed with. I'm not for voting, but it would be fun to watch if they got some attention.

On a smaller, state level this idea of yours Russell could be fun, and entertaining. To me, having gone into the trenches of political campaigning in my past life, it's a doable idea if someone were to take it serious. But I think it would be better to have a new anti-freedom party rather than the Greens or socialist. Free Lunch Party sounded funnier.

[AntonLee]

if there were an ANTI-Free State Party they could easily get their game plan from "change.org"

Save the trees, making new laws against cutting down any vegetation!

[Russell Kanning]

exactly .... it is quite possible our opponents will just rise out of nowhere and be really funny

[ancapagency]

I'm wondering...

Say we were to have an Anti-Freedom Party as a counter to the Free State Party--and the speakers for the AFP were to stand up and argue for the various things that the Dems and Reps and Greens and so forth want--but to argue for them all on the basis of "People are too stupid to run their own lives" and such.  Do you think that might wake some folks up to the real reasoning behind what the other parties are doing and saying?  Might such a thing be worth the effort?

Examples:

AFP Candidate says:  "We need to continue and expand the War on Drugs.  People are too stupid to know what they should and should not put into their bodies, and education won't help--they're too stupid for the education to work.  Therefore, we need to throw people in jail if they choose to ingest anything we don't approve of for them in advance. "


"We need to raise existing taxes and pass new ones.  Everyone belongs to the state, and they don't need any more money than to pay for their basic needs.  Everything else should go to the government, so it can provide all the services that people are too stupid to buy for themselves or to do on their own."


"We need to force everyone to do 'National Service.'  People are too stupid to know where they should work and what they should do, so the government should step in and tell them.  Everyone is belongs to the government anyway, and it would probably be more efficient if we just made them work directly for the government, rather than letting them look for their own jobs and just pay taxes on what they earn."

[AntonLee]

the party of principle!  The Free State Party

[SpeedPhreak]

run the AFP to "save the children".

[bigmike]

I'm wondering...

Say we were to have an Anti-Freedom Party as a counter to the Free State Party--and the speakers for the AFP were to stand up and argue for the various things that the Dems and Reps and Greens and so forth want--but to argue for them all on the basis of "People are too stupid to run their own lives" and such.  Do you think that might wake some folks up to the real reasoning behind what the other parties are doing and saying?  Might such a thing be worth the effort?

Examples:

AFP Candidate says:  "We need to continue and expand the War on Drugs.  People are too stupid to know what they should and should not put into their bodies, and education won't help--they're too stupid for the education to work.  Therefore, we need to throw people in jail if they choose to ingest anything we don't approve of for them in advance. "


"We need to raise existing taxes and pass new ones.  Everyone belongs to the state, and they don't need any more money than to pay for their basic needs.  Everything else should go to the government, so it can provide all the services that people are too stupid to buy for themselves or to do on their own."


"We need to force everyone to do 'National Service.'  People are too stupid to know where they should work and what they should do, so the government should step in and tell them.  Everyone is belongs to the government anyway, and it would probably be more efficient if we just made them work directly for the government, rather than letting them look for their own jobs and just pay taxes on what they earn."

this is exactly where i was trying to go with the free lunch party. do it as comedy, make it look ridiculous.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

I'm not sure what frightens me the most about this thread.

this is exactly where i was trying to go with the free lunch party. do it as comedy, make it look ridiculous.

The problem is... I've actually heard (and in some cases, even said!) some of those things. I really did, at one point, believe people too stupid to run their lives without harming mine. The problem with politics is that it attracts the kind of people who want to control others. Beware, the statists have MUCH more practice controlling the lives of others by force than the Libertarians do. You might just see the FLP replace the Republicans in 2012 if it actually happens. :S

[Russell Kanning]

for me .... the focus would be what the Free State Party would actually like to see happen (the government lose power and people live peacefully with each other). That way I don't have to play a part or advocate bad stuff.

[AntonLee]

you're probably right, we most likely wouldn't need actors playing Free Lunch Party people, advocating for the radical side of statism. . .because. . .well, they're already out there

if you want to see:  www.change.org

I just want to have fun with people who promote freedom, true freedom in a voluntary society.  I found it, so it can't be that hard for others to as well.  Spreading the message doesn't have to include running for office in my book. . .but if someone were to run on a platform that makes Ron Paul seem like a run of the mill douchebag politician. . . I'd be all for helping that person.

I just don't want to be anywhere near elected, ever. 

[J’raxis 270145]

NHLA endorsement for new candidates is done via a questionnaire; for existing candidates, their voting record. And, we're non-partisan, so despite the fact that a lot of NHLA members are Republicans, we will endorse candidates from other parties, e.g., Joel Winters (D) and the several L candidates that ran last year.

There are several L candidates missing from the NHLA endorsed list.

Which ones? I can check to see if we received their questionnaires or not.

[J’raxis 270145]

Did the NHLA support the Mayor Frank Guinta?  From what I've read of him he's quite a weasel.

No. That's not even a State office.