Here's what I should have posted FIRST

[Rocketman]

This is a slightly revised version of my remarks from Saturday's MVP meeting:

When I first visited New Hampshire in December, 2004, a friend from Kentucky and I slept two nights on Dave Mincin's floor.  It's amazing to think about now, but in the span of only two days, I had the privilege of meeting nearly every "free stater" who had then moved to New Hampshire... which is to say I was able to meet like 15 or 20 people.

First was a meet and greet at Milly's Tavern, which a recent mover we now know as Representative Joel Winters scheduled in order to welcome two potential movers he hadn't even met.  That is where I met some very interesting people including Dave Ridley, Cal Pratt, Rich Tomasso, Don Gorman, and even Kat and Russell Kanning, who came all the way from Keene. 

The next day, Dave took my friend and I to Newick's, where we ate our first NH seafood with Seth Cohn, Chris Lopez, the soon-to-be outlaw manicurist Mike Fisher, and others. 

Even with only a few dozen movers in the state, a stark contrast was already plainly evident between competing ideologies, such as minarchist vs. anarchist, and different strategies for achieving liberty, most of which could be described as either "inside-the-system" or "outside-the-system."  These important differences would later manifest themselves as the "schism" when Kat and Russell banned all "political" conversation from the NHFree forum, but I'll talk about that a little more when I'm finished with the story.

I wasn't able to move to New Hampshire until May, 2006, but I attended PorcFests, stayed in touch with some of the activists I'd met, and finally dragged my ass up here for good.  But what kind of activist was I going to be? 

During that period I got a lot of advice about what approach to take once I moved to New Hampshire.  In my mind, the best advice came from Mincin, Don Gorman, and Cal Pratt, among others.  They stressed being a good neighbor and building credibility and respect within your community before diving headlong into any projects.  It made sense that I should survey the lay of the land, help here and there with projects others had started, and figure out through experience what approach to activism made the most sense for me in the long-term.

Initially, I was attracted by both "inside-the-system and "outside-the-system" approaches.  At first, the prospect of changing laws through the system seemed like a longshot.  My only experience was with corrupt state governments in West Virginia, Mississippi and Kentucky that were clearly impervious to change, enabled by voters who seemed to care more what church a candidate went to than the candidate's respect for personal liberty.  It's easy to become demoralized about the prospects for change when you're living in a terribly corrupt, authoritarian state. On the other hand, the New Hampshire legislature seemed to present unique opportunities.  I was amazed by the openness of the state house, the idea of legislators making only $100 a year, and the fact that every bill gets a public hearing and a floor vote.  A lot of the tactics commonly used by authoritarians in other states to stifle dissent would be impossible in the New Hampshire system, and working within the system seemed to be at least worth a try.

Back to the schism... in the early days of the FSP in New Hampshire, it was usually said that "we're working toward the same goals in different ways," or "we all want to pull in the same direction, but anarchists just want to go a bit further."  I remember questioning whether or not that would, in fact, prove to be the case.  But back to my little story....

Ironically, my first activism was standing on the side of the street holding signs with a group called Nashua Peace, but I also did what I could to assist with the effort to keep NH out of Real ID.

Keeping NH free from Real ID seemed like a longshot at first, but Joel Winters, Jenn Coffey, and others had an amazingly good plan.  For starters, they understood that the only way to succeed was to build majority support against Real ID in the legislature.  With that goal in mind, they reached out to every group in NH that had an interest in opposing Real ID and formed a philosophically diverse coalition of groups who could come together and agree that NH should buck the federal government and refuse to participate.  Yes, the public outcry against Real ID was led by free staters, but their appeal resonated deeply with the people of New Hampshire.

Long story short, it worked.  Today, NH law clearly states that NH will not comply with the federal Real ID act, and this was finally agreed to by the House, the Senate, and even our authoritarian Governor John Lynch. 

As a college English instructor back in West Virginia and Kentucky, I was never known as an easy grader, but I have no problem giving the anti-Real ID effort an A+.  When Joel asked me to manage his first campaign for the state house, I said yes, because here was a person who clearly understood how to build support for pro-liberty reforms in the legislature.  I also knew he would represent his constituents  well, and he has.

However, I also believe that acts of civil disobedience can be a great idea if they're well-considered, and human history is replete with great examples, my favorite of which would be Mahatma Gandhi.  I believe some acts of civil disobedience in NH have been meritorious and useful in helping to educate and illuminate the public.  A prime example was Mike Fisher's "outlaw manicurist" action.  When Mike buffed Kat's nails in exchange for a dollar bill in front of the Board of Cosmetology, and was subsequently arrested for performing a manicure without a license, this was an act of nonviolent noncooperation that Gandhi himself would probably have been proud to witness.  It led to a healthy debate about licensing laws, and the next year a bill inspired by the outlaw manicurist passed the legislature.

One key to Fisher's success is that there is no way a reasonable person could fail to see the tyranny in arresting a person for buffing nails.  As with Gandhi's boiling of salt water to illegally make salt, the nail-buffing action itself was completely innocuous and the reaction from authorities was clearly ridiculous and tyrannical.

However, unlike boiling salt water and buffing nails, smoking marijuana is a controversial activity.  I hate to say it, but many of your neighbors really do think you should be put in a cage for possessing a small amount of plant matter.  It's because they have been brainwashed, yes, but most of us were brainwashed at some point in our lives.  The question is, how do we bring people to support ending marijuana prohibition?

Let's consider a historical example.  When alcohol was re-legalized in 1932, it wasn't because drinkers finally revolted against the absurd policy and demanded their rights.  That was a small part of the equation.  Instead, activists managed to focus the public's attention away from drinkers and onto the unintended consequences of prohibition: increased violence, the enrichment and empowerment of criminals, poisonous liquor of questionable origin, innocents caught in the crossfire, rampant disrespect for the law, and the noticeable rise in reckless and irresponsible behaviors associated with drinking. 

Can you imagine, in 1931, that generation's "free staters" standing on the sidewalk drinking alcohol, but some only pretending to drink alcohol, in order to confuse the police?  I don't believe that sort of activity would have helped produce the tidal shift in public opinion that led to the swift repeal of Alcohol Prohibition.   

I know better than to tell freedom activists what to do or not do, but I do hope you will all stop to consider how your actions will be perceived by your NH neighbors.  We don't yet have a majority in favor of ending marijuana prohibition, so we have to win people over to our side, not alienate them.  Just think about it... when you meet your new neighbors for the first time, do you really want to have a joint in your hand?  Is that really the best way to win support for the cause?

[thinkliberty]

Just think about it... when you meet your new neighbors for the first time, do you really want to have a joint in your hand?  Is that really the best way to win support for the cause?

Just think about it, when you meet your new neighbors for the first time, would you really want them to offer you a beer or a joint? 

Is living like a free person really the best way to win support for the cause? Or should we pretend to be handcuffed by the people who work for the government? Should we wait for people that get elected to pretend to remove imaginary handcuffs from us?

[Rocketman]

Is living like a free person really the best way to win support for the cause?

Not if the way you go about it turns people against you.

[AntonLee]

we met plenty of people that thought we should be able to smoke in public where we wanted to just as long as we didn't get near them so they would fail a drug test.

people with children were leaving the Circus in Manchester and saw the honk sign and proceeded to honk with their voice.

[Mike Barskey]

It's possible that Rocketman is requesting this impossible task* so that it will fail and he will have something to blame if his legislation fails. He won't want to blame himself (and I don't necessarily think he should - he put a lot of effort into it); and he won't want to blame the politicians because he might offend them and then they won't vote for his legislation next time; and he won't blame the system because, as his actions reveal, he reveres the system. So why not ask something impossible of a nebulous group of people so that when the impossible doesn't happen, he can blame them?

By the way, Rocketman, I read your request last night and unfriended you on Facebook immediately. I didn't consider you an asshole for doing in-the-system activism, though I disagree with it, but I do consider you an asshole for considering me an asshole. Awww, I don't really consider you an asshole; I just like the way that sentence sounded. I don't consider you a friend any more, though.


* The "impossible task" is stopping the 420 events; it is impossible because though there is no "leader" to stop it and because a significant portion of the participants are non-activist people who have never heard of these forums and will never hear Rocketman's insulting plea to stop.

[AntonLee]

I definitely don't think he's an asshole either.  It's sad that a good guy thinks I'm an asshole because I smoke weed in public.  Go figure.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

This seemed more of an empassioned plea than a criticism of activism. So let me point something out, politely, and with no hostility.

Rocketman, you say you give the REAL ID thing an A+ because "it worked". That's a great thing if your goal was to block REAL ID, but if you look at the bill's ENTIRE impact, and weight it using my goals, of minimizing aggression against my neighbors, it probably drops to a B+. Why?

Because the same bill that blocks REAL ID created a new government panel and allocates money to dead police officers. That money isn't collected voluntarily so it will eventually be collected in the form of taxes, and while I empathize with families who lose a loved one, I'm personally DISGUSTED with the idea that violent thugs who harm innocent people (drug users, dealers, prostitutes, gamblers, et cetera) are given extra money to disregard or offset the likelyhood of them dying when kicking in a door because of some plants or card games.

Like the medical marijuana thing, the REAL ID bill was a compromise. When we're bartering for an exchange rate, compromise is good. But when you're opposing the concentration of power, opposing the very idea that such power is legitimate, compromise means hurting my neighbors.

I believe we can build a world where we don't have to hurt our neighbors. I am an optimist, I believe it's possible. In my eyes, it is NOT required to "compromise" and figure out where a given level of aggression should be allocated; we can REMOVE the aggression entirely.

In the short term, while government is a massive behemoth, a specific bill if it passes with NO added fluff might be a win for liberty. Long term, I'm looking to empower people. To show them a world where the actions or inactions of men with guns is entirely irrelevant to their lives. I can't well build that world if the tool I'm using is the actions or inactions of those very same men with guns.

[Fluff and Stuff]

I have no problem with you Rocketman.  You went nuts for awhile.  It happens.  I've done it.  I've already moved on and will continue to spread freedom in Keene, Concord and beyond.

[dalebert]

Barskey, I envy you for your ability to get right down to the guts of the matter so succinctly. Thank you for that post.

[Jacobus]

I've read some great, calm, and compassionate responses here and on the other 420 threads.  I especially like some of Kevin Dean's points above.  It reminds me of when I had just turned 18 and was eager to vote and thought I was voting the pro-liberty position on everything.  There was some ballot question about whether to eliminate some sheriff-like position (it might have even been county sheriff - this was in CT).  In my naivete, I thought this definitely must be the pro-liberty side.  In discussing it with a libertarian friend, he pointed out that it would mean more state centralization of the functions that position was doing, so it was actually anti-liberty to vote that way.

The lesson I took away is that I'm not smart enough to know what the actual effects of these bills and legislation will be.  In most cases, it is probably not what I would want it to be.   

[Rocketman]

By the way, Rocketman, I read your request last night and unfriended you on Facebook immediately. I didn't consider you an asshole for doing in-the-system activism, though I disagree with it, but I do consider you an asshole for considering me an asshole. Awww, I don't really consider you an asshole; I just like the way that sentence sounded. I don't consider you a friend any more, though.

I have lost three Facebook friends so far.  I suppose I could stand to lose a few more.  I no longer think it is useful for us to pretend we are all part of the same revolution, when some of us want to liberate humanity, and others only want to liberate themselves.  Last time pot activists took such a selfish attitude, it was the 1960's, and we are still paying for the backlash those people brought upon themselves by refusing to respect their neighbors.

[Mike Barskey]

You want to liberate humanity, by creating laws that restrict and regulate humans. I want to to liberate myself by having anyone who wants to do anything they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else. Your definitions need work.

[bigmike]

Last time pot activists took such a selfish attitude, it was the 1960's, and we are still paying for the backlash those people brought upon themselves by refusing to respect their neighbors.

I haven't seen anybody disrespecting their neighbors. In fact, people near the park in Manchester have been supportive. Not a single person has come over to ask what we're doing there and say they hope we get arrested. The same was true when I walked around downtown for a day asking people if they think people with pot should go to jail. Only one angry woman said yes.

These aren't other activists who support what we're doing, they're civilians. Regular people that could be your neighbor or mine. Old and young. Blue collar and white collar.

I'm sure there are plenty of misguided people that don't support what we're doing, but that will only change by dialog. In an attempt to garner support for the veto override, is anyone asking the legislators to begin an honest dialog with their constituents about the drug war?

[KBCraig]

I no longer think it is useful for us to pretend we are all part of the same revolution, when some of us want to liberate humanity, and others only want to liberate themselves.

Gosh, aren't you the selfless humanitarian! Shame on all those selfish people just wanting to be free individuals!

[Rocketman]

Last time pot activists took such a selfish attitude, it was the 1960's, and we are still paying for the backlash those people brought upon themselves by refusing to respect their neighbors.

I haven't seen anybody disrespecting their neighbors. In fact, people near the park in Manchester have been supportive. Not a single person has come over to ask what we're doing there and say they hope we get arrested. The same was true when I walked around downtown for a day asking people if they think people with pot should go to jail. Only one angry woman said yes.

These aren't other activists who support what we're doing, they're civilians. Regular people that could be your neighbor or mine. Old and young. Blue collar and white collar.

Ever look at a poll, Mike?  Support for legalization is all the way up to 40% this year among Americans.  It fell below 25% as a backlash against the public pot-smokers in the 60's, after which people were all too happy to bring in Nixon and his wonderful drug war.  Support has climbed an average of 1% a year since 1995, but you're crazy if you think a majority of people in Manch support public toking.  They're more likely to support building a new jail to house all the city's drug "criminals."  Ever read the UL comment threads following a big drug bust?  Nearly every comment is "thank you MPD for making the streets safe for our children" or some crap like that.

Anyway, do what you want.  The only people I care about right now are the patients I've been fighting for all GD year.  Obviously, I am willing to burn every bridge I've ever built with every anarcho-whackitalist in NH in order to finish what I started.

I'm sure there are plenty of misguided people that don't support what we're doing, but that will only change by dialog. In an attempt to garner support for the veto override, is anyone asking the legislators to begin an honest dialog with their constituents about the drug war?

Absolutely, several interesting bills will be considered by the legislature beginning in January, 2010.  I'd be happy to discuss them with you anytime after Oct. 28, especially if you would be willing to chill out on the public stuff for a few weeks.