Here's what I should have posted FIRST

[dalebert]

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.

Obviously, but it doesn't look like the bridge-burning is going to help you finish anything. It's like you pushed all your chips in and got back nothing. Less, really. You're just pissed off because you didn't get your way and you threw a pointless tantrum. Reminds me of another free stater who sparks large dramatic threads in similar circumstances.

[Rocketman]

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.

Obviously, but it doesn't look like the bridge-burning is going to help you finish anything. It's like you pushed all your chips in and got back nothing. Less, really. You're just pissed off because you didn't get your way and you threw a pointless tantrum. Reminds me of another free stater who sparks large dramatic threads in similar circumstances.

Another way to look at it is that I decided to stop being friends with some people who, it turns out, weren't my friends to begin with.  It's too bad, Dale, cuz I've always liked you personally, but based on your chosen ideology, you have no choice but to believe my actions are immoral. 

I finally decided I didn't like having friends who think it is immoral for me to work on reforming a flawed system by building consent of the governed rather than by running amok in a small, liberal college town where the police already happen to be uniquely, comparatively tolerant. 

Long live the schism!

[FTL_Ian]

Matt,

I don't think you're immoral for engaging in politics.  I hope you have success in your efforts.  To that end I've promoted your organization, called reps, appeared at hearings, and interviewed you multiple times.

However, you're willing to throw all that away because I've chosen to join others and celebrate cannabis freedom publicly.  "What will the politicians think!"

Most of the people I know that are outside-the-system activists appreciated your efforts and many even assisted them.  Guess you don't need their help anymore - you must have grown your organization pretty large to feel so safe in cutting us loose with your ad hominems.

No one that I know had spoken ill of you or called you immoral, so I don't know where your claims come from.  Outside-the-system activists I know don't really concern themselves with what the in-the-system people are doing, but some of you politicos sure are concerned about what market activists do!  It's okay - we're used to being scapegoated for politicos' failure.

[dalebert]

It's too bad, Dale, cuz I've always liked you personally, but based on your chosen ideology, you have no choice but to believe my actions are immoral.

If you'd been paying attention lately, you might have heard I've toned down my rhetoric. I talked about it on FTL recently in fact. I'm not interested in passing judgment on people and labeling people moral, immoral, good, or bad. The tactic doesn't appear to make people better. It's not my way. I just want a more peaceful world and I want to find the best way to get there. I said on FTL that I don't feel the label of immoral applies to someone who sincerely believes they're not doing anything wrong and that's how I feel about most of the politicos. I conceded there are people who are deluding themselves, who deep down know they're wrong but have silenced their inner voice with elaborate justification schemes, but I can't definitively say who that is or not so I'm not interested in placing such labels.

My arguments with politicos has, for some time now, been a defensive one; not an offensive one. FTL went into overtime a couple months ago with me repeating to Mark several times that he should do what he feels is right and just quit aggressively pressuring me to do something that I don't feel right about. I said many times that the arguments aren't going anywhere so let's just recognize that and agree to disagree but he wouldn't stop fighting over the idea that I should engage in political activism. In fact, after I had said I don't like calling people immoral for exactly the reasons I gave above, he began to call me immoral for not doing politics. 

I find it fascinating that while I've been toning down my divisive rhetoric and suggesting that we each do what we feel passionate about and allow others to follow their own passions, live and let live, gentle persuasion by personal example, you are making ultimatums and demanding people do things your way to maintain your friendship. Your signature has been saying "Live free or die" and now you're saying "Long live the schism!" It's just sad and it blows my mind that you don't see the hypocrisy.

I know you're not receptive to it right now, but I'm just going to plant the seed and maybe you will rethink it later-- You're not going to achieve any real freedom in the political arena until you can at least understand freedom in your own private life and personal interactions.

[Mike Barskey]

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.

Is that an example of the respect that you claim that you show to others?

[Tom Sawyer]

I liked you from the first, when I met you Matt.

Too bad you feel the need to group people and declare them enemies. I have concerns about the incremental attempts to end the war on marijuana people. It is like trying to pass laws to make for better treatment of slaves... "But don't you want to improve the conditions these poor slaves live under?"  Perhaps it just prolongs slavery.

Whenever someone voices anything but rabid enthusiasm for the latest political maneuver it means "you are our enemy!" That is the problem with political activism (at least for me). You end up cajoling your opponents and reach a point that you lose your allies in the process.

The willful ignorance on the part of the "law and order" crowd is no reason to let this mess go on for any longer. The powerbrokers need to see that the wind has changed direction and those that won't bend will break. Time to clean out the bigots that made mileage from vilifying a whole class of people.

After saying this, I feel the need to voice my own concerns I have felt about the 420 events in Keene. One of the reasons the marijuana laws have not changed is the teenage boys that use this issue as their youthful rebellion. Many laws are a community's attempt to control the youth. Agitating this same group of people to change the marijuana laws seems problematic at best.

Ian throwing in the face of the one concerned political activist, 'wait till the open container and toplessness are added to the circus', was unnecessarily provocative. I've thought about coming up with "headlines of the future" in this case it might be "Libertarian Shock Jock calls for underage drinking, drugging and topless event."

Wielding power comes with responsibilities, lest you be seen as reckless.

[Rocketman]

I liked you from the first, when I met you Matt.

And I have always liked you, Tom!

Too bad you feel the need to group people and declare them enemies. I have concerns about the incremental attempts to end the war on marijuana people. It is like trying to pass laws to make for better treatment of slaves... "But don't you want to improve the conditions these poor slaves live under?"  Perhaps it just prolongs slavery.

Whenever someone voices anything but rabid enthusiasm for the latest political maneuver it means "you are our enemy!" That is the problem with political activism (at least for me). You end up cajoling your opponents and reach a point that you lose your allies in the process.

Yes, it is too bad that I've finally felt the need to do that.  (To be clear, the "group" I am singling out as enemies only includes people who are so disrespectful of political efforts that they will insist on smoking pot in public to make a political point between now and Oct. 28, as if that is somehow going to achieve some beneficial result for liberty.) 

I don't expect rabid enthusiasm.  I'm perfectly fine with indifference.  Support from radical free staters is not particularly helpful in the legislature anyway.  Having the medical marijuana issue mixed up with a bunch of silly public tokers in the MSM, on the other hand, obviously puts a large, dark stormcloud over my head. 

The willful ignorance on the part of the "law and order" crowd is no reason to let this mess go on for any longer. The powerbrokers need to see that the wind has changed direction and those that won't bend will break. Time to clean out the bigots that made mileage from vilifying a whole class of people.

Amen. 

After saying this, I feel the need to voice my own concerns I have felt about the 420 events in Keene. One of the reasons the marijuana laws have not changed is the teenage boys that use this issue as their youthful rebellion. Many laws are a community's attempt to control the youth. Agitating this same group of people to change the marijuana laws seems problematic at best.

Ian throwing in the face of the one concerned political activist, 'wait till the open container and toplessness are added to the circus', was unnecessarily provocative. I've thought about coming up with "headlines of the future" in this case it might be "Libertarian Shock Jock calls for underage drinking, drugging and topless event."

Wielding power comes with responsibilities, lest you be seen as reckless.

Careful, Tom, somebody might figure out that you're a closet statist and decide to shun you!  If we keep doing what we're doing and make it so police can't enforce any laws, we'll have instant anarchy and then everything will be great!   

[Sovereign Curtis]

Too bad you feel the need to group people and declare them enemies. I have concerns about the incremental attempts to end the war on marijuana people. It is like trying to pass laws to make for better treatment of slaves... "But don't you want to improve the conditions these poor slaves live under?"  Perhaps it just prolongs slavery.

Whenever someone voices anything but rabid enthusiasm for the latest political maneuver it means "you are our enemy!" That is the problem with political activism (at least for me). You end up cajoling your opponents and reach a point that you lose your allies in the process.

Yes, it is too bad that I've finally felt the need to do that.  (To be clear, the "group" I am singling out as enemies only includes people who are so disrespectful of political efforts that they will insist on smoking pot in public to make a political point between now and Oct. 28, as if that is somehow going to achieve some beneficial result for liberty.) 

And what about the people who dont read the forums, and dont keep up with the drama?
Going to become their mortal enemy as well?

[FTL_Ian]

Ian throwing in the face of the one concerned political activist, 'wait till the open container and toplessness are added to the circus', was unnecessarily provocative. I've thought about coming up with "headlines of the future" in this case it might be "Libertarian Shock Jock calls for underage drinking, drugging and topless event."

Roger, thanks for the level-headed critique.  I appreciate your approach.  I admit that it was provocative and likely unnecessary, but I'd had about enough of the trash-talking politicos with their nonsense about the "death of the liberty movement", etc.  Since I'm not going to insult them for doing what they think is right, I figured I'd let them know what was inevitably coming.  While it was provocative, it was also a statement of fact.  We'd already had open gambling a couple of times here in public in Keene and toplessness, so it was only a matter of time before it all combined together into one giant festival of free people!

Anyway, it's already happened without much fanfare.  Recently, Cassidy's breasts were visible at a cannabis rally and there have already been open containers present at said rallies.

[Sovereign Curtis]

Ian throwing in the face of the one concerned political activist, 'wait till the open container and toplessness are added to the circus', was unnecessarily provocative. I've thought about coming up with "headlines of the future" in this case it might be "Libertarian Shock Jock calls for underage drinking, drugging and topless event."

Roger, thanks for the level-headed critique.  I appreciate your approach.  I admit that it was provocative and likely unnecessary, but I'd had about enough of the trash-talking politicos with their nonsense about the "death of the liberty movement", etc.  Since I'm not going to insult them for doing what they think is right, I figured I'd let them know what was inevitably coming.  While it was provocative, it was also a statement of fact.  We'd already had open gambling a couple of times here in public in Keene and toplessness, so it was only a matter of time before it all combined together into one giant festival of free people!

Anyway, it's already happened without much fanfare.  Recently, Cassidy's breasts were visible at a cannabis rally and there have already been open containers present at said rallies.

Doh! Thanks Ian, now we have to bring pasties and grape juice to fuck with the police.

[Rocketman]

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.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is a misinterpretation and not a deliberate misrepresentation.

First of all, the "money for dead police officers" bill was a totally separate bill, and it had strong support in both chambers before it was strategically merged with the Real ID bill.  Several Senators wouldn't budge on Real ID, but those same Senators were gung-ho for the other bill, and this clever move by pro-liberty reps in the House led to a unanimous vote in the Senate for keeping NH out of Real ID.

Make no mistake, the "police officers" bill would have passed anyway.  Real ID had nothing to do with it passing.  This was an ingenious political move by Rep. Kurk, not a compromise for liberty in any way.

[KBCraig]

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.

That is an invalid comparison, simply because it is two entirely different population groups.

This isn't the 60's. Most of the people polled in the 60's are dead now. Almost no one is still living who was subjected directly to Ainslinger's propaganda.

[Jean Coutu]

There must be a amicable solution to all this with respect to everyone in mind. Where it's pretty apparent Matt has been on the forefront of the medicinal bill, would a simple polite request that people entertain not lighting up at the Capital during the HB648 rally on the 28th be a possibility? We could all still be able to make the Manchester 4.20 rally & I'll bring the lighter :-)

[AntonLee]

I've yet to hear a simple polite request Jean.  Frankly, what people do in the park is none of anyone else's business.  Some of the politicos have decided to be offended over what individuals have decided to do in the park.

That's all.  So now everyone has had their say.  People have made their threats, others have said screw you, some have agreed, some have stayed out of it.  The point has been made.

Now go back to the fucking activism that you feel like doing.  If you don't like the activism someone else is doing, go stop it.  Stop fucking talking about it and do something about it if it offends you so greatly.  Go out to the 420 celebration and order everyone to go home.  That'll work.

I won't be in Concord on the 28th.  I don't need to join into anymore circle jerks I do fine on my own thanks.

[Rocketman]

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.

That is an invalid comparison, simply because it is two entirely different population groups.

This isn't the 60's. Most of the people polled in the 60's are dead now. Almost no one is still living who was subjected directly to Ainslinger's propaganda.

The Nixon and Reagan eras of Drug War propaganda were just as bad, and by the way, the average age in the NH legislature is 65.  The comparison is incomplete (yes there are many other factors involved, like 2.3 million people incarcerated today instead of 200K in 1970), but not invalid at all. 

I'm not going to lead the backlash against free staters who refuse to acknowledge any responsibility for their actions.  It will be led by NH natives like the author of this LTE:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009910040343

I googled the author.  He seems like a real jerk who should join the free lunch project and move to Mass... NOT.

http://www.longtailpublishing.com/jackpages/aboutjack.html