Rescinding membership in Free State Project

[Friday]

Caleb, when I receive that completed list of phone numbers that you repeatedly and publicly said you would call on behalf of First 1000, then I'll duly consider your voiced concerns about philosophical impurity within the FSP.   

Maybe I'll even put it on the agenda of a Board meeting.  And a vote will be taken.  And I will be overruled by the majority of the Directors who are unelected, with unexpiring terms. 

I agree with you, you know.  It *is* inconsistent to say that talking about bombing Iran is promoting violence, but supporting bombing Iraq isn't.  But once again, Objectivist was not banned from the FSP.  He QUIT.  Nobody was complaining about him, or suggesting that he should be banned.  Believe it or not, the FSP volunteers have more important things to worry about. 

[FrankChodorov]

I'm pretty sure most of us believe in lower taxes, smaller government and more individual freedom.

I believe taxes on labor and capital is theft as property right are based on labor as the natural extension of self-ownership.

by definition property rights on land then have to be conditional...

equal freedom then occurs as the result of the excluders sharing economic rent directly and equally with those they exclude.

my idea of individual freedom is based on the civic republican tradition - practicing virtuous behavior with small-scale, deliberative, civic institutions rather than classical liberalism - autonomous individuals contracting voluntarily based on free will.

[Quantrill]

I believe taxes on labor and capital is theft as property right are based on labor as the natural extension of self-ownership.

So then you would work with the FSP to help ensure we don't get an income tax, right?  Maybe write letters-to-the editor, call politicians, go to any protests that may happen, etc...   ?   

[FrankChodorov]

I believe taxes on labor and capital is theft as property right are based on labor as the natural extension of self-ownership.

So then you would work with the FSP to help ensure we don't get an income tax, right?  Maybe write letters-to-the editor, call politicians, go to any protests that may happen, etc...   ?   

I am going to continue arguing that a tax shift is PROGRESSIVE to Democrats so they won't want to go to an income tax.

[Braddogg]

Yeah, I was just going to say that I don't think Frank has a terrible problem with the amount of taxation occurring, just with the specific part of our body at which they point the gun.  "Hey guys, stop pointing it at my liver, point it at my gall bladder.  Yeah, that's better."

[FrankChodorov]

I was just going to say that I don't think Frank has a terrible problem with the amount of taxation occurring

in anarchy the collection of economic rent by excluders (a tax in kind but not in name) from the excluded is STILL a violation of the right of self-ownership because the excluded do not have the absolute right to the full fruits of their labor.

[Objectivist]

in anarchy ...

In anarchy there are no rights at all, silly. And no one to protect them. Anarchy is rule of force.

Objectivist

[Rocketman]

in anarchy ...

In anarchy there are no rights at all, silly. And no one to protect them. Anarchy is rule of force.

Objectivist

Everybody has rights.  They're natural, and we're born with them.  The only question is whether not we are able to protect them. 

[Bald Eagle]

An Archy means "no government", not "no rights".

Rights are not predicated upon the ability to protect them or even the ability to exercise them.  They are inherent to the individual.

[Objectivist]

True that. Right are not given by government, they are protected by government. But try telling that to the thug who takes your belongings when there's no government.

"Hey, I have rights! You can't take that!"

"I just did, bitch. Whatcha gonna do about it?"

And war ensues, followed hopefully by the establishing of a government that protects rights.

If a right is those freedoms which are guarenteed to a sovereign entity, then in anarchy, there are no rights. Point stands given my definition. 

Objectivist

[Rocketman]

And the next thug who takes your belongings is the government.  He has ragheads to nuke, and asserts his right to your property to pay for it.   

[AlanM]

And the next thug who takes your belongings is the government.  He has ragheads to nuke, and asserts his right to your property to pay for it.   

And we all know that Gov NEVER restricts or denies our rights. Heaven forbid!!!!!!!!!

[Bald Eagle]

True that. Right are not given by government, they are protected by government. But try telling that to the thug who takes your belongings when there's no government.

1.  It is naive to believe that Rights are protected by government.  Haven't you been paying attention?

2. A government protecting me from agression would only be acting as a proxy, and using the same methods that I myself would be using as an individual.

3. I'm usually pretty heavily armed - whether I'm going to work, food shooping, walking in the park, sitting at home, or going to visit friends. 

4. Empirical data supports my assertion that I shoot with far greater speed and skill than most of the cops in my area who you suggest are supposed to protect my Rights.

5. Government agents (police) can't be everywhere protecting everyone all the time.  Call 911, then start the stopwatch.

6. It is well established that government agents (police) bear no reponsibility or obligation to protect any individual.


"Hey, I have rights! You can't take that!" Cry
"I just did, bitch. Whatcha gonna do about it?" Evil
And war ensues, followed hopefully by the establishing of a government that protects rights.

"Gimme your wallet or I'll stab you."
(or increasingly: Gimme your wallet and I won't hurt you.  Then they kill you anyway)

[BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!] 2 to the body, 1 to the head.

One of those 17% of the population that commits 70% of the crime is GONE.


If a right is those freedoms which are guarenteed to a sovereign entity, then in anarchy, there are no rights. Point stands given my definition.  Tongue

Rights are not guaranteed to an individual, they are an inherent attribute of them, just like every object has mass.

[Rocketman]

I'm not much of a gun guy, but I always feel a little safer when I'm within 500 yards of Bald Eagle.   

[lildog]

No one tossed out Bradley because of disagreeing on "one issue".  Bradley was tossed out because he's a filthy, disgusting neo-con, a proponent of empire and American hegemony, as well as a proponent of federal sovereignty over the states.  In short, liberty-lovers loathe him. Is Shea-Porter better?  In many issues, no.  In some, yes. But for now

On SOME???????????  You're kidding me right?  Like what?  The only people who see her as better are out right socialists.

She's for gun control, higher taxes, more government programs, socialised healthcare (which brings with it real ID).  And as for the argument about Bradley supporting torture, if you think the other side are anything more then hypocrites then your an idiot.  Clinton approved torture (with many of these same democrats now condeming the republicans) cheering him on.  Although Clinton didn't actually have US doing the torture, he actually used our tax dollars to PAY for others to do the dirty work for us.

And by standing on the side of the road with signs with names of republicans saying they support torture don't you understand how that also effects LOCAL elections?  Many local republicans who were good people were tossed out as a result of things like that.

it is better that the Democrat Mafia thug gang control Congress since the opposing Republican Mafia thug gang runs the White House.  It's a way of creating gridlock and limiting the amount of damage that can be done at the moment.

Ah but they control ALL levels of our STATE government now! 

2) You are missing out on a great opportunity if you view the election of Shea-Porter as a defeat!  Bradley being dismissed gives the RLC an opportunity to help elect a pro-liberty Republican in the primary 1.5 years from now, so that voters will have a real choice.  Your choice:  Bitch and moan, or see it as an opportunity.

Or they may very well put someone up who's more centrist.

By the way you are missing the REAL point here... the actions of many on this forum whether intentional or not are turning people OFF to the FSP.  I'm heard more then one person refer to you all as nuts or extremists, mostly nuts.  Is your goal to lose all credibility among the "regular" people?

Let me ask you personally Caleb, what have YOU yourself actually accomplished since moving to NH?  Have any government positions been disolved as a result of your actions?  Have taxes been lowered or budgets been cut?  Have laws been stricken from the books?

My actions on my town's budget committee and bringing waste to light has caused the town I live in to start a revolt against our local government.  We've slashed MILLIONS, eliminated unneeded postions, and elected people who actually understand the need for less government and those of us working locally have caused more people to join in us in the fight.  The only ones we're turning off are the ones who want MORE local services and MORE local government.

But those of you on this forum who are totally obsessed with the Iraq war are turning off a LOT of people.