Rescinding membership in Free State Project

[Rocketman]

I agree with you, Roger, but sometimes I like to vent.

[lildog]

I'm disgusted by the numbers and vociferousness of the pro-war people here

For the record, I don't support the war as it stands today.  But I'm not going to support socialism just because I think Bush isn't doing a good job.

I'd still like an asnwer to my question though as I think it would explain a lot.  What issues do you all see as important?

[lildog]

The problem I see is the whole left/right seesaw...
Call attention to evil promoted by one side and you stand accused of promoting the other side. Fascist vs. Socialist, not much of a choice.

That's the problem with a 2 party system.  If you shoot down party A you by default support party B.

That's why I ONLY shoot down the WORST of the two because shooting down the better of the two leaves you by default with the worst.

[Ear]

For the record, I don't support the war as it stands today.  But I'm not going to support socialism just because I think Bush isn't doing a good job.

That's the problem with a 2 party system.  If you shoot down party A you by default support party B.

That's why I ONLY shoot down the WORST of the two because shooting down the better of the two leaves you by default with the worst.

So in other words, you think slaughtering strangers is a lesser evil than taxing you.

You're a pig.

[FrankChodorov]

The problem I see is the whole left/right seesaw...
Call attention to evil promoted by one side and you stand accused of promoting the other side. Fascist vs. Socialist, not much of a choice.

That's the problem with a 2 party system.  If you shoot down party A you by default support party B.

That's why I ONLY shoot down the WORST of the two because shooting down the better of the two leaves you by default with the worst.

that's the problem with the simplistic duality model:

a. left libertarianism = civil liberties emphasis
b. right libertarianism = economic liberties emphasis

it becomes just a question of subjective trade-offs similar to believing that liberty has to be traded off against equality.

what is needed is a framework for synthesis...EQUAL liberty for all, special privileges for none!

[FrankChodorov]

So in other words, you think slaughtering strangers is a lesser evil than taxing you.

what if there was a "tax" that wasn't a tax at all but rather was a system that UPHOLDS the right of self-ownership rather than violating it to establish an EQUAL liberty framework??

[Rocketman]

I'd still like an asnwer to my question though as I think it would explain a lot.  What issues do you all see as important?

NH pro-liberty positions which happen to be shared by many conservatives: opposing any new and/or higher taxes, cutting taxes and spending, protecting the right to defend person and property, protecting privacy (Real ID), minimizing the role of government in education, opposing regulations which hamper the free market, opposing fiat currency, opposing subservience to the UN.

NH pro-liberty positions which happen to be shared by liberals: decriminalizing marijuana (and hemp), protecting civil liberties (Real ID), preserving the separation of church and state (another F- for Bush), protecting the equal rights of persons who make nontraditional lifestyle choices, protecting the right of women and doctors to make choices according to their own systems of morality and not those of pro-life busybodies (my opinion, obviously), opposing the so-called War on Terror, opposing the fusion of corporate and government interests (e.g. Halliburton, Blackwater), opposing the inhumane treatment of human beings by our own government, getting rid of straight-ticket voting.

And yes, despite appearances, these all boil down to being New Hampshire issues.  Sure I'm leaving a few biggies out...

[Tom Sawyer]

I agree with you, Roger, but sometimes I like to vent.

Hey you've had more political "success" than anything I ever tried.

Good luck, I'm just unable to handle the BS.

[Rocketman]

I agree with you, Roger, but sometimes I like to vent.

Hey you've had more political "success" than anything I ever tried.

Thanks, yeah, I recently advanced from zero lifetime victories to one, which is definitely moving in the right direction!   

[Lloyd Danforth]

NH pro-liberty positions which happen to be shared by many conservatives: opposing any new and/or higher taxes, cutting taxes and spending, protecting the right to defend person and property, protecting privacy (Real ID), minimizing the role of government in education, opposing regulations which hamper the free market, opposing fiat currency, opposing subservience to the UN.

NH pro-liberty positions which happen to be shared by liberals: decriminalizing marijuana (and hemp), protecting civil liberties (Real ID), preserving the separation of church and state (another F- for Bush), protecting the equal rights of persons who make nontraditional lifestyle choices, protecting the right of women and doctors to make choices according to their own systems of morality and not those of pro-life busybodies (my opinion, obviously), opposing the so-called War on Terror, opposing the fusion of corporate and government interests (e.g. Halliburton, Blackwater), opposing the inhumane treatment of human beings by our own government, getting rid of straight-ticket voting.

And yes, despite appearances, these all boil down to being New Hampshire issues.  Sure I'm leaving a few biggies out...

This is all good stuff

[Caleb]

Ok, here goes, Lildog, since you keep asking.   Biggest issues facing New Hampshire:

1)  We must deal with the terrorist threat. The surest way to do this is to reject our current foreign policy direction and adopt Thomas Jefferson's:  "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations ? entangling alliances with none".   Since the US government seems to have no intention of doing so, it seems necessary to declare independence. 

2)  We must deal with intrusions into our liberties and the unfortunate upswing of what I call "the surveillance state."  This requires that NH take a stand against the Patriot Act, deal with the problem of internal espionage (via such terrorist agencies as the FBI, CIA, NSA, Secret Service, etc.)  Let's not forget that espionage is an act of war, and the federal government routinely spies on its own people.

3)  We must end the drug war so as to end the major source of financing for the quasi-governmental terrorist groups (CIA, NSA, et al).

4)  We must deal with the dollar crisis, by implementing free market monetary policy, demanding that all government books be balanced, and ending the reign of terror of the World Banking cartels.  Specifically in this country that involves abolishing the Federal Reserve Bank. (A reminder:  this is *the* issue that the Democrat Party was founded on.)  Absent the federal government's acquiesence, it will be necessary to declare our independence.

5)  We must implement a system of completely voluntary taxation so that no one is forced to pay for programs that they do not want or find morally repugnant. 

This list is obviously not complete, but it probably represents the biggest issues facing our generation. 

Hope this helps.

Caleb

[FrankChodorov]

this is *the* issue that the Democrat Party was founded on

are you referring to Jackson's vetoing the second national banks charter?

no need to go to a specie-backed private currency - historical evidence does not support the contention that direct-issued fiat currency is subject to the ills that the banking interests have propaganized the right into believing about it.

We must implement a system of completely voluntary taxation

no need to have any taxation system at all - just get rid of the landowner's tax on the wages of those they exclude via state granted privilege to monopolize the economic rent

[mrapplecastle]

what if there was a "tax" that wasn't a tax at all but rather was a system that UPHOLDS the right of self-ownership rather than violating it to establish an EQUAL liberty framework??

would'nt the single tax also be considered voluntary?

[Caleb]

are you referring to Jackson's vetoing the second national banks charter?

Go back earlier than that, to the dispute between Jefferson and Hamilton over a national bank.

no need to go to a specie-backed private currency - historical evidence does not support the contention that direct-issued fiat currency is subject to the ills that the banking interests have propaganized the right into believing about it.

???

Are you being tongue in cheek?

Specie backed currency is not the *only* type of currency that is feasible, but fiat currency is definitely NOT feasible, and history has repeatedly borne this out.

Think about it, Bill:  Currency must be backed by something that has intrinsic value to prevent government from simply printing it up to fund whatsoever they want.  How many big government programs would never have happened without the government also controlling the money supply?  Think about how many big government programs came about since 1913.

You can't just print more gold.

[FrankChodorov]

Go back earlier than that, to the dispute between Jefferson and Hamilton over a national bank.

yes but remember the Democratic Party didn't form until the 1820's as Jefferson was a leader of Democratic-Republican faction before official parties...

Are you being tongue in cheek?

no I am dead serious!

The banking lobby has gone to a great deal of trouble to create the myth that government controlled money is less stable than bank-controlled money, and it just isn't so. Wherever someone cites an example of of this, a closer look at history reveals that there was some cause other than government malfeasance, and that, as often as not, the cause of the problem was the bankers themselves.

The only problem with fiat currency is when it is loaned into circulation through banks or government bonds instead of spent into circulation through simple deficit spending. If we issued money instead of issuing bonds, we would have no more inflation than we get with bond issues, and we would have no national debt.