Free State Project
Shmuel A. Kahn
the educated mostly libertarian POVs many people here hold on limiting
governmental powers, was wondering what y'all think about this type of gig.
Seeing that the site was /.ed for most of the day, I expect their membership will
take a jump next time they update the counter.
My only two issues with this project are:
1) It's pretty naive to think that even 20,000 activists can convince enough
people to make a big enough block within a population of 1.5 million.
2) The Federal Government is NEVER going to let this happen. I mean just suppose
they make it work, and even show a profit (statewise), you will have other states
copying them, even without the body of activists - just by imitating their new
laws etc. This would scare the Ashcroft type of politico shitless.
Any comments?
Anyone going to join?
I'm pretty sure we have many patrons already living in the proposed target states.
Shmuel the Kahn man
[1] http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/21/1325228&mode=thread&tid=103
[2] http://www.freestateproject.org/index.htm
Sagittaria
news:3DB67518.1070602@kam-motion_SHPAM.com:
http://www.freestateproject.org/index.htm
> Any comments?
> Anyone going to join?
> I'm pretty sure we have many patrons already living in the
> proposed target states.
Sure, I'll join. I'll move anywhere as long as it's not in the south.
:)
I agree with you that this could probably never work but I like it in
principle.
--
---->Sagittaria<----
I've got cat class, and I've got cat style.
Matthew Russotto
Shmuel A. Kahn <shmuel@kam-motion_SHPAM.com> wrote:
>699477
>
>The other day on Slashdot, I saw an item [1] about this project [2], and knowing
>the educated mostly libertarian POVs many people here hold on limiting
>governmental powers, was wondering what y'all think about this type of gig.
>
>Seeing that the site was /.ed for most of the day, I expect their membership will
>take a jump next time they update the counter.
>
>My only two issues with this project are:
>1) It's pretty naive to think that even 20,000 activists can convince enough
>people to make a big enough block within a population of 1.5 million.
>2) The Federal Government is NEVER going to let this happen. I mean just suppose
>they make it work, and even show a profit (statewise), you will have other states
>copying them, even without the body of activists - just by imitating their new
>laws etc. This would scare the Ashcroft type of politico shitless.
The organization will fall apart under its own weight. On the off
chance that it doesn't seem to be doing so, it will be disrupted
intentionally.
The US government has been successfully inoculated against all forms
of peaceful change that do not involve large amounts of money flowing
to politicians.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrus...@speakeasy.net
=====
Every time you buy a CD, a programmer is kicked in the teeth.
Every time you buy or rent a DVD, a programmer is kicked where it counts.
Every time they kick a programmer, 1000 users are kicked too, and harder.
A proposed US law called the CBDTPA would ban the PC as we know it.
This is not a joke, not an exaggeration. This is real.
http://www.cryptome.org/broadbandits.htm
Lee S. Billings
says...
>
>The other day on Slashdot, I saw an item [1] about this project [2], and
>knowing the educated mostly libertarian POVs many people here hold on limiting
>governmental powers, was wondering what y'all think about this type of gig.
>
>[2] http://www.freestateproject.org/index.htm
I'd honestly like to see them try it... but I sure hope they let the other
folks leave first. It would be an expensive and (one hopes) effective education
in the difference between ideology and reality, and some of them might at long
last grab a clue.
Celine
--
Handmade jewelry at http://www.rubylane.com/shops/starcat
"Only the powers of evil claim that doing good is boring."
-- Diane Duane, _Nightfall at Algemron_
Silicon Shaman
here. [Uk] About the only thing we have that's even remotly similar is the
idea of regional devolution and assemblies. Which basically replaces central
govenment with regional, i.e one bunch of money grabbing politico's with
another.
--
Silicon Shaman
Subversives 'R' Us
I think, therefore I'm dangerous.
Michael J. Lowrey
>
> shmuel@kam-motion_SHPAM.com says...
> >The other day on Slashdot, I saw an item [1] about this project [2], and
> >knowing the educated mostly libertarian POVs many people here hold on limiting
> >governmental powers, was wondering what y'all think about this type of gig.
> >
> >[1] http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/21/1325228&mode=thread&tid=103
> >[2] http://www.freestateproject.org/index.htm
The fellow in the orange trooper hat pipes up, "There was an
article in PLAYBOY some years ago, proposing that something
similar might be done in Vermont by a progressive coalition
(black professionals, hippies, the old People's Party, the
proto-Greens of that era, etc.) Nobody followed up on it,
but I notice that Vermont is becoming more progressive as
the years go on (the reactionaries seem to self-sort into
New Hampshire instead)."
> I'd honestly like to see them try it... but I sure hope they let the other
> folks leave first. It would be an expensive and (one hopes) effective education
> in the difference between ideology and reality, and some of them might at long
> last grab a clue.
He grins. "Yep; the natives of the targetted state might
not take kindly to being used as guinea pigs by a bunch of
outlanders. I think it was Andrew Vachss who described the
deadliest words in the English language as being, 'You're
not from around here, are ya?' I have trouble imagining
Rhode Islanders or Montanans just rolling over and welcoming
these arrogant self-appointed messiahs."
--
Orange Mike
anarcho-socialist
Pat Kight
> The other day on Slashdot, I saw an item [1] about this project [2], and
> knowing the educated mostly libertarian POVs many people here hold on
> limiting governmental powers, was wondering what y'all think about this
> type of gig.
>
> Seeing that the site was /.ed for most of the day, I expect their
> membership will take a jump next time they update the counter.
>
> My only two issues with this project are:
> 1) It's pretty naive to think that even 20,000 activists can convince
> enough people to make a big enough block within a population of 1.5
> million.
"Naive, and presumptuous," says Jezebel, wrinkling her brow in distaste.
"It also smacks of a bizarre form of cultural elitism.
"If I get this right, these people plan to pack up and move their
families into a state, ignore the historical, civic and cultural
traditions of those who already live there, and tell them, `We know
better than you do how you ought to live.'
"Sorry, but this sounds a lot like the way some parts of the US were
colonized more than 200 years ago - but in those days, it was done at
gunpoint, and with damned little regard for the interests of the
previous inhabitants. Do these new `pioneers' plan to use weapons to
bring the populace in line? Smallpox-infested blankets, maybe? Or are
they arrogant enough to believe that the mere force of their political
reasoning will win everyone over?
"If I lived in one of their target states - Alaska, Delaware, Montana,
Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine or
Idaho - I'd be mightily offended. And considering the traditions of some
of those states, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the Free Staters found
themselves facing some pretty stiff (and quite possibly armed)
opposition when and if they manage to get this throughly hare-brained
scheme off the ground."
--Jezebel
not holding her breath, though
kig...@peak.org
Pat Kight
> I'd honestly like to see them try it... but I sure hope they let the other
> folks leave first.
"Let? What, you mean like the US government `let' the Cherokee people
leave their ancestral home in Georgia? Just what we need - a new Trail
of Tears ..."
--Jezebel
kig...@peak.org
Matthew Russotto
Pat Kight <kig...@ucs.orst.edu> wrote:
>Shmuel A. Kahn wrote:
>> The other day on Slashdot, I saw an item [1] about this project [2], and
>> knowing the educated mostly libertarian POVs many people here hold on
>> limiting governmental powers, was wondering what y'all think about this
>> type of gig.
>>
>> Seeing that the site was /.ed for most of the day, I expect their
>> membership will take a jump next time they update the counter.
>>
>> My only two issues with this project are:
>> 1) It's pretty naive to think that even 20,000 activists can convince
>> enough people to make a big enough block within a population of 1.5
>> million.
>
>"Naive, and presumptuous," says Jezebel, wrinkling her brow in distaste.
> "It also smacks of a bizarre form of cultural elitism.
>
>"If I get this right, these people plan to pack up and move their
>families into a state, ignore the historical, civic and cultural
>traditions of those who already live there, and tell them, `We know
>better than you do how you ought to live.'
So when interventionists (ranging from Mrs. Grundy on the town council or
neighborhood association all the way up to the various departments of
the Federal government) tell people that they know better than you
how you ought to live, that's well and good. But if Libertarians dare
to try to get their noninterventionist views placed into law, that's
naive, presumptuous, and cultural elitism?
Pat Kight
> In article <ap6jb3$jgi$1...@news.orst.edu>,
> Pat Kight <kig...@ucs.orst.edu> wrote:
>>"If I get this right, these people plan to pack up and move their
>>families into a state, ignore the historical, civic and cultural
>>traditions of those who already live there, and tell them, `We know
>>better than you do how you ought to live.'
>
>
> So when interventionists (ranging from Mrs. Grundy on the town council or
> neighborhood association all the way up to the various departments of
> the Federal government) tell people that they know better than you
> how you ought to live, that's well and good.
"Not particularly, although it depends on how they go about it. I do
have faith in the American system of government, right down to the civic
level; I think that, more often than not, it works. I realize you don't
share that believe, and that we'll likely never agree on that."
> But if Libertarians dare
> to try to get their noninterventionist views placed into law, that's
> naive, presumptuous, and cultural elitism?
"When they talk about moving, en masse, to someplace that's aready
populated in order to do it - yes, I think it is."
--Jezebel
kig...@peak.org
Prophet
> The fellow in the orange trooper hat pipes up, "There was an
> article in PLAYBOY some years ago, proposing that something
> similar might be done in Vermont by a progressive coalition
> (black professionals, hippies, the old People's Party, the
> proto-Greens of that era, etc.) Nobody followed up on it,
> but I notice that Vermont is becoming more progressive as
> the years go on (the reactionaries seem to self-sort into
> New Hampshire instead)."
>
Actually true. According to at least one study done a few
years back, native New Hampshire people are actually trending
toward liberality. However, folks who come here from other
states, (e.g. Vermont, Massachusetts, California,) often do
so *because* of our conservative reputation. This was a
surprise since the general belief was that the increasing
liberal tide was due to the influx of folks from the
People's Republic. (Massachussets to the rest of you.
Shows you what sort of conservative mind-set exists here.)
>
> He grins. "Yep; the natives of the targetted state might
> not take kindly to being used as guinea pigs by a bunch of
> outlanders. I think it was Andrew Vachss who described the
> deadliest words in the English language as being, 'You're
> not from around here, are ya?' I have trouble imagining
> Rhode Islanders or Montanans just rolling over and welcoming
> these arrogant self-appointed messiahs."
>
True, but if they got a local spokesman, it might gain some
support in New Hampshire. They'd have to bill it as a return
to republican roots since libertarians are few and far
between and likely to be mistaken for liberals or commies.
Die Gedanken Sind Frei!
Bad Ship Betnoiran: Stir Fry Cook and Second Prophet, Marcus
Marc C Allain http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mca
Native American Cultural Association. http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mca/naca.html
Temple of Mad Science http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mca/temple.html
Andreas Schaefer
<Silicon...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>*sigh* The USA gets all the cool ideas, I just cannot see this happening
>here. [Uk] About the only thing we have that's even remotly similar is the
>idea of regional devolution and assemblies. Which basically replaces central
>govenment with regional, i.e one bunch of money grabbing politico's with
>another.
More likely adding an intermediate layer of politicos.
Currently I am democratically represented by
city-district
city
state
nation
and a little bit on EU-level
in other places it would be
commune
county
state
nation
So since you would not totally abolish the central goverment
you would add the regional layer.
( means even more politicians who get payed from tax-money)
Andreas
Gregory Baker
"Pat Kight" <kig...@ucs.orst.edu> wrote in message
news:ap6jkn$jmc$1...@news.orst.edu...
"True," said the Fat Man, "but any form of ethnic cleansing tends not to be
100 percent effective. My Cherokee ancestors stayed in Georgia. But then,
my great grandfather does something stupid like found a town, Americus,
Georgia, with all the consequences thereof."
Steve Brinich
> The other day on Slashdot, I saw an item [1] about this project [2], and knowing
> the educated mostly libertarian POVs many people here hold on limiting
> governmental powers, was wondering what y'all think about this type of gig.
All they have to do is get 20,000 libertarians to agree. No problem....
--
Steve Brinich <sbri...@bigfoot.com> If the government wants us
http://www.bigfoot.com/~sbrinich to respect the law
41BFB2CAA6083A641079871798366DC7 it should set a better example
Jim Hetley
<snipped>
> Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine or
> Idaho - I'd be mightily offended. And considering the traditions of some
> of those states, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the Free Staters found
> themselves facing some pretty stiff (and quite possibly armed)
> opposition when and if they manage to get this throughly hare-brained
> scheme off the ground."
>
I thought we already _had_ a Free State in Maine. God knows, nobody
would _pay_ for it....
Jim
Lee S. Billings
>
>"Shmuel A. Kahn" wrote:
>
>> The other day on Slashdot, I saw an item [1] about this project [2], and
knowi
>ng
>> the educated mostly libertarian POVs many people here hold on limiting
>> governmental powers, was wondering what y'all think about this type of gig.
>
> All they have to do is get 20,000 libertarians to agree. No problem....
<SPLORT!>
SkyeFire
>
>"Naive, and presumptuous," says Jezebel, wrinkling her brow in distaste.
> "It also smacks of a bizarre form of cultural elitism.
>
>"If I get this right, these people plan to pack up and move their
>families into a state, ignore the historical, civic and cultural
>traditions of those who already live there, and tell them, `We know
>better than you do how you ought to live.'
<cocked eyebrow> Not to be snarky, Jez, but you've just described pretty
much every activist of any stripe I've ever had the mis/fortune to deal with.
Kitsune Thorn
"Michael J. Lowrey" <oran...@uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:3DB6C805...@uwm.edu...
>
> He grins. "Yep; the natives of the targetted state might
> not take kindly to being used as guinea pigs by a bunch of
> outlanders. I think it was Andrew Vachss who described the
> deadliest words in the English language as being, 'You're
> not from around here, are ya?' I have trouble imagining
> Rhode Islanders or Montanans just rolling over and welcoming
> these arrogant self-appointed messiahs."
>
> --
> Orange Mike
> anarcho-socialist
Hey! Another Vachss fan. BOYC?
Matt Drury
WARNING: do not read the above quoted message while drinking Yoo-Hoo brand
chocolate beverage.
Kat & Kent
Okay, so does that mean that the Yoo-Hoo strawberry drink is safe?
Kat
Michael J. Lowrey
>
> "Michael J. Lowrey" <oran...@uwm.edu> wrote...
> > He grins. "Yep; the natives of the targetted state might
> > not take kindly to being used as guinea pigs by a bunch of
> > outlanders. I think it was Andrew Vachss who described the
> > deadliest words in the English language as being, 'You're
>
> Hey! Another Vachss fan. BOYC?
"Thankee! I'll take a Peach Nehi, Mike.
Vachss is pretty strong and bitter stuff, but I enjoy him
now and then. I just wish a few more 'compassionate
conservatives' would read his work."
--
Orange Mike
Matthew Russotto
Pat Kight <kig...@ucs.orst.edu> wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> In article <ap6jb3$jgi$1...@news.orst.edu>,
>> Pat Kight <kig...@ucs.orst.edu> wrote:
>
>>>"If I get this right, these people plan to pack up and move their
>>>families into a state, ignore the historical, civic and cultural
>>>traditions of those who already live there, and tell them, `We know
>>>better than you do how you ought to live.'
>>
>>
>> So when interventionists (ranging from Mrs. Grundy on the town council or
>> neighborhood association all the way up to the various departments of
>> the Federal government) tell people that they know better than you
>> how you ought to live, that's well and good.
>
>"Not particularly, although it depends on how they go about it. I do
>have faith in the American system of government, right down to the civic
>level;
I'm not sure how you maintain that faith. The more I look, the more I
realize that it's even more corrupt than I thought, at every level.
>> But if Libertarians dare
>> to try to get their noninterventionist views placed into law, that's
>> naive, presumptuous, and cultural elitism?
>
>"When they talk about moving, en masse, to someplace that's aready
>populated in order to do it - yes, I think it is."
Rather disingenuous, as there's no place livable which isn't already
populated. In a system where dilution is in effective way of
suppressing a minority view, overcoming that by concentrating minority
view-holders seems reasonable enough to me.
Matt Drury
Insufficient data. PayPal me US$0.50 and I will reread the original post,
properly prepared. :)
Prophet
> More likely adding an intermediate layer of politicos.
>
> Currently I am democratically represented by
> city-district
> city
> state
> nation
> and a little bit on EU-level
>
> in other places it would be
> commune
> county
> state
> nation
>
> So since you would not totally abolish the central goverment
> you would add the regional layer.
>
> ( means even more politicians who get payed from tax-money)
>
Now here's where New Hampshire gets wierd. You see, we don't pay
our state legislators. They get gas money. Nothing else. Of course,
you get what you pay for...
Michael Holmes
: In article <ap6jb3$jgi$1...@news.orst.edu>, Pat Kight <kig...@ucs.orst.edu>
: writes:
"The difference is that most of those activists work from the bottom-up.
Grass-roots, as in from the community. And working on change in the
community they are part of, which develops and grows, almost organically."
"Not saying that there aren't national organizations that work on national
policies, but those national organizations aren't focusing 100% of their
efforts for all time on a single state. One that already has a population
that is filled with people who might not agree with all these outsiders
_moving in_ in a deliberate attempt to skew the voting."
"That's a very different scenario from national organizers petitioning
in a state, or advertising in a state, or fund-raising in a state...
all those other methods are ways of _trying to convince_ residents
that your suggestions should be implemented."
"This plan, however, doesn't seem to care -- they're simply looking
to _move_ enough people into a low-populated state to _force_ their
agenda on the rest of the populace."
"So, while I see some superficial similarities, I also see a very
dramatic difference in this group -- they basically want to work
by forcing their views on others rather than convincing others to vote
with them."
/* shrugs and waits for some cynical patron to respond that
there's no difference... :-)
--
"I wonder who it was defined man as a rational animal. It was
the most premature definition ever given."
-Lord Henry, in Oscar Wilde's _The Picture of Dorian Gray_
Kitsune Thorn
He is that, but Burke and family have become like old friends. I don't want
to spoil anything if you haven't read it yet, but I cried during bits of
'Dead and Gone'. He handles his subject in a way I've not seen anyone else
do it. I love his writing style. And yes, I too wish more people read him,
it's an education.
I knew I liked you Orange Mike, Vachss fan, fox spirit, ...
Wonder what else we have in common. :)
--
"Does history record _any_ case in which the majority was right?" -R.A.H.-
Sagittaria
news:ap6fr3$l5c$1...@sparta.btinternet.com:
> *sigh* The USA gets all the cool ideas, I just cannot see this
> happening here. [Uk]
That's because you guys already did it. Howd'you think the USA got
here? :)
Lee S. Billings
>"So, while I see some superficial similarities, I also see a very
>dramatic difference in this group -- they basically want to work
>by forcing their views on others rather than convincing others to vote
>with them."
Which is highly ironic for a Libertarian movement -- as I am given to
understand that Libertarianism is all about *not* forcing people to do things.
Silicon Shaman
"Sagittaria" <sagit...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:Xns92B1BC9223...@127.0.0.1...
> "Silicon Shaman" <Silicon...@btopenworld.com> wrote in
> news:ap6fr3$l5c$1...@sparta.btinternet.com:
>
> > *sigh* The USA gets all the cool ideas, I just cannot see this
> > happening here. [Uk]
>
> That's because you guys already did it. Howd'you think the USA got
> here? :)
>
> --
> ---->Sagittaria<----
LOL! Okay, you got me on that one, BOYC?
Hmm, now all we need is an unoccupied bit of land, and lets see if we can't
get it *right* this time!
Stuart Sanders
>>dramatic difference in this group -- they basically want to work
>>by forcing their views on others rather than convincing others to vote
>>with them."
>
>Which is highly ironic for a Libertarian movement -- as I am given to
>understand that Libertarianism is all about *not* forcing people to do
>things.
As someone else already pointed out, 20,000 Libertarians aren't likely to be
able to change the laws by themselves.
As I understand the Free State project, they intend to move as many as 20,000
Libertarians there mostly so that they will have a place where Libertarian
ideas will actually get a hearing, because there are enough people,
percentagewise, to make it viable.
For the record, though, since the Libertarian ideal consists essentially of
*repealing* laws, and letting private citizens do as they choose to do, so long
as it harms no one (how Wiccan :) in what way can it be considered *forcing*
anyone?
Example: Say the Libertarians go to this state, and manage to get mandatory
seat-belt laws repealed on the grounds of individual responsibility. In no way
will this prevent the populace from wearing seat-belts.
Or say they repeal property taxes (a very unlikely outcome anytime within the
first two generations, at the least). In what way does this force anyone?
For the record, while I'm relatively familiar with Libertarianism, I'm still
trying to suss out where I stand between Anarchy, Libertarianism and
Republicanism (In the pure sense). While I disagree with taxes - rather
seriously - I would never remove taxes until I had reduced government to a
point where alternate methods of funding would suffice - and I would do that
slowly, as too many people have become too dependent upon the government to cut
them off cold turkey.
--------------------------
If you think guns are dangerous, try being defenseless.
Stormraven's Castle -- Rare Works
http://www.geocities.com/erik_nocturne/
(Remove Traveler to reply)
Kitsune Thorn
"Silicon Shaman" <Silicon...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:apa8pd$5ln$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
that. It's just a matter of finding the land. (Tony thinks maybe some where
near Fiji.) Then I guess we'll need a flag and some tea . . . :) But
seriously, if anyone is really interested in something like an island
retreat that could later turn out to be more please e-mail for more detailed
info on the plan. There would of course *have* to be a Callahanish pub
there. :)
--
" $100 placed at 7% interest compounded quarterly for 200 years will
increase to more than $100,000,000 - by which time it will be worth
nothing." -R.A.H.-
Joe Thompson
> Hmm, now all we need is an unoccupied bit of land, and lets see if we can't
> get it *right* this time!
There was (is?) the Oceania project (http://www.oceania.org/) -- the idea
being that since countries take a rather dim view of bits of them
declaring themselves independent (Sealand and Ladonia notwithstanding),
you go out on the continental shelf in international waters and build
yourself an artificial island. Then you open it up for immigration.
I rather liked the idea, but it seems to be going nowhere lately. -- Joe
--
Joe Thompson | Geek for hire in the DC area
kense...@linuxmail.org | PC construction, repair, software, networking
"i thought that channel was all about basil and paprika"
-- Walt, #everything, commenting on the Spice Channel
Shmuel A. Kahn
> "This plan, however, doesn't seem to care -- they're simply looking
> to _move_ enough people into a low-populated state to _force_ their
> agenda on the rest of the populace."
>
> "So, while I see some superficial similarities, I also see a very
> dramatic difference in this group -- they basically want to work
> by forcing their views on others rather than convincing others to vote
> with them."
Well not really, at least not the way I read their FAQ.
Supposing they choose Montana, which had 668 thousand voters in 2000 [1], with an
actual voter turnout of 61.5% (411 K votes). So even if they get 20,000 people
Sworn to The Cause [Tm] (with a 100% turnout within the group), they are still
only 5 percent of the votes. Not much you can do with that on voting power alone,
is there, especially if they REALLY annoy the locals, which would only increase
the general turnout.
They PLAN on convincing locals to vote with them, either in general or in response
to specific initiatives. They will need A LOT of convincing to do, IMHO.
Shmuel the Kahn man
following this thread with great interest. I STILL think the FEDS are the greatest
and more DANGEROUS obstacle.
Michael J. Lowrey
>
> "Silicon Shaman" <Silicon...@btopenworld.com> wrote...
> > Hmm, now all we need is an unoccupied bit of land, and lets see if we
> > can't get it *right* this time!
> >
> that. It's just a matter of finding the land. (Tony thinks maybe some where
> near Fiji.) Then I guess we'll need a flag and some tea . . . :) But
> seriously, if anyone is really interested in something like an island
> retreat that could later turn out to be more please e-mail for more detailed
> info on the plan. There would of course *have* to be a Callahanish pub
> there. :)
The orange hippie-type says:
"You do know there's a book on the subject, don't you? HOW
TO START YOUR OWN COUNTRY, by Erwin S. Strauss? (Yep,
_that_ Erwin Strauss; Filthy Pierre). It's got case
histories of efforts in this area, and general information
for would-be country starters. You can find it all over the
web, even" he pauses to mime *spitting* in disgust "Amazon.
(Feh!!)"
--
Orange Mike
if he has to order online, goes to powellsunion.com
Silicon Shaman
"Joe Thompson" <kense...@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
news:slrnarhr1f.1q...@vento.tomsvw.com...
Hmm, seems to me that there a couple of engineering problems with that idea.
Still, there are a couple of solutions. If you located the island somewhere
in the Bahamas region you could be in international waters, and still only
have a few tens of feet depth even at high tide. Other solution, if memory
serves me correctly there are some sea-mounts [undersea mountains] in
mid-pacific that the depth of water is less than a hundred or so feet.
There's one I recall that appears above water at high tide.
The shallower the water, the easier it is to build. I just don't know
how big an island you'd get.
Either way, it's a high capitol investment project. A lot cheaper to find
somewhere that nature has done the job for you.
[google's for bit]
Come to think of it, It's possible to take household waste, vitrify it,
foamed you get something like a hard pumice stone that floats. You could
build an island out of that and move it where ever you want. [basically a
huge raft]. Has possibilities.
--
Silicon.shaman
Any technology distinguishable from magic,
isn't advanced enough !
Silicon Shaman
"Kitsune Thorn" <kitsun...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:nf3u9.16305$vq2.6...@news1.east.cox.net...
P&E
Sounds interesting, have you considered islands around the top end of New
Zealand? Similar climate [a little cooler] and a much more liberal
government. More likely to be okay about losing a chunk or two of land,
probably because they have so much unoccupied. Plus, even further away from
anywhere that terrorists, etc would be interested in.
John Kelsey
...
>"Not saying that there aren't national organizations that work on national
>policies, but those national organizations aren't focusing 100% of their
>efforts for all time on a single state. One that already has a population
>that is filled with people who might not agree with all these outsiders
>_moving in_ in a deliberate attempt to skew the voting."
>"This plan, however, doesn't seem to care -- they're simply looking
>to _move_ enough people into a low-populated state to _force_ their
>agenda on the rest of the populace."
Well, it's not deliberate, but this happens all the time, as people move from
more urban areas to more rural ones, or small towns 30 miles from larger ones
are transformed into bedroom communities. So long as you're allowed to move in
without restriction, and once you live there, you can vote there, what can
anyone do about this? (And how fair would it be to give people that lived in
some area 20 years ago veto power over changes in laws, say.)
>"So, while I see some superficial similarities, I also see a very
>dramatic difference in this group -- they basically want to work
>by forcing their views on others rather than convincing others to vote
>with them."
As described here, the plan is a pretty silly idea. Do the math.
--
--John Kelsey, cl...@bozo-u.edu is not my e-mail address.
...My e-mail address is <last name>.<first initial>@ix.netcom.com
John Kelsey
kense...@linuxmail.org says...
>In article <apa8pd$5ln$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>, Silicon Shaman wrote:
>> Hmm, now all we need is an unoccupied bit of land, and lets see if we can't
>> get it *right* this time!
>There was (is?) the Oceania project (http://www.oceania.org/) -- the idea
>being that since countries take a rather dim view of bits of them
>declaring themselves independent (Sealand and Ladonia notwithstanding),
>you go out on the continental shelf in international waters and build
>yourself an artificial island. Then you open it up for immigration.
This has a lot of practical problems, though. Not just about getting other
governments to recognize you, but with the fact that the sovereignty of small,
powerless states isn't all that great in practice. If any Central or South
American country, say, completely legalized drugs and said "Gee, USA, I guess
your citizens will have to control their own appetites," I'm almost certain
we'd invade them and install a government more to our liking. (This has
happened quite a few times before, for various reasons.)
If Libertaria-in-the-Sea has drug traffickers, mobsters, groups the US or other
powerful countries think are terrorists, etc., living there, it will either
have to get rid of them, or be visited from time to time by the US Marines.
Just ask Manuel Noriega whether we give a damn about national sovereignty. And
even if it doesn't get invaded, if other countries see it as a haven for
undesireables of various stripes, they can do all kinds of things short of
invasion to make it unpleasant to live there. ("Welcome back from Libertaria,
Mr. Smith. Step this way for your body cavity search. Terribly sorry, but you
know how sneaky those drug smugglers are....")
And even when governments of powerful countries don't have a direct reason to
invade or hassle it on policy grounds, it's not that rare for a leader to need
an easy military victory for internal political reasons. Think of Argentina
seizing control of the Falkland Islands. That was territory with a powerful,
nuclear-armed protector. Had it been home to a bunch of ideologues, maybe
there would have been a public outcry. But why would the Argentinian
government have cared?
>I rather liked the idea, but it seems to be going nowhere lately. -- Joe
It's going nowhere because it's not a particularly good idea. Countries aren't
just legal entities, they're also entities that need to be able to get along
with other countries somehow. This includes the need to be able to either
defend yourself when attacked, or to call upon someone else more powerful to
help you. "Countries" with lots of riches (aka loot) and little ability to
protect themselves (aka, an army) don't have much of a future.
> Joe Thompson | Geek for hire in the DC area
--John Kelsey, cl...@bozo-u.edu is not my e-mail address.
Michael J. Lowrey
> >dramatic difference in this group -- they basically want to work
> >by forcing their views on others rather than convincing others to vote
> >with them."
>
> As described here, the plan is a pretty silly idea. Do the math.
The orange guy speaks up: "Well, if they were genuinely
intent on _forcing_, it would; but it's not what they seem
to intend (although they could have put their point better.
They plan to become a seed, so to speak, on which a new
libertarian majority could form. They intend the 20,000
folks to serve as that seed in what they perceive (falsely,
I believe) as a super-saturated solution of Americans just
moments away from libbydom.
And _I_ never meant to imply that there was anything immoral
about folks moving to a place they thought more sympatico.
I did it myself, when I fled the Wisconsin of Robin Beard
and Bill Brock for the Wisconsin of Frank Zeidler and the
Lafollettes. What I do suspect, though, is that some folks
would become angry about what they perceived as a conspiracy
against their home state, that they would refuse to listen
to what said 'outsiders' had to say.
Any Granite Staters want to add anything about how a
carpetbagger like Meldrin Thompson got elected governor,
after moving in from Georgia?"
--
Orange Mike
Matthew Russotto
Lee S. Billings <stard...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <ap9rje$ip5$4...@news3.bu.edu>, mj...@bu.edu says...
>
>>"So, while I see some superficial similarities, I also see a very
>>dramatic difference in this group -- they basically want to work
>>by forcing their views on others rather than convincing others to vote
>>with them."
>
>Which is highly ironic for a Libertarian movement -- as I am given to
>understand that Libertarianism is all about *not* forcing people to do things.
Libertarians, in general, do not subscribe to a definition of
"coercion" where it is coercion to prevent a government from using
force to impose its will (or the will of the people, for that matter)
Allan Wheeler
> In article <3DB75681...@speakeasy.net>, sbri...@speakeasy.net says...
> >
> >"Shmuel A. Kahn" wrote:
> >
> >> The other day on Slashdot, I saw an item [1] about this project [2], and
> knowi
> ng
> >> the educated mostly libertarian POVs many people here hold on limiting
> >> governmental powers, was wondering what y'all think about this type of gig.
> >
> > All they have to do is get 20,000 libertarians to agree. No problem....
>
> <SPLORT!>
>
> Celine
I first saw something like this proposed in a novel, "The Harrad
Experiment" by Robert H. Rimmer. They didn't specify the state, but
suggested moving there and legalizing many sexual practices as well as
remaking society in their own image.
IMHO it will be difficult to make work on a large scale. The biggest
problem will be sustaining the effort. There are not enough properties
for sale in any state at any one time to signifigantly affect the
outcome of the first election. It would require a sustained effort,
over many years. So it is not just getting 20,000 libertarians to
agree once, but getting them to launch a sustained multi-year project
of working together.
Al
barbara trumpinski-roberts
> All they have to do is get 20,000 libertarians to agree. No problem....
*kitten*
-- barbara trumpinski-roberts (smotu) ACES Library kit...@uiuc.edu
"The love of a cat is unconditional but always subject to negotiation.
You are never in charge." Marge Piercy
"I'm reminded that "love" is a verb - and an active one, at that."
Pat 'jezebel' Kight http://kitten.gundo.com
Prophet
> And _I_ never meant to imply that there was anything immoral
> about folks moving to a place they thought more sympatico.
> I did it myself, when I fled the Wisconsin of Robin Beard
> and Bill Brock for the Wisconsin of Frank Zeidler and the
> Lafollettes. What I do suspect, though, is that some folks
> would become angry about what they perceived as a conspiracy
> against their home state, that they would refuse to listen
> to what said 'outsiders' had to say.
>
> Any Granite Staters want to add anything about how a
> carpetbagger like Meldrin Thompson got elected governor,
> after moving in from Georgia?"
>
>
He wasn't from Massachusetts or California. That was a good
start. He said all the right (wing) things and garnered the
support of William Loeb, owner and editor of the Manchester
Union Leader. Once he had Willy Loeb on his side, it was all
gravy.
(Note: I was too young to vote in the Mel Thompson days.)
Kitsune Thorn
>
> "Kitsune Thorn" <kitsun...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:nf3u9.16305$vq2.6...@news1.east.cox.net...
> >
> > "Silicon Shaman" <Silicon...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:apa8pd$5ln$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > >
> > > "Sagittaria" <sagit...@softhome.net> wrote in message
> > > news:Xns92B1BC9223...@127.0.0.1...
> > > > "Silicon Shaman" <Silicon...@btopenworld.com> wrote in
> > > > news:ap6fr3$l5c$1...@sparta.btinternet.com:
> > > >
> > that. It's just a matter of finding the land. (Tony thinks maybe some
> where
> > near Fiji.) Then I guess we'll need a flag and some tea . . . :) But
> > seriously, if anyone is really interested in something like an island
> > retreat that could later turn out to be more please e-mail for more
> detailed
> > info on the plan. There would of course *have* to be a Callahanish pub
> > there. :)
>
> P&E
>
> Sounds interesting, have you considered islands around the top end of New
> Zealand? Similar climate [a little cooler] and a much more liberal
> government. More likely to be okay about losing a chunk or two of land,
> probably because they have so much unoccupied. Plus, even further away
from
> anywhere that terrorists, etc would be interested in.
>
> --
> Silicon Shaman
> Subversives 'R' Us
> I think, therefore I'm dangerous.
>
>
of the Castle.
--
"Peace is an extension of war by political means. Plenty of elbowroom is
pleasanter - and much safer." -R.A.H.-
Michael Holmes
: In article <ap9rje$ip5$4...@news3.bu.edu>, mj...@bu.edu says...
: ...
:>"This plan, however, doesn't seem to care -- they're simply looking
:>to _move_ enough people into a low-populated state to _force_ their
:>agenda on the rest of the populace."
: Well, it's not deliberate, but this happens all the time, as people move
: from more urban areas to more rural ones, or small towns 30 miles from
: larger ones are transformed into bedroom communities.
"That's a substantially different process, though, in that it's
an effect of a different cause, and a slower, disorganized cause at
that. That's more growth and change via a more natural evolution
of the community."
"As described, this is more of a 'deliberate invasion' with a specific
cause -- to get the laws of the community changed."
So long as
: you're allowed to move in without restriction, and once you live there,
: you can vote there, what can anyone do about this? (And how fair would
: it be to give people that lived in some area 20 years ago veto power
: over changes in laws, say.)
"I'm not suggesting there be some law against this, though, or that
'natives' be given special priority in a legal sense over newcomers.
I am, however, expressing distaste for this plan based on what I see
as arrogance and a willingness to basically force their agenda on
others."
"And I wonder how excited our more libertarian patrons would be
if it were the communist party of american suggesting this plan,
and if their town or state were the target?"
:>"So, while I see some superficial similarities, I also see a very
:>dramatic difference in this group -- they basically want to work
:>by forcing their views on others rather than convincing others to vote
:>with them."
: As described here, the plan is a pretty silly idea. Do the math.
"True, it'll almost certainly come to nothing, and I probably
shouldn't be this cranky about something that is more fantasy than
reality... " :-)
tluton
"Shmuel A. Kahn" <shmuel@kam-motion_SHPAM.com> wrote in message
news:3DB67518.1070602@kam-motion_SHPAM.com...
> The other day on Slashdot, I saw an item [1] about this project [2], and
knowing
> the educated mostly libertarian POVs many people here hold on limiting
> governmental powers, was wondering what y'all think about this type of
gig.
>
membership will
> take a jump next time they update the counter.
>
> My only two issues with this project are:
> 1) It's pretty naive to think that even 20,000 activists can convince
enough
> people to make a big enough block within a population of 1.5 million.
> 2) The Federal Government is NEVER going to let this happen. I mean just
suppose
> they make it work, and even show a profit (statewise), you will have other
states
> copying them, even without the body of activists - just by imitating their
new
> laws etc. This would scare the Ashcroft type of politico shitless.
>
> Any comments?
> Anyone going to join?
> I'm pretty sure we have many patrons already living in the proposed target
states.
>
> Shmuel the Kahn man
>
> [1]
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/21/1325228&mode=thread&tid=103
> [2] http://www.freestateproject.org/index.htm
>
I don't think this will work.
As I understand this, 20,000 Libertarians will move into a state that is
already leaning towards libertarianism. They will then try to act as
missionaries, and get the states voters to fully embrace libertarian values,
and get the states laws changed to match.
A few problems that I see
1) Would 20 000 people uproot themselves from their lives, quit their jobs,
pull their kids out of school, sell their homes, and move to a state that
could be thousands of miles away, all for the long term goal of creating a
free state?
2) when word gets out that 20 000 people are moving to a state with a
relatively low population, housing prices are going to go up by quite a bit
3) Would the Alaskans (to name a state) accept 20 000 'outsiders' moving in
and telling them what to do?
4) widespread repeal of drug laws will have the feds on your doorstep faster
than you can say Panama, I don't care if it is a US state. Heck, one of the
bigger issues in the discussion of decriminalizing marijuana here in Canada
is what would the US response be.
Sagittaria
news:2kIu9.70230$mxk1....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
> 4) widespread repeal of drug laws will have the feds on your
> doorstep faster than you can say Panama, I don't care if it is a
> US state. Heck, one of the bigger issues in the discussion of
> decriminalizing marijuana here in Canada is what would the US
> response be.
Mass immigration to Canada, is my bet.
tluton
> "tluton" <tlu...@rogers.com> wrote in
> news:2kIu9.70230$mxk1....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
>
>
> > 4) widespread repeal of drug laws will have the feds on your
> > doorstep faster than you can say Panama, I don't care if it is a
> > US state. Heck, one of the bigger issues in the discussion of
> > decriminalizing marijuana here in Canada is what would the US
> > response be.
>
> Mass immigration to Canada, is my bet.
>
coupled with our low drinking age will solve our tourism problem overnight.
But seriously, the US govt has already voiced its displeasure. When a recent
senate report came out in favour of decriminalization, the US ambassador
delivered a note that stated that it would be 'unwise' for Canada to do
this. Because of the large size of the US-Can border, and the fact that most
resources go to the US-Mex border patrol, there is a large fear of Canadian
pot being grown and smuggled south into the US. The US does not want to have
to increase the size of its northern border security (that's partly why they
ripped into us over 9/11, they want improved border security by having us
pay for it)
Kitsune Thorn
"Kitsune Thorn" <kitsun...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:nf3u9.16305$vq2.6...@news1.east.cox.net...
> >
> >
> that. It's just a matter of finding the land. (Tony thinks maybe some
where
> near Fiji.) Then I guess we'll need a flag and some tea . . . :) But
> seriously, if anyone is really interested in something like an island
> retreat that could later turn out to be more please e-mail for more
detailed
> info on the plan. There would of course *have* to be a Callahanish pub
> there. :)
>
> --
And of course, my e-mail starts behaving oddly the next day. I've just
figured out that I can send but not receive right now. Until it gets fixed
please use this one ... Castle...@cox.net
Sorry about that. If anyone sent anything, I didn't get it.
Aaaarrrgggghhhh!
--
"Anything free is worth what you pay for it." -R.A.H.-
John Kelsey
>John Kelsey <y...@somehost.somedomain> wrote:
...
>: Well, it's not deliberate, but this happens all the time, as people move
>: from more urban areas to more rural ones, or small towns 30 miles from
>: larger ones are transformed into bedroom communities.
>
>"That's a substantially different process, though, in that it's
>an effect of a different cause, and a slower, disorganized cause at
>that. That's more growth and change via a more natural evolution
>of the community."
Hmmm. I see that there is a difference, but it seems like a small one. In
either case, I'm living in state X, and outsiders show up in droves and change
the laws under which I'm living. The only difference is the idea that a bunch
of people are specifically moving to the state for the purpose of changing the
laws.
It seems a little unfriendly to say "let's move into state X and turn them into
a libertarian paradise" or "let's move into state Y and turn them into a
cradle-to-grave Scandinavian style welfare state." But is it the intention of
the people who change the voting pattern in your state that's the problem, or
the fact that you get outvoted and forced into either leaving the state or
living with dumb new laws?
...
>So long as
>: you're allowed to move in without restriction, and once you live there,
>: you can vote there, what can anyone do about this? (And how fair would
>: it be to give people that lived in some area 20 years ago veto power
>: over changes in laws, say.)
>
>"I'm not suggesting there be some law against this, though, or that
>'natives' be given special priority in a legal sense over newcomers.
>I am, however, expressing distaste for this plan based on what I see
>as arrogance and a willingness to basically force their agenda on
>others."
I see your point, but I guess I don't see that there's any more arrogance or
willingness to force your agenda on others here than in any other situation
where voting takes place. Suppose I am a smoker who wants to keep smoking in
my own restaurant. If the majority of voters (or their representatives) decide
to ban smoking in restaurants, my desire to keep smoking in my own restaurant
doesn't matter, and neither does it matter whether I just opened the restaurant
up, or it's been in the family for three coughing generations of heavy smokers.
I don't see that it matters much to me whether that change takes place because
a bunch of anti-smoking activists move into the state, or because people within
the state change their attitudes. Either way, others are using their
majority to impose their will upon me.
>"And I wonder how excited our more libertarian patrons would be
>if it were the communist party of american suggesting this plan,
>and if their town or state were the target?"
I'd be pretty annoyed. But then, I'm *always* outvoted, except in the rare
occasions when I vote for a Dem or Rep for some reason.
>:>"So, while I see some superficial similarities, I also see a very
>:>dramatic difference in this group -- they basically want to work
>:>by forcing their views on others rather than convincing others to vote
>:>with them."
This is basically how government works. You have to convince a majority of
voters who show up at the polls (however the votes are counted) to go for
something, and then you get to use the police and courts to impose your will on
others. Or did you think most people were paying their taxes voluntarily? Or
that those DEA agents who raid medical marijuana clinics in California were
just there to peaceably convince the cancer and AIDS patients that marijuana
isn't the best medicine to ease their symptoms? Or that the places that pass
smoking bans, or assault-rifle bans, or whatever, are just asking you for your
cooperation?
Even repealing laws works this way. If the majority of Americans decide to get
rid of Social Security, the fact that you're expecting it to retire on won't
matter. If the majority of Americans decide that copyright protection or
patent protection ought to be decreased or eliminated, then the fact that you
own a bunch of patents will just not matter much.
>: As described here, the plan is a pretty silly idea. Do the math.
>
>"True, it'll almost certainly come to nothing, and I probably
>shouldn't be this cranky about something that is more fantasy than
>reality... " :-)
Yes. But the example of your state demographics changing radically happens all
the time. I'm curious what it is about this idea that's annoying to you. Is
it mainly the imposition of others' values upon you? Or the intention to do
so?
John Kelsey
tlu...@rogers.com says...
...
>4) widespread repeal of drug laws will have the feds on your doorstep faster
>than you can say Panama, I don't care if it is a US state. Heck, one of the
>bigger issues in the discussion of decriminalizing marijuana here in Canada
>is what would the US response be.
Just ask the folks running medical marijuana operations in California how well
the feds respect the state law making such operations legal.
--
Matthew Russotto
tluton <tlu...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>
>But seriously, the US govt has already voiced its displeasure. When a recent
>senate report came out in favour of decriminalization, the US ambassador
>delivered a note that stated that it would be 'unwise' for Canada to do
>this. Because of the large size of the US-Can border, and the fact that most
>resources go to the US-Mex border patrol, there is a large fear of Canadian
>pot being grown and smuggled south into the US. The US does not want to have
>to increase the size of its northern border security (that's partly why they
>ripped into us over 9/11, they want improved border security by having us
>pay for it)
So? It's Canada, right? Canada loves to remind Americans that Canada
isn't the US. What do you think the US would do, invade? Even Ronald
Reagan couldn't have mustered up the popular support for that one.
Michael Holmes
>In article <apem0i$dc2$1...@news3.bu.edu>, mj...@bu.edu says...
>>"That's a substantially different process, though, in that it's
>>an effect of a different cause, and a slower, disorganized cause at
>>that. That's more growth and change via a more natural evolution
>>of the community."
>Hmmm. I see that there is a difference, but it seems like a small one. In
>either case, I'm living in state X, and outsiders show up in droves and
>change the laws under which I'm living. The only difference is the idea
>that a bunch of people are specifically moving to the state for the purpose
>of changing the laws.
"Plus the timing. In the 'natural' situation, people aren't showing up in
droves all at once, so the voting patterns aren't changing overnight.
In the 'deliberate' situation, people are showing up in droves rather
more rapidly."
"And, in the 'natural' situation, you have plenty of people moving
to the state and being changed by the new community just as much as
they are changing the community. So some of the newcomers might not
actually vote all that differently from oldtimers. Change, when it
comes, is more gradual, and in a sense more natural."
"That allows for more give-and-take between newcomers and oldtimers,
too. And there's no coordination among newcomers, either."
>It seems a little unfriendly to say "let's move into state X and turn
>them into a libertarian paradise" or "let's move into state Y and turn
>them into a cradle-to-grave Scandinavian style welfare state." But is
>it the intention of the people who change the voting pattern in your
>state that's the problem, or the fact that you get outvoted and forced
>into either leaving the state or living with dumb new laws?
"Hm, more the intention, I guess. To me, this just smacks of spoiled
brat syndrome, too. These people have had limited success in
a national forum, so they want to force themselves into success in
a smaller venue. It strikes me as rather antithetical to some
of the inherent goodness of being a democracy in the first place."
"And, sure, I'd definitely be cranky at these carpetbaggers swooping
in to change our laws like that. Even if I were sympathetic to
their ideals, their methods would turn me off."
"Let me point out that I'm also iffy on many of the redistricting
changes that get made, particularly those that are clearly being
made just to keep one party or the other in power. It seems to me
that that is also 'monkeying' with voting demographics in a similar
'hinkey' way as these 'Free Staters' are planning. Not really
part of the ideal of true democracy."
>...
>>"I'm not suggesting there be some law against this, though, or that
>>'natives' be given special priority in a legal sense over newcomers.
>>I am, however, expressing distaste for this plan based on what I see
>>as arrogance and a willingness to basically force their agenda on
>>others."
>I see your point, but I guess I don't see that there's any more arrogance or
>willingness to force your agenda on others here than in any other situation
>where voting takes place.
"Uhm... it may be we'll never see eye to eye on this, then. Just
making my vote isn't arrogance. Or force. Gathering a large number
of people just like me and moving all to one area just to 'win', that,
however, seems arrogant."
Suppose I am a smoker who wants to keep smoking in
>my own restaurant. If the majority of voters (or their representatives)
>decide to ban smoking in restaurants, my desire to keep smoking in my own
>restaurant doesn't matter, and neither does it matter whether I just
>opened the restaurant up, or it's been in the family for three coughing
>generations of heavy smokers. I don't see that it matters much to me
>whether that change takes place because a bunch of anti-smoking activists
>move into the state, or because people within the state change their
>attitudes. Either way, others are using their majority to impose their
>will upon me.
"Yeah... but I still see one way as inherently 'slimier' than the other.
One seems a natural outgrowth of having any kind of vote -- the people
make choices based on the issues and their views, and something gets
decided. On the other, a group of outsiders moves in to quickly make
changes THEY want regardless of the people who have been living there
all along."
"The end results may be the same, the means seem different. Different
enough for me to be squicked by the Free Staters."
>>"And I wonder how excited our more libertarian patrons would be
>>if it were the communist party of american suggesting this plan,
>>and if their town or state were the target?"
>I'd be pretty annoyed. But then, I'm *always* outvoted, except in the rare
>occasions when I vote for a Dem or Rep for some reason.
"Well, yeah. I get that too, sometimes, but that's part of the deal
with democracy."
"Hm, how about this -- what if the situation was that, for a state
referendum, on an issue that initially had lots of positive support,
there suddenly came a slew of misleading ads funded by a conglomerate
from out-of-state, which swayed just enough voters to kill the once-
popular measure by a slim margin. How do you feel about that?"
>>:>"So, while I see some superficial similarities, I also see a very
>>:>dramatic difference in this group -- they basically want to work
>>:>by forcing their views on others rather than convincing others to vote
>>:>with them."
>This is basically how government works. You have to convince a majority of
>voters who show up at the polls (however the votes are counted) to go for
>something,
"But that seems to be different... you have to do some _convincing_.
That's the very thing these Free Staters will skip, at least to some
degree."
>and then you get to use the police and courts to impose your
>will on others.
"Will of the people, through the voting. The government IS us.
We get the government we vote for. So I don't agree. If all
this was really an imposition of will, if people REALLY, TRULY
didn't want it, then we wouldn't have it. Because we'd vote them
out."
"Now... I'm not that naive, I have some issues that make me more
sympathetic to your viewpoint than it might sound. Big money plays a
hugely distorting role in politics, and money may in fact be the most
anti-democracy problem with the U.S. today. Richer people get more
say than poorer people in our political system, and that's simply,
basically, not right. It's not even really democracy."
"Media, too, is failing us miserably. By asking soft questions
for fear of losing access to the president, for paying more attention
to ratings than facts, we don't have as well-informed an electorate
as we should."
"So, among other things, these do affect the quality of voting
that voters do... "
[...some snippage... I had some response but it was kinda getting
off track... ]
>Even repealing laws works this way. If the majority of Americans decide
>to get
>rid of Social Security, the fact that you're expecting it to retire on won't
>matter. If the majority of Americans decide that copyright protection or
>patent protection ought to be decreased or eliminated, then the fact that you
>own a bunch of patents will just not matter much.
"Well... yes and no... there are checks and balances in the Constitution,
so that even a pure majority of voters can't do some things."
>>: As described here, the plan is a pretty silly idea. Do the math.
>>
>>"True, it'll almost certainly come to nothing, and I probably
>>shouldn't be this cranky about something that is more fantasy than
>>reality... " :-)
>Yes. But the example of your state demographics changing radically
>happens all the time.
"Radically, but over time. Rarely -- if ever -- as quickly as this."
I'm curious what it is about this idea that's annoying to you. Is
>it mainly the imposition of others' values upon you? Or the intention to do
>so?
"It's the rapidity of the action -- near instantaneous, versus a
slower, natural shifting based on natural emigration. It's also
the intent, the idea that 'if we move enough people into this
area, we'll get our way'. It *is* different, it's a group action,
deliberate, planned, and in my opinion not particularly in tune
with what a democracy should really be about."
Kitsune Thorn
>
> "Kitsune Thorn" <kitsun...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:nf3u9.16305$vq2.6...@news1.east.cox.net...
> > >
> figured out that I can send but not receive right now. Until it gets fixed
> please use this one ... Castle...@cox.net
>
> Sorry about that. If anyone sent anything, I didn't get it.
> Aaaarrrgggghhhh!
>
> --
O.K. It's fixed. No more lost mail, my address works again. Hooray! Thanks
everyone for bearing with me.
--
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." -R.A.H.-
tluton
"Matthew Russotto" <russ...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:F_qdnSO_T5Z...@giganews.com...
> In article <qNJu9.71030$mxk1....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
> tluton <tlu...@rogers.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >But seriously, the US govt has already voiced its displeasure. When a
recent
> >senate report came out in favour of decriminalization, the US ambassador
> >delivered a note that stated that it would be 'unwise' for Canada to do
> >this. Because of the large size of the US-Can border, and the fact that
most
> >resources go to the US-Mex border patrol, there is a large fear of
Canadian
> >pot being grown and smuggled south into the US. The US does not want to
have
> >to increase the size of its northern border security (that's partly why
they
> >ripped into us over 9/11, they want improved border security by having us
> >pay for it)
>
> So? It's Canada, right? Canada loves to remind Americans that Canada
> isn't the US. What do you think the US would do, invade? Even Ronald
> Reagan couldn't have mustered up the popular support for that one.
No, not invade. Well, at least not with troops, but with college kids
looking for some legal weed :-)
But the war on drugs has never (IMHO) been a well run military machine. What
the feds are doing wrt medical marijuana in California is a good example, as
is the case of the Conch Republic. I'm worried about what kind of
unbe-leaf-able things would we see at the border, and I don't mean toke'in
measures to stop smuggling
As well, there are several economic measures that the US can take against
us, in areas that have nothing to do with drugs, to try and force us off our
'high' horse. The Canadian economy is way too dependant on exports to the
US, enough so that a few tariffs can put things out of joint.
Gessika Rovario-Cole
quote:
>
> "Joe Thompson" <kense...@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
> news:slrnarhr1f.1q...@vento.tomsvw.com...
> > In article <apa8pd$5ln$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>, Silicon Shaman wrote:
> > > Hmm, now all we need is an unoccupied bit of land, and lets see if we
> can't
> > > get it *right* this time!
> Come to think of it, It's possible to take household waste, vitrify it,
> foamed you get something like a hard pumice stone that floats. You could
> build an island out of that and move it where ever you want. [basically a
> huge raft]. Has possibilities.
Until the first *big* storm.
How would something like that be anchored? I guess you'd have to tow it to
an underwater rock formation. It is an interesting question...and an
interesting idea.:)
Gesi
--
And they said our love would fade.
It gets stronger every day.
- Voltaire
(Anniversary)
Silicon Shaman
"Gessika Rovario-Cole" <g...@flambe.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1828c34a2...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
Actually, I was thinking free-floating. As for storms, well several cubic
kilometres of rock, even if it's foamed rock, still has a hell of a lot of
mass. it should ride them out okay. if the draft is deep enough then waves
and the problem of 'bridging' shouldn't be a problem. [bridging, where the
bow is on one wave and the stern on another, leaving the middle unsupported,
result=snap.]
Hmm lets see 5km x 3km [wedge shape] by 500 meters draft at 300kg/cubic
meter. That's 1,125,000,000 metric tons Whoa !!! I think it'd need to be
hollow in places. Either that or play with the foaming process and get the
mass down to about half that. [the quoted figure I got was from a material
not really intended for this use]
Although how the hell you propel even a small island is beyond me. Really
big hydro-jets? trained whales? Still, a floating island sounds fun, You
could cruise around the Pacific for example. Besides, if you don't stay very
long in any one spot, you don't do as much damage to the local ecosystem by
cutting off the sunlight. Although come to think of it, at 500 meters depth,
there isn't a hell of a lot of sunlight anyway !
Marten Kemp
You might be able to use the temp differental between the air and the
bottom of the keel to generate power. Plus if you put a rudder and masts
on it you could sail it where you wanted to go.
-- Marten Kemp
Silicon Shaman
"Marten Kemp" <marte...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3DBF4D9C...@earthlink.net...
**BOGGLE** I'm just trying to imagine the amount of yardage you'd need to
sail something that big!!
Woohaa.. Call it the Irish Rover! [thinking of the version by the Pogues
and the improbable size of the ship]
D.J.
"Silicon Shaman" <Silicon...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
] **BOGGLE** I'm just trying to imagine the amount of yardage you'd need to
] sail something that big!!
Nah. You don't want it to go anywhere... just put enough sail on it
to go about 2-4 knots.
Of course, you could set up a web page, and let people remotely
control it... you may or may not want to prevent victim's families
from being able to access that web page.
D.J.
--
Disclaimer: Standard.
Updated: October 20, 2002 my 1E AD&D game world.
Over 200 maps and pages of info.
http://blue7green.crosswinds.net/crestar/index.html
John Ockerbloom
>:>"Naive, and presumptuous," says Jezebel, wrinkling her brow in distaste.
>:> "It also smacks of a bizarre form of cultural elitism.
>:>
>:>"If I get this right, these people plan to pack up and move their
>:>families into a state, ignore the historical, civic and cultural
>:>traditions of those who already live there, and tell them, `We know
>:>better than you do how you ought to live.'
>
>: <cocked eyebrow> Not to be snarky, Jez, but you've just described pretty
>: much every activist of any stripe I've ever had the mis/fortune to deal
>: with.
>
>"The difference is that most of those activists work from the bottom-up.
>Grass-roots, as in from the community. And working on change in the
>community they are part of, which develops and grows, almost organically."
"It would seem to me," says John, "that an organic approach would
also be more in line with 'classical' views of economic markets,
which I understand to be what many libertarians favor. For instance,
prices go up and down not because someone planned them to, but
because natural 'organic' forces influence the supply and demand."
"So, if libertarianism is generally sound, then wouldn't you expect
a state takeover to most likely occur by libertarians naturally
moving into an area that they found particularly hospitable to
their views? And once they're there, and making a difference
in their community, other like-minded people following? And
if the difference is for the better, then I'd expect many previous
residents to get with the program too."
"Why aren't the Free State fans, then, just moving to New Hampshire,
or Montana, or wherever they like best, and then telling their friends
'Come join us!' Why are they instead waiting for tens of thousands
of other folks to tell them where to move? (Comparisons with the
Mayflower or the Mormon settlements aren't quite appropriate there;
when you're crossing an ocean, or settling a largely uninhabited desert,
you need a certain number of people just to survive. That isn't
the case here.)"
"The Free Stater's tactical approach seems to me to represent an odd
lack of faith in the project. But I'm not a libertarian myself, so
perhaps I'm missing something that someone here can explain."
John Mark Ockerbloom
Basil
<Silicon...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Actually, I was thinking free-floating. As for storms, well several cubic
>kilometres of rock, even if it's foamed rock, still has a hell of a lot of
>mass. it should ride them out okay. if the draft is deep enough then waves
>and the problem of 'bridging' shouldn't be a problem. [bridging, where the
>bow is on one wave and the stern on another, leaving the middle unsupported,
>result=snap.]
> Hmm lets see 5km x 3km [wedge shape] by 500 meters draft at 300kg/cubic
>meter. That's 1,125,000,000 metric tons
"Repeating your calculation, I see you mean 500 meters *thick*. At a
density of 0.3, only 150 meters will be actual draft; you'll have 350
meters above the waterline. That alone will prevent any problems from
storm waves swamping the boat. And at 3000m x 5000m, you don't have to
worry about tipping over even with that much height above the
waterline."
>Whoa !!! I think it'd need to be hollow in places.
"Why? the density is *way* below that of water. Or are you concerned
about getting 3.75 cubic kilomaters of stuff?"
>Either that or play with the foaming process and get the
>mass down to about half that. [the quoted figure I got was from a material
>not really intended for this use]
"Again, the desity is low enough to float already. Unless you're
planning to build/assemble this on dry land, the mass is no problem.
And if you *are* planning to assemble this on dry land, the mass is a
minute problem compared to finding room to build it--5km by 3km empty
spaces aren't exactly common."
>Although how the hell you propel even a small island is beyond me. Really
>big hydro-jets? trained whales?
"Wind, currents, and a lot of patience. As someone esle pointed out,
sails are usable; you don't need *huge* sails, either."
>Still, a floating island sounds fun, You
>could cruise around the Pacific for example. Besides, if you don't stay very
>long in any one spot, you don't do as much damage to the local ecosystem by
>cutting off the sunlight. Although come to think of it, at 500 meters depth,
>there isn't a hell of a lot of sunlight anyway !
"Not even at 150 meters." ;)
http://www.dryit.com -- the best at-home food dehydrator! And source of _Dry It---You'll Like It!_
To reach me, use buzz <at> hod <dot> aarg <dot> net
--
We see then how far the monuments of wit and learning are more durable
than the monuments of power...For have not the verses of Homer continued
2500 years, or more...during which time infinite palaces, temples,
castles, cities have been decayed and demolished? -- Francis Bacon
Prophet
> "Why aren't the Free State fans, then, just moving to New Hampshire,
> or Montana, or wherever they like best, and then telling their friends
> 'Come join us!' Why are they instead waiting for tens of thousands
> of other folks to tell them where to move? (Comparisons with the
> Mayflower or the Mormon settlements aren't quite appropriate there;
> when you're crossing an ocean, or settling a largely uninhabited desert,
> you need a certain number of people just to survive. That isn't
> the case here.)"
>
Why not Canada? There must be a province or territory in need of
a few thousand libertarians. Maybe we could work out some sort of
exchange.
Silicon Shaman
"Basil" <bas...@hod.aarg.net> wrote in message
news:app8j2$3rjl4$2...@ID-154378.news.dfncis.de...
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 01:38:19 +0000 (UTC), "Silicon Shaman"
> <Silicon...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
> "Repeating your calculation, I see you mean 500 meters *thick*. At a
> density of 0.3, only 150 meters will be actual draft; you'll have 350
> meters above the waterline. That alone will prevent any problems from
> storm waves swamping the boat. And at 3000m x 5000m, you don't have to
> worry about tipping over even with that much height above the
> waterline."
Doh! I can't believe I made *that* mistake. Yeah, thanks you are quite
right.
> >Whoa !!! I think it'd need to be hollow in places.
>
> "Why? the density is *way* below that of water. Or are you concerned
> about getting 3.75 cubic kilomaters of stuff?"
Uhm, yes there is that point. Although considering it's basically made out
of ash from household waste incinertors that's reheated to a higher temp and
vitified, actually getting it shouldn't be a problem. According to the
figures I was reading.[book,"alternative solutions to rubbish problems"] New
York alone produces 5,000 metric tons a month of ash. Who knows how much
it'd produce if they incinerated all their waste. And that's just New York,
add a couple of other big cities and you'd have enough to build a fleet
maybe.
> >Either that or play with the foaming process and get the
> >mass down to about half that. [the quoted figure I got was from a
material
> >not really intended for this use]
>
> "Again, the desity is low enough to float already. Unless you're
> planning to build/assemble this on dry land, the mass is no problem.
> And if you *are* planning to assemble this on dry land, the mass is a
> minute problem compared to finding room to build it--5km by 3km empty
> spaces aren't exactly common."
I was thinking of damming a Fjord, and building in that. Like a really big
drydock. No the problem is that with that much mass, would the lower levels
withstand the compression?
The alternative would be to build modules, and cement them together in the
water. But then your island has fracture planes built in.
> >Although how the hell you propel even a small island is beyond me. Really
> >big hydro-jets? trained whales?
>
> "Wind, currents, and a lot of patience. As someone esle pointed out,
> sails are usable; you don't need *huge* sails, either."
You know, I *like* that idea. It's ecologically sound, and it presents a
fantastic mental image.
Now if only one could figure out how to get the island to float in the
*air*. That would be really cool ;o) [just kidding]
Joe Thompson
> Uhm, yes there is that point. Although considering it's basically made out
> of ash from household waste incinertors that's reheated to a higher temp and
> vitified, actually getting it shouldn't be a problem. According to the
> figures I was reading.[book,"alternative solutions to rubbish problems"] New
> York alone produces 5,000 metric tons a month of ash. Who knows how much
> it'd produce if they incinerated all their waste. And that's just New York,
> add a couple of other big cities and you'd have enough to build a fleet
> maybe.
One cubic meter of water = 1000 kilograms; 3.75 cubic kilometers = 3.75
billion cubic meters. So we need something over a trillion kilograms of
stuff to build this island out of, assuming a density of 0.3 (and that I
haven't flubbed my math).
[snip space to build in issues]
> The alternative would be to build modules, and cement them together in the
> water. But then your island has fracture planes built in.
Not an issue if the interface is stronger than the material. Think of
epoxy bonding cardboard -- the cardboard will tear if enough stress is
applied, but not along the epoxy line, and if you're subjecting it to
that level of stress it would tear even if it were a solid piece.
> Now if only one could figure out how to get the island to float in the
> *air*. That would be really cool ;o) [just kidding]
Aerogels, plus vacuum chambers, plus fan propulsion... -- Joe
--
Joe Thompson | Geek for hire in the DC area
kense...@linuxmail.org | PC construction, repair, software, networking
"i thought that channel was all about basil and paprika"
-- Walt, #everything, commenting on the Spice Channel
Basil
<Silicon...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Basil" <bas...@hod.aarg.net> wrote in message
>news:app8j2$3rjl4$2...@ID-154378.news.dfncis.de...
>> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 01:38:19 +0000 (UTC), "Silicon Shaman"
>> <Silicon...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Repeating your calculation, I see you mean 500 meters *thick*. At a
>> density of 0.3, only 150 meters will be actual draft; you'll have 350
>> meters above the waterline. That alone will prevent any problems from
>> storm waves swamping the boat. And at 3000m x 5000m, you don't have to
>> worry about tipping over even with that much height above the
>> waterline."
>
>Doh! I can't believe I made *that* mistake. Yeah, thanks you are quite
>right.
>
>> >Whoa !!! I think it'd need to be hollow in places.
>>
>> "Why? the density is *way* below that of water. Or are you concerned
>> about getting 3.75 cubic kilomaters of stuff?"
>
>Uhm, yes there is that point. Although considering it's basically made out
>of ash from household waste incinertors that's reheated to a higher temp and
>vitified, actually getting it shouldn't be a problem. According to the
>figures I was reading.[book,"alternative solutions to rubbish problems"] New
>York alone produces 5,000 metric tons a month of ash. Who knows how much
>it'd produce if they incinerated all their waste. And that's just New York,
>add a couple of other big cities and you'd have enough to build a fleet
>maybe.
"Not all big cities incinerate. ICBW, but I think that's mostly an
East Coast situation."
>> >Either that or play with the foaming process and get the
>> >mass down to about half that. [the quoted figure I got was from a
>material
>> >not really intended for this use]
>>
>> "Again, the desity is low enough to float already. Unless you're
>> planning to build/assemble this on dry land, the mass is no problem.
>> And if you *are* planning to assemble this on dry land, the mass is a
>> minute problem compared to finding room to build it--5km by 3km empty
>> spaces aren't exactly common."
>
>I was thinking of damming a Fjord, and building in that. Like a really big
>drydock. No the problem is that with that much mass, would the lower levels
>withstand the compression?
>The alternative would be to build modules, and cement them together in the
>water. But then your island has fracture planes built in.
"I really don't think you could build something of that size anywhere
except in the water. A damned fjord would have an uneven bottom, after
all."
>> >Although how the hell you propel even a small island is beyond me. Really
>> >big hydro-jets? trained whales?
>>
>> "Wind, currents, and a lot of patience. As someone esle pointed out,
>> sails are usable; you don't need *huge* sails, either."
>
>You know, I *like* that idea. It's ecologically sound, and it presents a
>fantastic mental image.
>Now if only one could figure out how to get the island to float in the
>*air*. That would be really cool ;o) [just kidding]
"You'd need a *lot* of cows."
"Methane is less dense than air, after all, and would provide lift."
Basil step over to an x-window, and gets it to play a clip from a
Hollywood Overblown Fantasy Film that's never been produced (as far as
anyone knows (or so we hope)). Scene shows Eager Apprentice and Wise
Old Mage.
E.A.: "But master, what keeps the Marvelous Floating City in the air?
W.O.M: "Cow farts, my young apprentice."
http://www.dryit.com -- the best at-home food dehydrator! And source of _Dry It---You'll Like It!_
To reach me, use buzz <at> hod <dot> aarg <dot> net
--
You only live once--but if you work it right, once is enough. -- Joe
E. Lewis
Silicon Shaman
ROFL!! So that's how the cow jumped over the moon. !
Ohh, just a thought, definitely no-smoking allowed !
^^^^^hang ona minute... Methane is *more* dense than air.
Bugger, there goes that idea.
--
Silicon Shaman.
There are very few personal problems that can't be solved by a suitable
application of high explosives.
Silicon Shaman
Okay, I think you win the Niven prize for speculative engineering.
Kitsune Thorn
>
> Okay, I think you win the Niven prize for speculative engineering.
>
> --
>
I nominate the lot of you as team. Now all we need is a bunch of money, a
whole lot of garbage, some bed sheets, a _really_ big fan, . . . ;)
---
"Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, and why.
Then do it." -R.A.H.-
Kitsune Thorn
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 21:37:45 +0000 (UTC), "Silicon Shaman"
> <Silicon...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Basil" <bas...@hod.aarg.net> wrote in message
> >news:app8j2$3rjl4$2...@ID-154378.news.dfncis.de...
> >> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 01:38:19 +0000 (UTC), "Silicon Shaman"
> >> <Silicon...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> >>
> >Now if only one could figure out how to get the island to float in the
> >*air*. That would be really cool ;o) [just kidding]
>
> "You'd need a *lot* of cows."
>
> "Methane is less dense than air, after all, and would provide lift."
>
Or we could attach an organic anti-gravity makers (cats with buttered toast
strapped to their backs) to the bottom. :) ;)
--
"One man's 'magic' is another man's engineering. 'Supernatural' is a null
word." -R.A.H.-
Basil
<Silicon...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Basil" <bas...@hod.aarg.net> wrote in message
>news:apqcic$45rl2$4...@ID-154378.news.dfncis.de...
>> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 21:37:45 +0000 (UTC), "Silicon Shaman"
>> <Silicon...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>
<much snipage>
>> >Now if only one could figure out how to get the island to float in the
>> >*air*. That would be really cool ;o) [just kidding]
>>
>> "You'd need a *lot* of cows."
>>
>> "Methane is less dense than air, after all, and would provide lift."
>>
>> Basil step over to an x-window, and gets it to play a clip from a
>> Hollywood Overblown Fantasy Film that's never been produced (as far as
>> anyone knows (or so we hope)). Scene shows Eager Apprentice and Wise
>> Old Mage.
>>
>> E.A.: "But master, what keeps the Marvelous Floating City in the air?
>> W.O.M: "Cow farts, my young apprentice."
>
>ROFL!! So that's how the cow jumped over the moon. !
>Ohh, just a thought, definitely no-smoking allowed !
>
>^^^^^hang ona minute... Methane is *more* dense than air.
>Bugger, there goes that idea.
"I don't know where you got your figures, but according to this,"
Basil holds up an *old* Chem-Phys Handbook, "methane's density is
0.558 on a scale where air = 1."
"I admit it's copyright 1926 (hey, it was being thrown away, so I
grbbed it), but I doubt methane's density has doubled in the last 75
years." He chuckles.
http://www.dryit.com -- the best at-home food dehydrator! And source of _Dry It---You'll Like It!_
To reach me, use buzz <at> hod <dot> aarg <dot> net
--
Some years back, the Americans exported Jerry Lewis movies to the rest
of the world. The French, being French, made him an icon and a god. The
Americans are still laughing and the French still haven't gotten the joke.
Gessika Rovario-Cole
Well, you know. Inflation.
Gesi
--
It's so difficult to find authentic banana dye in this town.
- Llewellyn
(http://ozyandmillie.org)
Basil
<mode: deliberately dense>
"Yeah, that's what we're talking about; inflating a balloon big enough
to carry a city into the air."
</mode>
"Hmm....
If you inflate methane, wouldn't that make it less dense?"
http://www.dryit.com -- the best at-home food dehydrator! And source of _Dry It---You'll Like It!_
To reach me, use buzz <at> hod <dot> aarg <dot> net
--
You wake up in the morning, and lo! your purse is magically filled with
twenty-four hours of the...tissue of...your life. It is yours. It is the
most precious of possessions. No one can take it from you. It is unstealable.
And no one receives either more or less than you receive. -- Arnold Bennett
Gregory Baker
"tluton" <tlu...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:qNJu9.71030$mxk1....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
> "Sagittaria" <sagit...@softhome.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns92B3DC623E...@127.0.0.1...
> > "tluton" <tlu...@rogers.com> wrote in
> > news:2kIu9.70230$mxk1....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
> >
> >
> > > 4) widespread repeal of drug laws will have the feds on your
> > > doorstep faster than you can say Panama, I don't care if it is a
> > > US state. Heck, one of the bigger issues in the discussion of
> > > decriminalizing marijuana here in Canada is what would the US
> > > response be.
> >
> >
> Heh. More than one commentator has stated that legalizing marijuana,
> coupled with our low drinking age will solve our tourism problem
overnight.
>
> But seriously, the US govt has already voiced its displeasure. When a
recent
> senate report came out in favour of decriminalization, the US ambassador
> delivered a note that stated that it would be 'unwise' for Canada to do
> this. Because of the large size of the US-Can border, and the fact that
most
> resources go to the US-Mex border patrol, there is a large fear of
Canadian
> pot being grown and smuggled south into the US. The US does not want to
have
> to increase the size of its northern border security (that's partly why
they
> ripped into us over 9/11, they want improved border security by having us
> pay for it)
"There are legal precedents," the Fat Man noted, sitting at his table and
drinking his cup of Coffee (TM). "In 1837, Canadian rebels against the
Crown were using New York State as a base of operations. The British
crossed the border and burned the schooner ''Caroline'' in American waters.
It really riled up many Americans, who wanted another crack at twisting the
lion's tail, but cooler heads in Washington and London realized the British
had the right of hot pursuit, as dubious as that hot pursuit was.
"We really don't want Canada to have higher costs of shipping goods to the
USA and Mexico, and we don't want to increase police patrols over the
border."
The Fat Man stood up and chuckled. "Besides," he added, "what makes you
think the problem is Canadian weed crossing south? What if high-quality
American dope growers ship their boo *north?* Canada can't keep the wacky
tobacky out under NAFTA!"