Free State Project
Frank White
believe big government is bad, laws regulating drug use
and gun possession should be repealed, and private
enterprise should not be regulated, among other things.
Their goal is to have like minded people move to certain
states (New Hampshire, Wyoming, Deleware, and Alaska are
on the top of the list, with an honorable mention for
Montana) in quantity, set up and energize political
movements within those states, and reform its laws and
relationship with the Federal government from the inside.
Comments about pipe dreams and pie in the sky utopian
ideas aside, the thought that comes most to my mind is that
if they intend to have '20,000 liberty-oriented individuals'
move to economically depressed states, all of those people
better bring huge amounts of money and jobs with them or
somebody's going to get shot.
FW
gundude
capacity for reason, but if you understood libertarian economic ideals
you would know that such people care not what economic situation
exists prior to their arrival so long as they may practice unfettered
and unregulated entrepreneurialism so as to make for themselves
whatever economic success they as individuals have the capacity to
produce. Such people wouldn't mind being dropped in a frontier setting
if it meant they were absolutely and unconditionally free to make of
their situation what they might. So these states mentioned as
possibilities for the Free State Project have depressed economies. So
what? The real question is not how much money a participant in the
project can bring with them, but how much independent
entrepreneurialism (or simple untaxed laboring in one's field of
expertise) they can apply to their situation without attracting the
vulture eye of the various governments.
I too have heard of this Free State Project only recently. I was
at the 2nd annual Freedom Summit in Phoenix earlier this month where I
encountered these folks and their proposal. The particulars of this
idea are perhaps new, though the idea itself is not. Others have
wanted to establish SOMEWHERE else to go,...none yet to succeed beyond
the stages of the proposal. But be that as it may, I and several
others I know want it to happen,...somewhere, somehow. Personally, I
don't care if I have to scrub bathroom floors with a toothbrush to
make ends meet;...if it means that I get to live FREE! I would
happily move to the frozen cold or the searing desert or the rotting
swamplands;...I don't care. Neither do I care what others have done
there (or NOT done there) before I arrive. If our great grandfathers
had seen the dismal ends which came to most of the souls who went
west,...no one in their right mind would have followed. (Heck, there
is evidence most were NOT in their right minds.) But hell, were I am
now, if I try to live free I get imprisoned. I'd be loony to stay!!
I swear, if this thing becomes viable, I will head east; or
north, or south,...whatever it takes. No one ever got their freedom
back by saying "please", the west was not won by sane people, playing
within the system gets you nothing and I've already been sent away as
a political prisoner once. I refuse to let it happen again.
Stay away from the endeavor if you like. Call those of us who may
participate "crazy" if you choose. But for your own self interests, by
God, pray that it works. Pray that it works so that you have a place
to eventually go. Though he was a communist, George Bernard Shaw said
something accurate about radicals. "The reasonable man will strive to
avoid offense. He will do his best to keep from risking the lives of
himself or others, or from upsetting the sensibilities of
acquaintences. He will do his best to exist within the bounds of
society. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
Frank White
gun...@slingshot.com says...
>
>fwhite*NOSPAM*@colfax.com (Frank White) wrote in message
news:<aouidn$2icv$5...@news.fsr.net>...
>> Saw in the paper an article on this new movement: They
>> believe big government is bad, laws regulating drug use
>> and gun possession should be repealed, and private
>> enterprise should not be regulated, among other things.
>> Their goal is to have like minded people move to certain
>> states (New Hampshire, Wyoming, Deleware, and Alaska are
>> on the top of the list, with an honorable mention for
>> Montana) in quantity, set up and energize political
>> movements within those states, and reform its laws and
>> relationship with the Federal government from the inside.
>>
>> Comments about pipe dreams and pie in the sky utopian
>> ideas aside, the thought that comes most to my mind is that
>> if they intend to have '20,000 liberty-oriented individuals'
>> move to economically depressed states, all of those people
>> better bring huge amounts of money and jobs with them or
>> somebody's going to get shot.
>>
> I don't mean to be maliciously critical of your education or
>capacity for reason,
That's nice.
Wise of you, too.
I am reminded of what happened in Oregon a few years ago. A
cult somewhat similar to the Moonies (they called themselves
Rashnishees, I think - may have the spelling worng (^_^) -
because they followed the teachings of the Indian guru the
Bagwahn Shri Rashnish) - moved into a small town, achieved a
majority, and voted themselves into power. They then set their
sights on taking control of the county government and started
importing new people - often bums from off the street - from
out of state, registering them as voters, and giving them
places to live and jobs in exchange for their votes. The
rage of the non-cultie townsfolk, and the worries of the
local government, brought the state in to investigate what
was going on.
And in an incredibly stupid move, some of the cult members
tried poisoning the state Congressmen who were doing the
investigating...
When things finished hitting the fan, many cult members were
in prison, the Bagwah had been booted out of the country, and
the brave new world the Rashnishees had been trying to build -
their compound, their farm, the dozens of Cadillacs - were
up for sale. And the cult was in ruins.
I expect much the same to happen with this project, if it ever
really gets off the ground.
FW
Jason Sheppard
> In article <fc9908c8.02102...@posting.google.com>,
> gun...@slingshot.com says...
> >
> >fwhite*NOSPAM*@colfax.com (Frank White) wrote in message
> news:<aouidn$2icv$5...@news.fsr.net>...
> >> Saw in the paper an article on this new movement: They
> >> believe big government is bad, laws regulating drug use
> >> and gun possession should be repealed, and private
> >> enterprise should not be regulated, among other things.
> >> Their goal is to have like minded people move to certain
> >> states (New Hampshire, Wyoming, Deleware, and Alaska are
> >> on the top of the list, with an honorable mention for
> >> Montana) in quantity, set up and energize political
> >> movements within those states, and reform its laws and
> >> relationship with the Federal government from the inside.
> >>
> >> Comments about pipe dreams and pie in the sky utopian
> >> ideas aside, the thought that comes most to my mind is that
> >> if they intend to have '20,000 liberty-oriented individuals'
> >> move to economically depressed states, all of those people
> >> better bring huge amounts of money and jobs with them or
> >> somebody's going to get shot.
> >>
> > I don't mean to be maliciously critical of your education or
> >capacity for reason,
>
> That's nice.
>
> Wise of you, too.
Forgive me if I lack the manners (or wisdom if one lends credence to
your semi-threatening tone) of my compatriot, but you're acting like
an uneducated idiot in this matter. I'm not sure why you are against
us, but comparing the FSP to some cult taking over a town in Oregon is
utterly ridiculous. FSP members such as myself want freedom, not
control. Many are libertarian meaning they feel the initiation of
force is wrong. I do agree with you that this project might not get
off the ground. After all, it's easy to pay lip service to freedom on
Usenet, but to personally pledge to move somewhere in pursuit of it
separates the wheat from the chaff.
I don't expect the sheeple to understand our need for true freedom, so
if you don't like what we're doing that's fine, just ignore us. Or
laugh at us, or call us names. But you really show your ass (and lack
of meaningful education and/or reasoning skills) when you make
erroneous comparisons between the Free State Project and groups that
have nothing in common with us.
Regards,
Jason Sheppard
CR
> cult somewhat similar to the Moonies (they called themselves
> Rashnishees, I think - may have the spelling worng (^_^) -
> because they followed the teachings of the Indian guru the
> Bagwahn Shri Rashnish) - moved into a small town, achieved a
> majority, and voted themselves into power. They then set their
> sights on taking control of the county government and started
> importing new people - often bums from off the street - from
> out of state, registering them as voters, and giving them
> places to live and jobs in exchange for their votes. The
> rage of the non-cultie townsfolk, and the worries of the
> local government, brought the state in to investigate what
> was going on.
>
> And in an incredibly stupid move, some of the cult members
> tried poisoning the state Congressmen who were doing the
> investigating...
>
> When things finished hitting the fan, many cult members were
> in prison, the Bagwah had been booted out of the country, and
> the brave new world the Rashnishees had been trying to build -
> their compound, their farm, the dozens of Cadillacs - were
> up for sale. And the cult was in ruins.
>
> I expect much the same to happen with this project, if it ever
> really gets off the ground.
Where are you getting your facts? You need to read up on some basic
libertarian principles.
Try www.lp.org
Frank White
chuck...@tbe.com says...
<snip>
>Where are you getting your facts? You need to read up on some basic
>libertarian principles.
>
>Try www.lp.org
Oh, I don't expect the members of this project to be stupid
enough to try to poison members of the existing power
structure of the state they move into to get their way.
Most of them. ^_^
I *do* expect the existing power structure - and in fact
the common citizenry - to react to an influx of people
whose stated goal is to change things, the way they
would to an invasion of rabid beasts. The Rashnishees
kept insisting they were out to make a paradise on
Earth, but their actions so alienated everyone around
them they got stomped.
The FSP people may insist they're not going to be
heavy handed in their efforts to make a change, but
no matter what policies they follow, I don't expect
any such experiment to turn out any better than the
Utopian plans of the Transcendentalists, the
Anarchists, the Socialists, or any of the other
movements which started out with the basic belief
that THEY knew better.
Enjoy yourself trying to succeed, however. ^_^
FW
Frank White
jds...@hotmail.com says...
Not at all.
I wish I could say the same about you, but I fear my capacity
for disemination is not that great...
> I'm not sure why you are against
>us, but comparing the FSP to some cult taking over a town in Oregon is
>utterly ridiculous.
Indeed?
Let's see: The stated FSP plan is to move people into the
selected state to make political change.
The Rashnishees moved people into the selected state to make
political change.
Nope, no similarity THERE!
> FSP members such as myself want freedom, not
>control.
That's what the Rashnishees said.
> Many are libertarian meaning they feel the initiation of
>force is wrong.
The Rashnishees said that, too.
> I do agree with you that this project might not get
>off the ground. After all, it's easy to pay lip service to freedom on
>Usenet, but to personally pledge to move somewhere in pursuit of it
>separates the wheat from the chaff.
>
>I don't expect the sheeple to understand our need for true freedom, so
>if you don't like what we're doing that's fine, just ignore us.
Classifying people as sheeple reveals more of your contempt for
others than I think you might be comfortable doing...
And me? I don't care what you do.
As long as you don't interfere with my life and FORCE me to
care.
> Or
>laugh at us, or call us names. But you really show your ass (and lack
>of meaningful education and/or reasoning skills) when you make
>erroneous comparisons between the Free State Project and groups that
>have nothing in common with us.
The problem is, they have an enormous amount in common with you.
You simply can't see it.
I'm a student of history. I've examined a variety of social
movements and structures, such as the Trascendentalists of the
18th century, the Israeli Kibbutzes, Socialism, Anarchism,
etc, etc: And I can tell you that while the catch phrases
may change, the tone of their statments remains the same:
We know the TRUTH, we are RIGHT, we will PREVAIL because
God/history/freedom is on OUR side.
And they don't.
They don't.
Over and over and over until you want to burst into tears over
the waste, the foolishness, the damnable lack of originality...
(sigh)
FW
CR
> the common citizenry - to react to an influx of people
> whose stated goal is to change things, the way they
> would to an invasion of rabid beasts. The Rashnishees
> kept insisting they were out to make a paradise on
> Earth, but their actions so alienated everyone around
> them they got stomped.
>
> The FSP people may insist they're not going to be
> heavy handed in their efforts to make a change, but
> no matter what policies they follow, I don't expect
> any such experiment to turn out any better than the
> Utopian plans of the Transcendentalists, the
> Anarchists, the Socialists, or any of the other
> movements which started out with the basic belief
> that THEY knew better.
You may be right but you need to understand one difference. All those
other groups are parasitic by definition. Libertarians are not. In
fact I'd bet any amount of money that the average libertarian is much
better off than the average citizen. So I'm not sure that any state
would mind having a bunch of wealthy, industrious citizens moving in
to their state as opposed to some parasites. Just ask the people in
Lewiston, Maine! :)
Jason Sheppard
> In article <79e1ad3d.02102...@posting.google.com>,
> chuck...@tbe.com says...
>
> <snip>
>
> >Where are you getting your facts? You need to read up on some basic
> >libertarian principles.
> >
> >Try www.lp.org
>
> Oh, I don't expect the members of this project to be stupid
> enough to try to poison members of the existing power
> structure of the state they move into to get their way.
>
> Most of them. ^_^
>
> I *do* expect the existing power structure - and in fact
> the common citizenry - to react to an influx of people
> whose stated goal is to change things, the way they
> would to an invasion of rabid beasts.
FSP has no plans to concentrate the members in any one area. Unlike
the Rajneeshees we have won't be buying large amounts of land and
incorporating towns (complete with well armed police forces, etc).
After the project reaches 20000 members, we all have 5 years to move
there, so its probably not going to be noticeable to the casual
observer, although I personally have no plans to be secretive about my
reason for moving there. Furthermore, one of the criteria for
choosing a state is a culture conducive to liberty. I fully expect
some portion of the existing residents to welcome us and assist us in
our goals.
The Rashnishees
> kept insisting they were out to make a paradise on
> Earth, but their actions so alienated everyone around
> them they got stomped.
>
> The FSP people may insist they're not going to be
> heavy handed in their efforts to make a change, but
> no matter what policies they follow, I don't expect
> any such experiment to turn out any better than the
> Utopian plans of the Transcendentalists, the
> Anarchists, the Socialists, or any of the other
> movements which started out with the basic belief
> that THEY knew better.
So you just float along on the river of democracy and live with the
situation because after all, according to you, anyone who thinks THEY
know better must be a crackpot? I presume that includes the Framers
of the Constitution as well. Just who in your mind DOES know better
than someone else?
"What luck for the rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
>
> Enjoy yourself trying to succeed, however. ^_^
Thanks, we will.
Regards,
Jason Sheppard
Strabo
In this day of career politicians, the strategy is to appeal to
voting blocs. This tendency to compromise beliefs and principle
is strongest in those states with large 'sophisticated' cities.
Libertarians will have a better chance in other states where there remains
a glimmer of hope.
Jason Sheppard
This isn't a spelling flame but disemination isn't a word. Even if
you mean dissemination, this sentence make no sense. Care to try
again?
>
> > I'm not sure why you are against
> >us, but comparing the FSP to some cult taking over a town in Oregon is
> >utterly ridiculous.
>
> Indeed?
>
> Let's see: The stated FSP plan is to move people into the
> selected state to make political change.
We plan to move ourselves, some of whom don't vote for reasons of
principle, to an area and affect political change at the state level.
Our numbers will not be great enough to elect our own state officials
without some cooperation from existing residents.
>
> The Rashnishees moved people into the selected state to make
> political change.
They settled there and then decided to start bringing in voters.
Their efforts were at the county level.
>
> Nope, no similarity THERE!
I can see how at first glance someone might make the mistake of seeing
relevant similiarities. Even a small bit of knowledge about the FSP
and Rajneeshees would illustrate that any similarities were not
germane. Since you have not shown any inclination to research either
FSP or the Rajneeshees, your argument is completely ineffective.
>
> > FSP members such as myself want freedom, not
> >control.
>
> That's what the Rashnishees said.
where did they say this? cite?
>
> > Many are libertarian meaning they feel the initiation of
> >force is wrong.
>
> The Rashnishees said that, too.
where did they say this? cite?
>
> > I do agree with you that this project might not get
> >off the ground. After all, it's easy to pay lip service to freedom on
> >Usenet, but to personally pledge to move somewhere in pursuit of it
> >separates the wheat from the chaff.
> >
> >I don't expect the sheeple to understand our need for true freedom, so
> >if you don't like what we're doing that's fine, just ignore us.
>
> Classifying people as sheeple reveals more of your contempt for
> others than I think you might be comfortable doing...
I'm more than comfortable with my contempt for those that would
restrict my personal liberty in any way. I hold those that allow
their own liberty to be stolen without a fight or protest in nearly
equal contempt.
>
> And me? I don't care what you do.
You care enough to make ridiculous comparisons between the FSP and
extremist cults.
>
> As long as you don't interfere with my life and FORCE me to
> care.
I have no plans to. Besides, I cannot force you to do anything and I
can only interfere with your life to the degree with which you will
let me.
>
> > Or
> >laugh at us, or call us names. But you really show your ass (and lack
> >of meaningful education and/or reasoning skills) when you make
> >erroneous comparisons between the Free State Project and groups that
> >have nothing in common with us.
>
> The problem is, they have an enormous amount in common with you.
> You simply can't see it.
There is nothing in common. As I stated above, to the uninformed,
there might _appear_ to be some relevant similarities. Ten minutes
worth of research would quickly dispel any illusions that the FSP and
the Rajneeshees shared anything in common, except for possibly being
air-breathing bi-peds.
>
> I'm a student of history. I've examined a variety of social
> movements and structures, such as the Trascendentalists of the
> 18th century, the Israeli Kibbutzes, Socialism, Anarchism,
> etc, etc: And I can tell you that while the catch phrases
> may change, the tone of their statments remains the same:
> We know the TRUTH, we are RIGHT, we will PREVAIL because
> God/history/freedom is on OUR side.
>
> And they don't.
>
> They don't.
Status Quo must be the god of your universe. At what point would you
act to change an injustice being perpetrated on you? How will you
know that it is an injustice? What would your response be? Do you
understand that no matter what you do or how you attempt it, it will
be similar in some ways to something someone has unsuccessfully tried
before? Will you let that stop you?
Regards,
Jason Sheppard
Petri Kokko
> no matter what policies they follow, I don't expect
> any such experiment to turn out any better than the
> Utopian plans of the Transcendentalists, the
> Anarchists, the Socialists, or any of the other
> movements which started out with the basic belief
> that THEY knew better.
So, what is your problem then?
I don't have any connection to the FSP (hardly surprising
considering where I live...), but have you actually thought
about what the FSP plan is?
A group of individuals want to move to another state to
live and work there. Are you saying that people are not
free to choose where they want to live if they can buy
a home there especially with their own money?
Once there these people intend to launch a political campaign
to get their own elected to the state legislature. Again, are
you saying they are not free to do this? Democrats and
Republicans also have political campaigns to elect their
representatives. Do you mean that they are allowed to do this
but FSP is not? Did something happen to the free elections?
Once they get their representatives elected the FSP wants to
work in the legislature by proposing new laws to be enacted and
old laws to be repealed. This is what a legislature does. The job
of representatives is to change the laws. What did you think all
those representatives and senators are there for? (Ok, I know
that misc.survivalism can come up with 1001 things what
representatives are good for, but please guys, I'm in the middle
of rhetoric here...)
Granted, each step can fail, and probably has a good chance of
failure, too. But so what? If people want to try they have
every right to do so. If no people ever tried the impossible
we would still be eating bananas on tree limps.
If you don't support them then don't vote for them. That's your
right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Petri...@hut.fi
"Faber est suae quisque fortunae."
CR
> voting blocs. This tendency to compromise beliefs and principle
> is strongest in those states with large 'sophisticated' cities.
>
> Libertarians will have a better chance in other states where there remains
> a glimmer of hope.
I'm not connected with FSP however I think one of their strategies is
to move to a state with a low population. Also a state that already
values freedom. I think I heard they were leaning towards New
Hampshire. I'd consider moving there in a few years if it really
started to take off. I'm guessing I'm probably like a lot of
libertarians who don't want to make a commitment, but might move there
if it really became a libertarian place. I guess its the chicken and
the egg syndrome.
Frank White
petri...@hut.fi says...
>
>Frank White wrote:
>> no matter what policies they follow, I don't expect
>> any such experiment to turn out any better than the
>> Utopian plans of the Transcendentalists, the
>> Anarchists, the Socialists, or any of the other
>> movements which started out with the basic belief
>> that THEY knew better.
>
>So, what is your problem then?
It's like watching lemmings head into the sea, or someone
trying to pass just before the crest of a hill.
I just don't like watching disasters unfold.
>I don't have any connection to the FSP (hardly surprising
>considering where I live...), but have you actually thought
>about what the FSP plan is?
Certainly.
>A group of individuals want to move to another state to
>live and work there. Are you saying that people are not
>free to choose where they want to live if they can buy
>a home there especially with their own money?
Not at all. That's their right.
At least, these days, as long as they're not Middle-Eastern.
>Once there these people intend to launch a political campaign
>to get their own elected to the state legislature. Again, are
>you saying they are not free to do this? Democrats and
>Republicans also have political campaigns to elect their
>representatives. Do you mean that they are allowed to do this
>but FSP is not? Did something happen to the free elections?
Not at all. This is also within their rights.
>Once they get their representatives elected the FSP wants to
>work in the legislature by proposing new laws to be enacted and
>old laws to be repealed. This is what a legislature does. The job
>of representatives is to change the laws. What did you think all
>those representatives and senators are there for? (Ok, I know
>that misc.survivalism can come up with 1001 things what
>representatives are good for, but please guys, I'm in the middle
>of rhetoric here...)
OK, we'll postpone all the smartalack comments. ^_^
>Granted, each step can fail, and probably has a good chance of
>failure, too. But so what? If people want to try they have
>every right to do so. If no people ever tried the impossible
>we would still be eating bananas on tree limps.
Actually our distant ancestors were omnivores - like us -
so they'd probably had been eating insects and leaves more
than bananas.
>If you don't support them then don't vote for them. That's your
>right.
Certainly.
It's also my right to say I think this is never going to work.
And since you're concerned about rights, surely you will
support MY right to say so.
Won't you?
^_~
FW
Jason Sheppard
> In article <622e0117.02102...@posting.google.com>,
> petri...@hut.fi says...
> >
> >Frank White wrote:
> >> no matter what policies they follow, I don't expect
> >> any such experiment to turn out any better than the
> >> Utopian plans of the Transcendentalists, the
> >> Anarchists, the Socialists, or any of the other
> >> movements which started out with the basic belief
> >> that THEY knew better.
> >
> >So, what is your problem then?
>
> It's like watching lemmings head into the sea, or someone
> trying to pass just before the crest of a hill.
>
> I just don't like watching disasters unfold.
There you go sounding like you care again !! The founders of the
project built in safeguards. If we don't meet certain membership
levels, the whole thing gets scrapped, preventing the members from
trying this without sufficient numbers of people to get the job done.
Besides, if you hate watching disasters so much, just avert your eyes.
>
> >I don't have any connection to the FSP (hardly surprising
> >considering where I live...), but have you actually thought
> >about what the FSP plan is?
>
> Certainly.
>
Thought about or read about? Is your knowledge limited to the
summaries posted to this newgroup and the articles in other media or
have you actually read the project's own documents? The first page
and the FAQ at the ubiquitous www.freestateproject.com are quick reads
and very informative.
[snip]
>
> It's also my right to say I think this is never going to work.
>
> And since you're concerned about rights, surely you will
> support MY right to say so.
>
> Won't you?
Of course, but at least make a good argument of it. So far you've
compared the Project to a criminal cult and the fictitious behaviour
of a mouse-like creature (
http://www.snopes2.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm ). Facts and
relevant comparisons go a long way in furthering debates. OTH, your
mind is made up, our minds are made up, so maybe we should just meet
back here in 10 years for the "I told you so's".
Regards,
Jason Sheppard
Frank White
No, my comment (spelling errors aside) makes sense.
Perhaps English is not your naive language...
>> > I'm not sure why you are against
>> >us, but comparing the FSP to some cult taking over a town in Oregon is
>> >utterly ridiculous.
>>
>> Indeed?
>>
>> Let's see: The stated FSP plan is to move people into the
>> selected state to make political change.
>
>We plan to move ourselves, some of whom don't vote for reasons of
>principle, to an area and affect political change at the state level.
Certainly your right.
>Our numbers will not be great enough to elect our own state officials
>without some cooperation from existing residents.
I would assume you're talking a LOT of cooperation...
Do you have a timeline for this change?
>> The Rashnishees moved people into the selected state to make
>> political change.
>
>They settled there and then decided to start bringing in voters.
>Their efforts were at the county level.
>
>> Nope, no similarity THERE!
>
>I can see how at first glance someone might make the mistake of seeing
>relevant similiarities. Even a small bit of knowledge about the FSP
>and Rajneeshees would illustrate that any similarities were not
>germane. Since you have not shown any inclination to research either
>FSP or the Rajneeshees, your argument is completely ineffective.
So you say.
>>
>> > FSP members such as myself want freedom, not
>> >control.
>>
>> That's what the Rashnishees said.
>
>where did they say this? cite?
>
>>
>> > Many are libertarian meaning they feel the initiation of
>> >force is wrong.
>>
>> The Rashnishees said that, too.
>
>where did they say this? cite?
I was in the area at the time. The Rashnishees said all that
and a whole lot more. Their comments were remarkably similar
to those most cults issue.
I'm sure most of the members actually believed them, too...
(Of course all the verbage increased dramatically once
the Baghwan himself - who up until that time had been
under a self imposed voew of silence - was put on the
witness stand and forced to talk about some of the
less than legal acivities of his group or go to prison.
The problem was, once he got started talking, he would
not shut up...)
>> > I do agree with you that this project might not get
>> >off the ground. After all, it's easy to pay lip service to freedom on
>> >Usenet, but to personally pledge to move somewhere in pursuit of it
>> >separates the wheat from the chaff.
>> >
>> >I don't expect the sheeple to understand our need for true freedom, so
>> >if you don't like what we're doing that's fine, just ignore us.
>>
>> Classifying people as sheeple reveals more of your contempt for
>> others than I think you might be comfortable doing...
>
>I'm more than comfortable with my contempt for those that would
>restrict my personal liberty in any way. I hold those that allow
>their own liberty to be stolen without a fight or protest in nearly
>equal contempt.
And that contempt is one of the main reasons I doubt you will
succeed.
Because I note that the social movements that HAVE succeeded
in the U.S. focus more on people than ideas. And have managed
to use that to persuade the majority of Americians that their
cause is right and correct.
If you love your ideals but have contempt for those who
would have to live under them, people will understand that
and react appropriately.
>> And me? I don't care what you do.
>
>You care enough to make ridiculous comparisons between the FSP and
>extremist cults.
You're the one saying they're ridiculous.
>> As long as you don't interfere with my life and FORCE me to
>> care.
>
>I have no plans to. Besides, I cannot force you to do anything and I
>can only interfere with your life to the degree with which you will
>let me.
Like government can only interfere with my life to the degree
that I let it?
Does the IRS know this?
>> > Or
>> >laugh at us, or call us names. But you really show your ass (and lack
>> >of meaningful education and/or reasoning skills) when you make
>> >erroneous comparisons between the Free State Project and groups that
>> >have nothing in common with us.
>>
>> The problem is, they have an enormous amount in common with you.
>> You simply can't see it.
>
>There is nothing in common. As I stated above, to the uninformed,
>there might _appear_ to be some relevant similarities. Ten minutes
>worth of research would quickly dispel any illusions that the FSP and
>the Rajneeshees shared anything in common, except for possibly being
>air-breathing bi-peds.
You're NOT air breathing bipeds??????
^_^
(You know, you're going about this all wrong. One of my
old debate coaches said that the difference between an argument
and a debate is that in an argument you're just trying to
hammer down the other guy, because he's only one guy. In
a debate you want to seduce the other guy over to your side,
because he stands in for a LOT of the people watching the
debate and what you do influences how THEY decide. If you
use personal attack, go off on tangents, simply say "You're
wrong" "You're lying" "You're ineffectual", you're not
persuading anyone. And you're losing.
So far you've said nothing to make me think this project will
work or is a good idea.
I - and the people watching - may have to assume that's because
you can't...)
>> I'm a student of history. I've examined a variety of social
>> movements and structures, such as the Trascendentalists of the
>> 18th century, the Israeli Kibbutzes, Socialism, Anarchism,
>> etc, etc: And I can tell you that while the catch phrases
>> may change, the tone of their statments remains the same:
>> We know the TRUTH, we are RIGHT, we will PREVAIL because
>> God/history/freedom is on OUR side.
>>
>> And they don't.
>>
>> They don't.
>
>Status Quo must be the god of your universe. At what point would you
>act to change an injustice being perpetrated on you? How will you
>know that it is an injustice? What would your response be? Do you
>understand that no matter what you do or how you attempt it, it will
>be similar in some ways to something someone has unsuccessfully tried
>before? Will you let that stop you?
Feel better now that you've set up and beat down your straw men?
The unionization momement, the sufferagette movement, the
civil rights movement, all succeeded because they were able
to point at the current situation and say "This is wrong".
And get the majority of people to agree with them and force
change.
What do you point to and say "This is wrong?"
FW
Jason Sheppard
> In article <f283b08d.02102...@posting.google.com>,
> jds...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> >fwhite*NOSPAM*@colfax.com (Frank White) wrote in message
> news:<ap2eoo$1j9t$9...@news.fsr.net>...
> >> In article <f283b08d.02102...@posting.google.com>,
> >> jds...@hotmail.com says...
> >> >
> >> >fwhite*NOSPAM*@colfax.com (Frank White) wrote in message
> news:<aovqjq$7k3$2...@news.fsr.net>...
> >> >> In article <fc9908c8.02102...@posting.google.com>,
> >> >> gun...@slingshot.com says...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >fwhite*NOSPAM*@colfax.com (Frank White) wrote in message
> news:<aouidn$2icv$5...@news.fsr.net>...
> >> >> >> Saw in the paper an article on this new movement:
>
> >Our numbers will not be great enough to elect our own state officials
> >without some cooperation from existing residents.
>
> I would assume you're talking a LOT of cooperation...
Not as much as one might think. Two excerpts from the project's
website:
"Obviously population is the critical factor. Our research so far
indicates that 20,000 activists could heavily influence only states
with under about 1.5 million population, or which spend less than $10
million on political campaigns in any given two-year election cycle. "
"The most apparent benefits of the Free State Project come in the
realm of political action. Can you imagine what 20,000 people
financing political campaigns and thinktanks, volunteering their time
for everything from putting up posters to participating in street
demonstrations, writing letters to newspapers and to legislators, and
- yes - running for office would do for a political movement? I can.
We've crunched the numbers, and we've found that 20,000 political
activists could elect a governor, a state legislative majority, and
even a couple of U.S. Senators and a U.S. Representative in the states
we're considering. "
>
> Do you have a timeline for this change?
Presently, the project is focused on getting 20,000 members by
September 1, 2006 or shortly thereafter. Until we get closer to
enough members, it would unwise to devote resources to planning of the
events after everyone moves. I'll do my best to keep you updated
though.
[snip]
>
> >> > I do agree with you that this project might not get
> >> >off the ground. After all, it's easy to pay lip service to freedom on
> >> >Usenet, but to personally pledge to move somewhere in pursuit of it
> >> >separates the wheat from the chaff.
> >> >
> >> >I don't expect the sheeple to understand our need for true freedom, so
> >> >if you don't like what we're doing that's fine, just ignore us.
> >>
> >> Classifying people as sheeple reveals more of your contempt for
> >> others than I think you might be comfortable doing...
> >
> >I'm more than comfortable with my contempt for those that would
> >restrict my personal liberty in any way. I hold those that allow
> >their own liberty to be stolen without a fight or protest in nearly
> >equal contempt.
>
> And that contempt is one of the main reasons I doubt you will
> succeed.
>
> Because I note that the social movements that HAVE succeeded
> in the U.S. focus more on people than ideas. And have managed
> to use that to persuade the majority of Americians that their
> cause is right and correct.
>
> If you love your ideals but have contempt for those who
> would have to live under them, people will understand that
> and react appropriately.
You are correct, and in putting words to feelings I may have
overstated my dislike. I do despise the lawmakers, judges,
politicians and government officials that knowingly ignore the
Constitution. I am frustrated with the "sheeple". When I talk to
people about the issues of liberty, everyone seems to agree, at least
to a point that there is too much government, the government meddles
in the personal affairs of its citizens way too much, that America
meddles in the affairs of other countries too much and that the
citizens of the US are overtaxed. Yet nobody is willing to do
anything about it. Perhaps that's why I've aligned myself with FSP
and the We the People Foundation. At least they are trying to do
something.
[snip]
>
> >> As long as you don't interfere with my life and FORCE me to
> >> care.
> >
> >I have no plans to. Besides, I cannot force you to do anything and I
> >can only interfere with your life to the degree with which you will
> >let me.
>
> Like government can only interfere with my life to the degree
> that I let it?
Not right now, which is exactly why efforts like the Free State
Project exist.
>
> Does the IRS know this?
They do now, thanks to Bob Schulz and a host of others, but that's a
completely separate discussion.
>
> >> > Or
> >> >laugh at us, or call us names. But you really show your ass (and lack
> >> >of meaningful education and/or reasoning skills) when you make
> >> >erroneous comparisons between the Free State Project and groups that
> >> >have nothing in common with us.
> >>
> >> The problem is, they have an enormous amount in common with you.
> >> You simply can't see it.
> >
> >There is nothing in common. As I stated above, to the uninformed,
> >there might _appear_ to be some relevant similarities. Ten minutes
> >worth of research would quickly dispel any illusions that the FSP and
> >the Rajneeshees shared anything in common, except for possibly being
> >air-breathing bi-peds.
>
> You're NOT air breathing bipeds??????
>
> ^_^
I am, but I've never seen a Rajneeshee, so it's an assumption, hence
the qualifier. <G>
>
> (You know, you're going about this all wrong. One of my
> old debate coaches said that the difference between an argument
> and a debate is that in an argument you're just trying to
> hammer down the other guy, because he's only one guy. In
> a debate you want to seduce the other guy over to your side,
> because he stands in for a LOT of the people watching the
> debate and what you do influences how THEY decide. If you
> use personal attack, go off on tangents, simply say "You're
> wrong" "You're lying" "You're ineffectual", you're not
> persuading anyone. And you're losing.
>
> So far you've said nothing to make me think this project will
> work or is a good idea.
>
> I - and the people watching - may have to assume that's because
> you can't...)
Good points. It's easy to let the medium get the better of you on
here. Of course the matters under discussion here on Usenet are not
usually as important to me as this one.
>
> >> I'm a student of history. I've examined a variety of social
> >> movements and structures, such as the Trascendentalists of the
> >> 18th century, the Israeli Kibbutzes, Socialism, Anarchism,
> >> etc, etc: And I can tell you that while the catch phrases
> >> may change, the tone of their statments remains the same:
> >> We know the TRUTH, we are RIGHT, we will PREVAIL because
> >> God/history/freedom is on OUR side.
> >>
> >> And they don't.
> >>
> >> They don't.
> >
> >Status Quo must be the god of your universe. At what point would you
> >act to change an injustice being perpetrated on you? How will you
> >know that it is an injustice? What would your response be? Do you
> >understand that no matter what you do or how you attempt it, it will
> >be similar in some ways to something someone has unsuccessfully tried
> >before? Will you let that stop you?
>
> Feel better now that you've set up and beat down your straw men?
The questions were sincere but I am pleased to see someone use the
term straw man properly, if not accurately. Where I work they use it
as a synonym for rough draft and I cringe every time they do. (sorry
to stray there, but its a pet peeve).
>
> The unionization momement, the sufferagette movement, the
> civil rights movement, all succeeded because they were able
> to point at the current situation and say "This is wrong".
> And get the majority of people to agree with them and force
> change.
>
> What do you point to and say "This is wrong?"
THIS is constructive criticism, for which you have my sincere thanks.
I am not a particularly active member of the FSP but will pass this on
if I have the chance and certainly keep it in mind as I spread the
word.
Regards,
Jason Sheppard
Note: I don't speak for the Free State Project, my affilliation is
limited to being a member, which simply says if they reach their
stated goals, I will move to the chosen state. Jason Sorens, the
founder is very accessible via e-mail if anyone has questions aren't
answered by the website.