I would prefer not to live in a state.
I think changing the public perception of criminal to be more narrow than "someone unfortunate enough to be arrested" would be a good start towards deligitimising the state.
That's exactly what Free Keene is trying to do with the civil disobedience.
Yes but you are not listening to the corrective feedback in this thread and that is troublesome. I was referring to my getting arrested for something that did not infringe upon the rights of others like posting on the web. Marijuana posession is not a good flagship issue unless you have cancer because it makes you seem like a pothead, and drug users lose credibility on the public stage. So what the esteemed members of this forum are trying to tell you is that "getting arrested for acting like an ass" is not "educating people on how not everyone who gets arrested is an ass."
Disclosure: I have not watched the videos because it really does not seem worth the bandwidth.
Marijuana posession is not a good flagship issue unless you have cancer because it makes you seem like a pothead, and drug users lose credibility on the public stage.
How so? The drug war has only created tyranny and needs to go. being violently arrested for mariuana brings public attention to this.
Freedom4Me73986: @Izzy. I hope this changes your mind. http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=24369.0
@Izzy. I hope this changes your mind.
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=24369.0
How can I get through your head that I do not buy the whole FSP propaganda?
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
Freedom4Me73986: @Izzy. I hope this changes your mind. http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=24369.0 How can I get through your head that I do not buy the whole FSP propaganda?
Your views on the FSP are completely misleading and only serve to draw more liberty-lovers away from the movement. What do you have against them?
>>>>How so? The drug war has only created tyranny and needs to go. being violently arrested for mariuana brings public attention to this.>>>>
because it marginalizes you In the public eye. Most americans are not potheads and they see you in the same light as an alcoholic/dui monster because you cannot control your habit enough to avoid running afoul of the authorities. The fact that most americans have used marijuana works against you in this respect, because they remember being smart enough not to get caught. Then they envision a pothead mayor, and pothead school boards, and pothead teachers, and finally pothead students that are their own kids. So they dont support your cause. Because, who wants to go down that path?
You gain more credibility when you observe the effects of the drug war on the population at large as a "disinterested observer." if you want to legalize pot because you want to smoke it, how is that different from any other criminal? Burglars typically put a very low value on property rights and are likely to be partial to communist and socialist causes.
There's a deep conceptual problem with the FSP, as well. Let's say the FSP saw a huge influx of migrants to NH and that they really did begin to have "an effect." Well, don't you think things are the way they are because of entrenched interests?? It's the same everywhere in the world... yeah, it sucks to get pulled over with marijuana in your car but the county commissioner and the judge and his or her staff and the police chief all earn a pretty penny from patrolling - on the public's clear desire - for people with marijuana in their cars. So, even if you did start to become successful, you don't think the people that the judges, police, commissioners, administrators and so on do business with aren't going to join with them in fingering you as alien invaders from god-knows-where trying to subvert and overthrow the long-established social order of NH???
The whole idea is ridiculous in the extreme.
Clayton -
Very true. Although I support the right of anyone to emigrate, immigration is a matter of obtaining consent from (and showing respect to) the current residents. One should not move to new hampshire and begin civil disobedience of long-standing laws.
So, even if you did start to become successful, you don't think the people that the judges, police, commissioners, administrators and so on do business with aren't going to join with them in fingering you as alien invaders from god-knows-where trying to subvert and overthrow the long-established social order of NH???
If the FSP really is so "hated" by local NH residents can you please tell me how over 40 free staters were elected into the NH state house last election? If NH locals really hated us so badly they would be saying something about it which they're NOT.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQWcyoTt8Pw
Not very Austro-libertarian, is it ;)
Libertarians need to make their movement more palatable by focusing on big government issues and teaching the NAP. From there, the rest of the change will follow.
What evidence exists to substantiate this assertion?
There's a deep conceptual problem with the FSP, as well. Let's say the FSP saw a huge influx of migrants to NH and that they really did begin to have "an effect." Well, don't you think things are the way they are because of entrenched interests?? It's the same everywhere in the world... yeah, it sucks to get pulled over with marijuana in your car but the county commissioner and the judge and his or her staff and the police chief all earn a pretty penny from patrolling - on the public's clear desire - for people with marijuana in their cars. So, even if you did start to become successful, you don't think the people that the judges, police, commissioners, administrators and so on do business with aren't going to join with them in fingering you as alien invaders from god-knows-where trying to subvert and overthrow the long-established social order of NH??? The whole idea is ridiculous in the extreme.
Is Israel a ridiculous idea in the extreme? Is the United States of America a ridiculous idea in the extreme? Just sayin....
Why are you here
Suggestions;
None of your business.
Why does it matter?
There's nothing libertarian about the Occupy movement.
This debate is fascinating to me. I think what's happening here is the division of the liberty movement. I'll explain.
Previously, the "libertarian" movement was divided into two parts: the left-libertarians (think anarcho-syndicalists) and the right libertarians (think anarcho-capitalists). The "Ron Paul Revolution" has modified this dichotomy; people that would have become left-libertarians are now drawn to right-libertarianism because of the increased exposure to these ideas, which has prevented them from declaring war on the market and turning to the dark side. Today's anarcho-capitalists (mostly younger kids) are far more "to the left" than were the anarcho-capitalists prior to Ron Paul waking people up. As a result they will engage in more traditionally leftist causes (establishment rebellion, legalization of drugs, police-challenging, etc).
What's happening here is a division in the anarcho-capitalist movement; there are now left-anarcho capitalists and right-anarcho capitalists. The FSP project obviously represents the left-anarcho capitalists. Some people don't like this and some people do. Personally, I think left-anarcho capitalism is counterproductive and will only serve to increase state power. I am reminded of Hoppe's essay: On Conservatism and Libertarianism.
Everything wrong with modern libertarians is contained in the word 'anarcho'.
You cannot have capitalism without the upholding of individual rights, and you cannot uphold individual rights without a legal process and enforcer in place to do so.
Thus why I endorse the term "min-cap" meaning minimum government and capitalism. Libertarians should excise use of the term 'anarchism' in every venue possible. We are not anarchists.
Anarchism is stupid, base tribalism, substituting the authority of the tribe for the rule of law. If statism is collectivism directed at government, then anarchism is collectivism directed at a social group. That's what makes it tribalism, because it is a return to the tribalism of the past, when men needed groups to survive predation from other groups, long before there was rule of law and individual rights.
Abandon anarchism and -any- form of collectivism along with it, embrace min-cap and its predicate of individual rights sans any form of collectivism.
Anenome: Everything wrong with modern libertarians is contained in the word 'anarcho'. You cannot have capitalism without the upholding of individual rights, and you cannot uphold individual rights without a legal process and enforcer in place to do so. Thus why I endorse the term "min-cap" meaning minimum government and capitalism. Libertarians should excise use of the term 'anarchism' in every venue possible. We are not anarchists. Anarchism is stupid, base tribalism, substituting the authority of the tribe for the rule of law. If statism is collectivism directed at government, then anarchism is collectivism directed at a social group. That's what makes it tribalism, because it is a return to the tribalism of the past, when men needed groups to survive predation from other groups, long before there was rule of law and individual rights. Abandon anarchism and -any- form of collectivism along with it, embrace min-cap and its predicate of individual rights sans any form of collectivism.
There's nothing libertarian about "minimum goverment."
Out of all the philosophies in the history of ideas, minimum government is the most utopian. It simply cannot work because you give power to the government and its associates, who determine who is right or wrong in cases of conflict (even in cases of conflict involving government itself). Predictably, this leads to government and its associates causing conflicts in order to settle them in accordance to their own advantage. The government and its associates can externalize this aggression amongst society via taxation. Such a monopolistic power makes the government and its associates much more likely to engage in this type of aggressive behavior than a private company. All the "min-cap" arguments for the existence of the state parallel those of the socialists. Quite simply, if you're for limited government, it makes no sense to stop there; for if the state can provide legal services and security in a superior way, then it can provide all other services in a superior way as well.
FunkedUp:There's nothing libertarian about "minimum goverment." Out of all the philosophies in the history of ideas, minimum government is the most utopian. It simply cannot work because you give power to the government and its associates, who determine who is right or wrong in cases of conflict (even in cases of conflict involving government itself). Predictably, this leads to government and its associates causing conflicts in order to settle them in accordance to their own advantage. The government and its associates can externalize this aggression amongst society via taxation. Such a monopolistic power makes the government and its associates much more likely to engage in this type of aggressive behavior than a private company. All the "min-cap" arguments for the existence of the state parallel those of the socialists. Quite simply, if you're for limited government, it makes no sense to stop there; for if the state can provide legal services and security in a superior way, then it can provide all other services in a superior way as well.
I disagree. All those things you've listed are why minimum government is a necessity.
I submit that we should limit the state to those things which are essential to the function of a state and for what citizens need a state to do, and no more.
And those functions are: national defense, dispute resolution (as last-resort civil and criminal courts), and protection of individual rights in the form of objective law.
A government is the only entity in society which granted the right to use coercion against other citizens. Therefore, it must be strictly limited to responsive coercion used solely to stop aggressive coercion, in the service of protecting individual rights against those trampling on other's rights.
Apart from that, most of the evils of current forms of government can be alleviated by a new political right that I call the right of political separation, which is a corollary right derived from the right of free association, which all people have naturally.
The right of political separation allows you to choose which jurisdiction you want to be in at will. If a law is set to be passed in a territory which you dislike, you can immediately separate yourself from that jurisdiction and a form a new "cloned" jurisdiction with everyone else who voted against that law and lost (assuming it passed).
Thus, political disputes automatically resolve themselves by jurisdictional splitting.
Want a particular politician to rule your city? But he lost the election? Exercise your right of political separation, form a new jurisdiction with the loser in charge, clone the law books for everything else.
This right cuts statism off at the knees, because statism and the centralization of power rely on political structures that have built in "citizen capture", meaning you're more likely to grin and bear it than move to a new jurisdiction to escape most laws, at least in the short term.
The right of political separation allows you to instead move jurisdictional lines rather than moving your house.
Of course it works better in a place where you can physically group together with those that you want to engage in association with, thus multiplying the effect of living in proximity to individuals with like minded political values.
That's why it's at the core of a new political system I'm buidling for a proposed floating libertarian nation, because on the water, the cost of moving your house (floating house) is extremely cheap, and people can easily move away from their neighbors without problem.
Without the ability to engage in citizen capture, and without the ability to force the minority to accept the will of the majority, many things forced on us today are no longer possible.
For instance, wealth redistribution would not be possible, because the rich can escape any proposed taxation by jurisdiction splitting.
It would return society to a purely voluntary proposal, because no law could be passed on you that you did not agree to live by.
This is no mere utopia--this is achievable. And it is my goal and real-world intention to make this society an actuality.
Here are details on the physical manifestation of it, I've just now given you the political core to it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKWZBqSMU8U
I get it now! This thread has opened my eyes! To advance liberty, I must engage the simpleton, Kardashian-fan, smartphone addicts in a popularity contest, win their trust by working a job that probably means nothing and pretending I serve some great role in society, and not making a scene, keeping my mouth shut. But bitching on the internet for teh winz.
Anenome: I disagree. All those things you've listed are why minimum government is a necessity. The right of political separation allows you to choose which jurisdiction you want to be in at will. If a law is set to be passed in a territory which you dislike, you can immediately separate yourself from that jurisdiction and a form a new "cloned" jurisdiction with everyone else who voted against that law and lost (assuming it passed).
What if I show up at a local government jurisdiction office and say the following: I do not recognize your authority, nor will I ever choose to do so; I will not pay any taxes, nor will I abide by any laws that I personally do not consent to. You're jurisdiction has no bearing on me. Then, I storm out the room.
I am a peaceful and otherwise law-abiding citizen who causes no harm and just wants to live in peace in accordance to my own values. Would you be willing to use force on me in this instance?
Fail troll.
FunkedUp: Anenome: I disagree. All those things you've listed are why minimum government is a necessity. The right of political separation allows you to choose which jurisdiction you want to be in at will. If a law is set to be passed in a territory which you dislike, you can immediately separate yourself from that jurisdiction and a form a new "cloned" jurisdiction with everyone else who voted against that law and lost (assuming it passed). What if I show up at a local government jurisdiction office and say the following: I do not recognize your authority, nor will I ever choose to do so; I will not pay any taxes, nor will I abide by any laws that I personally do not consent to. You're jurisdiction has no bearing on me. Then, I storm out the room. I am a peaceful and otherwise law-abiding citizen who causes no harm and just wants to live in peace in accordance to my own values. Would you be willing to use force on me in this instance?
No, I would not--not aggression anyway. If you violated the NAP that would be something else, but you would not be aggressed against by any jurisdiction to force a jurisdiction on you.
You would be defined as an unincorporated person in the territory, someone without citizenship. You would still have your rights protected as a matter of due course. You'd be akin to a tourist in your own country. There would be no such thing as illegal immigration in this place, so you would not be kicked out without cause.
But, unless you started your own charter city and your own jurisdiction, you would find yourself living in someone else's jurisdiction, which would be purely private property, meaning if you're on their property then you have already agreed to live by the rules of their jurisdiction. There is no public property in this place.
This is necessary for purely voluntary transactions to rule. Thus, as an unincorporated person, you would either agree to abide by the rules of the local jurisdiction, or you would move outside all jurisdictions with rules.
Now, because legal experimentation is highly encouraged by the model I'm creating, you'd probably have little trouble finding some charter-regions that are attempting to produce an anarchist government (contradiction in terms?) meaning they create a jurisdiction with no controlling entity inside its borders, no rules, nothing. You'd be free to go there, and free to pass through other regions as long as you did so reasonably (without damaging things, etc).
But, if at any point you break the NAP, then anyone can hold you to account, unincorporated or not.
Does that answer all the possible angles?
I do not recognize your authority, nor will I ever choose to do so; I will not pay any taxes, nor will I abide by any laws that I personally do not consent to.
This is exactly what I want every citizen to say! I want each person to abide only by the laws they consent to, and recognize the authority of only those they give it to, and only pay the taxes they agree to pay.
Yes, that's exactly what I want. And this may be the first proposed government system that could make it a reality, certainly the first I've ever seen. It is a min-cap system, or actually i've come up with a better term recently: essentialist. I am no longer min-cap, the better term is, I am an essentialist, limiting government to its absolute minimum essentials, including protection of individual rights and national defense. Maybe voluntary-essentialist would be even better.
Anenome: No, I would not--not aggression anyway. If you violated the NAP that would be something else, but you would not be aggressed against by any jurisdiction to force a jurisdiction on you
No, I would not--not aggression anyway. If you violated the NAP that would be something else, but you would not be aggressed against by any jurisdiction to force a jurisdiction on you
This is an interesting position. I have one question: if taxation is voluntary then how is this a government?
This is a youtube video of the best of Zeppo Marx:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGkx8iijsPk
I love the internet
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
I'm with you there. But libertarians should go to these people and try to set them straight. There was a Ron Paul tent in Philly which did a good job of educating people to realize the real causes of the financial meltdown and why Dr. Paul will fix it.
You don't know anything about the FSP. New Hampshire is now home to a thriving liberty movement. Theres now over 1000 libertarian movers and every single one of them is active in their own way. NH will probably legalize marijuana within the next few years and is on its way towards privatizing gov. schools. The occupy in NH has been a huge failure but the FSP is doing amazing things. Just ask anyone in the FSP and they'll tell you this.
http://porcupinerealtor.com/528/ron-paul-supporters-time-to-consider-the-free-state-project/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=ron-paul-supporters-time-to-consider-the-free-state-project