Well, or at least to the parts that weren't originally part of Texas....
Posted on 11/20/2002 4:01:42 PM PST by watcher1
You mean, the originators of the George Bush doctrine or "compassionate totalitarianism," euphemistically called "homeland security."
Right!?
Hank
You don't have to. You can participate without making the move and signing the Letter of Intent to do so, and can sign on *here* as a *Friend of FSP* instead, with no cost or financial obligation.
There's a ton of research work yet to be done; coordination of FSPers all over the country [and worldwide- translators are needed too] and numerous FSP projects just now in the start-up phase. But it's almost halfway to the point of choosing and announcing the eventual *goal state* and it's interesting, to say the least.
More ways you can help, whether you can make the move or not. But even if you can't move to stay, it might be worth an entertaining visit.
-archy-/-
Well, okay, I'll try.
*Paint drying*
Seriously, my reponse to that would be LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL.
20,000 IRRELEVANT votes.
Well, or at least to the parts that weren't originally part of Texas....
Actually it's on the list! It ain't gonna make the cut though, too many people and too many dems.
I'd love to live in Wyoming or Montanna. Ef New Hampshire.
Yeah, well, for every Libertarian that moves to Wyoming, the Liberals will pump in 5 illegals, with voting privileges ;-)
Thanks for backing up what I said. I'm surprised your not scared. But, then again, when you consider beauty as being skin deep it all sounds great. Doesn't it?
It is! This is a BIG Freedom thing.
The big L need the small l to make this work
Did you sign up yet?
And other things too but, lets not give'm any ideas!
Agreed. I've never claimed to be either a lower nor upper-case L/libertarian, but I think they'd be better neighbors than a lot of others I could name.
Too, I figure I have a lot better chance at influencing the general direction of wayward Libertarians [...must...pass...tax...measure....!] than *progressive* Republicans who take their party away from it's conservative strengths [as per Bush in '92] or foaming-at-the-mouth liberal Dems.
It's as interesting to watch the proponents for different answers to the key decision of *which state* coalesce as it is to watch a sheepdog working his flock. No biting; it violates at least the spirit of the libbies nonagressive principle.
Hmmm, maybe *Libertarian enforcer* would make a good job description....
-archy-/-
I agree.
I'd take a Libertarian ( big or small L) over a RAT or a RINO any day of the week
No. I don't make commitments unless I'm sure I can follow through on them.
I would like some sort of chance of my children growing up in a free society, no matter how that's acheived. I barely recognize this country anymore.
I'm not a Libertarian, so that's one big sticking point. I think it's immoral and insane to kill babies. Also, I wouldn't have a problem with softening drug laws and ending the WOD, but allowing people to run meth labs next door to me is immoral and insane as well.
I also run a business and have certain family issues. I love Florida, although it's becoming the socialist cesspool that I left back in New York.
I'm going to watch what you guys do and how you handle yoursleves. Your plan is workable if done properly. However if you make it about Libertarian politics you'll get flushed down the toilet. Promise you that.
I don't think so, though they may well try it.
Wyoming has a continental climate, characterized by moderately warm summers at low elevations, long and cold winters, and generally low amounts of precipitation. ... January [temperature] averages are -7º Celsius (19º F) in the national park, and -3º Celsius (27º F) in Cheyenne. ... Thunderstorms and hailstorms are relatively frequent in summer. The annual snowfall ranges from about 500 mm (about 20 in) in the Bighorn Basin to well over 5100 mm (over 200 in)in the higher mountains, where annual precipitation can be 1140mm or more....
-archy-/-
If the people there feel put upon it could be very counter productive. Also, running large "L" libs in elections where you have pro-American repubs could yield Dems. That would suck too.
These guys need some pros and high profile types on their side. That Jason guy is likeable and has some good ideas, but a Libertarian head banger might not be the best face for this huge endeavor.
Although if 50,000 Libertarians did actually do this, you're right. They'd make much better neighbors than the selfish leftist scumbags that are taking over my area.
A lot to think about.
Concur. From the FSP FAQ page:
Put in a positive way, most FSP members support policies such as abolition of all income taxes, elimination of regulatory bureaucracies, repeal of most gun control laws, repeal of most drug prohibition laws, complete free trade, decentralization of government and widescale privatization.
People of this disposition may go by many names: "classical liberals" [not the same as modern liberals at all, but followers of Thomas Jefferson and similar thinkers), libertarians, paleoconservatives, constitutionalists, fusionists, etc., etc.
-archy-/-
More difficult still is the nature of the L(big L)ibertarian party. It differs from the two largest established parties in that it is not only formed around a strict body of theory but is led, at the moment, by theoreticians, much as the various flavors of Communists were in Russia before the advent of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Parties guided by strict adherence to theory tend toward radicalism and a form of puritanism that is incompatible with the necessity of broad appeal outside that body of theory that democratic practices dictate. It is for this reason that they tend to remain minority parties, where parties subject to a degree of compromise unpalatable to theoreticians tend more toward broad appeal by attempting to anticipate the desires of the public rather than dictate them. What I'm trying to say is that with parties such as the Libertarian, or the Green, the tail tries to wag the dog.
There are two examples I can think of offhand where such an inherently minority party did succeed in either becoming a majority party temporarily or exerting its will over the majority despite maintaining a minority status - these are, respectively, the experience of the Mormons in Utah, and of the Bolsheviks in Russia. Both, incidentally, were political movements very much backed up by the force of arms. In the case of the Mormons the party was coerced into allowing dilution in the form of non-Mormon settlers; these in time came to exert a distinctly non-Mormon political direction, as did portions of the Mormon party who deviated from strict party doctrine - the consumption of alcohol, for example, now quite permissible in Utah. In the case of the Bolsheviks, the party maintained dominance despite minority numbers by ruthlessly eliminating the opposition parties - although the populace as a whole were never party members, that party enjoyed 70+ years of guiding that populace by theory. Rigidity had a price - the Mormons still thrive, the Bolsheviki are no longer with us.
So while I wish the Free State Project every success I'm not sure that is a likelihood unless the Libertarian party makes a major change in its composition and its leadership. You simply need more than theory to govern, you need practical decisions over such things as the lesser course of two evils, neither of which is compatible with theory. That is real-world politics. Potholes first, governmental structure later. The only exception to this is in outright revolution and I don't think that's where this is headed. All IMHO and subject to debate, of course.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.