Libertarians Aim to Take Over a 'Free State'

Star Tribune ^ | June 10, 2003 | Bob von Sternberg

[Mr. Mojo]

A libertarian state. ....Hmmmm, let's see:

1) few (if any) gun laws.
2) legalized prostitution (although subject to zoning laws. ...and taxed).
3) decrimminalized marijuana. (possession of other federally prohibited drugs subject to zoning laws).
4) no state income taxes (obviously).
5) no property taxes.

[Cathryn Crawford]

The rumors comment is referring to whom, nopardons or myself?

[tpaine]

Or, -- the queens.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Ahh...all right. I haven't been around long enough. ;)

[A.J.Armitage]

The plan calls for a vote once they reach 5,000 members. They have about 4,000. Not 100. Of course they haven't decided yet.

[nunya bidness]

The plan has absolutely nothing to do with late night rhetoric and innuendo and you know it. Shape up kid. People are watching.

[EBUCK]

Let's assume you're correct. Assume for a moment The United States is an empire.

No need to assume anything, we are an empire.

What then would happen when an empire abandons the frontier? There's far more violence than before.

Which frontier? Our coast lines and North/South borders are all that we are responsible for. Voilence outside out borders are not our concern.

My position is a bit different. There are people and groups in the world who would attack the United States even if we had never sent a single soldier beyond our shores. Who? Radical islamicists, communists, anarchist, organized criminals, etc.

I believe the opposite is true. It is only when we are the agressors, occupiers, and suppliers of their enemies that we are attacked.

[EBUCK]

I didn't say " 100 " either.

LOL...

They can't even get 100 people together to do this,

yer post #106

[jmc813]

they're all talak

talak, is that Klingon? ;-)

[jmc813]

And NOW, you're a Libertarian ? Ya know what ... you are really sounding more and more like a retread, dear. :-)

Have you read any of her columns that are posted here? If you did you'd realize that she is quite conservative. The thing is, she has an open mind and is willing to learn about other philosiphies, rather than just being automatically hostile to them.

[nopardons]

I've read her posts, I've corresponded PRIVATELY with her, and there's quite a difference between having an open mind, and none at all.

I didn't know much about Libertarians, until I came to FR. I read EVERY link and EVERY Libertarian web site, that was suggested to me, in those bygone days. I've also had YEARS of reading FR's Libertarians replies. Mine, was NOT some hasty judgement, made on the fly, about the LP and self proclaimed Libertarians. So, don't preach to me, newbie.

[nopardons]

:-)

[jmc813]

So, don't preach to me, newbie.

OK, let's address this one right off the bat. What, exactly, is your definition on newbie? I've been registered for over two years. Are people supposed to be impressed with your sign up date? Count me as someone who's not.

I've read her posts, I've corresponded PRIVATELY with her, and there's quite a difference between having an open mind, and none at all.

Did you read her posts above where she said she DIDN'T think this plan would work? Does that really sound like a Libertarian trying to attract people to this cause?

I didn't know much about Libertarians, until I came to FR. I read EVERY link and EVERY Libertarian web site, that was suggested to me, in those bygone days. I've also had YEARS of reading FR's Libertarians replies. Mine, was NOT some hasty judgement, made on the fly, about the LP and self proclaimed Libertarians.

If you read my profile page, you will see that I have many issues with the Libertarian Party myself. I prefer to call myself a small-l libertarian Republican. Have you ever read the position statement of the Republican Liberty Caucus, most of which the owner of this site endorses? If not, please do so, and maybe you'll learn that libertarians (note the lowercase l) aren't as bad as you think.

[archy]

They can't even get 100 people together to do this, nor can they decide, aamongst themselves, which state to attempt to " take over ". If THAT isn't " all talk & no action ", then I don't know WHAT is !

Signed members as of 6-12-2003: 4,087

Since the number of pledged FSP *Porcupine* members is posted on the FSP homepage and information on the rates of growth of the project is also available, I have to figure that you're either uninformed and working from very outdated secondhand information, are illiterate and unable to read and analyze the FSP info figures for yourself, or are a deliberate liar.

The FSP had around 3000 pledged [to make the move to the chosen state] members in Mid-April, about 6 weeks back and now having passed 4000, can be reasonably expected to reach that 5000 number at which point the vote for which first goal state will be chosen will be held within two to four months. The FSP projection is that will be in around 16 weeks; I'm betting it'll be closer to 8; but it'll be somewhere around that ballpark.

-archy-/-

[FITZ]

I have to respect the Libertarians here. At least they are trying to do something besides bitch. We'll see what happens.

Yes ---I wish this project would work --it'd be interesting to observe ---get rid of welfare completely, all government programs and see what happenes. Obviously certain types couldn't make it if they had to make it on their own and would head off to places like California. I would possibly prefer living in a libertarian type place ---it'd be interesting to see one though.

[BJungNan]

From all of us...Thank you Thank you Thank you!

[af_vet_rr]

It won't work. As much as I sympathize with the FSP, it just won't work. Once the state is chosen and the takeover begins, the Feds will apply economic pressure to bring that state back in the fold. If that doesn't work, they'll use force to crush the FSP.

Now why would you go and say that about the federal government? The federal government, especially with a Republican in the WH, would never interfer with the rights given to its citizens. Why if it's not mentioned in the Constitution (and technically then a state issue), I'm sure they wouldn't get involved at all ;-)

[Dada Orwell]

<> Let's assume the feds are really as agressive as you say. Does that make it more or less important to take a stand against their excesses? Does it make it more or less important to have a state's instititions and voters on your side? I don't wish to sound disrespectful, but I get burned out fast on this kind of handwringing. "What if the bad guys do this, what if the bad guys do that, the sky is falling, where's the nearest white flag, woe is us, woe woe woe...." Free Staters are initiating concentrated action to roll back government and return part of this country to the Constitution and individual liberty. They won this right-wing FR type over in about five minutes. Are you with us or those neosocialist RINOs in D.C.? Liberty in Your Lifetime http://freestateproject.org