Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Free State Project: A Project for Idaho
Idaho Observer via Sierra Times ^ | 11/16/02 | Hari Heath

Posted on 11/18/2002 7:26:58 AM PST by Jack Black

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 521-522 next last
To: wimpycat
Would you make that comment to a black man, a property-less white man or a woman? 200 years ago, none of these people had the right to vote or participate in the political debate.

I'd make that statement to anyone, because--across the board--we certainly have less freedom in this country than we did at its founding, as the Founding Fathers would certainly be horrified to see, were they alive today.

321 posted on 11/20/2002 8:46:31 AM PST by The Green Goblin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: Dead Dog; home educate
To: home educate
"Unlike Europe we are a culture based on ideals, not race or national heritage. Any Hispanic that legally crosses the boarder and embraces those ideals automatically inherits our heritage. IMO"
# 310 by Dead Dog
**********************

Exactly right.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights..."

The libertarian ideas our nation is founded upon leave a lot of room for the assimilation of different races.

322 posted on 11/20/2002 8:47:27 AM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat
Of course, they wouldn't outlaw euthanasia, either, as long as there's some method to supposedly secure the patient's consent.

Never mind the fact that in the event of a non-voluntary euthanasia, the victim can't exactly contest bogus paper work with his side of the story :o)

So, in short, the goblin's idea is that these people will just quietly die and leave him alone.
323 posted on 11/20/2002 8:49:52 AM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: The Green Goblin
A slave from 200 years ago would be praising God, at the thought of his descendants voting and participating and forging their own destiny of their own free will. Don't underestimate that. And since you "own" the Founding Fathers' spirits, I'm equally free to give my own opinion that the Founding Fathers would be pleased and proud, overall.
324 posted on 11/20/2002 8:50:46 AM PST by wimpycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat
Correction: And since you don't "own" the Founding Fathers' spirits...
325 posted on 11/20/2002 8:52:03 AM PST by wimpycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat
So, no state assistance for those physically unable to care for themselves. OK, I'm understanding you better now.

Good. You must certainly now understand that my position is that of the Founding Fathers who made no provision for "state assistance" in such cases in the Constitution of the United States. Such "assistance" is made possible only by forcible theft from other men, and is thus immoral:

"By nature's law, every man has a right to seize and retake by force his own property taken from him by another by force or fraud. Nor is this natural right among the first which is taken into the hands of regular government after it is instituted. It was long retained by our ancestors. It was a part of their common law, laid down in their books, recognized by all the authorities, and regulated as to circumstances of practice." --Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812

326 posted on 11/20/2002 8:52:25 AM PST by The Green Goblin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: weikel
Playing spoiler is counterproductive. Libertarians should do the Republican party what socialist did to the Dem party infiltrate and take control.

I believe the Free State project is the result of a very realistic assessment of all the possible courses of action. I do not speak for them but that's how I observe and read the situation.

Comparing the socialist takeover of the Democrat party to libertarians or even conservatives taking over the Republican is like comparing apples and oranges. Two different matters completely. Socialism and communism were more than just a political philosophy they were mass religious movements and their followers had a zealotry to them that normal people just wanting to be left alone lack. Also they believed in using evil to fight evil and evil came naturally to the true believers as this religion stirred up base and negative emotions - envy, greed, resentment, even hate and the lust to destroy. Of course this was veiled as love and compassion for ones fellow man and building utopia. Using deceit and pitting groups against each other is legitimate, even righteous for these people as they think of a loftier end result.
There is also a financial angle to this that can not be overlooked and it is more important than the religious fanatics mentioned above. Ever wonder why so many socialists and communists are wealthy people and families? it means monopolistic control giants of industry will have as they partner with big government. Small business i.e.. competition will be strangled. Not to mention the looting of the treasury as government picks up the tab for business costs - R&D to advertisment,etc. In short socialism is a racket - a lucrative and perpetual one.

The Republican establishment signed on to the Democrat socialist program back in the 1930's. They had to retain the two party front but they believe in the program. Wendle Wilkie was no real conservative. Post War 2 pols like Ike were establishment tools. Goldwater was sabotaged by GOP establishment as much as the Democrats. Reagan was an aberation and he was contained. True conservatives are being purged from the party now as we speak in case some haven't noticed.

So to sum up a take over of the GOP is not going to happen by good honest grassroots liberty loving people at a national level. Even at sate level it would be impossible in 40 of the states and that is why I believe the FSP is looking at a couple of small states where right thinking people could concentrate their efforts. BTW so far the FSP is not advocating a take over of the GOP or starting a third party. That course of action could only be determined when a state is officially selected and the actual numbers of FS members is known and they are in place. The plan is sound and realistically our only chance.

327 posted on 11/20/2002 8:53:18 AM PST by u-89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat
And since you don't "own" the Founding Fathers' spirits...

Please refer to the Jefferson quote provided in my previous post.

328 posted on 11/20/2002 8:53:54 AM PST by The Green Goblin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Other than from extreme Liberals, have you EVER seen such revisionist history

Exactly.

329 posted on 11/20/2002 8:58:41 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat; The Green Goblin
To: exodus
"...if Green Goblin were running for the state legislature, his stump speech would go something like this:

"If elected, I promise to do away with all speeding laws, seat belt laws and drunk driving laws. Further, I vow to abolish the state income tax and do away with all public assistance to cripples and other shut-ins. We'll leave the churches to bear those burdens in whatever way they see fit, and if the churches choose not to, since we can't force the churches or other private charities to do anything, well, that's not our problem. It's not the state's job to wet-nurse anyone."
# 320 by wimpycat
**********************

That sounds good so far.

We just need to smooth it out a little.

Have faith in your fellow man, wimpycat.

The accident victim you were worried about earlier wouldn't have died from lack of care. We've become used to the crutch of government subsidies in medical care, thus costs have gone through the roof. If we can find doctors willing to volunteer to go to primitive nations to do charity work, I'm sure we'll be able to find doctors willing to work in the proposed "Free State."

People aren't as mean as the socialists say they are. We won't let anyone die.

330 posted on 11/20/2002 8:58:45 AM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: exodus
You're lying.

Backwards.

331 posted on 11/20/2002 9:00:08 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah; The Green Goblin; wimpycat
To: wimpycat
Of course, they wouldn't outlaw euthanasia, either, as long as there's some method to supposedly secure the patient's consent. Never mind the fact that in the event of a non-voluntary euthanasia, the victim can't exactly contest bogus paper work with his side of the story :o) So, in short, the goblin's idea is that these people will just quietly die and leave him alone.
# 323 by Poohbah
**********************

That is an outright lie, Poohbah.

The Green Goblin is a libertarian. Libertarian primciples do not allow murder.

I realize that as a socialist it's your duty to point out how mean and hateful capitalists are, but you're really using the wrong forum; you're supposed to be pretending to be a conservative, remember?

332 posted on 11/20/2002 9:05:32 AM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: The Green Goblin
Thomas Jefferson's quote (I'm surprised you'd take non-Constitutional text and pass it off as valid to the law) would only make sense if he felt public assistance was fraudulent and taken by force. I don't believe he felt that way, and I believe the quote has been taken out of its larger context anyway. But just to humor you, our quadriplegic has the right to take by force his property (use of his body, his means of earning a living) which was taken from him by another (the drunk driver) by force or fraud. The quadriplegic has a natural right to his property. Thomas Jefferson is saying that our quadriplegic has natural rights, part of common law, recognized by all the authorities and regulated as to the circumstances of practice. So who will guarantee him these rights? Private charity? The state has the legal duty, not the Church, the obligation to see to guaranteeing our quadriplegic his rights. In the absence of restoring the use of his limbs, enabling our quadriplegic to earn his own living, the state has the obligation to guarantee our quadriplegic has the legal means to recover adequate compensation to cover the loss of his limbs. Normally, he would recover from the drunk driver, but if the drunk driver has no money, the state is not absolved of its responsibility to protect our quadriplegic's rights under the law.
333 posted on 11/20/2002 9:08:27 AM PST by wimpycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: The Green Goblin
"By nature's law, every man has a right to seize and retake by force his own property taken from him by another by force or fraud. Nor is this natural right among the first which is taken into the hands of regular government after it is instituted. It was long retained by our ancestors. It was a part of their common law, laid down in their books, recognized by all the authorities, and regulated as to circumstances of practice."
--Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812
# 326 by The Green Goblin
**********************

Great quote, Goblin!

I haven't seen that one before.

334 posted on 11/20/2002 9:11:44 AM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: exodus; Cultural Jihad; Chancellor Palpatine; Roscoe; wimpycat
That is an outright lie, Poohbah.

No, it isn't. Every Libertarian I've met favors legalized euthanasia.

The Green Goblin is a libertarian. Libertarian primciples do not allow murder.

Ah, but they allow the inconvenient to remove themselves from our midst. And they don't get overly fussy about making sure that private transactions are adequately documented, so they would end up, in practice, winking and nudging at fraudulent euthanasia, all in defense of "freedom" and "keeping nosy bureaucrats out of our private affairs."

The real world is a tad more complex than Libertarianism allows for.

I realize that as a socialist it's your duty to point out how mean and hateful capitalists are, but you're really using the wrong forum; you're supposed to be pretending to be a conservative, remember?

People who disagree with you are not necessarily socialists. People who are sane are neither socialist nor libertarian, and with damn good reason, as your latest brain drippings reveal.

Basically, libertarianism works in a world where people are innately good, without any evil impulses anywhere. Sadly to say, that world does not exist.

335 posted on 11/20/2002 9:17:33 AM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
You are the only libertarian I've run across with a supportive attitude toward emiment domain.

His claim that representative government is a "libertarian" value also struck me as novel.

336 posted on 11/20/2002 9:22:28 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe; nopardons; OWK
To: nopardons
Actually, there are Libertarians on FR who defend slavery, as long as it is done under the guise of "contract." See http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aad218b5c77.htm
# 196 by Roscoe
**********************
To: Roscoe; nopardons; OWK
I took the time to search the entire thread, Roscoe. You're lying. Your refusal to admit that there is a difference between "voluntary" and 'involuntary" does not mean that OWK supports slavery.
# 220 by exodus
To: exodus
Backwards.
# 331 by Roscoe
**********************

You claim to be familiar with the law. I tell you, "Objection! Speculation is not fact."

"OWK defends slavery" is not true. If you say that it is true, I am justified in saying that you are lying.

337 posted on 11/20/2002 9:27:22 AM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe; Poohbah
You are the only libertarian I've run across with a supportive attitude toward emiment domain.
To: Poohbah
(exodus) claim that representative government is a "libertarian" value also struck me as novel.
# 336 by Roscoe
**********************

"Novel?"

How many times do I need to explain it to you before you remember what I've said? We've covered this several times, Roscoe.

Our Founding Fathers formed our government based upon libertarian principles. Not surprising, since they WERE libertarians.

338 posted on 11/20/2002 9:33:21 AM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: exodus
Our Founding Fathers formed our government based upon libertarian principles. Not surprising, since they WERE libertarians.

This has been demonstrated to be a falsehood on this thread already. You, sir, are a liar.

339 posted on 11/20/2002 9:35:12 AM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: exodus
Our Founding Fathers formed our government based upon libertarian principles. Not surprising, since they WERE libertarians.

Begging the question is all you've got.

Criminal sodomy laws in effect in 1791: Connecticut: 1 Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut, 1808, Title LXVI, ch. 1, 2 (rev. 1672). Delaware: 1 Laws of the State of Delaware, 1797, ch. 22, 5 (passed 1719). Georgia had no criminal sodomy statute until 1816, but sodomy was a crime at common law, and the General Assembly adopted the common law of England as the law of Georgia in 1784. The First Laws of the State of Georgia, pt. 1, p. 290 (1981). Maryland had no criminal sodomy statute in 1791. Maryland's Declaration of Rights, passed in 1776, however, stated that "the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England," and sodomy was a crime at common law. 4 W. Swindler, Sources and Documents of United States Constitutions 372 (1975). Massachusetts: Acts and Laws passed by the General Court of Massachusetts, ch. 14, Act of Mar. 3, 1785. New Hampshire passed its first sodomy statute in 1718. Acts and Laws of New Hampshire 1680-1726, p. 141 (1978). Sodomy was a crime at common law in New Jersey at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The State enacted its first criminal sodomy law five years later. Acts of the Twentieth General Assembly, Mar. 18, 1796, ch. DC, 7. New York: Laws of New York, ch. 21 (passed 1787). [478 U.S. 186, 193] At the time of ratification of the Bill of Rights, North Carolina had adopted the English statute of Henry VIII outlawing sodomy. See Collection of the Statutes of the Parliament of England in Force in the State of North-Carolina, ch. 17, p. 314 (Martin ed. 1792). Pennsylvania: Laws of the Fourteenth General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ch. CLIV, 2 (passed 1790). Rhode Island passed its first sodomy law in 1662. The Earliest Acts and Laws of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations 1647-1719, p. 142 (1977). South Carolina: Public Laws of the State of South Carolina, p. 49 (1790). At the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, Virginia had no specific statute outlawing sodomy, but had adopted the English common law. 9 Hening's Laws of Virginia, ch. 5, 6, p. 127 (1821) (passed 1776).

BOWERS v. HARDWICK, 478 U.S. 186

340 posted on 11/20/2002 9:40:21 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 521-522 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson