Liberty in Our Lifetimes -- freestateproject.org

[narcimund 0]

There's quite a mix of people on dropzone. A huge number of liberty-minded free thinkers and just as prominant a population of authoritarians.

This is for the former: Have you looked at freestateproject.org?

Free State Project is an initiative to invite the small minority of Americans who actually believe in freedom (instead of just abusing the word) to concentrate themselves in a single political area so their influence can sway elections and eventually lead to the first government in history to truly stay out of the citizens' way.

Will it work? Who knows... it's a long shot. But it's a clearheaded attempt and that's better than the alternatives.

The membership of FSP has recently voted on which state will be liberated. The votes have been counted and the announcement will be made October 1. Candidate states were: Alaska, Delaware, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming.

If you're interested in living with the first non-repressive government in history, visit the website, join, and watch for the announcement.

However, if you enjoy and appreciate the growing governmental power over your mind, money, and life, you don't need to do anything. Just sit back and enjoy.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[QuickDraw 0]

Sounds like a revolution, has it got a european arm ?

-- Hope you don't die. --

I'm fucking winning

[flighty 0]

Pick New Hampshire. We're doing pretty well in this direction as it is. If we could just keep the Massachusettes Ted Kenedy folks out.

Edit to add: Does having the motto "live free or die" get us any extra points?

~Cindy~
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Spelling and grammar errors are left as an exercise for the reader.

[narcimund 0]

Actually I think NH has a pretty decent chance overall. The motto and deep freedom-loving consciousness of the population were the main arguments in favor.

Other strong candidates in my mind were Maine and Alaska.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[jfields 0]

Quote

Does having the motto "live free or die"

I'm just amused at the thought of convicts stamping it on license plates.

[QuickDraw 0]

Quote

I'm just amused at the thought of convicts stamping it on license plates.

I'm thinking of them 20'000 faces packing for Alaska.

-- Hope you don't die. --

I'm fucking winning

[narcimund 0]

Quote

I'm thinking of them 20'000 faces packing for Alaska.

Yeah, it's a real shame Alaska is uninhabitable (by most people's standards). It's PERFECT in every other way.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Hummusx 0]

I saw this question in the faq's:

The Statement of Intent says that I should "exert the fullest possible effort" toward the creation of a minimal-government society, but I have moral objections to voting.

I've never really heard anyone say they have a moral objection to voting. Anyone know what the grounds would be?

____________________________________
It’s like selling a million grills all at the same time…with extended warranties. -Hank Hill

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I've never really heard anyone say they have a moral objection to voting. Anyone know what the grounds would be?

Maybe you think fascism is the "right" way. And morally, can't participate in a democratic process because it is evil. Of course, I'm not sure why you'd get involved in this if that were the case.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Anyone know what the grounds would be?

Sure. Here's a summary of ONE moral position in conflict with voting:

Participation in a voting event is an implicit moral sanction for the event and commits one to acceptance of the legitimacy of the results. However, voting events are oppression of the minority by the majority.

Therefore, if one votes, one is either:

A) Implicitly agreeing to be oppressed if your side loses
B) Oppressing of the other side if your side wins

And in either case, you are:

C) Willfully participating in a process by which someone will be oppressed.

However, in the case of a vote among a voluntary membership, such as FSP or USPA, there is no oppression. Everyone has agreed to the program.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Guest]

It's been mentioned here before.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Pick New Hampshire. We're doing pretty well in this direction as it is. If we could just keep the Massachusettes Ted Kenedy folks out.

Edit to add: Does having the motto "live free or die" get us any extra points?

It was only a few years back that NH prosecuted a motorist for covering up that motto in his license plates. I think that action alone should disqualify New Hampshire in perpetuity!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Harksaw 0]

Whats inherently wrong with "repression?" Everyone can't get their way. How would you suggest decisions be made?

Also, US Citizenship is voluntary. Anyone can leave at any time, just like the USPA

__________________________________________________
I started skydiving for the money and the chicks. Oh, wait.

[narcimund 0]

Unfortunately you mistook my example explanation as a statement of my personal views. I was simply giving a possible moral scenario in response to Hummusx's question.

I didn't do so in order to provoke an argument and I don't care to get into one here. Bulletin boards are not organized enough to support complicated moral debates. I'm sure you've seen that many times as we all have.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Harksaw 0]

No, sorry, I know that that wasn't your personal opinions. Its just way beyond me what any group would have against voting.

__________________________________________________
I started skydiving for the money and the chicks. Oh, wait.

[narcimund 0]

As long as we recognize it's a hypothetical position, I'll give it a try:

Take the case of several wolves and two sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

The vote which promotes self-interest is for Sheep #1 to vote for eating Sheep #2 (and vice versa). Yet each of them might justifiably feel they do not have the moral right to condemn the other to death.

Voting instead to eat a wolf is cute, but isn't going to be in the majority, so it's wasted.

And regardless, any vote whatsoever morally obliges each sheep to recognize and cooperate with the results. Yet both sheep would probably like to reserve the right to fight back and run away when the wolves bare their teeth.

Both sheep might therefore conclude the only moral position is to refrain from voting. It doesn't save your life, but neither does it make you guilty of immorality or oblige you to sit still for the feast.

By the way, for a very interesting early exploration of these issues, read Plato's Crito and Apology where Socrates explains why he will not use an opportunity escape from a legal but unreasonable death sentence. He's participated in the political system, so he feels morally obliged to accept whatever it results in.

Edited to correct my fading memory of the socratic dialogues.

First Class Citizen Twice Over