Are political solutions an illusion?

[ChrisDiamond]

Greetings everyone. I created a video about the false left-right paradigm, calling out both sides for their hypocrisy and the media for it's efforts to create and maintain it. I would love your feedback. If you agree with the sentiments expressed, please share it with others!

 

[ChrisDiamond]

Bump... I'd like to hear from folks who agree and disagree with what is said in the video. Am I alone in believing that perhaps it is time to completely opt out, peacefully of course, and do as Jefferson said we should?

 

[Todd]

Pretty good job and informative.

I've found that we all like to engage in the funny name calling with things like "Prostiticians" and it's fun to do from time to time. That being said, it has little place in a serious educational video, that is, if you really want the greatest amount of people to be convicted.

You could leave it out.

 

[Keith and stuff]

Greetings everyone. I created a video about the false left-right paradigm, calling out both sides for their hypocrisy and the media for it's efforts to create and maintain it. I would love your feedback. If you agree with the sentiments expressed, please share it with others!

The 1st 3 minutes deals with national issues. In 2001 or so, many people decided that national politics mostly doesn't work and came up with a possible solution. The solution was to select 1 state that leans somewhat pro-liberty and has a small population, and encourage Th the top liberty activists in the world to move there. The Free State Project participants selected New Hampshire.

At least where I live, in NH, religion and the media aren't just pro-big government. Heck, in many ways, we created our own, pro-liberty media. After all, there is a reason that Keene, NH is known as the liberty media capital of the world.

At about 7 min in, you bring up national politics again. I agree that national politics at most, is just a tiny section of the answer. However, it wouldn't make sense to end political activism completely, just because national political activism hardly works. Consider all of the success of local political activism.

Throughout the video you bring up moral arguments that appeal to you, but are in no way hard rules. It is just you promoting your morals.

In conclusion, I would say that lots of your evidence is pretty good but your final solutions are misguided and not based on anything close to a complete look at thing, even as we knew them years ago. It is like you are living in a pre-2001 world, a pre-FSP world. Local politics cleanly can work for liberty. New Hampshire is proof and so now it isn't possible to deny that local politics can work.

I could continue and say your video is looking at things from a pre-Campaign for Liberty world but I haven't actually seen any big successes because of C4L and the 2008 and 2012 Ron Paul Campaigns, yet. However, there is a chance that at some point in the future, big successes will come from those things. While national politics have never been favorable to pro-liberty folks, the current strategy has never been tried. It isn't fair to say it will never work, just because it hasn't worked yet.

 

[Keith and stuff]

Here is the Ron Paul endorsing (she even promoted him on national TV) chair of the RLCNH saying it a different way.


McKinney: Your most important vote this November is more local than you think
August 21, 2012
http://rlcnh.org/research-publicati...e-this-november-is-more-local-than-you-think/

Contrary to what many pundits will tell you, the upcoming presidential election is not the most important decision facing New Hampshire voters this November.

It’s true; a change in the presidency would at least slow our nation’s march toward an all-powerful centralized government. Yet, despite a long series of political party fluctuations in the White House and Congress, Americans have experienced no real shift in direction—and I have no confidence that we will ever see a that shift from the federal level.

The people will only regain their liberty when they use the states’ inherent constitutional power to wrest back power from the federal government. Therefore, what really matters this November are the type of people we elect to the State Legislature and, just as important, the people we elect as New Hampshire’s county sheriffs. These people—and the sheriffs in particular—can change the direction, not just of the state, but also of the entire nation.

By design, county sheriffs are supreme law enforcement officers in American counties, and their number one duty is not to transport prisoners, as some pundits in New Hampshire would have you believe. Before anything else, a County Sheriff’s job as a peace officer is to protect and defend the constitutional rights of citizens in the county from all enemies, “foreign and domestic.” Accordingly, county sheriffs in New Hampshire and in the other 49 states are America’s last defense against an out-of-control federal government, which seems to be increasingly determined to take away citizens’ constitutionally protected rights.

Voters should take comfort in a long history of county sheriffs standing up for the Constitution, not just in our early history, but also in modern times. At least two candidates running for sheriff in 2012, Bradley Jardis in Coös County and Frank Szabo in Hillsborough County, fully understand the importance of the county sheriff role, and for that reason they should earn voters’ enthusiastic support.

 

[ChrisDiamond]

Thank you for your input. In retrospect, I agree with you. Hindsight and all... >.<

 

[ChrisDiamond]

Thank you, Keith.

I did not mention local politics, true. I did mention political activism though, in the form of not asking the government to do something because of the costs when government does anything.

I would prefer localization (like Jefferson's Ward government idea), but the trend has been to look to and lean on the national government. There has been some backlash since 2010, and I see more local concern for government than I did 2 years ago.

I am also quite excited about the FSP in NH. I haven't had the chance to visit, but I am encouraged by what I hear and read about the FSP. I hope the FEDGOV never sees it as a threat, because I'm not sure what the FSP has done to provide protection for it's members in the case FEDGOV says it's bad.

I'll ask you to clarify the issue with my moral position. It is built upon the principles of self-ownership and non-agression. I don't claim that everyone has to adhere to those norms. I wish they would, but people who do not see a moral issue with aggression would willingly aggress against me, or back the government aggressing against me, or justify limiting my liberty because the majority agree with them. Is this somehow morally preferable?

Thank you for your honest criticism, and I hope you'll clarify some areas I may currently misunderstand.