Why aren't we all members of the Free State Project?

[Josh_LA]

Translation: You are anti-freedom-to-travel.

Please stay out of NH, as we will be seceding and opening the "borders".

So ummm, what good is seceding if you don't have borders to guard against tyranny?

 

[porcupine]

Porcupine, do you have much contact with anybody in the Free State WY project? Do you have knowledge of the undoings of the other orgs you mentioned (FWA, NttF)? I personally like the Montana-Wyoming part of the country, so I'd like to gain any knowledge of the history of Freedom projects enacted out there.

I don't personally know any of the people in Free State Wyoming, but I agree with the idea of free state movements and concentrated liberty activism so I try to support them. The downsides with Wyoming are that the FSW is not very active and has very few movers. I also have not seen any evidence of activism once they get there. To me, New Hampshire is far superior to Wyoming in those respects...If you watch our home page, we have people moving and signing up daily. We also have a news feed on the main page that continuously shows what we're up to. The FSW on the other hand hasn't even updated their site in 18 months. However, for someone who can't/won't move to New Hampshire, I'd advise them to at least join the FSW and pitch their efforts in with the good folks in FSW. To learn more, check out the forums on http://www.freestatewyoming.com/

I really don't know anything about the other various failed free state movements. The impression I got of them were that they were very much like all the people on this thread. They wanted the benefits of the Free State Project without personally being willing to undergo the sacrifices so they just said "hey everybody, come move to where I LIVE!" Of course, no one came and they fizzled quickly. The thing that differentiates the Free State Project is that none of the founders or the board of directors of the Project are from New Hampshire. They all believed in it enough to move from where they lived.

Congratulations on achieving the current tally! You all are truly the leaders. Whoever the unnamed souls are who devoted years without pay and recognition to this project are great human beings in the most sacred sentiment. God bless all of them.

We're very excited with our recent spurt of growth. Much of it is Ron Paul activists who heard about the Project at the DC March or MN Convention. And yes, we've got some of the most amazing people here. They're the type of people who get things done and don't worry about who gets the credit. I'm telling you, the moving process really sifts the doers from the talkers and makes sure the people who get here are grade-A activists. I'm just honored to be part of this.

 

[FTL_Ian]

So ummm, what good is seceding if you don't have borders to guard against tyranny?

Gun freedom should handle it. Why do you think Hitler chose not to invade Switzerland?

In case you haven't noticed, the tyranny is already here. Beefing up "border security" only increases the size and intrusiveness of the police state.

If you try to control the lives of others, you will only end up finding yourself controlled.

Please consider trying true liberty and allow your neighbors to be free.

 

[porcupine]

So ummm, what good is seceding if you don't have borders to guard against tyranny?

Not all FSP members want open borders Josh. It's a varied group so keep that in mind. Ian is a very convincing guy though if you listen to his show

It's important for people who don't like a particular policy position of one of the FSP members to remember that we have 9,000 members...we're all very different, but we all want liberty.

 

[FTL_Ian]

For those who claim to support liberty and at the same time advocate restricting people from moving here, consider this:

"Borders" are another example of the tragedy of the commons. All property should be privately owned, and each property owner should be free to decide what rules apply to his land. If you want to build a big fence to keep people out, you can.

Just don't tell me what to do with MY property.

If I want people born on other plots of land around the world to be able to come live and/or work on my property, who are you to say otherwise?

Do you own me?

Do you own my property?

 

[mport1]

It's important for people who don't like a particular policy position of one of the FSP members to remember that we have 9,000 members...we're all very different, but we all want liberty.

+1

 

[Libertarian Ideals]

For those who claim to support liberty and at the same time advocate restricting people from moving here, consider this:

"Borders" are another example of the tragedy of the commons. All property should be privately owned, and each property owner should be free to decide what rules apply to his land. If you want to build a big fence to keep people out, you can.

Just don't tell me what to do with MY property.

If I want people born on other plots of land around the world to be able to come live and/or work on my property, who are you to say otherwise?

Do you own me?

Do you own my property?

Ahh, that's a nice way to put it.

 

[Josh_LA]

Gun freedom should handle it. Why do you think Hitler chose not to invade Switzerland?

In case you haven't noticed, the tyranny is already here. Beefing up "border security" only increases the size and intrusiveness of the police state.

If you try to control the lives of others, you will only end up finding yourself controlled.

Please consider trying true liberty and allow your neighbors to be free.

Ok great!

So by your logic, we canuse guns to guard against Mexican invasion and NAU mergers (if we see them as tyrannical). So much for your "open borders", just admit it, you're not against borders, you're against borders when the government does it, you have no problem with vigilante violence to enforce borders. Of course you need border enforcement of some sort, or you can't stop the federal government from sending troops to impose their unwanted rules, or communists from participating in your community to vote your system into bankruptcy (oh yes, I know you're going to say, that's either not a bad thing or by that time you'd have figured out how to deal with it)

Duh, of course I've noticed tyranny is already here. So we should allow tyrants to be free to F- us, right? Or should we use force to fight them? There is no "police state" if the police is democratically or community owned (like Minutemen and Neighborhood Watch).

Yes I agree, if you control others you'll end up being controlled, that's why it's important to be reactionary and keep people interactive ,rather than let live when you know something's wrong!

 

[Josh_LA]

For those who claim to support liberty and at the same time advocate restricting people from moving here, consider this:

"Borders" are another example of the tragedy of the commons. All property should be privately owned, and each property owner should be free to decide what rules apply to his land. If you want to build a big fence to keep people out, you can.

Just don't tell me what to do with MY property.

If I want people born on other plots of land around the world to be able to come live and/or work on my property, who are you to say otherwise?

Do you own me?

Do you own my property?

Yes Ian, I agree, if people were hired and wanted here, WHO ARE WE TO SAY OTHERWISE.

But if they are NOT hired, NOT welcome, who are we NOT to say we can kick them out for the reasons we feel like?

And what's wrong with a community coming together and saying collectively, we share a common border, so collectively, we can keep out unwelcome guests (call it a country or a city or a street, people do it all the time).

 

[constituent]

And what's wrong with a community coming together and saying collectively, we share a common border, so collectively, we can keep out unwelcome guests (call it a country or a city or a street, people do it all the time).

Because communities are imagined....


I'll give a little....


transient at best.

 

[Josh_LA]

genius

"Borders" are another example of the tragedy of the commons. All property should be privately owned, and each property owner should be free to decide what rules apply to his land. If you want to build a big fence to keep people out, you can.

Yes, by your logic, hallways and roads should be private owned too, so stepping one inch out of your house should warrant charging you a toll, right?

So that's really an easy way to solve immigration problems, just let the corporations buy up every last inch of land, roads, swamps and anything in between. Once they own it, they can dump whatever crap they want, toll Americans for trespassing anytime, and welcome bums from 3rd world countries. Who cares if it's bad for business? Who are we to tell them what they can't do?

Add this to eminent domain and the existing police state, Real ID, great recipe!

Ian, I understand your love for liberty not being limited to borders, but you and people who agree with you on this issue have done, NOTHING , AND I MEAN LITERALLY NOTHING in preserving liberty and order in all other parts of our law, so having borders becomes the LAST chip Americans have before unfair competition and unwanted tyranny comes in, HAD YOU AND OTHERS who want open borders done something to get rid of all income taxes, trade laws, wage laws, bureaucratic hurdles, we'd have been BEGGING for more immigrants probably more than they'd want to come here, but the reality doesn't fit your ideal.

And even Ron Paul recognizes this, that though immigrants are not to blame, it is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Saying immigration is simply freedom of motility is saying drunk driving is the freedom to drink and freedom to drive. Freedom is easy to say.

 

[Josh_LA]

Because communities are imagined....


I'll give a little....


transient at best.

Yes, so are morals, you have no problem with me murdering your family, right?

 

[constituent]

Yes, so are morals, you have no problem with me murdering your family, right?

dumbest. post. ever.

that said, try if you'd like. i have zero reservations about killing you first.

though something tells me you're liable to hesitate.

 

[Josh_LA]

dumbest. post. ever.

that said, try if you'd like. i have zero reservations about killing you first.

though something tells me you're liable to hesitate.

Excuse me? Dumbest post based on who's standards? Yours? Gods? Not community as we both know (according to you)

F- them all, unless you can defend that, you have nothing to say when somebody has a gun to your head, tell them it's wrong to kill.

So you've admitted, that you have zero reservations to kill first, be my guest.
(this is not a threat, it's pointing out YOU are the one who started this "it's imagined" stupidity)

 

[constituent]

F- them all, unless you can defend that, you have nothing to say when somebody has a gun to your head, tell them it's wrong to kill.

and telling them it's immoral will somehow help the situation?

So you've admitted, that you have zero reservations to kill first,

Yes that is correct, if you pose a threat to my family, i have zero reservations about neutralizing said threat.


Are you a parent?

(this is not a threat, it's pointing out YOU are the one who started this "it's imagined" stupidity)

Stupidity? Precisely what is stupid about the FACT that communities are imagined entities?

Start a thread about it though, as this has little to do with the FSP.


But before you do that, thumb through this or don't bother wasting our time.

 

[Josh_LA]

and telling them it's immoral will somehow help the situation?

Yes that is correct, if you pose a threat to my family, i have zero reservations about neutralizing said threat.

Are you a parent?

Stupidity? Precisely what is stupid about the FACT that communities are imagined entities?

Start a thread about it though, as this has little to do with the FSP.


But before you do that, thumb through this or don't bother wasting our time.

Ok, so you admit saying that it's wrong is useless, the same goes with saying that communities and mobs are imaginary is USELESS.

Precisely, saying that something is imagined when it's socially accepted and constructed is either ignorance or unreasonable denial, the same can be said that murder is OK since it's word against word.

 

[constituent]

Ok, so you admit saying that it's wrong is useless, the same goes with saying that communities and mobs are imaginary is USELESS.

Precisely, saying that something is imagined when it's socially accepted and constructed is either ignorance or unreasonable denial, the same can be said that murder is OK since it's word against word.

now you're just rambling.

read the book and start a thread, or don't.

 

[Josh_LA]

as this has little to do with the FSP.

.

No, this has LOTS to do with FSP.

Unless you have a means of preserving your freedom community, you can't stop invaders or tyrants from taking over, openly or infiltrating.

What you just admitted is, that when it comes to arms and force, saying that communities are imagined is meaningless, the fact is they exist. You have nothing to say about the fact that communities DO make decisions that benefit all members from time to time. And yes, communities can work the other way around too.

You can argue what's good and bad about communities, but to say they are imagined is no different than saying murder is OK unless you have imagined morals against it.

 

[Josh_LA]

now you're just rambling.

read the book and start a thread, or don't.

Or you can leave me alone if you got nothing better to reply.

 

[constituent]

You can argue what's good and bad about communities, but to say they are imagined is no different than saying murder is OK unless you have imagined morals against it.

"Morals" are imagined, so are "communities."

Srsly though, your entire argument (particularly trying to tie murder in w/ whether or not communities are imagined) is retarded, and i'm too worn out right now to care to discuss the issue w/ you any further.