Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Libertarians. What can you tell me about the Free State Project?


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,972 posts

Posted 24 June 2014 - 03:18 PM

It gets mixed press here in NH.
Some of them sound kinda normal.  Usual Libertarian talking points, less gov't, no taxes, less gun control, and legalize weed.

 

But others have been hitting the news here with some wilder expectations.  CopBlock, where the killing of police is not murder, but revolution, Zero Age of Consent for sex between adults and Children. A less restrictive Castle Doctrine.

 

All of the news in NH is one sided.  Both side have their outlets, but the info is so tainted, you don't know what is real.

 

 

How about it?  What's your thoughts?

 

 

http://freestateproject.org/

 

http://bluehampshire...-state-project/

 



#2 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,106 posts

Posted 24 June 2014 - 04:06 PM

I was plugged into FSP back when it was in the "deciding which state to choose" phase. Lotta people, including me, thought WY or MT would have been a much better choice than NH. It never hit the threshold number (I think it was 20,000) of people committing to make a move, but it seems that it's been humming along up there.

The people advocating violent disobedience and conduct which infringes on the rights of others are assholes who are damaging to "the cause," IMO. That was never the point of this. The point was to get enough people in one relatively low population state that laws viewed as oppressive could be changed.

I do think that those assholes are probably a small minority, but a media system prone to sensationalism and maintaining the status quo is, of course, going to focus on them.



#3 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,550 posts

Posted 24 June 2014 - 04:51 PM

The people advocating violent disobedience and conduct which infringes on the rights of others are assholes who are damaging to "the cause," IMO. 

 

 

Shoe betcha they are. Considering there is nothing libertarian about the initiation of violence/force/coercion against others.



#4 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,972 posts

Posted 24 June 2014 - 05:11 PM

The FSP seems to have distanced themselves from some of the fringe elements, but they remain close. From what it appears.
Recently the board of the FSP disallowed a violence related talk at their Porcfest.
The folks wanting to talk were not happy with the board. Saying that the board does not represent what 90% of the free staters believe in. Lots of hyperbole in this mess.

#5 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,972 posts

Posted 24 June 2014 - 05:12 PM

Colbert Report was in Keene last week filming. I'm not sure that Colbert will be putting them in a favorable light. They interviewed some of the cop killer people.

#6 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,106 posts

Posted 24 June 2014 - 05:18 PM

 No irony in a group of people wanting to be left alone to live in peace being made to look bad by a fringe that's yelling, "LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME, I'm gonna hurt you!" None at all. :(



#7 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,972 posts

Posted 24 June 2014 - 05:20 PM



#8 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,972 posts

Posted 24 June 2014 - 05:30 PM

No irony in a group of people wanting to be left alone to live in peace being made to look bad by a fringe that's yelling, "LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME, I'm gonna hurt you!" None at all. :(


Some of the folks up here are questioning whether these are recall fringe people at all. The FSP has done a lousy job of distancing themselves from the fringe. Or maybe the fringe are just more vocal.
While I believe that the majority of free staters don't align themselves with these folks, it burns me up that these fringe people have not only come to my state to take over, but actively seek other fringe folks to join them.

#9 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,550 posts

Posted 24 June 2014 - 05:39 PM

In rebuttal to her (whoever she is) regarding Christopher Cantwell's situation with FPS:

 

http://www.christoph...pine-non-grata/

 

Jody Gevins Underwood emailed me today concerning last nights board meeting of the Free State Project, and the motion to kick me out of the organization. Below is the exact text of that email, and then I will give you my thoughts on the matter.

Dear Chris,

The FSP Board met last night to discuss your situation and what to do. Our decision is stated below, which includes our reasoning.

Whereas Chris Cantwell has made the following public statements, been offered the opportunity to retract, and has refused to do so: “It’s a terribly unpopular thing to say, but the answer, at some point, is to kill government agents,” and “any level of force necessary for anyone to stop any government agent from furthering said coercion [tax collection in the context of funding the salaries of all government employees] is morally justifiable…” 

Whereas the FSP Board believes this view exceeds the right of self-defense

Whereas the Policy and Procedure for Removing Participants (passed 7/11/04) states:

Participants may be removed for promoting violence, racial hatred, or bigotry. Participants who are deemed detrimental to the accomplishment of the Free State Project’s goals may also be removed.

Therefore, according to the Policy and Procedure for Removing Participants, the FSP Board removes Chris Cantwell as a participant and declares him unwelcome to attend FSP-organized events.

 

In peace and liberty,

Jody

for the FSP Board

 

What this means is, I’ve been removed from the list of FSP participants, and I’m not welcome at events like PorcFest. It means the FSP has chosen to alienate not only me, but thousands of other people who agree with me, or even disagree with me but want to continue the conversation. It means that rather than write a coherent response to my blog, they would rather cut off communication and discourage others from having philosophical and tactical discussions (two different things) about the proper application of force.

What this doesn’t mean is, you shouldn’t move to New Hampshire, the Free State Project is fascist or doesn’t believe in free speech, or any number of other negative things people have said about the FSP in an effort to support me. This sort of rhetoric is counter productive. The FSP is voluntary, they can associate with whom they see fit. I believe in freedom of association, if the FSP doesn’t want me, who the hell am I to impose myself upon them? I’m still free to say whatever I want, I just can’t come to their party. I’m still free to live within the arbitrary geopolitical boundary commonly known as New Hampshire, I’m just not a member of this particular organization. I’m not ostracized by every member of the Free State Project, in fact I’m still facebook friends with the president thereof, this is a PR stunt to avoid unwanted attention. New Hampshire is a great place to live, and the FSP board is only 5 people.

Now, there’s quite a bit to say about this. Not the least of which is, I knew it was going to happen when I wrote “Concord Police, Go and Get Your Bearcat“. I alluded to that in the article when I said “the inevitable outrage that this article will invoke from libertarians may serve as further proof” [of their aversion to violence]. If anything, I’m surprised it took so long. When I moved to New Hampshire last year I found myself in a similar mess, but with a much lower profile and much tamer rhetoric, and it made me realize that there’s very little hope for the cause of liberty because there’s almost nobody willing to actually fight for it. I sought to change that, and my strategy is working.

Think of it as private sector civil disobedience. Other people go to prison for their beliefs, I think it’s quite a small sacrifice for me to miss PorcFest for mine. People are afraid to even discuss the use of force as a moral concept, much less a useful tactic in the fight for freedom. Since force is inevitable, as evidenced by our friends in cages and caskets, somebody has to talk about these things. I’d prefer it wasn’t me. Saying the things I say puts my life in danger and causes me a great deal of trouble in my interpersonal relationships. Unfortunately, there is only one other voice in the voluntarist community I can think of willing to talk about it, and that’s Larken Rose. Seems unfair to let one man shoulder all that burden. I hope that others will join the discussion, that’s part of why I’m saying the things I’m saying, and again, my strategy is working.

By threatening to kick me out over a blog, the FSP helped me draw light to this subject and made a lot of people talk about it. Yesterday, social media was buzzing with philosophical and tactical conversations over the use of force, and most of what I saw acknowledged that a line exists where force was necessary and proper. There’s still a lot of difference over where exactly that line is, and that’s a personal decision for each individual to make on their own. I think it’s important for people to discuss that more often, because as we’ve seen, things are getting worse out there, and the rate of change is picking up.

The IRS is targeting political enemies, the NSA monitors nearly all of our communications, the Nobel Peace Prize winning president who was elected as an antiwar candidate is preparing to launch yet another unprovoked attack on a foreign country while several such conflicts already exist, Boston fell to martial law on the day the first shots of the American Revolution were fired, Adam Kokesh is held in solitary confinement over a YouTube video, and by the way we still have high taxes, inflation, over-regulation, the war on drugs, a complete disregard for the bill of rights, and all the other things libertarians have been complaining about since before the coining of the term libertarian. If that line has not been crossed yet, it’s time to have a serious discussion over just where that line is. If not now, then when? If not you, then who? Decide now, because if you decide after you’ve been disarmed, things are going to become much more complicated.

 

 

read the rest at the link



#10 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,106 posts

Posted 24 June 2014 - 05:45 PM

Some of the folks up here are questioning whether these are recall fringe people at all. The FSP has done a lousy job of distancing themselves from the fringe. Or maybe the fringe are just more vocal.
While I believe that the majority of free staters don't align themselves with these folks, it burns me up that these fringe people have not only come to my state to take over, but actively seek other fringe folks to join them.

I understand why that burns you.

Again, I think that a big reason why you're not perceiving more distance is that the huge majority of the press is always going to give most of its time to both that which is controversial, and that which threatens the corporate status quo.

It's been at least a decade since I had any meaningful contact with FSP. Considered going to Porcfest this year because a family member went last year and really enjoyed it and a friend of ours who now live in CO also talked it up. It was too close on the heels of the end of our road trip this year, but maybe in the future.

I'll poke around some later...that video you posted references any discussion of "use of force," including defensive, but also references Christopher Cantwell, who has come very close to the line (and may have crossed it) of advocating killing government personnel. I seem to recall that some of his statements were part of the rationale for one of the Police Chiefs up there obtaining an APC. Cantwell isn't doing freedom any favors.

I find the idea of a NH police department owning armored vehicles really offensive.

And I'm rambling. Will try to write more, and more coherently, later.



#11 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,550 posts

Posted 24 June 2014 - 05:45 PM

There is certainly a difference between those who talk of and philosophizes over when, how and where the use of force is morally justified, vs. those advocating going out haphazardly initiating violence against anyone in particular, including government agents, are clearly separate things. But Chris is right above, they are free to associate with whomever they please. 



#12 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,972 posts

Posted 24 June 2014 - 05:50 PM

Even cop block took Cantwell off their site.

#13 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,550 posts

Posted 24 June 2014 - 05:55 PM

Again, free to associate with whomever they please. I find Cantwell hilarious. He WANTS to be controversial. HE DOES it on purpose. No one with a line "Anarchist, Atheist, Asshole" at the top of the blog screen should be seen as making tactical statements about using force in the first place. He deliberately tries to get people riled up, and while some may see that as hurting the cause, he is right about a lot that he says and does so very candidly. 



#14 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,106 posts

Posted 24 June 2014 - 06:07 PM

Again, free to associate with whomever they please. I find Cantwell hilarious. He WANTS to be controversial. HE DOES it on purpose. No one with a line "Anarchist, Atheist, Asshole" at the top of the blog screen should be seen as making tactical statements about using force in the first place. He deliberately tries to get people riled up, and while some may see that as hurting the cause, he is right about a lot that he says and does so very candidly. 

I don't disagree in principle, but he's a bright guy, and must know that his statements will be used against the broader movement in the media and by the government...

Much like Alex Jones, some of what he says is "right," but how it's conveyed and some of the other things he says are used to discredit the right parts. How we put forth a message can matter. A lot.



#15 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,550 posts

Posted 24 June 2014 - 06:16 PM

I don't disagree in principle, but he's a bright guy, and must know that his statements will be used against the broader movement in the media and by the government...

Much like Alex Jones, some of what he says is "right," but how it's conveyed and some of the other things he says are used to discredit the right parts. How we put forth a message can matter. A lot.

 

Let's take a look at the controversial statement Cantwell made that got him removed from FSP functions/etc...

 

It's actually already linked, so I think since we're discussing him, if you haven't, give it a go.

 

http://www.christoph...t-your-bearcat/



#16 Ginger Snap

Ginger Snap
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,704 posts

Posted 24 June 2014 - 07:08 PM

I find the idea of a NH police department owning armored vehicles really offensive.

 

 

My parents, NH citizens, find people being able to carry concealed weapons to the grocery store offensive and really really scary. 



#17 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,106 posts

Posted 24 June 2014 - 07:13 PM

TASB, I read it. And while there's a lot I concur with, but it can't come as a surprise that speaking out in such a way will get someone unwelcome in a group which is trying to work within the system, and to shed an unwanted and detrimental "terrorist" label.



#18 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,972 posts

Posted 24 June 2014 - 07:17 PM



#19 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,106 posts

Posted 24 June 2014 - 07:17 PM

My parents, NH citizens, find people being able to carry concealed weapons to the grocery store offensive and really really scary. 

A fair number of its populace thinking this way (some say Southern NH might as well be a suburb of Boston) is part of why I thought from the jump that the state was a poor choice for the FSP.

An APC is an offensive platform. The vast majority of people carrying handguns with a permit in the grocery store are doing so for defensive purposes. I'll go so far as to say all of them, as someone carrying for offensive purposes isn't going to care whether or not he has a permit.



#20 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,106 posts

Posted 24 June 2014 - 07:20 PM

M, I'll try to watch that later, but don't have a half hour right now.



#21 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,972 posts

Posted 24 June 2014 - 07:23 PM

I have zero problems with concealed carry.  In NH, there are a great many who conceal carry, and by definition.you would not know they were. I have huge problem with the antics of Open Carry Texas carrying long guns into Target or any other place just to get their photos taken.   



#22 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,972 posts

Posted 24 June 2014 - 07:29 PM

M, I'll try to watch that later, but don't have a half hour right now.

It wont take you a half hour.  pretty much the same thing over and over.

 

While Chris Cantwell may have said some things "right", even a broken clock is correct twice a day.   Most of what he says is either buffonish, or just plain dangerous.   In this video, he defends the LV murders of policemen, saying that while maybe they were taking a break, eating lunch, they would have been back to their murderous ways.  So in my (Chris Cantwell's) mind, it was not murder.  Paraphrased here, but close to verbatim.

Some of these people, who would not be here without the FSP, are dangerous to my state.  People like Larken Rose, and Chris Cantwell are dangerous, if only because people with smaller minds listen to them, and think they are right.   Then they shoot a couple of cops on lunch break.

The LV murderers were fans of Larken Rose.



#23 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,550 posts

Posted 24 June 2014 - 07:30 PM

TASB, I read it. And while there's a lot I concur with, but it can't come as a surprise that speaking out in such a way will get someone unwelcome in a group which is trying to work within the system, and to shed an unwanted and detrimental "terrorist" label.
 

 

Absolutely. Cantwell agreed with their decision. In that he believes in their right to freedom of association. At the same time, he makes a pretty solid observation about how agents of the state view the FSP membership, and there are plenty of examples available as testimony to his assertion. The group is not obedient. They want change, and therefore, they are an enemy to the state. His taking it all it's human behavioral ultimate climax really shouldn't seem shocking. At least it's not to me. :dunno:



#24 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,550 posts

Posted 24 June 2014 - 07:38 PM

It wont take you a half hour.  pretty much the same thing over and over.

 

While Chris Cantwell may have said some things "right", even a broken clock is correct twice a day.   Most of what he says is either buffonish, or just plain dangerous.   In this video, he defends the LV murders of policemen, saying that while maybe they were taking a break, eating lunch, they would have been back to their murderous ways.  So in my (Chris Cantwell's) mind, it was not murder.  Paraphrased here, but close to verbatim.

Some of these people, who would not be here without the FSP, are dangerous to my state.  People like Larken Rose, and Chris Cantwell are dangerous, if only because people with smaller minds listen to them, and think they are right.   Then they shoot a couple of cops on lunch break.

The LV murderers were fans of Larken Rose.

 

This is like arguing that violent video games make people commit violent acts. It may have certain merits, but from a rational perspective, someone who is already half cocked can find plenty of triggers to pull and place the blame elsewhere on. People take responsibility for their own actions. It's not the responsibility of people speaking freely to be held accountable for the actions of others.



#25 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,972 posts

Posted 24 June 2014 - 07:54 PM

So, what you are saying is that anyone who speaks, should not expect that their speech will incite action.  If I speak of peace, there will be no one acting on peace unless they are half bent that way.  Likewise if I speak of violence there will be no one acting with violence unless they are half bent that way.

 

Isn't that the point of political speech?  To get people over a threshold?  Doesn't matter what that threshold is, but isn't the main objective of the speaker to convince the halfhearted to come over to their side?  Otherwise, every political speech for the last 1000 years is redundant, no?

 

Your analogy of violent video games is lacking.  A violent video game is a game.  Everyone knows that.  No one is saying "This is the way you should act."  "This is the correct way to live." in a game.  

And I believe at times people are responsible for the actions of others.  Take the small riot at SXSW this year.  A guy (Tyler the Rapper?) tells a crowd of his fans to push their way past security and enter a capacity filled theatre.  They did.  Would they have done so with out his speech?



#26 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,550 posts

Posted 24 June 2014 - 08:17 PM

So, what you are saying is that anyone who speaks, should not expect that their speech will incite action.  If I speak of peace, there will be no one acting on peace unless they are half bent that way.  Likewise if I speak of violence there will be no one acting with violence unless they are half bent that way.

 

No, that's not what I'm saying. But again, there is most certainly a distinction between philosophical and tactical discourse when talking about violence. Chris makes no mention of any tactical in his blog. His talks are philosophical. You can speak of peace all day and keep waiting for it too, I'd love to see in the world. Unfortunately it isn't part of the human condition. And it isn't a matter of bent that way (whatever that means). Again, people who go off half cocked will find plenty of triggers. We have an entire culture built on violence. That's from the top down. Left or right. Religious or not.

 

Isn't that the point of political speech?  To get people over a threshold?  Doesn't matter what that threshold is, but isn't the main objective of the speaker to convince the halfhearted to come over to their side?  Otherwise, every political speech for the last 1000 years is redundant, no?

 

Or it could just be to get a discussion started about views that seem entirely controversial for no other reason than the maintenance of the status quo. I really can not lay intent on someone else speaking unless they make specific indications. In this case, Chris wanted to see it discussed and that happened. 

 

Your analogy of violent video games is lacking.  A violent video game is a game.  Everyone knows that.  No one is saying "This is the way you should act."  "This is the correct way to live." in a game.

 

 No one is saying "this is the way you should act." from this case either. it's basically someone asserting their right to self ownership, not the initiation of force on others. Which is what the state does to all of us. And it's a perfectly fine analogy. You're saying that violent rhetoric causes violent action. Im saying violent visuals and thinking cause violent actions. it's the same thing.

 

And I believe at times people are responsible for the actions of others.  Take the small riot at SXSW this year.  A guy (Tyler the Rapper?) tells a crowd of his fans to push their way past security and enter a capacity filled theatre.  They did.  Would they have done so with out his speech?

 

So if he said they shoud all go jump off the bridge and they did he should be held accountable?

 

:lmao:

 

That's ridiculous, sorry.



#27 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,972 posts

Posted 24 June 2014 - 08:31 PM

He would have a hard time convincing people that jumping off a bridge is in their favor.   Throughout history there have been people who used speech to incite riots.  Are you saying the riots would have occurred without the speech?  

 

Sorry, but that's ridiculous

 

 

And in the above video, Mr Cantwell is saying "This is right"  he is saying that the shooting of a police officer is not a crime. That it is justifiable. That it was not murder.   He only found fault with the killing of an innocent bystander.  (Who, I believe, was one of those "good guys with a gun" trying to stop this couple.  Not 100% sure of that)



#28 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,550 posts

Posted 24 June 2014 - 09:19 PM

 

Once again at around 7:45 into that video, Chris says he's making a moral argument. Now that whole conversation is pretty lousy, I'll give you that. And shooting police officers because they enforce laws is abominable. So, overall we can agree. But again, context is everything. Adam starts out by saying that Chris' theory to undoing the state is through the termination of law enforcement. Which, while loopy, isn't necessarily a call to arms for "crazy meth heads to try and restore the "republic".

 

Clearly.

 

We agree here.



#29 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,969 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 25 June 2014 - 02:49 PM

My parents, NH citizens, find people being able to carry concealed weapons to the grocery store offensive and really really scary. 

 

 

They better not move to some states in the south, or especially Texas.



#30 holysmokes

holysmokes
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,870 posts

Posted 25 June 2014 - 03:34 PM

First off, I don't consider myself a "Libertarian," but I am somewhat familiar with the FSP.  I actually made a post on this forum back in October 2013 concerning the FSP that went largely unnoticed:

 

http://www.gathering...-and-freekeene/

 

I got really interested in the FSP back in the winter of 2013 after watching some videos of the different panels of the 2013 Keenevention.  One of which was on Bitcoin, back when it was relatively unknown (at least to me):

 

 

I spent the winter of 2013 getting up to speed on the issues, following the videos being posted on various websites dealing with the law/freeman movement in general and in particular the happenings in and around Keene, NH.  I really admire these activists in NH for their willingness to do something to create the change they want to see in the world.  Activities like chalking sidewalks, ambush interviewing public servants, or what is termed, "robin hood," following the city parking enforcers around and putting money into expired parking meters before the enforcers can write tickets.

 

There are so many videos that I watched back in the winter/spring of 2013 that really opened my eyes to the brave new world we now live in, but if I were to just point to one, it would be this one:

 



#31 Uncle Coulro

Uncle Coulro
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,552 posts

Posted 28 June 2014 - 05:42 PM

I've had a mild crush on Josie the Outlaw for some time, now.

http://www.josietheoutlaw.com/