Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post - What do you think of the Free State Project?

IronYuppie · Feb 23, 2004, 05:26 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (seanwah)
Ironically, if you knew enough about the movement to make a semi-informed decision, you would know that its leaders and the vast majority of its members reject secessionism as a valid form of effecting change. The idea is not merely "being free" but providing a control against which other states can be measured.
Since you're obviously either not informed (and therefore, with respect to your latter statement, a liar) or willfully dishonest, I'll give you the opportunity to retract one of those two statements: either the movement is not arrogant/ignorant/treasonous or you don't know enough about it to make an informed decision.
Pick one.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I completely distrust this group, of course they’re not going to openly advocate secession. They just want to get a group of radicals together and then “what happens next is up to those 20,000.” Of course they give one line of lip service on their web site to denying secessionist tendencies. Go ahead and tie your wagon to this cavalcade of extremist freaks (at least that’s the impression you give others of the typical member), it will go nowhere and you will go nowhere with it. This has been tried before and failed utterly. There are so many internal problems with the idea; registered libertarians hardly are ever willing to vote for the nominated libertarian candidate, and all of a sudden these people are going to come to some common agreement on who to vote for? Nice pipe dream, have fun wasting your life with this charade.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
As are all the unnecessary restrictions of information, movement, ideals, etc. Why do you choose to defend its good points by overlooking its bad ones? Interestingly, again, one of the driving philosophies behind the FSP is that one should be loyal to the country at all times, and loyal to the government when its deserving -- hence, respect what it does right, and try to change what it does wrong.
Besides which, your collective agreement theory is invalid on grounds of duress. In collective agreements, both parties have veto power over who may enter the contract; since the US government is prohibited from exiling citizens, any claim to contract either party has is void.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

“Loyalty when it’s deserving.” Sorry buddy, my loyalties lie with the USA first and any ideology I have second. There is always disagreement as to what form government should take and what policies should be made, but we live in a democracy when everything isn’t always’s as we want it. Of course the less loyal of us will attempt to run off and make our own little state or country, so quick to forget any loyalty to the country and system that enables the freedoms they have. I try to effect change through voting, civil protest, communication with the lawmakers I elect, etc, not by trying to hostilely take over a state of the US. I fell really sorry for the people of NH, if I could help them defend themselves against your ilk I would.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Now you're being not only misinformed/dishonest about the FSP, you're being misinformed/dishonest about the libertarian ideals behind it. Libertarians as a whole believe the government's only responsibility is to provide for the common defense of the people by establishing a nationalized military and localized police forces. The US would be under no more threat of foreign power than it is now.
Berries up my nose with a stick? Where'd that come from, and furthermore, what does that have to do with anything besides being the poisonous vitriol of an ill-informed mind grasping desperately in the dark for justifications to its poorly conceived arguments predicated almost entirely upon broad misconceptions and sweeping generalizations?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I sure hope you’re not in charge of recruitment, wait maybe I do, as you do nothing to advance the cause with people who may disagree. Again, your arguments are as unsubstantial (and annoying) as ragweed pollen. Most of your talents seem to lie with insulting those who don’t agree with you; you come off as very touchy and borderline neurotic. I mean “poisonous vitiol?” You started the name calling and infantile trash talking, I’ve said nothing that deserves that type of portrayal. Of course you don’t care, you’re probably just letting off repressed homosexual angst.
This rash and zealous attack on me is typical of the “internet loner,” being a student of psychology I see this type of behavior all the time. Usually it means you either have no decent skills in rhetoric, and so are forced to resort to the tactics of the mental midget (calling names); or you’re suffering from some pathology that prevents you from having a rational debate with someone. Or maybe both. Neither are very attractive to any that might take a second look at your movement. Yet another reason you will likely fail.

To certain others: how dare you tie libertarianism so closely to FSP? You act like they’re one and the same, and for me to disagree with one is to disagree with the other. I guess some of you are so wrapped up in this crap you cant see there’s a whole world of diverse opinion both within and outside of the libertarian movement. I have offered no critique nor opinion on Libertarian philosophy; for you to then attack me for being against that philosophy is very misguided.

Feb 23, 2004, 05:26 pm	#54 (permalink) (top)
IronYuppie Sedimentary Rock Posts: 9	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (seanwah) Ironically, if you knew enough about the movement to make a semi-informed decision, you would know that its leaders and the vast majority of its members reject secessionism as a valid form of effecting change. The idea is not merely "being free" but providing a control against which other states can be measured. Since you're obviously either not informed (and therefore, with respect to your latter statement, a liar) or willfully dishonest, I'll give you the opportunity to retract one of those two statements: either the movement is not arrogant/ignorant/treasonous or you don't know enough about it to make an informed decision. Pick one.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I completely distrust this group, of course they’re not going to openly advocate secession. They just want to get a group of radicals together and then “what happens next is up to those 20,000.” Of course they give one line of lip service on their web site to denying secessionist tendencies. Go ahead and tie your wagon to this cavalcade of extremist freaks (at least that’s the impression you give others of the typical member), it will go nowhere and you will go nowhere with it. This has been tried before and failed utterly. There are so many internal problems with the idea; registered libertarians hardly are ever willing to vote for the nominated libertarian candidate, and all of a sudden these people are going to come to some common agreement on who to vote for? Nice pipe dream, have fun wasting your life with this charade. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by As are all the unnecessary restrictions of information, movement, ideals, etc. Why do you choose to defend its good points by overlooking its bad ones? Interestingly, again, one of the driving philosophies behind the FSP is that one should be loyal to the country at all times, and loyal to the government when its deserving -- hence, respect what it does right, and try to change what it does wrong. Besides which, your collective agreement theory is invalid on grounds of duress. In collective agreements, both parties have veto power over who may enter the contract; since the US government is prohibited from exiling citizens, any claim to contract either party has is void.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> “Loyalty when it’s deserving.” Sorry buddy, my loyalties lie with the USA first and any ideology I have second. There is always disagreement as to what form government should take and what policies should be made, but we live in a democracy when everything isn’t always’s as we want it. Of course the less loyal of us will attempt to run off and make our own little state or country, so quick to forget any loyalty to the country and system that enables the freedoms they have. I try to effect change through voting, civil protest, communication with the lawmakers I elect, etc, not by trying to hostilely take over a state of the US. I fell really sorry for the people of NH, if I could help them defend themselves against your ilk I would. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Now you're being not only misinformed/dishonest about the FSP, you're being misinformed/dishonest about the libertarian ideals behind it. Libertarians as a whole believe the government's only responsibility is to provide for the common defense of the people by establishing a nationalized military and localized police forces. The US would be under no more threat of foreign power than it is now. Berries up my nose with a stick? Where'd that come from, and furthermore, what does that have to do with anything besides being the poisonous vitriol of an ill-informed mind grasping desperately in the dark for justifications to its poorly conceived arguments predicated almost entirely upon broad misconceptions and sweeping generalizations?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I sure hope you’re not in charge of recruitment, wait maybe I do, as you do nothing to advance the cause with people who may disagree. Again, your arguments are as unsubstantial (and annoying) as ragweed pollen. Most of your talents seem to lie with insulting those who don’t agree with you; you come off as very touchy and borderline neurotic. I mean “poisonous vitiol?” You started the name calling and infantile trash talking, I’ve said nothing that deserves that type of portrayal. Of course you don’t care, you’re probably just letting off repressed homosexual angst. This rash and zealous attack on me is typical of the “internet loner,” being a student of psychology I see this type of behavior all the time. Usually it means you either have no decent skills in rhetoric, and so are forced to resort to the tactics of the mental midget (calling names); or you’re suffering from some pathology that prevents you from having a rational debate with someone. Or maybe both. Neither are very attractive to any that might take a second look at your movement. Yet another reason you will likely fail. To certain others: how dare you tie libertarianism so closely to FSP? You act like they’re one and the same, and for me to disagree with one is to disagree with the other. I guess some of you are so wrapped up in this crap you cant see there’s a whole world of diverse opinion both within and outside of the libertarian movement. I have offered no critique nor opinion on Libertarian philosophy; for you to then attack me for being against that philosophy is very misguided.