Free Keene

Comment by Zeus

October 27, 2008 @ 8:17 am

Never been a big fan of flag burning. It’s incendiary (pun intended) for one and it pollutes the air (albeit minimally) as well.

Flag burning is by design an offensive act, meant to stir up anger in the hearts of nationalists. This anger is never directed at the party the flag burner is opposing but rather the flag burner himself.

It is destructive rather than constructive and isn’t going to win any converts from the mainstream nationalistic masses who haven’t yet questioned the actions of their governments. It will only drive them away.

Comment by Curt Springer

October 27, 2008 @ 8:59 am

Well said, Zeus. I was going to write the same sentiments but I can’t improve on what you wrote.

Comment by Vesuvius

October 27, 2008 @ 11:19 am

You are free to protest in anyway you see fit, but I have to agree with Zeus that you will generate more anger than empathy, and that anger may not be directed at only you but any FreeKeene people, the NH Underground, FSP or any “liberty activists” in the area. One such angry person made a very good point – that washing the flag may be symbolically more effective in changing hearts and minds. While I agree with you that the flag has flown over horrible atrocities while it decried freedom for all, the overwhelming majority of the masses (fervently nationalistic or not) still regard that symbol as the symbol of “their country.” I understand that your goal is to open a dialogue about the nature of government, and that democracy is just force justified by some quaint ritual. Flag burnings have been done and the expected reaction is pretty well set in stone at this point. It will undoubtedly get some people’s attention, but heed Dave’s advice and ask yourself whether it is a good hill to die on.

Comment by Frederick B. Parsells

October 27, 2008 @ 11:37 am

As a proponent of the free state project, because I too believe in reduced government and less taxation, there is merit to the belief that government at all levels has overstepped its original bounds, but I find that burning our nation’s symbol only speaks to the juvenile approach that so many of those involved in the reduced-government movement engage in as though it will actually serve a legitimate purpose. The three comments before mine speak to the issue very well. There is at least one, now-local-individual, who moved to the area to be involved in the movement who, in my opinion, understands the stated intent of the free state project as it was initially developed. I wish that he would step forward as a leader. Come on M… . Every movement that is to succeed needs a rational articulate person at the head of the line.

Comment by AnarchoJesse

October 27, 2008 @ 11:39 am

I personally do not want to attract people who act so irrationally to the cause. YOU may find merit in the idea, but I prefer to pick from people who already have a balanced head on their shoulders. Now, if these nationalists want to reject me because of my burning the flag, all the more power to them- the feeling will be made mutual when they go cast that vote the day after I burn the flag.

And that, right there, sums up the goal. If these people can share their views so overtly, I can do the same. It would be a two-faced act to suggest dismantling the State but stop short of burning a piece of cloth that represents it because “the wrong message might be sent across”.

Moreover, it seems as though some here are insistent on protecting the feelings of some tender hearted nationalist. Why should I in any sense be motivated to spare their feelings? They promote theft, murder, extortion, kidnapping, and all sorts of atrocities. What I will be doing is going to pale in comparison to the actions of the State and Nationalists.

Comment by AnarchoJesse

October 27, 2008 @ 11:43 am

When everyone stops voting, I’ll stop burning flags.

Comment by Zeus

October 27, 2008 @ 1:31 pm

Why should I in any sense be motivated to spare their feelings? They promote theft, murder, extortion, kidnapping, and all sorts of atrocities.

Think of it this way… As far as the pro-freedom philosophy goes, you’re a deep sea diver swimming around with the sharks in the darkest shadows of the Marianas Trench.

The average person in America is on the space shuttle orbiting the moon.

You talk about how they promote all these evils but you forget what it’s like to be one of them. You forget that the super-majority of them have no idea what they do is wrong. They’re thinking is broken. Public School and the media and so-called popular opinion has seen to that.

I’m not making excuses for them, I’m just telling you that your message isn’t going to get through to them. It’d be like shouting Chinese at a Frenchman. They aren’t going to understand and your message will be lost on deaf ears.

There are other ways to get the message across and, as many others have said before, “plant the seeds of liberty” in their minds without alienating them and making them think we’re nuts.

That said, I recognize everyone’s got their own path to follow. I’m not telling you not to do it. I’m just telling why I would do something else instead.

Comment by Charlie

October 27, 2008 @ 2:21 pm

Great article! It hits all the right points and expresses them well.

To the naysayers,

“I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice… I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

“There is no act too small, no act too bold. The history of social change is the history of millions of actions,small and large,coming together at points in history and creating a power that government’s cannot suppress.” – Howard Zinn

Comment by RWW

October 27, 2008 @ 10:29 pm

…but I find that burning our nation’s symbol only speaks to the juvenile approach that so many of those involved in the reduced-government movement engage in…

You lost me at “our nation.”

Thinking back, most of the concepts of freedom that I now understand angered me deeply at one time. Then again, the rest of your comment indicates that you really aren’t interested in freedom, but rather “smaller government.”

Comment by Don't fret

October 28, 2008 @ 9:26 am

It’s interesting that you would chastise me for using the words of the founders of the Free State Project; as noted below.

The FSP shall require all prospective participants to sign a Statement of Intent indicating:
that they will move to New Hampshire, the state designated according to the rules laid out in these Guidelines,
that they will be bound by the Guidelines, and
that they will work toward a society in which the sole role of civil government is the protection of individuals’ rights to life, liberty, and property.

As you can read, the FSP founders envision a society in which there is a level of government.

Comment by Zeus

October 28, 2008 @ 10:12 am

Typically, the problem with anarcho-capitalists and the like is that they’re a lot like atheists (which, oddly enough, they usually are as well). They swear they don’t have religion but then they go out and start preaching their beliefs to others with a righteous fury.

Free Market Salvation is what they usually offer. You just need complete and utter faith in the Free Market Messiah and Heaven on Earth can be yours.

If you don’t break out the tambourine and say “Hallelujah!”, you’re a heathen and they want nothing to do with you because now you’re “the enemy”.

Your mileage may vary.

Comment by Vesuvius

October 28, 2008 @ 11:46 am

Let it be known that I support Jesse in his activism and wish him the best of luck with getting his message across. Because flag burning is not my preferred method of outrage and outreach does not mean that I do not believe that it is a powerful statement. Any reservations I have about it is the likelihood that it will breed more conflict.

Comment by AnarchoJesse

October 28, 2008 @ 12:13 pm

The FSP shall require all prospective participants to sign a Statement of Intent indicating:
that they will move to New Hampshire, the state designated according to the rules laid out in these Guidelines,
that they will be bound by the Guidelines, and
that they will work toward a society in which the sole role of civil government is the protection of individuals’ rights to life, liberty, and property.

As you can read, the FSP founders envision a society in which there is a level of government.

You might be careful to note the actual wording of the Statement of Intent– “I will exert the fullest practical [emphasis mine] effort toward the creation of a society in with the maximum [again, emphasis mine] role of government is the protection of life, liberty and property”

Notice the two places I have highlighted– the first alluding to “practical” effort. Given that I see government and government solutions as being impractical, it does not make any sense for me to engage in government activities and use “in the system” approaches. The second emphasis is the key here though– it was specifically written this way so not to alienate the Anarchist and Voluntaryist element of those wishing to move.

Finally, it is disingenuous to try and construe the “intent” of the founders with nature of the Free State Project– that is, a pluralistic enterprise meant only to advocate people of pro-liberty persuasions to move here.

Comment by AnarchoJesse

October 28, 2008 @ 12:19 pm

Typically, the problem with anarcho-capitalists and the like is that they’re a lot like atheists (which, oddly enough, they usually are as well). They swear they don’t have religion but then they go out and start preaching their beliefs to others with a righteous fury.

Your mileage may vary.

You make an impressive, if still obvious, troll. Tell me more about the Free Market Evangelists– you know, those guys who advocate open and free association, the freedom to do as you will.

But come on, seriously. We’re the evangelists? We’re not the ones who go apeshit at the thought of someone removing themselves from what we advocate, we’re not the ones that hold a gun to your back and coerce you into participation, we’re not the ones who say “if you don’t do it our way, you’ll be damned to prison”.

No– you are. You State types; you simply replace “government” with religion and “State” with “God”. You claim that the only way to moral salvation is to surrender your life to a faceless and amorphous majority, that you don’t own yourself or possess sovereignty– no, rather, that someone else, or some special power has a claim on ones life. You’re no better than the mystics, shouting of the chaos and destruction that would reign upon society should we not blindly obey and trust the State.

Comment by Zeus

October 28, 2008 @ 1:10 pm

It would be easier for you to just write me off as a troll than deal with the fact that “throw it all out the window” anarchists aren’t exactly the most convincing and sociable people when it comes to preaching the gospel of freedom. Whereas you seek conflict for conflict’s sake, I just want to be free.

No, Jesse, I’m simply a minarchist. I believe in disassembling the government machine piece by piece and replacing the useless parts with TESTED & PROVEN free market solutions, not just theories and “faith”.

I know it’s “sinful” and “wicked” to you, but if all government did was take care of the sewers and the roads and whatnot and did so without force, I could live with that over what we have now.

At least for a little while.

Comment by AnarchoJesse

October 28, 2008 @ 2:04 pm

It would be easier for you to just write me off as a troll than deal with the fact that “throw it all out the window” anarchists aren’t exactly the most convincing and sociable people when it comes to preaching the gospel of freedom. Whereas you seek conflict for conflict’s sake, I just want to be free.

What else am I but to consider you, given the absolute lack of worth of your last post? You don’t actually say anything, but instead resort to a personal attack on the nature of “anarcho-capitalists”. Indeed, your entire post is nothing but an attack on the character of anarcho-capitalists, as is some of this post. Rather instead of trying to discuss the ideas, you instead try and poison the well by simply writing off anarcho-capitalists to be the equivalent of evangelical nut-jobs.

Moreover, you say that I am the one trying to create conflict– again, I’m not the advocate of government here. Indeed, for you to insinuate that burning a flag is an action of creating conflict would apply just as well to the act of flying a flag. If a flag is a symbol, and so is destroying it, then so to must be displaying it. Given this, I am not the one creating conflict– I am only responding in kind.

No, Jesse, I’m simply a minarchist. I believe in disassembling the government machine piece by piece and replacing the useless parts with TESTED & PROVEN free market solutions, not just theories and “faith”.

You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth– how can one advocate the use of free-market solutions while still advocating the monopolization of force and specific services?

But again, you do a disservice to anarchism. We’re not based on theories and faith– rather, it is the belief that somehow government can be good, people lose self-interest, and that such centralization of power and expecting it to limit itself are realistic notions that are reliant on faith.

I know it’s “sinful” and “wicked” to you, but if all government did was take care of the sewers and the roads and whatnot and did so without force, I could live with that over what we have now.

Government cannot function without force, and certainly couldn’t be the sole providers without force. You’re living in a fantasy land.

Comment by Zeus

October 28, 2008 @ 3:03 pm

What else am I but to consider you, given the absolute lack of worth of your last post?

What do you want, Jesse, a 400-page essay? I was trying to keep my replies limited in scope so as to not to fill up this thread with quote/response after quote/response (like in this one).

You don’t actually say anything, but instead resort to a personal attack on the nature of “anarcho-capitalists”. Indeed, your entire post is nothing but an attack on the character of anarcho-capitalists, as is some of this post.

How is pointing out the obvious (anarchists *tend* to be antisocial and preachy) a personal attack? Did I not use the appropriate limiters of “typically” and “usually”? Did not “your mileage may vary” register at all with you? Was I even addressing you specifically? No, I wasn’t. I was reponding to Don’t Fret. I threw the pants out there. You put them on of your own free will.

Rather instead of trying to discuss the ideas, you instead try and poison the well by simply writing off anarcho-capitalists to be the equivalent of evangelical nut-jobs.

No, Jesse, you missed the point completely. I was making a valid comparison between anarcho-capitalists and evangelicals. If I’m wrong or my line of thinking is off, I’m the first one to ask for a second opinion. If you had something to add to that conversation, maybe you should have instead of assuming it was a personal attack on you.

Moreover, you say that I am the one trying to create conflict– again, I’m not the advocate of government here.

Dude. You’re burning a flag. It’s nothing more than a symbol, a representation of nationalistic fervor. People are going to take offense to that and you know it. You say you have a message but you know they aren’t going to hear it. They’ll be too busy getting pissed off to even think straight or they’ll just write you off and walk away before you say two words to them. Ever seen those news clips of Muslims burning the flag? Did the news reporter bother to explain what their beef was?

That all said, I never told you not to do it. See, just because I point out the obvious (that it is an incendiary act designed to piss people off) and take issue with your attempt to pretend that this duck ain’t a duck, doesn’t mean I take issue with you doing it. I’m pretty neutral, actually.

Indeed, for you to insinuate that burning a flag is an action of creating conflict would apply just as well to the act of flying a flag. If a flag is a symbol, and so is destroying it, then so to must be displaying it. Given this, I am not the one creating conflict– I am only responding in kind.

No, you’re responding with a violent act. You’re inciting conflict by desecrating what some people believe to be a revered symbol (not unlike the Buddhist statues blown up by the Chinese a few years back) so that they will get angry and perhaps even violent with you. I think that’s what you’re hoping for. To incite them into using violence against you so you can use that to further your political agenda and create a self-fulfilling prophecy. It wouldn’t be the first time someone has done that.

You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth– how can one advocate the use of free-market solutions while still advocating the monopolization of force and specific services?

I advocate proving that the free market actually is the solution to each problem before embracing it without reservation. You’ve already got the monopolization of force and specific services out there now, I’m talking about dismantling it piece by piece and replacing those dysfunctional pieces with solutions that have been proven to work, not just throwing it all out the window and hoping for the best because I’ve got faith that the free market will solve all problems. I don’t deal in faith. I deal in facts.

But again, you do a disservice to anarchism. We’re not based on theories and faith– rather, it is the belief that somehow government can be good, people lose self-interest, and that such centralization of power and expecting it to limit itself are realistic notions that are reliant on faith.

And as I’ve pointed out, you do deal in faith. The standard theme is “Let’s get rid of it all!” and to embrace the free market as the solution to everything without vetting it first. Just as a hammer isn’t the solution to fixing every problem, neither may be the free market. There has never existed a society on Earth that was completely free market so all you have is a theory. A theory that says I need to embrace the faith without testing, without vetting, without evidence. I didn’t do that for religion, why would I do it for politics?

Government cannot function without force, and certainly couldn’t be the sole providers without force. You’re living in a fantasy land.

Government is dysfunctional, it has feature creep, it’s violent and corrupt. I’m with you on that. But as bad as it is, I’m not willing to just throw out the baby with the bathwater and pray the Free Market Jesus saves me. To embrace an unproven theory as the salvation of all and the solution to every problem without testing, proving and vetting it first is not just a fantasy, it’s lunacy.

Comment by Zeus

October 28, 2008 @ 3:28 pm

Did I mention I’m pro-secession? That might be important to note in case you were entertaining further fantasies of my “statist” ways.

I know, I know. I’m still tainted by my refusal to throw out state and local governments in favor of anarchy. Darn my incessant need to carefully, methodically dismantle them instead of immediately renouncing them and saving my eternal soul!

Now go have a smoke or a beer or something.

Comment by AnarchoJesse

October 28, 2008 @ 4:35 pm

What do you want, Jesse, a 400-page essay? I was trying to keep my replies limited in scope so as to not to fill up this thread with quote/response after quote/response (like in this one).

I would prefer you not respond at all if all you’re going to do is attack the character and not actually say anything of substance.

How is pointing out the obvious (anarchists *tend* to be antisocial and preachy) a personal attack? Did I not use the appropriate limiters of “typically” and “usually”? Did not “your mileage may vary” register at all with you? Was I even addressing you specifically? No, I wasn’t. I was reponding to Don’t Fret. I threw the pants out there. You put them on of your own free will.

Irrespective of who you were addressing, the context and content of your post were all the same– it was a piss-poor underhanded attempt to discredit Market Anarchists without actually evaluating the merits of Market Anarchism and instead making character assaults.

But it’s telling that you don’t actually deny a character assault, but rather try and justify it by using an unsubstantial and at best anecdotal appeal.

No, Jesse, you missed the point completely. I was making a valid comparison between anarcho-capitalists and evangelicals. If I’m wrong or my line of thinking is off, I’m the first one to ask for a second opinion. If you had something to add to that conversation, maybe you should have instead of assuming it was a personal attack on you.

I had nothing to add– not to character assault, anyways. I simply thought it appropriate to point out that your comments were had little merit and were made up of nothing but… bullshit.

Dude. You’re burning a flag. It’s nothing more than a symbol, a representation of nationalistic fervor. People are going to take offense to that and you know it. You say you have a message but you know they aren’t going to hear it. They’ll be too busy getting pissed off to even think straight or they’ll just write you off and walk away before you say two words to them. Ever seen those news clips of Muslims burning the flag? Did the news reporter bother to explain what their beef was?

I have no doubt that they’ll take offense to it– but I don’t think that’s the issue at hand, nor does it even begin to scratch on why I am burning the flag.

That all said, I never told you not to do it. See, just because I point out the obvious (that it is an incendiary act designed to piss people off) and take issue with your attempt to pretend that this duck ain’t a duck, doesn’t mean I take issue with you doing it. I’m pretty neutral, actually.

Hardly seems to be the case– you’re saying that my act is meant to piss people off, despite my giving reason as to why I am doing it. I’ve made my intentions pretty clear, and it’s pretty dishonest of you to try and assign more than what I have stated.

No, you’re responding with a violent act. You’re inciting conflict by desecrating what some people believe to be a revered symbol (not unlike the Buddhist statues blown up by the Chinese a few years back) so that they will get angry and perhaps even violent with you. I think that’s what you’re hoping for. To incite them into using violence against you so you can use that to further your political agenda and create a self-fulfilling prophecy. It wouldn’t be the first time someone has done that.

Oh, please! The act of destroying my property is not a violent act– I have am not destroying another persons property and I am not committing to coercion against another person. Maybe you need to get your moral axioms figured out, because the act of destroying a symbol that I do have ownership over is not violence. In order to believe this, we would need to accept the oldest excuse in the book– that I have committed “psychic” coercion against another person, which is absolute horseshit.

And you act like I have some hidden agenda, that it’s my intention to get hurt, to piss people off– anyone who has spoken with me over the past month about this can assure you that I have expressed plenty of doubts about this, for fear of being assaulted. I am not doing this to start a riot, or to have someone try to hurt me. I’m doing this because everyone else get’s to wave their flags, have their parades, put up their “vote for this guy!” signs. I’m doing this because there are some, such as myself, who don’t care to spare the feelings of some thin skinned nationalists, and express their feelings outright.

I advocate proving that the free market actually is the solution to each problem before embracing it without reservation. You’ve already got the monopolization of force and specific services out there now, I’m talking about dismantling it piece by piece and replacing those dysfunctional pieces with solutions that have been proven to work, not just throwing it all out the window and hoping for the best because I’ve got faith that the free market will solve all problems. I don’t deal in faith. I deal in facts.

Dear god man, do you even understand what the Free Market is? It isn’t a set system or set concept on how to run things– it’s a concept that promotes the freedom to explore without interference so that the consumer, the individual, can decide what is best for themselves. You advocate the continuation of the monopoly of force, while somehow positing that you can figure out what is best to solve it, all the while ignoring the economic calculation problem. If there is no way for consumers to measure and compare on an open market, how on gods green earth are we supposed to figure out “what works best”?

Indeed, you’re only confirming what I’ve said– you’re asking for blind obedience until some “power that is” decides “what works best”. If there is no free market, you’ll never figure out what works best.

And as I’ve pointed out, you do deal in faith. The standard theme is “Let’s get rid of it all!” and to embrace the free market as the solution to everything without vetting it first. Just as a hammer isn’t the solution to fixing every problem, neither may be the free market. There has never existed a society on Earth that was completely free market so all you have is a theory. A theory that says I need to embrace the faith without testing, without vetting, without evidence. I didn’t do that for religion, why would I do it for politics?

Ha! You’re the clown demanding that we all abide by some centralized power without proving it’s feasibility. Indeed, the burden of proof is on you to prove that government and State are preferable methods. We do not make the positive claim here– you do. YOU are the one that needs to prove that government is worth having.

Government is dysfunctional, it has feature creep, it’s violent and corrupt. I’m with you on that. But as bad as it is, I’m not willing to just throw out the baby with the bathwater and pray the Free Market Jesus saves me. To embrace an unproven theory as the salvation of all and the solution to every problem without testing, proving and vetting it first is not just a fantasy, it’s lunacy.

*facepalm*

If we know government is bad, why do we abide by it? Truly, anything would be better than this.

Comment by Zeus

October 28, 2008 @ 6:00 pm

I would prefer you not respond at all if all you’re going to do is attack the character and not actually say anything of substance.

I think I’ve said plenty of substance, you’ve just ignored it or decided to take it as an attack. You’re right on one thing: I ought to know better than to try and discuss such topics with those of an overzealous nature.

Irrespective of who you were addressing, the context and content of your post were all the same– it was a piss-poor underhanded attempt to discredit Market Anarchists without actually evaluating the merits of Market Anarchism and instead making character assaults.

Po-tay-to, po-tah-to. I made a disturbing correlation between religion and anarchism. It didn’t sit well with you and you decided to take it as an insult and give me what-for. Cut and dry.

But it’s telling that you don’t actually deny a character assault, but rather try and justify it by using an unsubstantial and at best anecdotal appeal.

I would have thought that anyone with the level of eloquence and rhetoric that you have evidenced thus far would have been able to interpret the multiple levels of denial in that paragraph as… denial. My bad.

I had nothing to add– not to character assault, anyways. I simply thought it appropriate to point out that your comments were had little merit and were made up of nothing but… bullshit.

And whoop there it is. So much for eloquence then.

I have no doubt that they’ll take offense to it– but I don’t think that’s the issue at hand, nor does it even begin to scratch on why I am burning the flag.

So you keep saying. I see now what you’re really after here. Your goal isn’t to spread the message of freedom. There are far more constructive ways of doing that. No, you *want* to make them angry. You want to punish them. This is about revenge, not moral outrage. Quit fooling yourself otherwise.

Hardly seems to be the case– you’re saying that my act is meant to piss people off, despite my giving reason as to why I am doing it. I’ve made my intentions pretty clear, and it’s pretty dishonest of you to try and assign more than what I have stated.

I like the ploy for empathy there, the subtle insinuation that I’m doing something far more sinister than just calling a spade a spade. Nicely played.

Oh, please! The act of destroying my property is not a violent act– I have am not destroying another persons property and I am not committing to coercion against another person. Maybe you need to get your moral axioms figured out, because the act of destroying a symbol that I do have ownership over is not violence. In order to believe this, we would need to accept the oldest excuse in the book– that I have committed “psychic” coercion against another person, which is absolute horseshit.

You’re drifting into la-la-land here, pal. You lost me with all that psychic talk. Let’s just back up a bit and try to get get some solid ground here for you: Destruction is itself an act of violence. Creation is itself an act of benevolence. Whose property it belongs to is irrelevant. Ask a Buddhist sometime.

Now, psychic mind beams and whatever aside, my point is that you are doing what all iconoclasts do by definition: destroying a cultural icon. You say you’re doing it for freedom but, since that’s ludicrous, you must be in denial, because all you’ll get from it is a small amount of vengeance. Good for you. Teach those flag-saluting bastards not to succumb to all that media-induced brainwashing they’ve gotten over the decades and be more like you. “Wake up America! Or I’ll burn something, so help me!”

And you act like I have some hidden agenda, that it’s my intention to get hurt, to piss people off– anyone who has spoken with me over the past month about this can assure you that I have expressed plenty of doubts about this, for fear of being assaulted. I am not doing this to start a riot, or to have someone try to hurt me. I’m doing this because everyone else get’s to wave their flags, have their parades, put up their “vote for this guy!” signs. I’m doing this because there are some, such as myself, who don’t care to spare the feelings of some thin skinned nationalists, and express their feelings outright.

Hey, burn all the flags you want, man. That isn’t even my issue with it at all. It’s that you’re deluding yourself about why you’re doing it and expecting us to go along with your delusion. I’ve already pointed out how it can’t be about freedom. There are far better methods to convince others by planting the seeds of liberty and putting out a positive message. What you want to do, while certainly valid as a form of expression, is not positive. It is negative and violent and designed to evoke hatred from the indoctrinated masses. You admit that you fear being physically assaulted. That’s what hate does.

Not to get all Jedi on you but Yoda said it best: “Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.” I sense much fear (of the state) in you.

Dear god man, do you even understand what the Free Market is? It isn’t a set system or set concept on how to run things– it’s a concept that promotes the freedom to explore without interference so that the consumer, the individual, can decide what is best for themselves.

I understand the benefits of a free market, Jesse. I’m just not convinced that this “concept” (your description) is the solution to every problem and that we should fire all the government employees tomorrow. Most of them, sure. But you advocate all, right now. Instead, I take a more measured and cautious approach. If the free market truly is the solution for everything, then it should be able to prove itself for each situation.

You advocate the continuation of the monopoly of force, while somehow positing that you can figure out what is best to solve it, all the while ignoring the economic calculation problem. If there is no way for consumers to measure and compare on an open market, how on gods green earth are we supposed to figure out “what works best”?

Simple. First, we cut out all the obvious fat from government. It won’t take a bunch of rocket scientists to figure out that research on cow farts is not something government should be doing, especially with your tax dollars. Next, we test your free market solution for Problem X in a controlled environment (a city, a school, a state, a neighborhood, take your pick). If it works, replace the equivalent piece of government with that.

Indeed, you’re only confirming what I’ve said– you’re asking for blind obedience until some “power that is” decides “what works best”. If there is no free market, you’ll never figure out what works best.

First, there is no one massive free market anywhere on Earth. There are many pseudo-free markets. So there’s no “The sky is falling!” need to rush into abolishing all government overnight. Most of it, sure. The rest we can work on. Seconf, if you have a proven solution that can replace something currently handled by government, I’m all for it.

The only power that is, is us. I haven’t once advocated blind obedience to anything whereas you keep asking for my blind faith that free market solutions can replace the disparate pieces of the government machine. Fine, prove it. Show me they work BEFORE turning out the lights on that piece of government that people are currently forced to depend on.

If we end social security tomorrow with no plan, people will get screwed, Jesse. If we end welfare tomorrow, there will be a lot of homeless people in the streets. Instead of rushing in, let’s come up with a workable plan.

Ha! You’re the clown demanding that we all abide by some centralized power without proving it’s feasibility. Indeed, the burden of proof is on you to prove that government and State are preferable methods. We do not make the positive claim here– you do. YOU are the one that needs to prove that government is worth having.

Over-react much? If I’m a clown, why are you so serious? You’re just making things up now. I advocate a cautious, carefully thought out plan to abolish as much of government as the free market can handle via proven solutions instead of running around like a screaming lunatic setting the neighborhood on fire.

Government already works. Very badly. I don’t have to prove that, it’s out there. It’s the default setting we’re all on right now. You say the free market can solve everything? Give me a solution for each piece of government and we’ll take it apart until you run out of replacement parts. If there’s nothing left when we’re done, awesome. You’d have been right all along. If not, well damn it’s a good thing we didn’t rush things and do it haphazardly.

If we know government is bad, why do we abide by it? Truly, anything would be better than this.

It could be far worse if you shut it all down tomorrow. I’m only advocating caution. That’s a far cry from statism.

Comment by mark

October 30, 2008 @ 1:45 pm

Flag burning? C’mon, seriously? Flag burning? Its juvenile stunts like this that make the Liberty movement look like a bunch of kooks.

Comment by chophshiy

October 30, 2008 @ 8:33 pm

It’s hard to summarize what I think about this. I believe most forms of ‘demonstration’ are foolish. On the other hand, the consistency of Jesses statements is appealing, somehow. And the double-speak in a lot of the other statements is troubling.

Why compromise with tyrants? What that really means is submit and recieve a pathetic token of gratitude for causing less trouble. I think there is a broad yet realistic solution to our problem of oppression. Because some of us are not strong enough to figure it out does not make it an invalid pursuit.

One way or the other, I’m far more pleased with a person who keeps fighting in earnest than someone who comes up with false ‘compromises’ so that they can give up and live a comfortable life.

Comment by Charlie

November 3, 2008 @ 5:27 pm

Jesse,

How’d it go?

Comment by elkheart

November 4, 2008 @ 11:21 am

Hey, anarchojesse & Zeus! It’s 11AM Tues., how did the flag burning go yesterday? I did see a crowd in Central SQ. ~2:30PM…looked like a good number of folks, & peaceful, no pigs, um, I mean “cops”…(*grin*)…sorry, I was in a friends’ car, & couldn’t stop…I also decided to *BOYCOTT* your flag burning, Jesse. I also agree with Zeus. Dude, Jesse, you take shit way, *way*, **WAY** TOO SERIOUSLY! **WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU, MY FRIEND?????…(I survived a murder attempt by guards in Valley Street Jail, 1986, among other trials & tribulations.) So, ***WHAT’S YOUR *EXCUSE*, Jesse????….Dept. of Corrections: Zeus: see post#76400 above: The “Buddhist statues were *NOT* “blown up by the Chinese.” It was the “Taliban” in Afghanistan. Look up: “Bamayan”, or “Bamiyan” – there’s a couple different spellings…as a lay practitioner of Buddhism, I do see that the Taliban gave an excellent Buddhist teaching on Impermanence. The Taliban are most excellent Buddhist teachers! (of course they didn’t think of it that way – and also the world at large was outraged at the destruction of those antiquities. Despite being Buddhist in origin, I believe that they now belong to the whole world. They are being rebuilt as we sit here, maybe “better” than before…) I actually read the *WHOLE* of the back-and-forth between “A-J”, & Zeus. Mostly, I agree with Zeus. “A-J” is an angry young man. Still, I hope your flag burning went well…&yes, you may feel *FREE* to call me “elkhead”, or whatever juvenile name-calling makes you feel better. That’s why *I* do it, A-narc-o-Jesse!….*grin*…(I heard a rumor that “anarchojesse” is really a FED. informant/infiltrator. Supposedly, he works for the FBI, or Homeland Stupidity. Whatever. Any truth to that rumor???…)……………………………………………………….*GRIN*…!E!..

Comment by Zeus

November 4, 2008 @ 11:51 am

Good call on the statues and who actually blew them up. Also, point taken on the lesson of impermanence, that’s pretty damn clever for you to notice that. Reaching elightenment, are you?

As for Jesse being some kind of federal agitator, I highly doubt it. I think he’s proven he’s an adherent to the Rothbard line of thinking and that he’s into this hardcore. I don’t think he’s going to get a whole lot of useful things done, however, and is going to drive people away but he’s made it abundantly clear that “if you ain’t with us, yer against us…”.

As far as I’ve heard, no one was hurt during his public arson although it sounded like one guy did want to initially pop him in the eye but was turned away by Lauren and Kat.

Sounds like it went as well as one could expect for an event that only sours the title of “freestater” even more to the local populace. Guilt by association.

Ah well.

Comment by elkheart

November 4, 2008 @ 3:40 pm

Thanks, Zeus. Now, I gotta go research “Rothbard”…as if I don’t have too much to do, already???…And yes, I, along w/all of us, have *some* enlightenment. At least enough to know that I have *some*, but it would be too arrogant to claim total enlightenment…besides, I’m a bhoddisatva…I’m working for the liberation of all “sentient beings”, but I choose to expand that to all *life forms*…hey, even molds & fungi have rights, too, ya’ know!…as for that “rumor”…I started it in the post above. And you, Zeus, are helping spread that rumor. See how this works, folks??? Anybody *ELSE* wanna help in the rumor-mongering???……but, yes, I think that anarchojesse *REALLY* does believe what he believes. I just can’t figure out why he feels so *strongly* about it, that’s all…&thank-you Lauren & Kat for your peacekeeping…it’s much appre-CIA-ted…*grin*…

Comment by freedomsooner76

November 17, 2008 @ 7:17 pm

“Typically, the problem with anarcho-capitalists and the like is that they’re a lot like atheists (which, oddly enough, they usually are as well). They swear they don’t have religion but then they go out and start preaching their beliefs to others with a righteous fury”

There is a big difference between anarcho-capitalists and preachers, evangelists, atheists, or anyone else spreading religious beliefs or lack thereof. These religious/anti-religious people are all promoting their beliefs, morales, and way of life to others which is fine if done in a peaceful nonobtrusive manner. Anarcho-capitalists, on the other hand, are essentially just asking (or demanding) to be left alone. They ask (or demand) no more of anyone than respect for personal liberties, while the religious types preach of punishment for failure to live one’s life a certain way.

“And as I’ve pointed out, you do deal in faith. The standard theme is “Let’s get rid of it all!” and to embrace the free market as the solution to everything without vetting it first”

Not to speak for Jesse or anyone else, but I don’t believe anyone here is advocating the immediate and abrupt descruction of government. Maybe they are, but I, a self proclaimed anarcho-capitalist, realize that such a thing would require violent revolution, which would ultimately be detrimental to the cause of Liberty and end in chaos. A “smooth” transition from statiam to agorism would require gradual undermining of government by use of counter-economics and probably eventual self defense from the state as it musters its last ditch effort to exert contol, as outline in Samuel Edward Konkin III’s “New Libertarian Manifesto”.

As far as whether or not the flag burning demonstration was “in the right”, first and formost Jesse has the right to express himself however he pleases. As far as the PR aspect goes, the people who are irked probably weren’t going to be on board with his ideas anyways. If he got just one mind headed in the direction of liberty, it was worth it.

Comment by Zeus

November 17, 2008 @ 8:12 pm

Anarcho-capitalists, on the other hand, are essentially just asking (or demanding) to be left alone. They ask (or demand) no more of anyone than respect for personal liberties, while the religious types preach of punishment for failure to live one’s life a certain way.

You’d think that’s the way it would be but in practice, it isn’t. Try being a minarchist and then talking to an anarchist. So far, my luck has not been so fortunate when it comes to advocating systematically planned dismantling of unnecessary pieces of government and replacing those parts with proven free market ideas.

Essentially, what I’ve gotten from Jesse and others is an attempt to convert me to the philosophy of instantaneous obliteration of all aspects of government followed by a guilt-trip on the use of force followed by accusations of statism.

One moment you’re advocating moving toward more freedom (albeit using forethought and thinking things through) or even secession and the next you’re suddenly “the enemy” as far as he and other anarchists are concerned.

Not to speak for Jesse or anyone else, but I don’t believe anyone here is advocating the immediate and abrupt descruction of government. Maybe they are, but I, a self proclaimed anarcho-capitalist, realize that such a thing would require violent revolution, which would ultimately be detrimental to the cause of Liberty and end in chaos.

Sounds like you’ve got a good head on your shoulders and have thought things through. And that’s all I’ve advocated that Jesse also do. Rather accept that for value, he preferred to rail against me with righteous fury. At one point I was waiting for the sky to turn black and the seas to run red.

As far as whether or not the flag burning demonstration was “in the right”, first and formost Jesse has the right to express himself however he pleases. As far as the PR aspect goes, the people who are irked probably weren’t going to be on board with his ideas anyways. If he got just one mind headed in the direction of liberty, it was worth it.

While I personally find flag burning useless and inflammatory and my fears about it painting all freestaters in a negative light have come true (check out the recent WKBK Talkback episode), I never told Jesse not to do it. I don’t really care, so long as you aren’t fooling yourself as to a) why you are doing it and b) what it will accomplish.

I’ve always agreed that it is indeed part of his right to free speech. That doesn’t mean I’m not going to criticize it and express my view that there are more constructive ways of getting your message across or that his own words on the matter made me feel he was doing it not to spread the message of freedom but rather out of spite because he was sick of people waving their flags in parades and whatnot.

Go ahead and burn whatever property of yours you want but keep in mind that setting a cultural symbol ablaze is inherently a destructive, violent act and is far less likely to open minds than truer, more peaceful forms of outreach and education.

Comment by freedomsooner76

November 17, 2008 @ 8:35 pm

“keep in mind that setting a cultural symbol ablaze is inherently a destructive, violent act and is far less likely to open minds than truer, more peaceful forms of outreach and education”

Very good point. Just like the fact that laws aren’t the answer to the drug problem, education is. Not to compare flag burning with passing laws, I’m just saying you catch more flies with honey.

Comment by Zeus

November 17, 2008 @ 8:39 pm

…you catch more flies with honey.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Comment by freedomsooner76

November 17, 2008 @ 8:47 pm

“You’d think that’s the way it would be but in practice, it isn’t. Try being a minarchist and then talking to an anarchist. So far, my luck has not been so fortunate when it comes to advocating systematically planned dismantling of unnecessary pieces of government and replacing those parts with proven free market ideas.”

Well maybe I mean thats all libertarians want. I guess it depends on how you define what. I’m still fuzzy on the exact differences between anarcho-capitalist, volunteerist, free marketeerist, agorist, and libertarian. I describe myself as all of the above and think they are all basically the same, altough I do observe more violent tendencies from those who call themselves anarchists as apposed to those who call themselves libertarians. Not to make generalizations, just state observed tendencies.

Comment by Zeus

November 18, 2008 @ 7:11 am

I’m still fuzzy on the exact differences between anarcho-capitalist, volunteerist, free marketeerist, agorist, and libertarian.

I tend to imagine it as a sliding scale with Minarchist (i.e. Some Minor Governing Organization) on one end and Anarchist (Absolutely No Governing Organization Whatsoever) on the other.

Toss in “time” as a variable and all pro-freedom persons tend to inch their way from the Minarchist end toward the Anarchist end. Not everyone goes the full distance and that’s just fine. It’s those going the opposite direction on that scale you need to worry about.

I describe myself as all of the above and think they are all basically the same, altough I do observe more violent tendencies from those who call themselves anarchists as apposed to those who call themselves libertarians. Not to make generalizations, just state observed tendencies.

They also tend to be antisocial, impatient, humorless and gruff. When you no longer believe the system can be fixed or held back, there isn’t much room for options other than violence, so if your observation is true for the majority, it wouldn’t surprise me.

Comment by FreedomSooner

November 18, 2008 @ 11:14 am

“When you no longer believe the system can be fixed or held back, there isn’t much room for options other than violence”

Not true. The solution is spreading the message of liberty and counter-economics.

Comment by Zeus

November 18, 2008 @ 11:34 am

Not true. The solution is spreading the message of liberty and counter-economics.

While I agree with that solution, only those who believe there is some kind of hope, be it fixing the system (not possible IMO), reigning it in (maybe IMO) or seceding from it (best option IMO) and so on. Some goal that can be achieved by spreading the message of liberty.

I have yet to meet an anarchist who has any hope whatsoever. Typically they’ve reached the last straw, succumbed to desperation and in their rage and hopelessness now seek to knock all the chess pieces from the table with a sledgehammer rather than play the game.

I can’t say I blame them. It can be frustrating and feel like an effort in futility. Me, I’m not yet ready to give in and quit the game as long as there remains the possibility of a winning strategy.

Maybe I’m just holding off the inevitable and I’ll be among their ranks at some point. It remains to be seen.

Comment by FreedomSooner

November 18, 2008 @ 1:02 pm

“While I agree with that solution, only those who believe there is some kind of hope, be it fixing the system (not possible IMO), reigning it in (maybe IMO) or seceding from it (best option IMO) and so on. Some goal that can be achieved by spreading the message of liberty.”

The only way that any of these ideas would ever be possible is if more people are converted to the side of liberty. And by more I mean a significant portion of the population. I’m sorry but if New Hampshire were to seccede from the union any time soon it would end in catastrophy. Whats going to happen when a group of tax evaders take over a city? Whats going to happen when they claim to have the right to do whatever they want and claim they are not apart of the nation? They will be stamped out. Even if they were allowed to seccede without US military intervention the residents of this new society would be extremely confined and limited by surrounding governments. I’m sure the US would love to make international trade and travel nearly impossible for these people. Simply put, these ideas are impossible until the message of liberty is spread much further and we have more people on our side.

“I have yet to meet an anarchist who has any hope whatsoever. Typically they’ve reached the last straw, succumbed to desperation and in their rage and hopelessness now seek to knock all the chess pieces from the table with a sledgehammer rather than play the game.”

I honestly dont have much hope to see liberty in my lifetime, but I have hope for future generations. All I can really hope for is to be a part of the proccess.
Which for me means spreading the word, practicing counter-economics, and aiding fellow libertarians. Getting liberty activists elected into office is great, but i believe it is futile in the long run. Its really just legitimizing the system and putting someone else at the wheel of the government oppression machine. And forceful dismantling of the government would require violent aggressive revolution which is a horrible idea. Violence only begets more violence. We anarchists need a plan and need to realise that violence out of frustration when the plan advances unbearably slow will only cause more problems. In my opinion the best, non-hypocrital plan is: Step 1-Spread the word, Step 2-Gradually create a counter economy, Step 3-Defend ourselves from the state when the time comes. The states aggression will only come on a large scale when the counter economy has grown substanially and it has a means to protect itself. Basically the counter economy will be the growth of a volunteer society/true free market outside of government and after the three step plan is complete all the systems that a volunteer society needs will have already grown into place in the counter economy.

Comment by Zeus

November 18, 2008 @ 1:48 pm

The only way that any of these ideas would ever be possible is if more people are converted to the side of liberty. And by more I mean a significant portion of the population.

Absolutely and my point was that there’s no reason to go to all that trouble unless you still have some hope that doing so might gain a large enough bloc to change the system as it now exists. Having a positive outlook on things is something the anarchists I’ve thus far spoken to have not had to any significant degree if at all.

It’s like by the time you get to the point of being an anarchist ala AnarchoJesse and you’re shouting “Screw it all!” and knocking the chess pieces over, you’re pretty much burned out on hope and positivity (which explains a lot of the differences between anarchists and minarchists).

Perhaps AnarchoJesse, Ian et al are just trying to be helpful and want us to get as far ahead on the cycle of hopelessness as they are so we aren’t treading water uselessly but I’m afraid if we’re all destined to end up hopeless that the system can be changed, modified, shrunk or declawed, we each need to get to that realization in our own due time.

Comment by FreedomSooner

November 19, 2008 @ 11:05 am

“Absolutely and my point was that there’s no reason to go to all that trouble unless you still have some hope that doing so might gain a large enough bloc to change the system as it now exists.”

Well thats what Jesse is doing with his blogs and public demonstrations. Except he’s not spreading the word for the sake of trying to fix the system. All the hopelessness he has that I see is hoplessness for our broken, tyranical, coercive government system. I still have hope that someday in the future we (or our descendents) will live in a volunteer society. I have hope for freedom, not fixing the system. Now surely you agree that once we got to the point of having a volunteer society with all the neccessary protection, arbitration, and reputation systems in place it would work. And I understand that you are afraid of immediately abolishing the government. I am too. But I have yet to see anyone advocate that. At least none of the mosty-level headed people on this site. I haven’t heard much fom Jesse on how he plans to get to a volunteer society, but I haven’t heard him say violent aggressive revolution either. I still say counter-economics is the answer.