We Need In And Out
This was written by Andrew Carroll in response to recent discussion about in-the-system activism versus out-of-the-system activism, specifically in this thread.
People come to the “ideas of liberty” through different routes. These people think differently, grew up in different cultures, and have different values. Different things attract their attention, different things make them think, and different things change their minds.
Therefore, if we really want to spread our message to as many people as possible, it is important we market ourselves in as many ways as possible. Aside from certain actions which are bound to be utterly counter-productive (such as direct violence against the State, which leads to sympathy for the State, and is not worth even the small minority of people that may find it agreeable), all activism – political or otherwise – markets our ideas to different audiences.
Running for office, refusing to shut off your camera, gardening, holding marijuana, protesting in IRS offices, placing money in empty parking meters: all of these things market libertarian ideas to different people who believe different things. Each of these activities catch the attention of different individuals and expose them to the philosophy of freedom.
Now, if it is true that different people our “turned on” by different activities, then it is certainly true that those same people are “turned off” by others. However, let us measure the gains and losses of even the most controversial of activism and, based on that net gain or loss, decide what truly is “productive.”
“Productivity” we will define as accomplishing one of the following things:
- Introducing our ideas to new people in a way that garners agreement or sympathy.
- Changing the minds of people to support our ideas.
- Getting people to move to New Hampshire to aid in the fight for freedom.
Let us define “counter-productivity” as the opposite:
- Introducing our ideas to new people in a way that garners disdain or disagreement.
- Changing the minds of people to fight against our ideas.
- Getting people to move away from New Hampshire or to decide not to make the move.
Now, let us take, as an example, parking meter activism, which involves filling empty parking meters with change so as to help our fellow individuals avoid tickets. Let us take Individual A who watches a video about this; and let us decide how this person will react.
If the individual is watching a video then it can be assumed he/she already agrees with our ideas (it is more likely that someone who agrees with us watches our videos then someone who disagrees). Therefore, this person has just been introduced to a new type of activism. It is assumed more than likely that he/she agrees with the message behind the activism – but what if he/she disagrees with the means of expressing it?
Well then, let us decide what is more likely to happen next. Will this person, perhaps living in an outside state and, let’s say, planning to move to New Hampshire soon – is this person more likely to cancel his moving plans due to this one particular piece of activism? No. Of course not. It is VERY rare that someone give up completely on the Free State Project, or the cause of liberty, after encountering one, or even several, activism events that they disagree with.
However, it is MUCH MORE LIKELY that this one event could garner even more of their support, and gain further sympathy for the cause. Even still, it is more likely that this one event will CONVINCE THEM to make the move to NH!
Our activism has a selection bias within libertarian circles, and therefore is more likely to convince people to love our ideas even more – or to finally decide to make the move – then it is to drive them wholly away. Especially when you take into account the fact that there are plenty of other different kinds of activism occurring in NH at the same time! Even if a fellow libertarian discovers one protest he/she disagrees with, he/she is still likely to find so much to love about other activism in NH that he/she will still make the move.
In other words, activism – of every stripe – brings in more people then it turns away.
What about non-libertarians, you ask? Well, again, our activism has a selection bias to have a great effect on those who agree with the idea behind it and less of an effect on those who disagree. So long as we continue to market our ideas differently, we will appeal to different individuals. This allows every individual to find their own way to the fight for freedom. It also allows, in time, for individuals to not see us all as “Free Staters”, but to begin to recognize “us” as a very diverse group of individuals with different values and, even, different goals.
Activist A can always explain to Potential Libertarian X that Activist B is a “nutjob” or “out of the mainstream” or “not representative of average libertarians” or “someone who does things [Activist A] personally does not agree with.” Therefore, Potential Libertarian X begins to discriminate between different libertarians, and see the subtle shades of gray between us. Potential Libertarian X will then slowly gravitate towards the activism he/she agrees with, and AWAY from the activism he/she disagrees with – even finding more agreement with the agreeable activism after comparing it to the disagreeable activism.
At the end of the day, all these different types of activism – all these individuals expressing their ideas in different ways – will market our ideas to different people; and, as Potential Libertarian X sifts his/her way through the various activism and the various individuals behind the activism, he/she will come to more and more of an agreement with the libertarians he/she finds to be doing agreeable activism.
Trust me, the phrase that begins with, “You know, some of those Free Staters aren’t half bad…” is a wonderful phrase. But it is one that will never be heard if we continue to push for homogenization within the movement.
In conclusion, I say:
Let the political people do their political activism! And let it bring to the ideas of freedom all those who find that type of activism agreeable. And let the out-of-the-system people do their out-of-the-system activism! And let it bring to the ideas of freedom all those who find that type of activism agreeable.
At the end of the day, both forms of activism – and MOST subtle shades in between – will bring MORE people to the philosophy of freedom then it will ever turn away; because when Potential Libertarian X turns away from the “parking meter activism”, he/she suddenly finds himself seeing the libertarian running for office to be THAT MUCH MORE agreeable. And when Potential Libertarian Y turns away from the “dirty political activism”, he/she suddenly finds himself seeing the libertarian putting quarters in a parking meter to be THAT MUCH more agreeable.
Either way, two more minds have been reached! With any luck I will be able to successfully do in-the-system AND out-of-the-system activism, so that I can reach as many minds as possible in ways that excite and inspire them.
Comments
62 Comments on We Need In And Out
In general, I tend to agree. There are some people, however, who have been turned off by some types of activism to the point they’ve take the time to request removal as FSP participants and have expressed a newfound repulsion to the idea of moving to NH as a part of the project. While some forms of activism may bring net gains despite the losses, there are some things that do simply drive people away. I think it would be wise of us to be sensitive to that and present ourselves with respect and courtesy to the best of our abilities.
V-
Thanks Varrin. I agree with you completely on that. There are definitely certain kinds of activism that drive more people away then they attract. And we should always present ourselves in the most respectable of manners. 
Personally, I am offended by people who say, ‘I am really on board with liberty and all but that demonstration of it offends me so now I won’t participate.’ My view is, if you get liberty and what it means, maybe you wouldn’t be such a stick in the mud, right?
When the line gets blurred between propriety and apologism to statism, thats when the kid gloves approach bugs me.
Go be free. Those who get liberty may well ostracize you if they dont like what you do, but they won’t run from the free ’state’ over it.
Those who need to be handled so carefully to be convinced to move or stay may well become a big problem later, when the state should be on the run and losing its legitimacy.
The squeamish have the right to be squeamish, and I have the right to carry on with my life as I see fit regardless.
Not here to offend anyone, but I will never apologize for being free and behaving like it. Disagreeing with someone’s particular way of living is called ‘not liking’ them.
Politicizing the behavior of others by using your participation or lack thereof in the free state project as a lever is counter to everything liberty lovers believe
Isn’t it?
“And we should always present ourselves in the most respectable of manners”
HAAAAAAAAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
broken dreams
“And we should always present ourselves in the most respectable of manners”
Absolutely!
Quite unlike our elected representatives, like Pelosi.
Re-read Animal Farm….
“All animals are created equal.
…but some animals are more equal than others…”
SCANDALOUS!!!
Here you are on a public blog calling for “a little bit of the old In-Out”
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a99/danielronin/a_clockwork_orange_04.jpg
THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
Andy did 2 interviews on Capitol Access, that were subsequently broadcast in 10 cities & towns across NH:
http://nhcaptv.com/episode/51
http://nhcaptv.com/episode/70
Bravo! It’s good to see people examining their goals and strategies from a logical viewpoint.
For reference, I highly recommend:
http://www.healthyinfluence.com/cigpersuasion.htm
Despite the pedestrian-sounding name, it’s quite incisive and completely based on scientific study. It’s chock-full of principles that you can use to promote activism.
This is a legit recommendation from a fan of FreeKeene. I’ve read the book & I’m not associated with it or the author.
Running for office, [...] Each of these activities catch the attention of different individuals and expose them to the philosophy of freedom.
brainwashed BS language alert. strip it down to realspeak, and you’re asserting that someone striving to become the new head of an official crime syndicate area exposes people to the philosophy of freedom. okay, then so does tasing the shit out of them. neither’s sensible, however.
and of course you continue with the usual indefensible FK pooh-poohing of violence in reaction to the state, otherwise correctly known as self defense. if such a blanket position is sound, it withstands extreme tests such as jews waiting to be gassed in the 40s. the advice of FK language abusers, who wrongly associate the term “violence” as a synonym for aggression: submit. when at the decision moment, when no more court stunts and performance-fartist preen machine maneuvers can be executed, submit.
violence against state aggression can be used for good. if discussion of voluntarist practice denies this even theoretically, that is utilitarian delusion. sadly, it’s almost required at this site to then note immediately (so it may be ignored almost as quickly) that an awareness of the sometime practical appropriateness of violence toward the state is not the inverse of the “no violence against the state” idjit prance (i.e., “only violence against the state”).
i think it likely that the heavily armed honorable humans at the mt. carmel massacres spread the message of liberty to an extent the whole of FK will never approach — while kicking the state in the teeth. but for a land of pussies in awe of official crime gangs (yes, i’m alluding to the FK squad, and also to me when the branch davidians were slaughtered), they’d have been joined on that field for a just result.
stop handing a pass to the state even when discussing theory. it’s pathetic, and in many cases founded only in fear and brainwashing, with a thick layer of sanctimonious “what can i say? i’m gandhi in birkenstocks” cover drivel. oh, and it’s inferior.
If some people are going to quit based on what other activists are doing in NH, I don’t understand why they would sign up in the first place. Did they think they would like everyone that was already in NH prior to the free staters moving in? They already knew there were some big government people in NH, and MA to the south. So what does it matter if there are some people doing things they don’t like now?
I’ve heard the “I’m foursquare on the side of libertarianism–except for this onnne littttle thinnnng” answer so often that I finally realized it translates into “My brain just got so close to an idea that it scared me, and now I’ll reach out and grab the nearest excuse possible so I don’t have to acknowledge it.” Those folks aren’t compatriots, and they’ll run at the first sign of trouble.
I thought the title was about bringing the fast food joint to NH.
Sam A Robrin….You do know that some people move on a ‘path to anarchy’ right? Some are further down the path. Some need some time.
Some people want an excuse to opt out… but not all.
Sam,
Were you a complete, well-formed anarcocapitalist at 18 years of age?
People who *agree* with you “only” 99% of the time “aren’t compatriots”?
Don’t be surprised when you find yourself having a hard time winning the hearts and minds of your neighbors.
I do agree with Sam Robrin that if people are scared off by some of the activism here, they aren’t ready for real liberty.
If you don’t like certain activism: speak out, counter protest, ostracize, ignore – but don’t run away. Not if you really love freedom.
“Well, freedom is important, but not important enough for me to actually have to be in the same geographic area as people I disagree with. I think I’ll just stay over here and keep hoping my masters mostly leave me alone.”
No worries Varrin – we’ll replace every one of the quitters with at least one real activist who is excited enough to come here and focus on doing what they feel is right.
Well said, Andrew. I think you are absolutely correct. While it is possible in rare cases to have activism that is a net harm, diversity in methods is the best approach. Both inside and outside the system activism is vital to success, and each assists the other.
Me too, Burgers.
/offtopic
“I thought the title was about bringing the fast food joint to NH.”
New Hampshire is not ready for that kind of liberty. There would be chaos.
Running for office is not activism. It is attempted highway robbery, no matter your intentions (which always pave the road to hell).
Otherwise, rock on.
Those who want to run for office, against all logic, why not run a no-vote campaign instead? De-legitimize government by reducing vote totals.
I disagree George. Highway robbery is highway robbery. If, as an elected person, you steal people’s money, and spend it, you’re a highway robber. If you try to stop others from stealing people’s money and spending it, you’re not.
It’s fine that your preferred approach is to try to de-legitimize and stop the system from outside, rather than inside, but let’s not call those who try to get elected to protect liberties robbers. It’s about as unfair as equating civil disobedients with wild criminals.
For “representatives”, what one does once elected, and for civil disobedents, which laws one breaks and how, makes all the difference.
Just running for office is theft and misdirection. You cause the government to either spend or receive money. You may have to bug thousands of people to get on the ballot. You put your own personal imprimatur on the idea that government is the way to fix problems and resolve disputes – an entirely anti-libertarian concept.
Those who run for office and vote are working against those who are de-legitimizing the state.
The root problem is not what the law is or who is in office, it’s the idea that aggression is acceptable or that the ends can ever justify the means.
Getting elected does not imply that you cause the government to spend or recieve money. One could work to reduce and end both, as well as return wages. Getting elected does not imply an endorcement of agression, or ends justifying means. Indeed, one could campaign on the basis of ending immoral agression, and vote against all agression while in office.
I understand that you may find this method less effective — or even counterproductive to your effort to boycott government, but it does not constitute theft.
I remember when I was growing up, a number of people I knew were opposed to the X-rated section of one of the video stores in town. Some decided to boycott that store, in the hopes that it would either go under or cry uncle, I suppose. Others, with similar ideals, patronized the non-Xrated section of the store, arguing that it would show them that the rest of their selection can be profitable as well.
I suppose it\’s possible that some in the former group could have resented the latter group, as underminers of their boycott effort. It would be false, however, to say that the second group was promoting or endorsing X-rated movies.
In the same way, you may wish for everyone to be in solidarity with you on a government boycott effort. Some, however, will seek to reduce and eliminate the violence of government from the inside. I can understand why you might react negatively to this, but it\’s false and unfair to say that these individuals are promoting or endorcing violence. They\’re not. They\’re just not trying to end it the same way you are.
George,
So when I run as a “Nobody” candidate for the purposes of spreading voluntaryist ideas, I’m stealing?
Sorry, but that’s nonsense. The money is gone already – adding “Ian ‘Nobody’ Bernard to the ballot will not increase the level of violence against the govt’s victims.
The only requirement is to be a voter and to pay a $2 or $5 fee. In return I get a platform to promote my ideas. If I stay out, only the usual politicians get to promote theirs. How does that benefit our movement?
Should we also pull all our programming off of Cheshire TV? That’s a govt. created entity. Should I withdraw from the board of directors?
So when I run as a “Nobody” candidate for the purposes of spreading voluntaryist ideas, I’m stealing?
Ian, where is it that you can get on the ballot as “Nobody”?
How can you possibly spread ideas like non-voting and government boycott by registering to vote and running for office?
The only requirement is to be a voter and to pay a $2 or $5 fee. In return I get a platform to promote my ideas. If I stay out, only the usual politicians get to promote theirs. How does that benefit our movement?
Like I said “You cause the government to either spend or receive money.”
So government is the only one selling platforms for promoting your ideas?
How does giving the government money and causing others to pay for the ink to print your name on the ballot (and other unknown costs) benefit our movement?
How does telling the world that one can buy a platform for spreading their ideas from the government benefit our movement? The ends do not justify the means. Ever.
Should we also pull all our programming off of Cheshire TV? That’s a govt. created entity. Should I withdraw from the board of directors?
I think the answer is obvious.
You can have a “nickname” on the ballot in Keene, NH municipal electons. Whether they’ll try to stop me is another question.
I’ll be spreading the idea that government is not the solution, that voluntary solutions are – not ideas of non-voting – maybe of boycott. I’ll be doing it by answering questions asked by the Sentinel and a questionnaire posted on the city’s website. Likely also an interview on Talkback, perhaps a debate, perhaps Cheshire TV.
Govt is not the only one selling a platform – but it’s there, media pays attention, so why shouldn’t our ideas be there? We’re already forced to pay for the platform. Silly to not use it. Same with Cheshire TV. Widely watched – but you sound like you are advocating we not have our programming there. Do you have the thousands (per month) it would cost to rent your own channel space on Time Warner’s cable system? Why not use the gang’s own channel? Why not use their election?
I’m having over $5,000 stolen from me each year. In return, the criminal gang allows me access to some tools helpful to seed the ideas necessary to achieve a free society. If you’re saying stop it, I guess I should pull my radio show off all FCC licensed stations too, hmm?
Ok but a nickname is not the same as putting “Nobody” on the ballot.
We’re already forced to pay for the platform. Silly to not use it.
So are you saying by extension then that it is morally correct to use the full range of government services? That seems like a huge leap of enabling there that I don’t even want to get into.
For the same reason it disgusts me to get deference from people when I’m open carrying (because I suspect they think I am a cop), so would it I suspect disgust me to get their deference if I was running for office because they thought I might be their next govt representative (with all kinds of arbitrary powers and false importance).
Same with Cheshire TV. Widely watched – but you sound like you are advocating we not have our programming there. Do you have the thousands (per month) it would cost to rent your own channel space on Time Warner’s cable system? Why not use the gang’s own channel? Why not use their election?
Do I have the thousands … ? That’s not the point. You’re jumping the gun. The first question is, since we are voluntaryists and the end never justifies the means, is the use of government to get your message out there consistent with your principles?
I know it’s not consistent with mine. Any good intentions I might have in getting a good liberty TV show out there do not justify using other people’s non-voluntarily-given money to do it. In fact, it’s self-defeating.
. If you’re saying stop it, I guess I should pull my radio show off all FCC licensed stations too, hmm?
First off, I don’t pretend to tell you what to do, so let’s correct that right off the bat. I’m not telling you to do – or not to do – anything. We’re simply discussing the propriety of certain actions. Please don’t try to turn me into an order-giver/aggressor as that’s just incorrect.
What is an FCC licensed station? A private business forced to get permission from the government in order to operate. That sounds like they’re the victim, even if they do have to curry favor to get the license. If I understand correctly, you sell something to them. So you sell something to victims of government. Where does anything immoral come into play? I’m not seeing it.
I’m not saying it’s immoral – and you weren’t ordering me – I was asking you what you thought. Sorry if I miscommunicated.
Allow me to rephrase the Cheshire TV example as you phrased the radio station one:
Time Warner is a private business forced to get permission from the government in order to operate. As part of their “deal”, they have to provide money from each cable TV bill (not cable modem) to benefit Cheshire TV, a non-profit corporation. The man who runs CTV is very friendly toward liberty activists. He appreciates us bringing him content for the channel. The immorality comes into play here when TW was forced to obey the city’s dictates. How is it any more immoral for me to put FTL on CTV than it is on govt licensed radio stations?
The answer is that it is not.
Additionally, by running for office as “Nobody”, I will be focusing on ideas, not currying favor or deference as you suggest. I will wear a V mask at any public campaign appearances, photo ops, or debates.
To answer your first question last, I think it’s generally a bad idea to utilize govt services and tend to avoid them and ignore them. However, by using roads, sidewalks, salting & clearing, and water & sewer, am I also being immoral? Or am I a victim of forced wealth extraction just recovering a little value from the gang?
One time in my past I was beaten and robbed. Should I have not asked for my car keys back? Well, I did, and they gave them to me, so I could drive home. Was that immoral? I used the “service” of them giving back to me a little of what they’d stolen. How does that differ?
I think you’re using immorality as a cover for absurd purism. It wasn’t immoral for me to minimize damage in the robbery case, and nor is it for me to exploit the few useful promotional tools the gang allows me access to.
Not using CTV would mean no Marc Stevens, Stefan Molyneux, and other great thinkers reaching new eyes and ears. You are cutting off your nose to spite your face. I suggest reconsidering your position.
How is it any more immoral for me to put FTL on CTV than it is on govt licensed radio stations?
Because CTV was artificially created by government aggression.
One time in my past I was beaten and robbed. Should I have not asked for my car keys back?
Ask for your money back then. But don’t validate government’s case for causing CTV to come into existence.
I think you’re using immorality a cover for absurd purism.
A voluntaryist telling another he’s too pure? That is ironic.
Not using CTV would mean no Marc Stevens, Stefan Molyneux, and other great thinkers reaching new eyes and ears.
The ends *never* justify the means. This is the core of voluntaryism.
So were radio licenses. You have a contradiction. TW wasn’t forced to be the cable provider – they chose to. The force came in to play then – just like with radio station owners. They chose to start radio stations, were forced to get licenses, and they are protected by a limited marketplace via the FCC gang.
Should I expect you’ll be flying about in a gyrocopter to get from point A to B here in Keene? The ends *never* justify the means, right? Don’t validate government’s case for causing roads to come into existence! Do you see the absurdity there?
I don’t *have* to use CTV just like you don’t *have* to use the roads. If you will consider me immoral for using CTV to spread my message, I should like to point out the plank in your eye.
(I of course don’t consider you immoral – you’re another crime victim who is living in a world where he’s constantly threatened by gangs calling themselves government. I’m only reducing this even further into the world of the absurd. I hope you can see the similarities.)
I wonder if you will also consider me immoral for this:
When I moved to Keene, I used the gang’s “abatement” process to reduce the valuation of my property and reduced my property taxes by about $500 per year. I found this supplication distasteful, but worthwhile. Should I have not utilized this “service”? Should I have just kept paying the price they were demanding, because otherwise I had “validated the government”?
Actually, what I’m telling you George, is that you’re just as impure as me. You use their services too, and you could avoid them.
So were radio licenses. You have a contradiction. TW wasn’t forced to be the cable provider – they chose to. The force came in to play then – just like with radio station owners. They chose to start radio stations, were forced to get licenses, and they are protected by a limited marketplace via the FCC gang.
I’m not sure I understand the argument you’re making here but will give it a shot.
The radio station carrying FTL was forced to get a license. It is a victim. The cable company is also a victim of government aggression in that it was forced to provide CTV.
If the radio stations were forced to give out cookies as a requisite of their license then it would be analogous to TW having to provide CTV.
But I for one would not take the cookie because that would be benefiting from, and implicitly validating, the government aggression that caused the cookie to be offered to me.
Was CTV voluntarily given by any chance? I don’t know enough about how that works to understand if it perhaps was just a contract requirement or something else that could be construed as voluntary.
Re “TW wasn’t forced to be the cable provider – they chose to.” By that same logical principle, would you say a sales tax is voluntary? IOW, you don’t have to pay it because you don’t have to buy anything.
Maybe I am taking this out of context from your POV but I’m just trying to make sense of your argument.
Should I expect you’ll be flying about in a gyrocopter to get from point A to B here in Keene? The ends *never* justify the means, right? Don’t validate government’s case for causing roads to come into existence! Do you see the absurdity there?
Morality ends where force begins. It is not immoral to use government services when the government leaves you with no choice due to their aggression.
By extension of the logic of your argument, if the government nationalized the food industry, and I eat, have I done something immoral? Of course not. They have left me with no choice.
With respect to using CTV you have a choice. The government is not forcing you to use it.
With respect to a radio station or cable company getting licenses or whatever, they have no choice.
I don’t *have* to use CTV just like you don’t *have* to use the roads.
In order to exercise my right to travel, and sustain my life and whatnot, I must use roads. The government has monopolized/nationalized them. Thus I have no choice.
The government has not monopolized the media. You have other choices.
When I moved to Keene, I used the gang’s “abatement” process to reduce the valuation of my property and reduced my property taxes by about $500 per year. I found this supplication distasteful, but worthwhile. Should I have not utilized this “service”? Should I have just kept paying the price they were demanding, because otherwise I had “validated the government”?
If you don’t pay your taxes they will steal your property. Thus, morality is out the window again.
Actually, what I’m telling you George, is that you’re just as impure as me. You use their services too, and you could avoid them.
Who is more pure is not a topic I find useful to discuss. That’s an individual matter IMHO.
You were the one who suggested doing what I do with CTV is immoral, so I’m pointing out that you are doing the exact same thing. You DO have a choice to use the roads. You could get a gyrocopter and flit about from private property to private property.
You just claim you have no choice because it’s inconvenient to choose otherwise.
Well, it’s inconvenient for me to buy my own television channel on Time Warner’s cable system. So, I choose to use the best venue available. You claim there are other choices- what are they? Please keep your answer specifically to the cable TV world. I can think of buying my own channel, or renting time on an existing channel that isn’t CTV. Both of those options are prohibitively expensive. Got any other ideas on how to spread liberty ideas via cable TV? I’d love to explore them.
Finally, yes you are missing the point. The radio stations don’t need to give out cookies to match the analogy. They give us their airtime. Airtime that is government approved and government ruled. I have the choice to keep my show uncensored and internet and pirate radio only, but I choose to deal with the system because in this case it is an effective way to reach people.
You assert that taking by taking CTV’s airtime, I’m implicitly validating the coercive process that made it available. This is an intellectual point that is completely lost on most people. Even I who understand your point, do not agree with it. The violence is done, the entity exists, and is the best cable TV video delivery venue in the Keene area. My actions don’t imply anything of the sort – not in most peoples’ minds.
Please note that my actions stop after step one:
1. I drop off an mpeg2 to the station
2. They air it several times
3. Viewer sees interesting video content from OTN, Ridley Report, FIJA, Free Minds TV, etc.
4. Viewer visits FK website, sees George pointing out how use of CTV validates thuggery and gives up on our ideas because I’m a hypocrite. Huh? Do you really think our ideas are so weak that someone would be pushed away by coming to your conclusion? Perhaps you agree that there is value to people seeing these ideas on TV, but will stick to your guns and repeat that the means *never* justify the ends.
I’ll stand by the fact that the means here is the action of me submitting a video to the station. An entirely peaceful act. Anything else like “implicit validation” is happening in your mind.
…actually, i think it goes like this: Somewhere, in a State far, far away, a potential FreeStater reads a blog on FREEKEENE.com…They get excited and begin to plan their move to NH…they keep reading FreeKeene.com…They come to read an example such as the one above…Ian & George in full (very, very, polite, tho…)DEBATE-MODE…they decide you guys are just too picky, picky, picky, – too, too,*TOO* argumentative, so they give up their plans to move to NH…SO THEY GIVE UP THEIR PLANS TO MOVE TO NH…all because you guys just have to have one of your stupid little, pointless, (Yes, *POINTLESS*)…debates…///…Oh well…works for me…NOTE: No, America’s founding fathers failed to include any discussion of radio/television in the Constitution simply because they wanted to force us to think, and make some decisions on our own. King George’s refusal to allow CTV on the Crown’s sailing ships (see: “Colonial T.V.cable channel V. King George”, 1767, London…)was an important cause of that skirmish which started in 1776…
You DO have a choice to use the roads. You could get a gyrocopter and flit about from private property to private property.
The government claims ownership of the airspace as well. It’s the same thing as with cars: licenses, tags, permits, limits, fees, etc. No choices left to me, so morality is out the window.
But this gyrocopter idea is pretty cool. Maybe I’ll get one. Do they make four-seaters? ;D
Well, it’s inconvenient for me to buy my own television channel on Time Warner’s cable system.
Your inconvenience does not justify choosing to benefit from and reinforce government aggression.
The violence is done, the entity exists, and is the best cable TV video delivery venue in the Keene area. My actions don’t imply anything of the sort – not in most peoples’ minds.
“Most people’s minds” is not the measure. Reality is.
The aggression was committed in the name of the people, you among them. Apply the same line of thought to corporate welfare or any other government aggression. The government already did the aggression so why shouldn’t I benefit? That’s a road to hell.
Do you really think our ideas are so weak that someone would be pushed away by coming to your conclusion?
Voluntaryism is about improving oneself, disconnecting onself from aggression. Marketing, finding new converts and all that is secondary. First things first.
Perhaps you agree that there is value to people seeing these ideas on TV, but will stick to your guns and repeat that the means *never* justify the ends.
So first I’m too pure and now stating the means never justify the ends is somehow improper. Sorry, Ian, I thought you were into voluntaryism for some reason.
I’ll stand by the fact that the means here is the action of me submitting a video to the station. An entirely peaceful act. Anything else like “implicit validation” is happening in your mind.
So you just kind of flit by the CTV offices and a video file happens to fall out of your pocket, which they know what to do with? No filling out of papers? I thought you were on the board of directors? How did that happen?
I agree with Elkfat. If you can’t be satisfied with the method Ian is using to deliver the freedom message, I don’t know what to tell you, George. Your arguments are logically correct, but not helping in the current paradigm.
Provide solutions, George. Ian has found a way to put the message into the ears of some mainstream listeners/viewers.
What have you done? How shall it be done better? When does the George Donnelly show start, and how shall it be distributed?
According to your logic, I can’t even buy a camera to record the tyranny of the state because I’ll be indirectly paying a tariff that supports the state!
Tyranny has advanced to the point that some degree of pragmatism is required for simple existence.
Either prove it can be done better, or leave the ones who are doing it alone
Your arguments are logically correct, but not helping in the current paradigm.
Well you hit it right on the head there didn’t you?
There is one paradigm in which the state sets the rules and we all forget about its aggression and never question its existence and power.
There is another paradigm called liberty.
Pick one.
What have you done? How shall it be done better? When does the George Donnelly show start, and how shall it be distributed?
Yet another example of the FSPMF (Free State Project Macho Flash). And not relevant to the discussion.
According to your logic, I can’t even buy a camera to record the tyranny of the state because I’ll be indirectly paying a tariff that supports the state!
Clearly you have not taken the time to understand what I am saying. If you had, you would know this was not correct.
Tyranny has advanced to the point that some degree of pragmatism is required for simple existence.
Liberty is pragmatic. Tyranny is not. So much for the debate between principle and pragmatism.
Either prove it can be done better, or leave the ones who are doing it alone
Do you have so little respect for Ian that you think he isn’t capable of defending himself from little ‘ole me?
BTW discussion is always good.
‘There is another paradigm called liberty.
Pick one.’
That’d be great, George, but if I pick ‘liberty’ I have a good chance of being imprisoned, and my family will suffer. I pick liberty where and when I can and also act to continue the existence of my loved ones. One cannot pick the paradigm of the majority of others, and so also cannot pick his own in all cases.
‘Yet another example of the FSPMF (Free State Project Macho Flash). And not relevant to the discussion.’
I discussed it, so it’s relevant. Everything is relevant here. That was arrogant, George, and avoided the question posed.
‘Clearly you have not taken the time to understand what I am saying. If you had, you would know this was not correct.’
Thanks, George, for the offhand insult. Now explain to me why I am not correct.
‘Liberty is pragmatic. Tyranny is not. So much for the debate between principle and pragmatism.’
Too nebulous, George. Different definitions of pragmatic fit both concepts. I’ll call this one a draw. (ref. Dictionary.com)
‘Do you have so little respect for Ian that you think he isn’t capable of defending himself from little ‘ole me?’
No. I was stating my opinion, and you were avoiding a direct answer or rebuttal to my questions/opinions in nearly every case.
Solutions, George…
Responding to my difference of opinion with “Well, what the hell have YOU done?!” is non sequitur because the discussion is not about that.
I’m done for now. Some questions have such obvious answers or are so wrongheaded that for me to answer them is only to feed into the troll dynamic.
Alright, I’m breaking down and using blockquote:
Your inconvenience does not justify choosing to benefit from and reinforce government aggression.
I have reinforced nothing through my actions. Whether I participate or not that channel will exist. If no one submitted programming, they would populate it likely with pro-state trash.
“Most people’s minds” is not the measure. Reality is.
Your reality is in your mind. You can’t prove otherwise, because there’s no sense you have that isn’t first processed by your mind.
So first I’m too pure and now stating the means never justify the ends is somehow improper. Sorry, Ian, I thought you were into voluntaryism for some reason.
I’m telling you the means here are peaceful. I have not harmed anyone and my actions do not endorse the initiation of force.
I just walked by Cheshire TV and saw several voluntaryists who help out behind the scenes. They are no less voluntaryists despite your personal beliefs about their actions. These are people working with the tools they have available to make a better world.
The aggression was committed in the name of the people, you among them. Apply the same line of thought to corporate welfare or any other government aggression. The government already did the aggression so why shouldn’t I benefit? That’s a road to hell.
How do you know what “name” the aggression was committed in? I did not ask for it, so it was NOT in my name. You’re really reaching here.
Voluntaryism is about improving oneself, disconnecting onself from aggression. Marketing, finding new converts and all that is secondary. First things first.
No, voluntaryism is about supplanting the state with a voluntary order. Self-improvement is about improving oneself, both of which I am in favor of.
So you just kind of flit by the CTV offices and a video file happens to fall out of your pocket, which they know what to do with? No filling out of papers? I thought you were on the board of directors? How did that happen?
There is a sheet of paper to fill out, so they know who is submitting the programming. I became a board member by attending a meeting and being voted on by the members. I figured it’d be a good way for me to get involved in some volunteering and also hobnob with the movers and shakers who tend to be the membership of such boards. It has indeed been beneficial.
If criminals have stolen money from you, you are within your rights to get it back – so I support people who have decided to do things like collect unemployment. It may be a distasteful action to the supplicant, but it’s not immoral to recoup or minimize your losses.
Perhaps you’ll convince all the voluntaryists here to boycott CTV, but I doubt it. Has anyone else who considers themselves a voluntaryist been convinced by George’s reasoning?
I must ask, will you be refusing to attend events like Free Keene Fest? It takes place on “public” property. How about the afterparty at Robin Hood Park? That is also “public” property. Activists again making use of their stolen funds – shame on them for putting fun, fellowship, and outreach above adherence to an impossible-at-this-time-to-uphold principle!
Also, George, you neglected to answer my earlier questions. I’ll reprint them here for you:
Well, it’s inconvenient for me to buy my own television channel on Time Warner’s cable system. So, I choose to use the best venue available. You claim there are other choices- what are they? Please keep your answer specifically to the cable TV world. I can think of buying my own channel, or renting time on an existing channel that isn’t CTV. Both of those options are prohibitively expensive. Got any other ideas on how to spread liberty ideas via cable TV? I’d love to explore them.
Whether I participate or not that channel will exist. If no one submitted programming, they would populate it likely with pro-state trash.
Whether or not I participate in government, it will exist. If no one voted, all the people in government would be pro-state trash.
Do you agree with my analogy? I don’t. I think government will collapse under the weight of its own contradictions once the good people stop propping it up.
So let’s stop propping up all this government idiocy.
Your reality is in your mind. You can’t prove otherwise, because there’s no sense you have that isn’t first processed by your mind.
There is only one reality and we each process it in our own way. But there is still that one reality out there. Our senses may not always give us a complete picture of reality, but that does not diminish the fact that it is there.
If reality is just in my mind then the discussion is de facto done because either you’re talking to yourself or I am.
I’m telling you the means here are peaceful. I have not harmed anyone and my actions do not endorse the initiation of force.
The gun doesn’t come out when people get parking tickets and property tax bills, but the violence is still there.
You’re making a claim but I don’t see you backing it up with an argument. Or you already did and are just rehashing.
How do you know what “name” the aggression was committed in? I did not ask for it, so it was NOT in my name.
And yet you are quite content to make use of it, even going so far as to take part in running it.
So it’s not in your name but you’re in charge of it. That rings contradictory.
No, voluntaryism is about supplanting the state with a voluntary order.
That may happen as a result of voluntaryism but that’s not really what it’s about based on my readings and reflections. This difference is surely the root of the disagreement between us.
Voluntaryism is about living the principle that only voluntary relations are acceptable. One lives that and let’s the chips fall where they may.
Perhaps you’ll convince all the voluntaryists here to boycott CTV, but I doubt it.
That has never been my aim. You brought the CTV topic up and have been trying to convert the opinion you asked me for into some effort on my part to talk people out of doing it. That is putting words in my mouth.
I must ask, will you be refusing to attend events like Free Keene Fest? It takes place on “public” property. How about the afterparty at Robin Hood Park? That is also “public” property. Activists again making use of their stolen funds – shame on them for putting fun, fellowship, and outreach above adherence to an impossible-at-this-time-to-uphold principle!
Either you haven’t understood me or you’re just taking potshots now.
Using public property to hold a festival is akin to using the roads. We’ve already been down that “road”.
I don’t know what Robin Hood Park is.
Also, George, you neglected to answer my earlier questions. I’ll reprint them here for you:
I find those questions to be borderline goading and not pertinent to this particular topic. I’ll be glad to share any ideas I might have in a relevant thread.
Good luck convincing the bureaucrats to not vote for their system. Voting isn’t propping up the state – obedience is. My putting programs on at CTV doesn’t prop up the state – it undermines it.
Reality is just in your mind. Your pleas to the contrary are just rationalization. You can’t prove you aren’t in a pod like Neo in the Matrix, and all your experiences are being generated through manipulation of your senses.
The gun doesn’t come out when people get parking tickets and property tax bills, but the violence is still there.
You’re making a claim but I don’t see you backing it up with an argument. Or you already did and are just rehashing.
The threat of violence is in the instances you cite, not with me submitting programs. Poor comparison. The only entity threatened with violence in CTV’s case was Time Warner. I have nothing to do with that.
I don’t have to argue. It’s clear my actions are peaceful and are not backed by threats.
That has never been my aim. You brought the CTV topic up and have been trying to convert the opinion you asked me for into some effort on my part to talk people out of doing it. That is putting words in my mouth.
That may be, but it’s not much of a reach from what you said, “That’s immoral!”, to “You should stop.” If you don’t care if people use the system, why denounce their choices? What are you attempting to accomplish?
Either you haven’t understood me or you’re just taking potshots now.
Using public property to hold a festival is akin to using the roads. We’ve already been down that “road”.
Nope, I’ve understood fine. Now you’re really making exceptions. I let you go on your roads point because of your “no choice” excuse, but that doesn’t hold water here. You totally have a choice on using public parks for gatherings. There are private areas that could be utilized. (See Jean Coutu’s Live Free or Die Fest for a perfect example of a private property festival.) You should be calling everyone who participates in Free Keene Fest immoral if you want to have some consistency in your position. Also, you should not set foot there, as it is totally avoidable.
I find those questions to be borderline goading and not pertinent to this particular topic. I’ll be glad to share any ideas I might have in a relevant thread.
Great – I look forward to them.
Reality is just in your mind. Your pleas to the contrary are just rationalization. You can’t prove you aren’t in a pod like Neo in the Matrix, and all your experiences are being generated through manipulation of your senses.
“Your mind”? Who is this “you”? I could be me. Are you really sure? Who knows?
The only entity threatened with violence in CTV’s case was Time Warner. I have nothing to do with that.
I find you’re being willfully blind. You’re severing causes and effects. If Peter robs me to pay you, you had nothing to do with the robbery so it sounds like you’re quite content to benefit from the loot.
That may be, but it’s not much of a reach from what you said, “That’s immoral!”, to “You should stop.”
So you admit it is a reach and that I have not told people to stop. Good.
If you don’t care if people use the system, why denounce their choices?
Of course I care. Why must you put words in my mouth?
What are you attempting to accomplish?
A world free of aggression of course!
Don’t worry I’ll be sure to stay away from your Free Keene fest.
Don’t worry I’ll be sure to stay away from your Free Keene fest.
Glad to see you sticking to your principle there. Though, it’s not my fest, and I wasn’t worried. Mike Barskey organizes it, and we all enjoy ourselves without worrying about how many people were threatened with violence to support the property. If you do show up, expect to be razzed about “benefiting from the loot”.
Of course I care. Why must you put words in my mouth?
Do you want them to stop or not? You haven’t told anyone to, but do you want them to?
I find you’re being willfully blind. You’re severing causes and effects. If Peter robs me to pay you, you had nothing to do with the robbery so it sounds like you’re quite content to benefit from the loot.
Another totally unrelated example. Time Warner applied for corporate protection from the state and were granted it. The corporate fiction applied to be a cable provider and were told of the requirements. CTV was formed. Time Warner was not robbed. They chose to deal with the state – no one forced them. CTV was part of the cost of doing business with the gang.
Yes, it’s all detestable, but it’s done. No one continues to be aggressed against to support CTV. TV viewers can choose satellite or internet or netflix.
When the transition to voluntaryism happens, CTV will need to be dealt with. Luckily you have a liberty-oriented board member who can help suggest voluntary alternatives for what is an otherwise desirable organization.
Your position reminds me of people who are mean to “bastard” children:
“Hey, that boy was born out of wedlock – rather than treat him like a human being, we should ostracize him and never let him live it down!”
“Hey, CTV was created via a coercive system – we should ignore the tremendous value it provides to our outreach efforts and just find some other way (that no one has bothered to suggest) to get our video content to the masses!”
“Your mind”? Who is this “you”? I could be me. Are you really sure? Who knows?
Touche. I could indeed be talking to myself here. No way to know for sure!
Do you want them to stop or not? You haven’t told anyone to, but do you want them to?
I concern myself principally with making sure *I* do right, and do not do wrong.
Without having verified the facts around CTV and how it is funded or came into existence, I have nothing further to say in response to this question.
Your argument about TW applying for permission is a rehash of a topic brought up earlier to which I don’t remember you replying. To sum it up, is a sales tax voluntary? If not, then neither is Time Warner’s application for corporation status.
Your position reminds me of people who are mean to “bastard” children:
Well, at least you ended the conversation with a laugh.
Sales tax is not voluntary, but applying for a corporation is. Apples and oranges.
I concern myself principally with making sure *I* do right, and do not do wrong.
Secondarily though you seem quite concerned for the actions of your fellow voluntaryists. If they were actually going around supporting coercion, I’d agree with you. I think I’ve shown here that they aren’t. Anyway, it’s been fun.
I got called a troll. LOL
Kinda reminds me of the time I spent 4 hours at the Daily Paul trying to explain to those people why there is no such thing as an ‘illegal’ person.
Entertaining up to a point, and then frustrating.
Enjoyed the discourse, such as it was, George, and as you have seen, Ian has far more words with which to defend his positions and actions than I could ever come up with.
I need to get back to the bridge…fees to collect and all that.
We’re all on the same side here, George, and I look forward to enjoying my freedoms and those of my children in peace and harmony with you.
We’re all on the same side here, George
There’s a deep problem here where the state is so big, those liberty lovers still under its sway to one extent or another are in such large numbers that those of us who know the state is evil and want nothing to do with it get crowded out. The air gets sucked out of our space. It becomes hard to conceive of life without the state and so options that don’t include it are discarded.
Talk of peace and harmony from people who support or validate the state in one way or another rings a little false.
I feel the point in my heart…
and then I wake up.
Stop using the roads, if you have such a hard on. Stop buying gasoline, and produce, and aspirin, and sugar, and cigarettes.
Stop buying insurance, telephone services, internet services, cars, boats, aeroplanes, and dentistry services.
Then come talk to me about what ‘rings a little false’.
*ELKFART*, OK, LPVIPER???…I started posting as “elkheart”, but after I gave *HONEST* feedback to “anarchojesse”, he took offense and tried to name-call me…But, because I really do respect him, I had to laugh out loud at his calling me “elkfart”…&, I adopted the name both to honor Jesse’s intellectual sense of humor, and to remind my self that I’m not so important as we all want to think that we are…(BTW, yes, I think it was just a typo, & not you calling me “elkfat”…///…&No, I don’t think that George Donnelly was calling you a troll…a *TROLL*???…*YOU*???…only in your dreams, dear one!…*(*grin*)*…I’m scoring this round all to you & Ian. George gave it a good shot, but he is out-classed here…*I* think so, anyway…///…GEORGE DONNELY: I support the “state”. I have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the U.S. Of America from any and all enemies, foreign and domestic. Ever heard those lines, George???…So I’m some kind of “neo-Federalist”, or whatever. So what? I don’t “support or validate” violence or coercion. I must accept(or remain delusional in my denial…)that coercion and violence *DO EXIST* today. Right here in Keene. I was attacked by a violent, out-of-control drunk last May. I defended myself against his attack. My self defense was adequate & sufficient to stop his attack, without my having to attack back. I don’t condone or “support” violence and coercion, but I do have to live with them. You remind me of the bone-headed bleeding heart liberals at the Keene Unitarian Universalist Church. Their “Wayside Pulpit”,(a large, permanent lawn sign, the one up now says “Optimism is still worth the singing”…) for a long time had a quote from Emerson, or Thoroeu, or one of “those guys”, which said, “I must conquer that within myself which causes war”…Think about that stupid, *STUPID* quote…What do you think? Agree? Disagree?… Now, *TRY THIS*: “I must make peaceful, that within me which causes war.” *THAT’S *MY QUOTE*, in response. See the difference?…George, just because you’re smarter than most of us, doesn’t mean you’re smarter than *ALL* of us…pointless bickering *IS* a form of TROLL-ism, George…or do you prefer “G-OGRE”???…P.S.: George, there are a number of groups who live quite well with little or no “gov”t”…Wanna join them?…ever traveled with some Rainbow People???…didn’t think so…c’est la vie!..
It was a typo, but then when I went back to fix it I was like, ‘Naaaaa…’
LOL
Great comment, good read, thanks elkfart
you’re almost *too* welcome…LPVIPER = Naaaaa-T-Baaaaad, he typed sheepishly….SOMALOL (almost like ROFL, but you’re still sitting more-or-less upright….somalol = sitting on my ass, laughing out loud
if even a fraction of a cent of mine was stolen and used on some project, I’m going to go ahead and consider myself a part owner of that project. Thus I been stolen from enough to pay for a constitutionally limited government for the duration of my life. I’ll choose to use whatever government services I damn well please since I paid for them already. I simply choose not to use many because I feel it gives creedence to the system of stealing to fund new forced ownership opportunities.
Talk of peace and harmony from people who support or validate the state in one way or another rings a little false.
The only way to validate the state is to sign a contract. As far as I know, Ian has never signed a contract agreeing to obey the state. Also, he has never supported them voluntarily either. Support under duress is not voluntary.
George,
You keep claiming that use of state services somehow “validates” the state. Could you clarify what you mean by “validate” please?
validate: “demonstrate or support the truth or value of”
“validate: “demonstrate or support the truth or value of””….Thank you, George Donnelly, for demonstrating the truth of the *STATE*, and supporting the value of the *STATE*, every time you speak out against it. If the “state” truly is as devoid of legitamacy as you claim, George, just what is it that you protest against, and why?…&please try to answer this Q? head-on. You won’t weasel your way past ELKFART, friend!….
Our homeboy Charley Hardman said at August 16, 2009 @ 5:24 am:
…if such a blanket position is sound, it withstands extreme tests such as jews waiting to be gassed in the 40s.
Exacly how? I thought that resulted with the creation of a Jewish homeland.
Charley, go back to the drawing board and figure out a better argument against peaceful resistance.
My homeboy Charley said at August 16, 2009 @ 5:24 am:
and of course you continue with the usual indefensible FK pooh-poohing of violence in reaction to the state, otherwise correctly known as self defense. if such a blanket position is sound, it withstands extreme tests such as jews waiting to be gassed in the 40s
Exactly how did it fail? Didn’t that result with the creation of the Jewish homeland?
You’re a smart guy Charley. Why don’t you grind out a better argument against peaceful resistance?
Bob, please include the post # – (81872, in this case…) to help the rest of us find what you’re referring to…I went back & re-read Hardly-a-man’s post – *CAREFULLY* – & I see some good points that I want to blog on later….If a Swanzey Cop can murder a guy and skate, why can’t I use lethal force in self-defense???…more later….*LIVE FREE or DYE!….
@Charley Hardman:
I do not feel that at this time, with the potential libertarians that we are marketing our ideas to, that direct violence against the State (such as blowing up city hall or some nonsense like that) is a very productive action.
I feel that it only lends sympathy to the State and makes the State look like a victim rather than an assailant.
If we want people to recognize the State as the aggressor, then it is important that we reveal it as such through acts of peaceful civil disobedience.
Also, please no ad hominem attacks. I never said anything about Ghandi, and I do not think peaceful civil disobedience is the only justified way of achieving our goals. All I said was, at this time, peaceful civil disobedience, rather than direct violence against the State, is a better way of marketing our ideas. That’s the only claim I made.
I never said that we should all sit down with our legs crossed and light ourselves on fire ’till the State disappears, lol.
And I have noted in the past that, if some government workers ever come to my house and try making me report to “mandatory civilian service” camp, that I will NOT let that happen; and will use violence to prevent that if I need to.
I never said violence couldn’t be used for good (obviously, self-defense is a great thing if someone is attacking you). I just said, at this time, it’s BAD, BAD marketing under MOST circumstances. That’s all.
Thanks for your comment.
I don’t believe you should try and end abortion by becoming an abortion doctor in order to explain to people the evils of abortion.
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
Supporters of
Recent Forum Topics- NH: Gandhi expert warns against in-system activism September 2, 2010
- Video on nonviolence that I liked, fairly fact driven September 1, 2010
- Hi everybody! September 1, 2010
- KPD/Staties to setup checkpoints September 1, 2010
- 5th Live Free Or Die Rally photo's links September 1, 2010
- consciencious objection... August 31, 2010
- Department of Justice Lists Constitutionalists in Extremism Guide August 31, 2010
- The end of silver price manipulation? August 31, 2010
- shire silver mentioned in an article I found August 31, 2010
- hi keene! just a thought. August 30, 2010
- Recent Forum Posts
- Re: Catherine Bleish trial? September 2, 2010
- Re: Catherine Bleish trial? September 2, 2010
- Re: Video on nonviolence that I liked, fairly fact driven September 2, 2010
- Re: Video on nonviolence that I liked, fairly fact driven September 2, 2010
- Video on nonviolence that I liked, fairly fact driven September 1, 2010
- Re: KPD/Staties to setup checkpoints September 1, 2010
- Re: Hi everybody! September 1, 2010
- Re: KPD/Staties to setup checkpoints September 1, 2010
- Re: Hi everybody! September 1, 2010
- Re: Catherine Bleish trial? September 1, 2010