Varrin Swearingen Responds to Pam Martens
Varrin Swearingen (president of the Free State Project) has had his response to Pam Martens’ attack piece published in the Keene Sentinel. Here’s a link to his letter to the editor – as you can see Varrin is already under fire by anti-freedom commenters.
Here’s the text of his letter:
Pam Martens calls for an “untrammeled debate” on the issues (“We have a right to speak our minds,” Keene Sentinel, April 4), but before getting into any specific topic, we need to address the elephant in the room: Where do our rights come from?
Mrs. Martens writes, “rights are derived … from engaged citizens in a participatory democracy.”
She believes rights are granted by society, and denies individuals any natural rights of their own; what some might call “human rights.”
Her opinion conflicts with the simple idea that each of us has our own inherent, unalienable rights, and that government, democratic or otherwise, should be limited to protecting those rights.
The founders of our state and nation understood that idea and wrote it into the New Hampshire Constitution and America’s Declaration of Independence.
The Free State Project’s Statement of Intent adopts part of that idea, too:
“… the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty and property.”
That is the extent of the Free State Project’s “platform”: encouraging engaged citizens to move to New Hampshire and work to protect everyone’s rights.
If Mrs. Martens wishes to criticize that “platform,” or claim “most people don’t agree,” she’s certainly free to do so, but I have a hunch that most good and honest people in New Hampshire believe they have rights that not even a democracy can legitimately take away.
Note: I write herein on my own behalf, not on behalf of the Free State Project as its president.
VARRIN SWEARINGEN
Comments
19 Comments on Varrin Swearingen Responds to Pam Martens
Re: “More on the topic of making no sense”
“How does one protect property rights without planning and zoning boards.”
Easily. If a person harms another’s property, they need to make restitution. The idea that a bunch of bureacrats get to decide how everyone else can use their own property, is itself a violation of their rights. Houston doesn’t have zoning, and society as we know it has not ended in Houston.
“How does one enjoy liberty when a gang of Free Staters are roaming the neighborhood with guns on their hips.”
Everyone has a right to self-protection. I think you’re being very hyperbolic here. People have been responsible — no threats have been made, guns have remained holstered, etc. Do you complain about “gangs of police roaming the neighborhood with guns on their hips”? No.
“If one is a police officer or court officer, how does one enjoy life if one is being called a thug by Free Staters.”
They only get called thugs when they violate the rights of others, using aggressive violence. I’m sure thieves have a hard time enjoying life when they’re held accountable for their actions too — but then, if they didn’t want to be held accountable, they shouldn’t have stolen in the first place.
I’m far more concerned about the victims of violence than the feelings of their attackers.
“Free Staters want to farm out police functions to private contractors. Apparently they’ve never heard of Blackwater.”
No, farming out police functions is not what’s needed. Free choice is what we need. Blackwater was paid using tax money. How much money do you think Blackwater could have gotten if they had to pass the hat? In general, how many do you think would have donated their own money to invade Iraq? Not many. If people were allowed to choose to use their own money to support efforts that matter to them, instead of being forced by the government to fund whatever scheme some politician wants, I can guarantee you, there would be far fewer aggressive wars, and far fewer blackwaters.
“They want to farm out public school functions to private operators. Apparently they’ve never heard of the priest abuse scandal.”
C’mon, seriously? I guess, by this logic, we need publicly funded church, too.
Here’s the difference: If I don’t like something a private school is doing, or I believe they are not being effective, I can withdraw my funding and my kid, and send them elsewhere. If I don’t think the public school is doing a good job, you’re going to force me to pay for it anyway.
That’s the opposite of accountability — no wonder public schools are so crummy and overpriced. They don’t need to compete, because they can just send men with guns to our homes if we don’t send them our money. It’s quite the racket.
“They want to eliminate all government regulations on business. Apparently they’ve never heard of Wall Street. ”
Actually, the housing crisis was most directly caused by the distorted intererst rates of the Fed — cheap credit. Furthermore, the banks knew that they could gamble it up, and if they lost, they’d get bailed out with our money. Government directly enables irresponsibility, and rewards it – heck, most of the financial people in government WORKED for wall street. They’re all in bed together. There are a lot of other ways they help their buddies, and destroy accountability. Here’s Taft, for example, speaking on the proposed FDIC: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-audioPlayer_image.html?mp3File=taft1_1011.mp3&h=200&w=200%27,%27imageShell07%27,%27200%27,%27200%27,%27off%27,%27true%27,40,10)
Prescient much?
Real freedom, and real accountability, would mean letting irresponsible bankers fail, and responsible ones take their place — not stealing our money and giving it to billionaires.
Here is my comment I sent in. Doubt if it will get published, but we’ll see.
@More On the Topic of Making No Sense
“How does one protect property rights without planning and zoning boards.”
-How are property rights protected by a bunch of bureaucrats who can force you to change your property or get fined/arrested if they don’t like how your property is being managed.
“How does one enjoy liberty when a gang of Free Staters are roaming the neighborhood with guns on their hips.”
-Besides being very hyperbolic, can anyone name a shootout that has occurred between any Free Stater’s and anyone else? What about any violent crime using a firearm with a Free Stater involved? Isn’t there another group of men with guns on their hips wondering around Keene as well, you know The Police? And shouldn’t Free Stater’s be allowed to arm and protect themselves like any other NH resident? Just seems like a shrill argument when one just keeps screaming GUN GUN to try to make a point.
“If one is a police officer or court officer, how does one enjoy life if one is being called a thug by Free Staters.”
If any individual uses violence and coercion to harm individuals who have not harmed anyone else, they are a thug regardless of what funny costume or shiny piece of metal they wear. If a private individual did the things that police do on a regular basis, I would be prone to calling that person a thug as well.
“Free Staters want to farm out police functions to private contractors. Apparently they’ve never heard of Blackwater.”
I think the point you’re missing is choice. All I want is the ability to choose which policing/protection agency to utilize. If I have a disagreement with how the police are used, run, or organized, there is nothing I can do to stop choosing this service. I am forced to pay for it via taxes, and if I stop paying my taxes these very same men will come to my house and take me away. If I sufficiently resist these men while they are attempting to take me or my property from me, I could very well be dispatched from this reality with little to no consequences to the men who I no longer wanted to fund for this very reason. Also, Blackwater is a govt sponsored agency that receives tax payer money. Would you voluntarily support Blackwater? I know I wouldn’t.
“They want to farm out public school functions to private operators. Apparently they’ve never heard of the priest abuse scandal.”
Same argument as with the police. I want to be able to choose what form of education my children have. I do not want to be forced to pay for an educational program that I think is wasteful, ineffective and potentially dangerous to the development of human beings. My children are not forced to attend the govt schools, but I am forced to pay for them regardless they attend or not. I want to be able to choose where/how my children are educated, and not have to pay for a service I do not use.
“They want to eliminate all government regulations on business. Apparently they’ve never heard of Wall Street.”
From what I hear the SEC had libraries full of regulations on the books before the bankster crash of 2008. It seems to me that most regulation are put in place by established businesses in order to limit the amount of competition they have to face so they can keep prices artificially high, or keep their current market share. Usually the most corrupt business practices occur in the fields that have the most regulation on them. It would seem to me that if the regulation were having the desired effect that the corruption would go down in these business sectors.
Re Citizen:
“I now look at FSP members as potheads now, wether they are or not.”
Then that’s a pretty poor way to look at people, don’t you think? I believe it’s called “false stereotyping” or “bigotry”.
“The sole mission it seems of the NH libertarian movement is to smoke dope legally.”
Not at all. I’ve never smoked pot, and don’t plan to. Drug legalization is important to me, because I think it leads to a lot of problems in society (just as alcohol prohibition did), but I can think of half a dozen issues easily that are far more important to me.
“I think this undermines any other cause that may be championed. ”
Why? Why not respect your neighbor’s freedom, across the board? It makes no sense to respect your neighbor’s right to spend her money as she chooses, but not her right to consume something of which you personally disapprove.
If this is not the issue that matters most to you — fine! Stand up for liberty in some other area. If you’re against taxes, or for lower taxes, stand up for that! Call your rep, speak out, or if you’re gutsy enough, refuse to pay some or all of the bill.
But, don’t just sit back and snipe at people trying to regain basic freedoms, simply because the particular freedoms they are trying to regain are not the ones you are most interested in exercising.
In other words, don’t complain about the effectiveness or popularity of pro drug legalization activism — create your own pro-freedom activism, that’s even more successful!
…*UNTRAMMELED DEBATE*…???WTF???…guess Pam Martens was *NOT* an English major…Why do people use big words that they have no idea the meaning of???..the only big word I know is “antidisestablishmentarianism”, but ya’ really don’t get a chance very often, to use it in a sentence…guess people like Pam Martens bring fresh-cut flowers to war…hey, the soldiers like their bouquets…
an·ti·dis·es·tab·lish·men·tar·i·an·ism
? ?/?ænti?d?s??stæbl??m?n?t??ri??n?z?m, ?ænta?-/[an-tee-dis-uh-stab-lish-muhn-tair-ee-uh-niz-uhm, an-tahy-]
–noun
opposition to the withdrawal of state support or recognition from an established church, esp. the Anglican Church in 19th-century England.
You can use it in any discussion about Republicans! And for that matter, Democrats believe that they are an established religion.
Thanks so much for the pronunciation guide, Sam! I never could pronounce it before! And it’s amazing what it means! I would be OK, if the Crown wanted to *RECOGNIZE* the Anglican Church, (as being a legitimate church),but not if the Crown was to *SUPPORT* it…Wait, are you saying that DEMOCRATS aren’t a religion???…WTF!?!?!?…I know all Republicans believe that they are God, but I didn’t know Democrats do, too. Oh Well…(how do you type that thingy that looks like an “ae”, but w/out the space???…tKoK…
Re: Obstructionists With No Alternative Plan
“Ask yourself this about the Free Staters: have you ever heard one detailed plan about what they would do once they eliminate public schools and tax-funded services like police, social security, road construction.”
We shouldn’t eliminate these things, just transition to voluntary alternatives. In some more challenging cases, like roads, we should do so carefully, and gradually. I’d be happy to talk to you (or anyone) about ideas, but it’s probably too involved for a comment section. My e-mail is paulku.42@gmail.com.
“The answer is all you’ve heard is flimsy rhetoric and no detailed plans at all.”
There are lots of detailed ideas. I suggest you haven’t heard them, because you haven’t made an attempt to listen, or talk to people with ideas.
“That’s because if there was a plan that could beat tax-funded programs, it would have emerged and succeeded in the last 200 years.”
That’s competely false. Look at the USSR — the government took over everything. Were the government solutions superior? No, it led to their collapse — but the “leaders” wanted to aggregate as much power as possible for themselves, to rule over others, and to help out their corrupt buddies. At the federal level, that’s exactly what we’ve got (I’d say local government isn’t so corrupt).
“Exactly how do these Free Staters think this country became the only superpower. Was it with some Mom who never went to college attempting to teach her children physics between doing the laundry and opening the spaghetti-o’s. I don’t think so. I think it was because a bunch of men and women who love children and love this country and love teaching and love learning decided to forego six figure salaries to dedicate a lifetime to spreading their knowledge to help the next generation get a real start in the world.”
That’s an incredibly arrogant attitude. Actually, statistics show homeschoolers perform far better on every standardized test. I was homeschooled. I scored 1490 on the SAT and am now finishing my masters in Physics. Oh, and my primary and secondary education cost somewhere in the vicinity of $500 per year in books and materials. You see, we didn’t have to pay for new BMWs for an army of paper pushing administrators and bureacrats.
Here’s the question: If public school is so great, why are people that are already being forced to pay the $16000 pricetag, still choosing to homeschool or go to private school? If people were being forced to pay for a $16000 toyota, but were going ahead and buying a Ford anyway, what would that say about Toyota cars?
If this “public school” product is so great, how about you let people choose whether they want to use their time and resources there, or elsewhere, instead of threatening to steal my home if I don’t pay for it?
The truth is, public schools are way, way overpriced, and performing horribly. It’s not suprising — how great do you think Nokia cell phones, toyotas, etc, would be if we all were forced to buy one every year, whether we wanted to or not? The cell phones would probably weigh five pounds, and have a battery life of five minutes. The cars would get 10 miles to the gallon.
Free choice is necessary for accountability.
“The more time I spend thinking about what these Free Staters want for our country the more outraged I became at their ignorance and arrogance and selfishness. ”
I just want to be able to use my own money to support causes I believe in, rather than having my money extorted from me to fund the causes you believe in.
If anything’s ignorant, arrogant, and selfish, it’s obtaining funding by extorting it from your neighbors, and threatening violence against them in order to force them to participate in your preferred social programs.
Paul wrote: “(I’d say local government isn’t so corrupt).”…Dude, you’re fuckin’ trippin’. “Local gov’t” is about as corrupt as it’s possible to be. Dude, what kind of drugs are you on? But, except for that one point, I agree completely. How do you “home school” *homeless kids*…???…
Re: Response to Saint Paul
“And therein lies the difference between the Free Staters and the rest of civilized, compassionate society.
I want to let the government take 28 percent of every dollar I earn so that really smart but really poor children in Mississippi can grow up to be the next Dr. Martin Luther King or the next Bill Gates.”
Oh, I absolutely support helping those in need — I donate hundreds of dollars a month to charity. I just want to give the money to real charities, rather than your pathetic, wasteful, corrupt, and ineffective excuse for charity, called the federal government. Real charities give 90+% to the cause. Government hands 80+% to bureaucrats.
If you really want to help poor kids in Mississippi you should set up a scholarship for them, to go to the school of their choice. I’d donate to this effort. The last thing that helps them is funneling money into the massive bureaucratic failure that is public schools.
The fact that you steal my money to do it takes it from irresponsible use of charitable funds to outright theft.
“I want to let the government take 28 percent of every dollar I earn so that a sweet, kind 86 year old woman with no family can live with dignity in a tax supported nursing home.”
If you donated the money to a real charity, you’d help about three times as many people, with that same 28%, and it’d be provided by local people who understand the needs of the people they are helping, and can handle different cases differently — rather than bureaucrats blindly following policy.
But fine, if you’d like to choose government as your charitable cause, go for it. It’s your money. Just don’t send men with guns to my house if I choose a different charity.
“I want to let the government take 28 percent of every dollar I earn so that vets who come home from a war zone and suicide bombers can get all the medical help they need to restore their souls and their bodies and their minds.”
I want to stop having my money used by government to start aggressive wars around the world, subsidizing dictators, and creating the conflict in the first place. If you want peace, government’s a strange organization to support.
“I think no man or woman is an island. You think all men and women are entitled to their own selfish pursuits. ”
I think you should stop forcing me to fund your pathetic excuse for a charity. Given the number of people government kills on a regular basis — 262 million people were murdered by their own government in the 20th century alone, and that’s not even counting war — the most humanitarian thing is to withdraw support.
Even when it isn’t blowing people up, I can’t think of a charity that even comes close to being as awful as the government, in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, or any other objective measure.
Why don’t you start behaving decently, and respect your neighbor’s choices? Theft is not acceptable means of funding, even if your cause were worthy — which it’s not.
Paul wrote: “(I’d say local government isn’t so corrupt).”…Dude, you’re fuckin’ trippin’. “Local gov’t” is about as corrupt as it’s possible to be. Dude, what kind of drugs are you on? But, except for that one point, I agree completely.
I don’t think it’s anywhere near as bad as the federal government. At least local government is run by people personally known to the community, so they are somewhat accountable that way. Washington is just about beyond hope.
How do you “home school” *homeless kids*…???…
I don’t know. I would absolutely love to set up a charitable school, though, which runs on donations.
I think that’d be my dream job — but one person probably couldn’t do all the teaching. I’d need an english/history type to complement my math/science. Also, I’d probably have to convince my wife that she really wants to work full time to support that effort …
Today, listening to NHPR(NH Public Radio), I heard a woman actually use “antidisestablishmentarianism” in a rational sentence. She used it in the sense that I have used it here. As an otherwise meaningless, big, long word! “VIRAL LANGUAGE”…///…And, isn’t this post-thread about “Varrin Swearingen responds to Pam Martens”???…let’s try to stay on-topic, ok? Thanks! Can we get Pam Martens to post on here, somehow???…tKoK.
Re: Charity Nonsense
” To monitor where government money is going, we have the General Accountability Office and Congressional subpoena power.”
Yeah, and that works so well. What a marvelously efficient and uncorrupted organization the government is. *rollseyes
“To monitor where charity money is going, we have the Pope. Or Jim Bakker.”
No, we have The American Institute of Philanthropy, charitywatch.org, The Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance, guidestar.org, justgive.org, and many others.
I didn’t say give your money to televangelists.
Most importantly, these organizations are accountable, because if they act poorly, they don’t get our money — unlike the federal government, who can blatantly hand our money to corrupt billionaires, and still extort money from us next April.
They use our money for aggressive war, and still extort money even from pacifists, who are forced to choose between supporting what some of them consider murder, or having their house stolen from them. That’s about as morally twisted as you can get.
“Put “charity fraud” in the Google search box and you get 463,000 hits”
Aside from the fact that counting google hits isn’t exactly a good way to get meaningful information — take a look at those hits. The overwhelming majority of them are sites explaining how to avoid fraud.
It’s easy to avoid — just give money to well respected and audited organizations like Habitat for Humanity, amnesty international, etc — not the random guy who comes by your front door with a collection bucket.
“You Free Staters should turn off Free Talk Live and pick up a newspaper from time to time.”
That’s exactly the point. If I read about a charitable fraud, or waste, I can refuse to support that charity — and the press helps serve as a watchdog.
Charitable waste, and abuse, doesn’t hold a candle to government waste and abuse — but I can’t choose not to fund government. In fact, that’s why the abuse is so bad.
How you delude yourself into believing an organization which obtains funding by force, and enforces a monopoly, could be MORE accountable is beyond me. It defies basic logic. If your employer had to pay you whether he wanted to or not, how often would you show up to work?
“As for wanting peace not war, who doesn’t want that. But to defund the government and get rid of the military is just plain stupid. To paraphrase, the military monster you know is better than the military monster you don’t know.”
Not running defense through government is not the same as eliminating defense. Does the fact that the government doesn’t run the food industry mean we starve? Does the fact that the government doesn’t run the computer industry mean we all use abacuses?
People want defense, and so will subscribe to defense services. Personally, I prefer something a lot closer to the constitutional approach — local militias, who join together in time of general attack. The founders actually opposed a standing army — that’s why the constitution only allows military funding for a period of two years (the politicians skirt this, of course).
History shows that independent militas are far, far more effective per dollar and per man than central armies. Look at what the afghans — a poorly funded, backwards country — did to the USSR — the greatest army on earth at the time. Look at what we did to the British, the greatest military force at that time.
In addition, the lack of a standing army reduces waste in peacetime, as well as removing the impetus for war (when you have a hammer, everything’s a nail). Furthermore, it greatly reduces the likelyhood of foreign adventurism — I’m a lot more likely to help my neighbors defend our home, than invade Vietnam or Iraq.
I calcuated, one time, the amount of arms that could be purchased, even just with the charitable donations made by Americans last year. Invading the U.S, against this type of defense, would be utter suicide.
“Ever heard of the Nazi’s?”
Actually, Hitler would likely not have come to power at all, if it were not for U.S. meddling in WW1.
But, I agree that Hitler had to be stopped, and I would have supported an effort to do so — I think an effort by free people in independent militias, causing havoc, would have been absolutely devastating to the Germans.
“Or the Krimlin? Or North Korea?”
How exactly was a central military necessary in these cases? A strong defense would have been far preferable — and would not have included funding and training for Contras’ terrorism, Osama Bin Ladin, wars in Vietnam, etc. Korea was also handled very poorly, leading to the deaths of many innocent people.
Oh. i get it now! i’m confused…
Often I hear people say we are ‘selfish’, and they say it like its a bad thing to be selfish. The human animal is by nature a ‘selfish’ animal, like most single minded animals are. Its the nature of human beings to be selfish, and selfishness is a pro-life attitude. Selfless on the other hand is a anti-life attitude, nothing good can come from it for the individual being selfless.
A man(in this I include the female of the species as well) is not an island, for the very most a single individual can do is to survive. Survival is good for the individual but addressing only one’s needs leads to a very low quality of life.
The logical disconnect that often times people who tell us we are selfish, or that being an individual leads no where, is the failure to recognize the fact that in mans’ actions as a selfish animal, he helps every other individual he interacts with, on a voluntary basis, to bring them up from just surviving.
If for example I own a farm, in owning that farm I have other wants, in order to get what I want I have to trade. By trading I give those who have either a want or need something that is good for them, and I in turn, acting in my selfish manner, get what I want or need. By trading any good or service for another good or service on a voluntary basis is a win-win for both the buyer and seller because if either disagrees with the trade, it wouldn’t occur.
So, yes, I am selfish. Yes, I am an individual. In being these things, I help others every single day in many different ways, ways that can’t always be counted in dollars and cents, but in emotions and feelings as well.
Re: Get Real
“Earth to Planet Ian: Did the Catholic Church lose their funding after it was revealed that they had been protecting pedophile priests in the US for four decades while over 10,000 sexual assaults were hidden from the public and the victims silenced?”
Actually, they have lost a huge amount of funding. The funding they still receive is from dedicated Catholics. What would you do, stick a gun to their head and force them to stop giving? I respect their freedom to donate to bad charities like the catholic church, just as I respect your freedom to donate to the government.
How would you feel if the Catholics got together and forced you to fund their church? That’s how I feel about you forcing me to fund your government.
“Government does allow you to choose. It’s called the vote. In New England, government allows you to petition via a warrant article to change laws you don’t agree with. ”
The majority has no right to abuse the minority. Theft, and other aggressive coercion, do not magically become moral, because the gang perpetrating them is large. If two people mug one in the woods, is that moral? It’s no more moral when 200 million mug 100 million.
Re: Understanding Human Rights
“Did the Jews have any human rights at Auschwitz until the American tanks rolled in with engaged citizens?”
They absolutely had rights — but those rights were not respected. To a degree, I think it’s a matter of semantics. When I (and most people I know) say someone has a “right”, we mean that to abrogate that freedom would be morally wrong — we don’t mean it won’t happen anyway. Human history is rife with examples of systematic injustice.
The main point is this: Popularity does not determine morality. No matter how many people supported Nazism, it was still morally wrong. If the world were filled with 6 billion Nazis and one Jew who they all wanted to gas, murdering that Jew would still be immoral, and a violation of his/her rights — it wouldn’t magically become ok because it’s popular.
“Did the American blacks have any human rights until 618,000 engaged citizens lay dead on battlefields.”
Yes, but their rights were being violated. Slavery was immoral even while it was popular, and even while it was the law — that’s the point. That’s why we laud the actions of men and women like Josiah Henson and Hariett Tubman — because they recognized the immorality of evil laws, and stood against them.
If their definition of right and wrong had been popularity, or the law, they would have had no basis to stand against popular, legalized, evil. Great reform does not come when we stick our finger in the wind — it comes when we stand up for what we know to be right — often against what is popular, and legal.
“Were blacks able to sit at lunch counters until Rosa Parks came along. Were they able to get good jobs until the 1964 Civil Rights Act came along.”
Rosa parks was actually standing up to municipal law regarding buses.
There is no doubt that racial discrimination by anyone is evil. Personally, I believe the correct way to address people who control their own property in a bigoted way, is boycotts, pickets, and ostracism, not law.
“Did women get to vote when the country was founded in 1776? Or did it take until 1920 with thousands of engaged citizens protesting in the streets around the country for half the population to get the right to vote.
God may create all individuals with human rights and he may protect those rights in heaven. But here on earth, we frequently need firepower and always need engaged citizens to give life to this concept.”
Absolutely — we need to protect rights. That is the correct way to put it. We do not create (or destroy) rights. Slavery is, and always was immoral, and a violation of human rights. It’s up to us whether we will live in accordance with that principle, or not.
Similarly, I believe theft, and other aggressive violence against persons or property, always was, and is immoral. Just as we tolerated and systematized slavery for many centuries (really millenia), I believe we now tolerate aggressive violence. Just as we stopped enslaving people, we need to stop using aggressive violence.
“One has to wonder why Free Staters haven’t debated these issues among themselves and achieved a higher level of enlightenment.”
“Free Staters” are among the most enlightened people I’ve ever met. I think the disagreement was mostly misunderstanding, but I’d be happy to discuss this or other issues with anyone at paulku.42@gmail.com.
Enlighten me 
“Could it be that Free Staters are being bullied into silence if they attempt to question these vacuous theories. ”
Certainly not. Varrin has monkey breath!!! See? 
Many liberty minded people disagree on many things (actually, I can’t think of a single person who I agree with on all political/sociological issues). It’s ironic that you’d say this, because the whole two-party, PC, public school way of thinking is what seems incredibly narrow and closed minded to me — very stuck inside the box, (sometimes for seemingly emotional reasons).
Re: Yes take over
“A “take over” includes forcing others to live under your rules or beliefs, whether they want to or not, and that is exactly what the free staters are out to achieve.
They claim to just want to be left alone, but won’t leave the rest of us alone. ”
Again, just the opposite. I want you to be free to use your life and your finances as you choose, as long as you don’t harm others — that is, you can be left alone, as long as you leave others alone.
If your idea of “being left alone” is acting in aggressive violence against others, then no, you shouldn’t be left alone to do that, just as we don’t leave murderers or arsonists “alone” to continue to harm others or their property.
If you’re truly concerned that your right to live your life and use your property as you choose will be violated, even though you are not violating the right of others to do the same, I’d like to hear how, exactly.
Oh. i get it now! i’m confused…
”To monitor where government money is going, we have the General Accountability Office and Congressional subpoena power.”
Oh, lawdy! This person has their head stuck so far up the government’s ass it’ll be impossible to extricate, even with the jaws-of-life. Riddle me this. If the GAO is such the bee’s knees, why did 2.3 trillion go missing a day before 9/11?
Google:
Rumsfeld Admits (2.3 Trillion) $2,300,000,000,000,000 Missing on 09/10/01
Post your comment below. Login in the far right column to get rid of CAPTCHA. If you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
Want to discuss rather than just comment? Visit the Free Keene Forum.
Supporters of FK
Recent Forum Topics- Keene City Council Contact Info February 8, 2012
- Pledged Free-stater heading to "The Shire" later this year February 8, 2012
- FBI is watching February 7, 2012
- New February 7, 2012
- Free Minds Radio 02/05/2012 February 5, 2012
- HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 5, 2012
- Marijuana decrim bills up for vote February 5, 2012
- Episode 35 - Anarch-Elitism February 5, 2012
- HB 1533 -- fines for hurting legislators' feelings February 4, 2012
- HB 1494 -- "Your papers, please" February 4, 2012
- Recent Forum Posts
- Re: Keene City Council Contact Info February 9, 2012
- Re: What I wrote to the Chief of Police in town of Weare February 9, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 9, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 9, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 8, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam and New angle on trolling? Hmm. February 8, 2012
- Re: Bearcat petition at city council meeting February 8, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 8, 2012
- Re: Keene City Council Contact Info February 8, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam and New angle on trolling? Hmm. February 8, 2012