I’m writing in response to Keene Sentinel columnist Michael Schuman’s story titled “Will the Free Staters Please Sit Down?” I must admit, a couple of years ago, before coming to understand the message of liberty, I would have agreed with Schuman’s opinions.
Schuman’s views are consistent with what many would describe as main stream America. Unfortunately many of his ideas are based in ignorance and misunderstanding that stems from a lack of critical thinking. Like most of us, Schuman probably attended government indoctrination centers where school children are taught to stand on their X, respect authority, and do as you’re told without question.
Take a look at the pledge of allegiance. How many other countries have one? How many of you know it was written by Fancis Bellamy, a National Socialist (Nazi) flag salesman, to “instill a strong belief in the state.” Dont believe me? Look it up on the internet. You’re likely to find the same picture I did of school children doing a Roman salute – the same one Hitler’s army used – before that was changed after WWII.
Schuman’s description of a classical libertarian is severely flawed and his examples display an ignorance of private property vs. individual rights.
The article begins by describing libertarians as “a Republican who wants to smoke pot and watch porn.” What does it mean to be a Republican – or a Democrat – these days? The only difference I can discern between the two parties is how they want to take more of your money to grow government. The red/blue game is simply a distraction to keep the masses complacent while government works to extract more of your wealth to exert greater control over your life.
Classical libertarians on the other hand believe it’s wrong to initiate force or violence on others to provide a product or service. Sure government seems fair and even “necessary,” but what happens if you don’t pay their taxes?
While we’re at it, have you ever wondered how two main viewpoints (or parties) manage to represent hundreds of millions of people? How is it countries like Sweden and Switzerland have hundreds of political parties with members elected to Parliament? Could it be that campaign finance “reform” is a tool used by the two major parties to retain power while setting the bar high enough to prevent new entrants from gaining a foothold?
Many of you are probably libertarians without realizing it. Find out for yourself by taking the World’s Shortest Political Quiz at www.TheAdvocates.org/quiz.
Schuman continued with a concert example concerning a woman who remained standing despite everyone around her sitting to enjoy the concert. Libertarians believe in social ostracism, which Schuman did when he had someone ask her to tak a seat.
Schuman’s failure was likely caused by a lack of numbers. Would the result have been the same if twenty people were shouting “sit down!” instead of one person asking? The additional pressure might have changed her mind; I’ve seen it work.
Failing to get his way, Schuman then went to get the authorities (the usher), just as government trains us to snitch on our neighbors, rather than seeking to understand and resolve differences.
In the story, the woman refused to sit, saying she had a right to stand, and the usher decided there was nothing he could do. This is where Schuman concludes libertarians are selfish based on his limited understanding of rights.
If I’m invited to a friend’s house (private property) and he has a “no shoes inside” policy, do I have a “right” to wear shoes in his house? If I don’t like the policy, I won’t go over to his house, or I’ll see if I can bring a pair of slippers to wear inside.
In Schuman’s example, libertarians may advocate: petitioning the venue for a standingin/seated section; a boycott of the venue; opening your own venue, where you set the rules; requesting a refund from the venue’s management. What would Schuman’s solution involve? Perhaps he suggests a “no standing” law commanding the guns of government to punish the woman with arrest, taxpayers with enforcement costs, and the private property owner by trampling his rights and ability to provide innovative solutions to changing customer demands.
Libertarians believe in the power of a true free market to solve problems, and we understand the unintended consequences that arise from using force – government – to solve problems.
Schuman continues by comparing the Free State Project to a Christian Fundamentalist group moving to South Carolina. He left out the Mormons who moved to Salt Lake City. I’m left wondering about the political fathers and the 13% of American colonists who supported them in throwing off British rule. Would that make Mr. Schuman one of the loyalists, the 30% of the population happy with British rule? Many of them were run off to Canada.
While Schuman seemed to understand at least one aspect of the trillion dollar failure that is the war on drugs, he doesn’t seem to understand the concept of a victimless crime.
In his initial attempt to discredit this idea he repeats his earlier flawed concept with the smoking issue. Again the issue is private property. Are you a victim of second hand smoke if you voluntarily decide to patronize an establishment that allows smoking on its private property? Customers and employees are free to ostracize, patronize, or increase choice and diversity in the marketplace through competition.
Schuman then set his sights on gun control. He references what he describes as almost daily shooting sprees around the nation. What he fails to mention, and what most don’t understand is this: the most deadly cities in America – New York, D.C., LA, Chicago – also have the most restrictive gun laws. States with the least restrictive gun laws like New Hampshire and Vermont also enjoy some of the lowest crime rates. The facts show gun laws reduce safety.
In what seems like a direct attempt to discredit the messenger, Schuman implies the Free State Project is an extreme organization. In his article, he describes the New Hampshire Free Press – a local paper which publishes stories on topics including the 9/11 Truth Movement and the John Birch Society – as “one of the project’s media outlets.”
As a fellow journalist, I would expect Schuman to do some basic fact checking and investigation. Spending 5 minutes reading the FAQ section at FreeStateProject.org, and he would have understood that the Free State Project exists solely to encourage liberty activists to move to New Hampshire and get active for liberty. The FSP does not endorse any political parties, not any candidates, nor any legislation. It certainly doesn’t have any media outlets!
Here’s how the FSP works: people hear about the message of liberty and eventually the FSP; they move to New Hampshire; they learn about the various things activists are doing and they decide what they want to support. The FSP is not involved past moving.
Some liberty activists see something they want to change – like the government abrogating freedom of the press – while others come up with new ideas – like volunteering at the Community Kitchen, the monthly canned food drive, or Keene Freedom Fest, to name a few. These activists come up with a plan and the people who think it’s a good idea support it. The best ideas garner the most support. If someone is unhappy with the way things are going they splinter off and start their own group. It’s happened several times, and the liberty movement grows stronger and more diverse with each split.
It’s something a command and control, top-down organization could never accomplish. It’s also the way a true free market – most libertarians advocate – would operate. No leaders; no structure; only individuals standing for and supporting what they believe.
That brings us to Schuman’s last example, my unlawful indefinite detainment without trial for filming on public property. To begin with my last name is Dodson, not Miller, and Schuman acknowledges my identity is no secret. Had he done the slightest bit of investigation he would know that I have identified myself, with a fingerprint, as demanded by their laws. Had he reviewed the publicly available court filings, he would know the court/prosecutor team has presented no laws to the contrary. He would also know that over the last month and a half the courts have ignored most of our requests including 3 separate motions to schedule a trial.
Is that what this country was founded upon, arresting journalists critical of the state and holding them indefinitely without trial?
Schuman then points out that taxpayers have been forced to pay thousands of dollars for my detainment and asks, is this a victimless crime? Absolutely not, along with me, taxpayers are victims of an out of control judge, protected by a lifetime appointment, who’s willing to throw away as much of your money as he wants to challenge the slightest threat to his authority. This has little to do with my identity and everything to do with control.
Schuman attempts to close his story by drawing an analogy between my situation and a Peanuts comic strip in which Snoopy is described as doing something “Pretty stupid!” Gandhi said it best, “First they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” While Schuman and others may be laghing, the New Hampshire bureaucrats have started fighting.
Unfortunately, they’re fighting an idea; an idea that, thanks to press coverage on the internet, The Keene Sentinel, the Boston Globe, Fox News, and Break the Matrix, has now spread over a quarter million people, a handful of which are now planning their move to New Hampshire. Laugh all you want, and I hope you don’t mind if I join you.
SamIAm
