Unofficial History of Drama in the Free State

[sillyperson]

You're out there telling people that we should be free to do as we please...and yet you have so much rage inside about what other people DO WITH THAT FREEDOM.

Um, "rage?" No.

Just public, clearly-communicated disapproval, couched in language that even people with a serious case of cognitive dissonance -- about the ACTUAL effect of their actions -- might understand.

I've tried being diplomatic and respectful, and it's like calmly reasoning with a 3-year old why he shouldn't smear shit on the walls. Sometimes you gotta pick the kid up, yell "NO!" in his face, and slap his hand, else you're gonna have a stinky house.

See, what people do with their freedom has a lot to do with this thing called "responsibility" that Freak-Staters lack in droves.

It doesn't seem to me like you are at all ready for a free society

On the contrary, it is the freak-staters who are not ready for a free society. They're ready to whine about it, to take every opportunity to leap in front of a camera or cop car, to smoke dope for it... but to actually achieve it?

Wake me up when the hippies achieve a world with peace and no possessions. That will be about the same time the Keeniacs get anarcocapitalism.

[anarchir]

Civil Disobedience: More effective if you don't get caught.

[Bill Brasky]

Dennis,

You're out there telling people that we should be free to do as we please...and yet you have so much rage inside about what other people DO WITH THAT FREEDOM.

It's easier to convince people of something if you act like you believe it yourself.  It doesn't seem to me like you are at all ready for a free society.  In a free society, not everyone will wear a suit and tie...it doesn't seem like you are ready to deal with that.  Try to have the same love and compassion for people that we need people who believe in the state to have.

As I understand it, you've assigned yourself (or selves) the responsibility of protesting the system.  Right?  You want to influence or change it in some way, hopefully for the better.  Correct? 

The ultimate outcome is arguable, though.  Some may want smaller gov't, some may want none.  This is irrelevant.  Because we are at point A, minarchy would be point B, and anarchy would be point C.  In either manifestation, we want to go from A to at least B, and possibly beyond - to C.  Correct? 

No arguments thus far, correct? 

This can have - and needs - a multi-lateral approach.  It needs all different types, working in different ways, at different levels, to accomplish this goal.  It is complex.  There are federal, state and local considerations.  There are laws to be changed or introduced, repealed, and numerous persons to be installed in positions which are beneficial towards freedom, replacing or overwhelming bureaucratic statists.  There are grass-roots level groups which bring more participants into the game, adding to the support, generating money, votes, and illuminating stuff that most citizens overlook.  That is the role of the typical civ-dis person - generating interest. 

Some may argue that the civ-dis role is to inundate the system with a frustrating level of annoyance, thus bogging down the system and causing it harm.   

I don't agree with that part, because they will always add to the numbers of state and local workers to compensate for your intrusion. 

This is where A>B>C takes a left turn, the rule of unintended consequences.  You do not go to B or C.  You go to D.  And D is bad. 

Your responsibility is to prevent D from happening, while simultaneously campaigning to reach B or eventually C. 

D causes increased police activity.  It raises the level of bureaucratic intrusion on civilians.  It increases force.  It increases threat.  It increases taxes.  You have to be aware of the results of your personal actions.  This is the very definition of personal responsibility, which we can all agree is central in importance in an anarchistic civilization, it is the cornerstone of all other rules of society. 

So when you say "we can do whatever we want", you are incorrect.  You actually can't do whatever you want.  You can only do whatever you want if it only impacts yourself.  The minute it adds to the problem, you actually become personally responsible - in part - for the increase in the loss of personal freedom for other citizens. 



 

[John Shaw]

Civil Disobedience: More effective if you don't get caught.

Applies to all activism, for some people.

 

[Level 20 Anklebiter]

How the hell does nipple painting in a public park count as civdis when there's no law against said act intended for titillation? 

[Turd Ferguson]

How the hell does nipple painting in a public park count as civdis when there's no law against said act intended for titillation?  

Children thrashing their arms and screaming....................... theres your answer. Doesnt bother me a bit, but  pisses off alot of the more socialy conservative old fogies. Way to get them on your side for shit that really counts huh?

Seems to me the best way to go about CD is to focus on the stuff most people think is a ridiculous law, then once youve got the majority supporting you and working in and outside the system to end those things, you move on to the stuff that is more trivial, like titty painting, which will be illegal im sure once the old fogies that attend city council meetings take the grand kids down to the park and little johnny gets an eye-full.

[theodorelogan]

I've tried being diplomatic and respectful, and it's like calmly reasoning with a 3-year old why he shouldn't smear shit on the walls. Sometimes you gotta pick the kid up, yell "NO!" in his face, and slap his hand, else you're gonna have a stinky house.

Sounds like something a bureaucrat might say about enforcing a law.

Personally, I think that engaging in politics is going to make the job of convincing people of the evil of the state a much harder task than it already is (in other words, that what you are doing is counter-productive).  But bitching and whining to you about it isn't going to change your mind, and is going to do little more than alienating an ideological ally.  Instead, how about treating the people you disagree with with respect instead of name-calling?  If what they are doing doesn't work, they won't think that you are a complete jerk when they give it up. 

If politics does work, great!  I certainly don't claim to know what the best way is to create a voluntary society....because it's never been done!  You should stop acting like you know how it is going to come about too.

Act and treat your neighbors with compassion and respect, even if you disagree with what they are doing.  It sets a good example for other people you are trying to persuade to act in a similar manner.  When you tell people that they should respect their neighbors choices, and you are constantly pissing and moaning about your neighbor's choice on your free state blog, it sends a mixed message, and it's hypocritical.

Incidentally, I'm one of the cowardly "stay under the radar" types that don't engage in either.

[Cognitive Dissident]

You're out there telling people that we should be free to do as we please...and yet you have so much rage inside about what other people DO WITH THAT FREEDOM.

Um, "rage?" No.

Just public, clearly-communicated disapproval, couched in language that even people with a serious case of cognitive dissonance -- about the ACTUAL effect of their actions -- might understand.

I've tried being diplomatic and respectful, and it's like calmly reasoning with a 3-year old why he shouldn't smear shit on the walls. Sometimes you gotta pick the kid up, yell "NO!" in his face, and slap his hand, else you're gonna have a stinky house.

See, what people do with their freedom has a lot to do with this thing called "responsibility" that Freak-Staters lack in droves.

It doesn't seem to me like you are at all ready for a free society

On the contrary, it is the freak-staters who are not ready for a free society. They're ready to whine about it, to take every opportunity to leap in front of a camera or cop car, to smoke dope for it... but to actually achieve it?

Wake me up when the hippies achieve a world with peace and no possessions. That will be about the same time the Keeniacs get anarcocapitalism.

There are a number of flaws here, but I'll try to keep it short.  Primarily, as has already been said in a different way, you make it sound like you're their parent.  You're not.  As eluded to, this is law enforcement type attitude, not libertarian type attitude.  Besides, as for your assertion about smearing shit on your walls...they're not your walls, and they're not smearing shit on them.  Also, put bluntly, I seriously doubt you're ready for liberty, Denis.  People are going to be pissing you off all the time.  In short, there will be people doing some disgusting stuff with their freedom, and it will be their right, if it's not your walls.  You better deal with it.  They'll have to deal with it too, but it doesn't mean it won't happen.

I'm not sure I'm ready for complete liberty, but I want it, and I want the challenge to respond to.

Dennis,

You're out there telling people that we should be free to do as we please...and yet you have so much rage inside about what other people DO WITH THAT FREEDOM.

It's easier to convince people of something if you act like you believe it yourself.  It doesn't seem to me like you are at all ready for a free society.  In a free society, not everyone will wear a suit and tie...it doesn't seem like you are ready to deal with that.  Try to have the same love and compassion for people that we need people who believe in the state to have.

As I understand it, you've assigned yourself (or selves) the responsibility of protesting the system.  Right?  You want to influence or change it in some way, hopefully for the better.  Correct?  

The ultimate outcome is arguable, though.  Some may want smaller gov't, some may want none.  This is irrelevant.  Because we are at point A, minarchy would be point B, and anarchy would be point C.  In either manifestation, we want to go from A to at least B, and possibly beyond - to C.  Correct?  

No arguments thus far, correct?  

I myself would prefer folding the paper and sticking the pencil through from A to C.  Don't have a plan, though, and doubt screaming "you can't make me" will bring it about.  I, personally, have no objections to achieving B, being preferred to A, as I think I've said (I appreciate MMJ laws, etc., because I don't have to be a lawbreaker for medicine--nevertheless, I've been arrested twice for contempt of cop.)  I can stand working for both B and C independently, and have done that.  I've been to D and it sucks.

How the hell does nipple painting in a public park count as civdis when there's no law against said act intended for titillation?  

Children thrashing their arms and screaming....................... theres your answer. Doesnt bother me a bit, but  pisses off alot of the more socialy conservative old fogies. Way to get them on your side for shit that really counts huh?

Seems to me the best way to go about CD is to focus on the stuff most people think is a ridiculous law, then once youve got the majority supporting you and working in and outside the system to end those things, you move on to the stuff that is more trivial, like titty painting, which will be illegal im sure once the old fogies that attend city council meetings take the grand kids down to the park and little johnny gets an eye-full.

Actually, it wasn't the nipple painting.  That's just what the press picked up on (you know nudity is somehow a novelty even though it's legal.)  It was the consumption of alcohol in public, at a time when "a citizen" called out the cops over the vagrant filling crap up from the water fountain, and, apparently, there was some sort of "duty" to deal with the alcohol.

The arrest for that, I can handle--live like you're free, and don't make a fuss seems fine to me.  Here, the cops played fascist since all was cool.

That said, I'm not sure what sticking one's ass in front of the grille of the squad car when they're hauling someone away is supposed to accomplish except an easy arrest.

Also, if most think it's a bad law, you whip out a referendum.  No CD needed.

[Andy]

I've tried being diplomatic and respectful, and it's like calmly reasoning with a 3-year old why he shouldn't smear shit on the walls. Sometimes you gotta pick the kid up, yell "NO!" in his face, and slap his hand, else you're gonna have a stinky house.

Sounds like something a bureaucrat might say about enforcing a law.

And that would be a valid criticism if Dennis actually was slapping the Keeniacs around.

Personally, I think that engaging in politics is going to make the job of convincing people of the evil of the state a much harder task than it already is (in other words, that what you are doing is counter-productive).  But bitching and whining to you about it isn't going to change your mind, and is going to do little more than alienating an ideological ally.  Instead, how about treating the people you disagree with with respect instead of name-calling?  If what they are doing doesn't work, they won't think that you are a complete jerk when they give it up. 

He already said he tried that, what Dennis does to his alledged allies surely wouldn't offend them, afterall what they do to the wider community doesn't alienate them, right, right?

If politics does work, great!  I certainly don't claim to know what the best way is to create a voluntary society....because it's never been done!  You should stop acting like you know how it is going to come about too.

Yep. I've got absolutely no idea how you're going to create a voluntary society. Got a pretty good idea what's not going to work though.

Act and treat your neighbors with compassion and respect, even if you disagree with what they are doing.  It sets a good example for other people you are trying to persuade to act in a similar manner.  When you tell people that they should respect their neighbors choices, and you are constantly pissing and moaning about your neighbor's choice on your free state blog, it sends a mixed message, and it's hypocritical.

Ah, is Dennis asking for people to treat their neighbours with compassion and "respect their choices" or is that your ideology. Because it sure isn't inherent to libertarianism or even ac.

Incidentally, I'm one of the cowardly "stay under the radar" types that don't engage in either.

Good for you. Smart.

[miamiballoonguy]

So, this Ethan guy is a bit of a pedophile?  The FSP definitely doesn't need that PR.

Ethan is not involved with the FSP in any way.  He is not a participant, a friend or anything.  He doesn't agree with the statement of intent and is not about the FSP.  He doesn't even morally think he is able to join the FSP.

He is a self-proclaimed anarchist.  I have no idea if he is a pedophile but even if that was true, I highly doubt it would hurt the overall view of anarchists in the minds of the general population.  And anyway, nothing in that thread of now mentions anything at all that is 100% sexual.  Anarchists are only a step above terrorists.  Anyone that actually calls themselves an anarchist, holds signs calling cops thugs and so on likely has many public relations issues.

Not all anarchists are only a step above terrorists.  I'm one of those so called anarchists, and you don't see me running around and wanting to blow things up or acting like these civil disobedience fools doing what they are doing and getting themselves arrested. I guess that's the difference between the leftist anarchists and the anarcho capitalists is that the anarcho capitalists don;t want to destroy things.  We just want to be left alone.

Keith is saying that the word has a negative connotation to it, and a better choice would be wise.

Yes, I agree that it does have a negative connotation because most people are too lazy to actually research the term.  But in all reality, I was thinking of moving up to the free state after I finish my BS and MS within in the next 2.5 years, but after catching up on the stuff that the keeniacs are doing, I have serious reservations. Unfortunately the masses have been brainwashed, and the only way to bring down the state is either a) To take it over the old fashioned way, and that is through the electoral process, or b) an armed rebellion.  I'm not looking to start an armed revolution or anything like that, but the way that some of these guys are going about it is ridiculous, and it makes us all look bad.  Seriously, mammary painting in public?  Some of these guys have no tact.  I understand what they are trying to do, but man, people are not going take that lightly.  Seriously, what does having naked people/Topless women in public have to do with the more important things with regards to trimming down/eliminating the state?  Most men can't be trusted when the boobies are exposed.  I'm not a prude, and I love the mammaries, but jeeze.  can't these guys find something better to protest than public obscenity laws?  Although I agree 100% with the open container stuff they are doing, there's always some asshole that's going to ruin it for the rest of the people.  It's probably best that these open container ordinances are around.  But there has got to be a way to make it so that the people who are not idiots don't get into trouble or ticketed or arrested.  Just the idiots, the drunks, and people driving while intoxicated.  At least down here in Miami, they are badly needed.  There's a reason why this town is one of the dumbest in Amerika, and I'm leaving soon.  I wan't to move up there to NH, but not if those fools keep doing what they are doing and alienating the natives.

[Cognitive Dissident]

Once more, the nipple painting was legal and not objected to.  It neither brought the cops to the scene (it was about someone else, doing something else) nor caused the arrests (open container violations, about which I agree with the activists.)  Let's say the nipple painting in public was illegal.  I would question the tact, but not their right to do it.

If someone with an open container gets unruly, he's drunk and disorderly, which is a separate act, or it's simply disorderly conduct, which is also a separate act.  You could argue it also used when they cannot nail the disorderly for a "real" crime, and that's a fair concern too I think.  The answer is not to bother the people who aren't committing crimes or threatening/appearing to do so.

Also, in a proprietary society, you can have all the non-criminal ordinances you want, such as no bare skin beyond the wrists, ankles and neck, no public ingestion of mind altering substances, or no loitering when the property owners tell you to leave, etc. 

Finally, if the Free Keeners are going to be civilly disobedient on "public" property they need to be sure to drive home the point that the reason it's an issue is that they've been actively deprived of the funds to create and take care of said property and it's "theirs" too; that the problem exists because of the socialistic assertion that there is such a thing as "public" property, and when such property is allocated, people will always argue over how it is used.  That, my friends, is the whole point, though it's even worse when the desire to control encroaches on one's own property line.

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

Part of civil disobedience is civility.

[YixilTesiphon]

I think Drifter's point about going to D is important here. Yeah, you ought to be free to do all the dumb things you're doing, but how are you convincing people that a free society is in their interest if the only preview you give is doing wildly unpopular stunts? What about the illegal manicure? That was badass, and should be more of a model.

[One two three]

I would strongly suggest Denis not get into the habit of using the term "Freak Stater."

Since the more he uses it, the more likely people are going to hear it and use it.  Who knows what people they may be?  Pretty soon, "Freak Stater" will become a moniker for signatories of the Free State Project as a whole, in addition to anyone loosely connect to the Free State Project and/or liberty in general.  Then the fun he's having at the expense of others will be had at his expense and the expense of people he respects and agrees with.

That's an excellent point.

[theodorelogan]

I think Drifter's point about going to D is important here. Yeah, you ought to be free to do all the dumb things you're doing, but how are you convincing people that a free society is in their interest if the only preview you give is doing wildly unpopular stunts? What about the illegal manicure? That was badass, and should be more of a model.

And by what measure are these stunts "wildly unpopular"?

Because of people trolling local newspaper's website?

Shouldn't the goal be to show people that these "wildly unpopular" activities aren't hurting anyone?  Every day they are out there smoking pot, and the only time there is every any trouble is when the cops come start some.  It's going to start dispelling some myths about prohibition.