I'm not a porcupine anymore

[libertylover]

Zero consideration that there are silent movers who just don't want to be identified as FSP members.  Not all those who are politically in line philosophically are going to be jumping up and down and waving their hands.  And many see identifying yourself as a FSP member is kin to making yourself a target.

Could there be a bunch of "silent movers" going to FSP? sure.

Is there any reason to believe they are there? no. "we might not know if some people moved" is a desperate last resort to try and make the FSP look good.

Can you put a number on these "silent movers"? Can you tell if there is 1 silent mover, or 1000 silent movers? Then whats the point of bringing it up.

This is the same shit religionists use.

Not trying to make the FSP look good.  But in my experience of trying to get people to sign ballot petitions.  Many won't sign because they think it will wrongly or rightly make them a target.  However, when election time rolled around the vote totals were higher than the signature requirement.   I would assume if there are ever any Libertarianisk ballot initiatives that are successful it might just be a result of silent movers.  It is also possible these people are putting extra pressure on representatives the old fashioned way of writing or phone calls.  You are right that their totals can't be gauged accurately but by the same token they shouldn't be entirely dismissed either.  

There is a marketing formula concerning silent consumer preferences based on vocal consumers.  Something like for every vocal consumer they represent 10 silent but similarly opinionated consumers.  So if a radio station gets 100 phone calls to complain it represents 1000 angry actual listeners.  But this dynamic may have changed due to political groups like the censor groups pushing members to call in complaints which throws the natural number off.  Maybe Mark being more active in Marketing can explain this concept and how it has changed.

[blackie]

The future is unknowable. Especially these days.

Maybe, but society is not moving in the direction of liberty.

http://www.davesag.com/unabomber/10history.html

SOME PRINCIPLES OF HISTORY

99. Think of history as being the sum of two components: an erratic component that consists of unpredictable events that follow no discernible pattern, and a regular component that consists of long-term historical trends. Here we are concerned with the long-term trends.

100. FIRST PRINCIPLE. If a SMALL change is made that affects a long-term historical trend, then the effect of that change will almost always be transitory -- the trend will soon revert to its original state. (Example: A reform movement designed to clean up political corruption in a society rarely has more than a short-term effect; sooner or later the reformers relax and corruption creeps back in. The level of political corruption in a given society tends to remain constant, or to change only slowly with the evolution of the society. Normally, a political cleanup will be permanent only if accompanied by widespread social changes; a SMALL change in the society won't be enough.) If a small change in a long-term historical trend appears to be permanent, it is only because the change acts in the direction in which the trend is already moving, so that the trend is not altered by only pushed a step ahead.

101. The first principle is almost a tautology. If a trend were not stable with respect to small changes, it would wander at random rather than following a definite direction; in other words it would not be a long-term trend at all.

102. SECOND PRINCIPLE. If a change is made that is sufficiently large to alter permanently a long-term historical trend, then it will alter the society as a whole. In other words, a society is a system in which all parts are interrelated, and you can't permanently change any important part without changing all other parts as well.

103. THIRD PRINCIPLE. If a change is made that is large enough to alter permanently a long-term trend, then the consequences for the society as a whole cannot be predicted in advance. (Unless various other societies have passed through the same change and have all experienced the same consequences, in which case one can predict on empirical grounds that another society that passes through the same change will be like to experience similar consequences.)

104. FOURTH PRINCIPLE. A new kind of society cannot be designed on paper. That is, you cannot plan out a new form of society in advance, then set it up and expect it to function as it was designed to do.

105. The third and fourth principles result from the complexity of human societies. A change in human behavior will affect the economy of a society and its physical environment; the economy will affect the environment and vice versa, and the changes in the economy and the environment will affect human behavior in complex, unpredictable ways; and so forth. The network of causes and effects is far too complex to be untangled and understood.

106. FIFTH PRINCIPLE. People do not consciously and rationally choose the form of their society. Societies develop through processes of social evolution that are not under rational human control.

107. The fifth principle is a consequence of the other four.

108. To illustrate: By the first principle, generally speaking an attempt at social reform either acts in the direction in which the society is developing anyway (so that it merely accelerates a change that would have occurred in any case) or else it has only a transitory effect, so that the society soon slips back into its old groove. To make a lasting change in the direction of development of any important aspect of a society, reform is insufficient and revolution is required. (A revolution does not necessarily involve an armed uprising or the overthrow of a government.) By the second principle, a revolution never changes only one aspect of a society, it changes the whole society; and by the third principle changes occur that were never expected or desired by the revolutionaries. By the fourth principle, when revolutionaries or utopians set up a new kind of society, it never works out as planned.

109. The American Revolution does not provide a counterexample. The American "Revolution" was not a revolution in our sense of the word, but a war of independence followed by a rather far-reaching political reform. The Founding Fathers did not change the direction of development of American society, nor did they aspire to do so. They only freed the development of American society from the retarding effect of British rule. Their political reform did not change any basic trend, but only pushed American political culture along its natural direction of development. British society, of which American society was an offshoot, had been moving for a long time in the direction of representative democracy. And prior to the War of Independence the Americans were already practicing a significant degree of representative democracy in the colonial assemblies. The political system established by the Constitution was modeled on the British system and on the colonial assemblies. With major alteration, to be sure -- there is no doubt that the Founding Fathers took a very important step. But it was a step along the road that English-speaking world was already traveling. The proof is that Britain and all of its colonies that were populated predominantly by people of British descent ended up with systems of representative democracy essentially similar to that of the United States. If the Founding Fathers had lost their nerve and declined to sign the Declaration of Independence, our way of lffe today would not have been significantly different. Maybe we would have had somewhat closer ties to Britain, and would have had a Parliament and Prime Minister instead of a Congress and President. No big deal. Thus the American Revolution provides not a counterexample to our principles but a good illustration of them.

110. Still, one has to use common sense in applying the principles. They are expressed in imprecise language that allows latitude for interpretation, and exceptions to them can be found. So we present these principles not as inviolable laws but as rules of thumb, or guides to thinking, that may provide a partial antidote to naive ideas about the future of society. The principles should be borne constantly in mind, and whenever one reaches a conciusion that conflicts with them one should carefully reexamine one's thinking and retain the conclusion only if one has good, solid reasons for doing so.

[Hideaki769]

I'm against misleading others, but that includes misleading them that NH can't work.

I never said it wouldn't work just not in our lifetime. Also that it hasn't completed shit so far.

The future is unknowable. Especially these days.

Yea I just might win with this lottery ticket out of the millions of others who play...

I think concentration is important, but segregation decreases the impact liberty activists can have on their non-libertarian friends.

I never said concentration wasn't important. I'm saying because there will be a small community of people who believe the same your children will fair better learning of freedom. Again I wouldn't count on freedom in our lifetime.

There have been times, but I think it is irrelevant one way or the other. History doesn't reveal the impact the internet and technology can have on the geopolitical systems of today.

There have been times but no real free society. It only gives the ppl more reason to believe in "their" government. Even with the internet and the information out there what difference has there been? Government corruption expose, police brutality, etc. What does anyone do about it? nothing

So what has a better shot of societal freedom than NH and the FSP?

In our lifetime it would be seasteading.

I don't see how it is realistic to abandon all hope in societal liberty. Even if there is only a 0.001% chance of complete freedom, I think it is better to try than to run off to some foreign country. Maybe it's a waste, but what if it works?

Wow way to play the lottery. I dont say abandon all hope its not wrong to be hopeful but be realistic. It's not better then running to a country with more freedoms cuz nothing has prevented more freedoms from being loss in NH which shows at this point the FSP is failing miserably.

Is there a less lost cause that aims for freedom? I don't know of it.

Seasteading

Which one has 9000+ signers?
Even if most signers are fake, still shows support the seasteading doesn't have.

Seasteading has way more financial support. A lot of intelligent people have volunteered there time to the efforts as well. There is much more progress with seasteading in the past year then the FSP has had in the last 8.

Besides being the best concentrator of liberty activists in the entire world? Or am I wrong in saying that?

700 ppl is all we can get then libertarians, free marketeers, minarchists, etc. are doomed for failure. Even if you have all those ppl there nothing is working very well.

Where are all these people that want to help Zug?

Like you guys wanna help NH? No you wanna increase freedom in your lifetime wherever you voted to move the project. You already chose the place you all want to be and thats fine.

Maybe it has more liberties now, but what is the chance of increasing the liberties if you can't expand the base of liberty activists there?

There are better places for freedom and if the FSP really wanted to change things they would have found the greatest location of liberties world wide. Not like there arent libertarians all around the world.

That may be true, and it may be the solution to our problems, but so far, what has it achieved compared to the concentration of liberty activists in NH?

http://seasteading.org
engineers, researchers, blue prints, and over half a million in donations.

It's concentrating libertarians, which I think is step number one to political and social change.

Again whats stopped the feds from raiding medical marijuana facilities in california? What did anyone do despite knowing it was wrong? Protests didnt do jack shit. The fed has the power not the states so glwt.

[Hideaki769]

You can vote and even change state laws. Record wrongful doings but despite all that happening today nothing has changed. Despite people learning about it nothing has happened. So you can hold protests and you can vote politically. Yet it just continues to get worse. Maybe it'll get to the point of another revolution. That'd be cool.

[digitalfour]

What do you consider a society?

Good question. Any group can be considered a society, but I think of a country/state-sized group when considering a society. The reason is that the bigger the landmass, the more economic freedom can be had. You can only fit so many people on a boat, and it's hard to manufacture things out there.

BTW I like your avatar.

The future is unknowable. Especially these days.

Maybe, but society is not moving in the direction of liberty.

Maybe we can make some individuals move that direction, though.

http://seasteading.org
engineers, researchers, blue prints, and over half a million in donations.

The rest of your points seemed to point to this.

I have to say, I love the idea of seasteading. I think the buildup of a new society is awesome. How long off do you think it is, though?

[Hideaki769]

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dck5q6sr_12cqrdxrf2

looks like about 2010 they hope to make it a reality.

[digitalfour]

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dck5q6sr_12cqrdxrf2
looks like about 2010 they hope to make it a reality.

2010 goals:  Make seasteading a reality
    * Building awareness and support
          o At least 1 individual is living full-time on a seastead

Sorry, but this made me laugh.

[Hideaki769]

With this strategy in place, we expect 2009 and 2010 to be an extremely productive and exciting time for the seasteading movement.  Grounded in clear strategic principles -- incrementalism, transparency, realistic compromise, and balanced centralization and decentralization -- we've charted a path that's going to make real progress.  This path is clearly defined, realistic in scope, and has measurable results.

Within two years, we'll see the first seastead floating in the San Francisco Bay.  We'll see the commercial seasteading sector in its infancy, beginning operation on ships.  Real progress will be made understanding our legal and political challenges.  And the community will really take off; Ephemerisles will be happening, a large TSI membership will be built, and we'll have lots of strong, wide-reaching press coverage.  What's more, we'll be well-positioned to lead the movement into its next phase, with a strong team built here at TSI and significant funding from new major donors.

You know that is next year right? They aren't gonna set up a full seasteading society without properly testing and getting feedback.

[blackie]

BTW I like your avatar.

It's a biscuit Chomby.

Were you into Neopets?

[digitalfour]

It's a biscuit Chomby.
Were you into Neopets?

Haha no, just looks like a dinosaur and I was into those.

Also it's funny looking.

[kalmia]

Go do whatever will work.  I won't deny that Zug or seasteading may be better, but is there any movement in Zug?  And how long until seasteading can accept mass migration?  You don't have to live out your last days in New Hampshire.  There is a movement in parts of New Hampshire.  You can go there and get involved and then move on to something better when it comes along.  Go to Wyoming, Montana, Colorado or Arizona if they are more suitable to you.  But you will get some immediate benefit from being around like minded people.  And more will be accomplished with concentration.  An actual decreasing of the state is not the only accomplishment to note.  Creating more liberty minded people is notable.


Some of you criticize the people who claim that they see NH as the only solution, but this doesn't meant that it is necessarily the freest.  It just means that it is the only place where they see any movement of significance.  Zug may be freer, but what movement is there?  I don't think Mark has denied that there is anything happening anywhere else.  He just says that he hasn't seen it.


I see 1% committed non complaints as being very effective in undermining the system.  That is very reasonable to have in some parts of NH within a few years.  There are also many people who will move after there are visible changes made.  I imagine these people number many times those who will go to try and make the initial changes.


I don't think there will be any decrease in state power of any significance until the national government loses much of its power, which it gets from the dollar.  There will need to be a great devaluation or collapse of the dollar before significant changes for freedom can be made.  I think a collapse and rejection of the dollar is likely necessary, not just a great devaluation.

[kalmia]

Also, ignore Boner Joe's posts.  He is just a shit stirrer with nothing of value to say.

[Libertarianssuck]

Also, ignore Boner Joe's posts.  He is just a shit stirrer with nothing of value to say.

 lol      ^_^

[fatcat]

Not trying to make the FSP look good.  But in my experience of trying to get people to sign ballot petitions.  Many won't sign because they think it will wrongly or rightly make them a target.  However, when election time rolled around the vote totals were higher than the signature requirement.   I would assume if there are ever any Libertarianisk ballot initiatives that are successful it might just be a result of silent movers.  It is also possible these people are putting extra pressure on representatives the old fashioned way of writing or phone calls.  You are right that their totals can't be gauged accurately but by the same token they shouldn't be entirely dismissed either.  

I'm not saying there aren't any silent movers, I'm just saying that its unlikely they make up any significant proportion, and should not be used to argue that the FSP is doing better than it actually is.

Surely if these silent movers represent any significant number, they're number would be rather easy to gauge using other methods.

Sure they don't sign the FSP pledge, but if they're moving to NH for liberty, surely they must be active in some manner?

I highly encourage NH libbers to get numbers on this. Who's going to meetings? Social sundays? NHLA? etc. Surely it wouldn't be that hard to make a quick headcount of people turning up at court rooms for liberty who haven't signed? I don't hold much hope on this being done however as it removes the handy "there could be hundreds of silent movers!" argument from the belt, if it actually turns out theres only 12 silent movers.

If they're not active enough to turn up to any activism, do they really matter that much as a "silent mover".

I would be very surprised if silent movers made up more than 1% of total NH lib movers.

I don't think Mark has denied that there is anything happening anywhere else.  He just says that he hasn't seen it.

"Does one care about liberty if one doesn't move to NH. I tend to agree that if one isn't working towards moving to NH one is probably wasting one's time, if one wants to stand for liberty." - FTL_Mark

Mark, the co-host of a very large libertarian radio show has stated that anything but the FSP is a waste of time.

Lets eschew this idea that the FSP is "doing something" shall we? NH is getting less free, USA is getting less free, thats not progress. You don't get to take failure now, and spin it to mean you will succeed in the future. The FSP is (slowly) growing in numbers (slower than the birth rate and immigration of non libertarians), thats it. Call it progress if you want, but if NH government is getting bigger I don't class that as success.

The idea that "NH has a movement so places without a movement aren't as good" is idiotic. Currently the FSP has done nothing to increase freedoms in NH. At best it has slightly slowed the increase of government.

What is the point of promoting Zug if you are not promoting people move there?

Zug is unfeasible because it is another country, which I think basically means you cannot cause political change. Even if you can successfully pay to get there, and become a citizen, you will always be viewed as a foreigner and thus cannot have the same impact as against Americans. Am I just way off base on this? Can you even be elected? Does Zug really have a better chance of complete liberty than NH?

I have never suggested that moving to Zug will ever lead to complete liberty. I have mentioned on many occasions that it is likely to get less free. You seem to have adopted a bizarre all or nothing attitude to freedom. While NH continues to become less free, there is very little appeal for me to go there. When I move to Zug, I am not limited, if NH starts to look better I will gladly move.

I have never once suggested a political migration campaign to Zug. I suggest Zug as a place for libertarians to move because its one of the freest places in the world, and probably the freest if you want to live somewhere with lots of english speakers and a high quality of life.

As a libertarian I was happy when someone told me about the low taxes and high freedoms available in Zug, and I am now extended the same courtesy. I don't mention Zug because I have some vested Ponzi-scheme interest in getting people to move, I mention it because its one of the freest places in the world and there are people who might want to move there if they knew about it.

FYI I happen to live in the UK, so both America and Switzerland are "foreign" countries to me. In fact im not sure why you keep bringing that up like its some act of cowardice to move to a country where you can be more free.

If what you say is true then I can't do anything as a foreigner in either America or Switzerland, so I might aswell go to the one I will be most free in. Although I'm sure you'll find a reason why NH is still actually a better choice.

Also Switzerland has becoming freer in many areas in the last 10-20 years, 20 years ago prostitution wasn't legal, now it is, 20 years ago heroin users we're jailed, now they're put in treatment programs (not ideal but better than imprisonment), 20 years ago cannabis was mainly an underground market, now there are hundreds of stores that sell cannabis. Zug is also much smaller, with a population of only 100,000 people, and has greater autonomy from the federal government, so if I was going to suggest a political migration scheme (which i think is a bad idea) Zug would seem a much better choice.

Saying all this I believe Zug is likely to become less free in the next 10-20 years. Gun regulation will likely increase, taxes will likely increase (not significantly at the canton level, but very likely at the federal level), medical regulation will increase (Switzerland already has a mandatory insurance scheme).

After reading more carefully over the rest of your post I understand you don't care about complete liberty, you just want greater short term liberty.

Obviously you didn't read closely enough:

"Short Term : Move to Zug, Switzerland.
Long Term : Move to a Seastead"

Neither of which achieve freedom for a society.

The seastead is a society, dummy. Frankly, if I can be totally free I don't care if you call it a society or not.

I then went to explain that I'd be much better off in Switzerland for both long and short term where I would be taxed less, and could put more money towards seasteading with the money I get to keep.

Well I'm a libertarian too, and I kind of care about living somewhere that has a chance of becoming libertopia. You can say all you want about no evidence to suggest NH becoming it, but I know of no other place that even has a chance. Perhaps seasteading, but that doesn't exist yet so one can't move there.

So instead of providing any evidence that NH could become "libertopia", you're just going to say nowhere else has a chance? What makes you think NH has a chance?

All of your arguments for while NH will work amount to "WHAT IF IT WORKS?!" "YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE!", which as an grossly unrealistic attitude. What if next year the government collapses and everyone starts a life of voluntaryism?

All evidence shows that the US as a whole is getting less free and NH is getting less free. 5 years ago you could have said the same thing, but look, here we are, 5 years later and we're less free than we were before, and I would strongly suspect it will be the same another 5 years from now.

I won't deny that Zug or seasteading may be better, but is there any movement in Zug?  And how long until seasteading can accept mass migration?  You don't have to live out your last days in New Hampshire.  There is a movement in parts of New Hampshire.  You can go there and get involved and then move on to something better when it comes along.

That's exactly my attitude. Except I don't believe that NH is likely to get any freer in the next 20 years, regardless of the FSPs efforts.

As I've said in the past, I think NH is a great idea if you just want to be around other libertarians, live in one of the freest US states, and maybe influence NH to be slightly freer (decrim cannabis seems a realistic goal in the next 5-10 years to me) but all the LIBERTY IN OUR LIFETIMES EVERYTHING ELSE IS A WASTE OF TIME hero stuff is grossly unrealistic and disingenuous.

[BonerJoe]

Fatcat, you're arguing with devout believers. It's like trying to talk sense into a Muslim.