Libertarians to infiltrate Idaho. Discuss.

[Voodoochile]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by gex gex *
Firstly, that as social creatures, we form societies that rely on give and take.

Give and take = trade. People congregate in ‘societies’ (by which I assume you mean towns and cities) for economic self interest. More people = more trade = more wealth.

Living in a community requires that we work together to a certain extent so that some members of the society don’t get left behind.

Where does this come from?

Our common self interest as individuals would dicate that opportunity to succeed not be artificially restricted yes, so that if people fell behind it was a matter of their personal choices and not an artificially inflicted condition. It would also dictate that falling behind need not be a permanent thing; at any point one wished, one could decide to pursue a path to success, however they define it.

At times this must be mandated, because people can be, and often are inherently selfish.

People always are inherintly selfish, all biological organisms are. Including those who think they have arrived at superior moral conclusions and so would see those conclusions mandated to others.

There is no such thing as a ‘society’ in the sense of a thing seperate and apart from the individuals that comprise it. No one is above society in the same way no one is beneath it. Everyone is just a part of it, and this has no behavioral implications beyond ones self interest in maintaining peaceful relations with ones neighbors.

One doesnt treat others like crap for the same reasons one doesnt jump into a lions cage at the zoo and smack them on the ass.

I think what it comes down to is you believe in things, whether out of religous or philosophical beliefs, that cant be empirically shown to exist.

However, you yourself are convinced they exist and out of what I can only think of as selfishness, are not willing to entertain the thought that its just your opinion.

Secondly, whilst Libertarianism purports to create a circumstance where everyone has the means to pursue their own happiness, the reality is that it favours those with economic strength, allowing them to gain unhindered power and influence over those with less economic strength.

Well, yes successful people would be hindered to the extent that they couldnt force people to buy/patronize their services or restrict anyones ability to compete with them.

But I agree with you; anyone who thinks there is some sort of end result that should occur isnt concerned about human freedom; theyre concerned about achieving their end result, other peoples wishes to the contrary. So people who are unconcerned about human freedom are obviously seeking a far different thing than Libs.

[Sterra]

*Originally posted by Tsiyeria *
**“It’d be just wonderful if a freedom loving group of people succeeded in making a better life for everyone. This doesn’t have anything to do with Libertarianism, however.”

Ok, gex gex…I seem to be making wrong comments, no sarcasm here. So, tell me what you think Libertarianism is all about. **

I think a better word than freedom would be property rights.

[Tsiyeria]

Well, that all depends. Yes, property rights are important, but by no means are they everything Libertarians strive to take back. There are so many things that have been…shall I say…infringed upon, and we want the government out.

Not just property rights.

[Tinkertoy]

Am I correct in believing that Libertarians are against drug and gun laws because they want to give people more freedom?

If so then how do you reconcile that with moving enmass(sp?) to a state and taking over that states elections. Has it ever occured to them that maybe we are happy with what we have.

If we wanted our state to be ran by Libertarians we would do so on our own.

[Tsiyeria]

Yes, but here’s the argument that makes it all worthwhile.

Libertarians believe in a free country. I.E., do whatever they want, without hurting anyone. Moving to Idaho is not hurting anyone, and they have the freedom to do so.

**If so then how do you reconcile that with moving enmass(sp?) to a state and taking over that states elections. Has it ever occured to them that maybe we are happy with what we have. **

Yes, but has it ever occurred to you that we’re not happy with the way things are? That’s why we’re trying to change it. That’s the way this country works.
Don’t like it, change it.

If we wanted our state to be ran by Libertarians we would do so on our own.

Not necessarily. The way you keep referring to Libertarians suggests that you are not one. Therefore, why would you elect a system that doesn’t reconcile with your beliefs? It doesn’t make sense. You elect what you believe in. That’s democracy. Sort of.

[Stonebow]

*Originally posted by Tsiyeria *
**Yes, but here’s the argument that makes it all worthwhile.

Libertarians believe in a free country. I.E., do whatever they want, without hurting anyone. Moving to Idaho is not hurting anyone, and they have the freedom to do so.

**If so then how do you reconcile that with moving enmass(sp?) to a state and taking over that states elections. Has it ever occured to them that maybe we are happy with what we have. **

Yes, but has it ever occurred to you that we’re not happy with the way things are? That’s why we’re trying to change it. That’s the way this country works.
Don’t like it, change it.

If we wanted our state to be ran by Libertarians we would do so on our own.

**

I think that the historical point that Tinkertoy is attempting to reference would be that of ‘Bleeding Kansas’…where, in a bid to expand slavery, there was a sudden move into the state by ‘outsiders.’

I am all for freedom of movement…but it seems naive to deny that this mass exodus is a recipe for trouble. the problem is that you’ve got a large contingent moving in for the express purpose of changing policy. can you not see how current residents would be suspicious? would they not resent ‘outside agitators’ coming in, people without anything invested in the state, and making changes?

of course, the question then is…what then? assuming you move into the state and repeal or hamstring enforcement of any statutes that don’t fit into Libertarian philosphy. do you rely on the ‘success’ of the project to spread the movement, understanding that your ‘success’ is nothing like what most of the population wants? do you pick up and move to another state? no one has shown that libertarian is in any way a self-sustaining system.

[Tsiyeria]

**do you rely on the ‘success’ of the project to spread the movement, understanding that your ‘success’ is nothing like what most of the population wants? **

Show me Americans who don’t want to be free. That’s what Libertarians are trying to do. Turn a state so that the rest of the world can see that Libertarianism does work. And why shouldn’t we? You sure won’t take our word for it.

I’m not going to deny that people in whichever state is chosen are going to be upset. People are always upset when there’s an upheaval in the status quo. There’s really nothing that we can do about their feelings.

Once the Free State Project has successfully turned a state, we would most likely gather together more supporters (which we would have, after they saw our success) and turn another state. It’s a chain reaction, really. Long term, nigh-on unattainable goal? The country. But we can start small.

[Stonebow]

*Originally posted by Tsiyeria *
****do you rely on the ‘success’ of the project to spread the movement, understanding that your ‘success’ is nothing like what most of the population wants? **

Show me Americans who don’t want to be free. That’s what Libertarians are trying to do. **

I guess that you’ll need to define ‘liberty’ for me. I’m sure that Americans DO want to be free…but there’s not a lot of evidence that they don’t feel free now. what you’re offering does not seem like a whole lot more in the way of useful freedom, though it does seem to strip away a lot of security that we enjoy now.

i LIKE the idea of a social safety net, and i imagine that most people do as well. i also like the idea that my food is inspected by a publicly accountable body. i LOVE public schools, which to me is the key to providing an informed electorate regardless of social/economic class.
what people object to is waste, and the idea that people take advantage of, and abuse, social services. however, this is pretty much a given of any system set up for social services, whether provided privately or publicly.

of course, we get into what is considered waste or ‘pork’ in government budgets…and while something might be a waste to you, it might not be to me, and vice versa (farm subsidies, WIC, public schools, etc.)

anyway, we need a tighter definition of liberty, or the types of liberty available. you seem to offer a lot of theoretical liberty, but in practice, the linking of freedom to personal property leaves a lot of people with a lot LESS liberty in their day to day lives.

i can see how your average resident of any state in the union might be suspicious of the move.

[Riboflavin]

*Originally posted by Tsiyeria *
Once the Free State Project has successfully turned a state, we would most likely gather together more supporters (which we would have, after they saw our success) and turn another state. It’s a chain reaction, really. Long term, nigh-on unattainable goal? The country. But we can start small.

The problem here is that the Free State Project doesn’t appear all that likely to succesfully turn one state. As I’ve asked before to resounding silence, Idaho’s gun laws are extremely sparse, but do contain a number of restrictions on selling guns to children. While you’re willing to say that “In the Libertarian world… If someone wanted to buy a gun, they would just go out and do it,” are you willing to say that “In Idaho, we will remove all of the oppressive laws restricting the sale of guns to children under 18 and forbidding sales to children under 12”? Do you think that all 20,000 of the hypothetical Idaho movers will agree that it would be good to remove laws that require parental consent for teenagers to own firearms, much less the voters in the state?

I don’t think it’s at all an unreasonable question, considering that gun laws get mentioned in most quotes from libertarian organizations and Idaho is one of the (seven?) candidate states for the FSP. If the Free State Project can’t deal with a simple question like the above, they’re going to fragment, probably before they even decide on a state - libertarians are notoriously bad at reaching a consensus and otherwise working with elected bodies. Arguing about whether abolition of various government projects would be good or bad in theory can be interesting, but the whole debate with Stonebow is pretty irrelevant to the issue of whether the FSP stands a chance of actually working.

[Tsiyeria]

I guess that you’ll need to define ‘liberty’ for me. I’m sure that Americans DO want to be free…but there’s not a lot of evidence that they don’t feel free now. what you’re offering does not seem like a whole lot more in the way of useful freedom, though it does seem to strip away a lot of security that we enjoy now.

I can’t give a one sentence definition, simply because I haven’t thought about it…I’ll get back to you though. As for security, what security is there in knowing that the government, whenever it likes, can seize your house and only “compensate” you by paying you half what your house is worth? And what security is there in knowing that the police (one of those, “waste to me, not a waste to you” things) don’t even consider it their duty to keep you safe? Benjamin Franklin once said, “He who would sacrifice freedom for security deserves neither.” I agree wholeheartedly.

i LIKE the idea of a social safety net, and i imagine that most people do as well. i also like the idea that my food is inspected by a publicly accountable body. i LOVE public schools, which to me is the key to providing an informed electorate regardless of social/economic class.
what people object to is waste, and the idea that people take advantage of, and abuse, social services. however, this is pretty much a given of any system set up for social services, whether provided privately or publicly.

“Informed electorate regardless of social/economic class”? You’ve obviously never been here. Public schools in this state are awful. The teachers are incompetent, the students are indifferent. The buildings are nasty. There’s a building at the school I am sitting in right now that has been condemned, it is so old.
But to the teaching. Regardless of social/economic class. Yes, there are nice schools in this city. In the nice neighborhoods. The “ghetto” schools, where the less well-off go to learn, are not worth the money it took to build them. I know, I’ve attended them.

As for Riboflavin’s post, I’m sorry I didn’t answer your question before. I must have missed it.
Okay, first off, why would a 12-year-old want to buy a gun? I can think of no reason, off the top of my head.
Second: guns are very expensive. The cheapest gun I have ever seen cost around $150. Where would a child get that kind of money?
Third: firearms education is easily obtained for adults, who can then easily pass it on to their children. For free. Children who have been shown what happens to a watermelon when it’s been shot have a great respect for firearms, and think many times about abusing them.

It’s the same premise as with those cigarette ads. The truth will keep people safe more often than not.

[Stonebow]

Tsiyeria-
i’ll concede that we have different priorities in this matter- as i said before, this is no place for a ‘giant squid’ debate. though, as an attendee of public schools (the inner city kind, in nyc), i disagree with your overall assessment of them, and believe that things would be even worse in their absense.
okay, that said, why Idaho? i checked out the link in the OP regarding the freestate project, and looked over some state profiles…there is no real ‘best fit’ among the list, but i just wondered what the rational was for this one state. unless it is just being used as an example, and ‘anystate’ would suffice.

and is there a list of things that libertarians want to change specifically? i’d imagine that if you get 20,000 people to move, there might be a wide range in what they consider ‘minimal’ government and what needs to be changed first to ‘sway people’s minds.’

[Tsiyeria]

To tell the truth, I have no idea what the rationale is. I believe it has something to do with the fact that it’s fairly good-sized, with sparse population. Other than that…Search my mind. You’ll find nothing.

That said, I must say that NYC’s publice schools are undoubtedly higher quality than the ones here in Alabama. shakes head I hate it here, and everything I told you about the schools is undeniably true, at least in the Motgomery Public School System.

[Stonebow]

Tsiyeria- i can sympathize. I live in AR now, and can understand your frustrations with any public school in the ‘Bible Belt.’ My kids have attended both rural suburban, and city schools, and i have seen things that have scared the devil out of me. of course, the worst stuff was in the rural schools whose motto was ‘local control’ (though usually the school board were high school dropouts)…the best have been the schools with a lot more federal and state control over them.
there are a lot of other factors, i know, but for me, a free public school system with at least some larger standards, whether state or federal, is better than the alternative. because in the absence of state oversite, most schools in AR would devolve to the level of the rural schools (that we pulled my kids out of to homeschool before we moved closer to Little Rock). thtis is all without considering the implications of fundamentalist religion getting even more firmly entrenched in what should be about academic learning.

back on topic…so, is there a specific agenda? or is it to make change whereever there is an opportunity? like i said, i’d imagine that among 20,000 people, you’ll get different ideas about what needs to be done first.

[Riboflavin]

*Originally posted by Tsiyeria *
As for Riboflavin’s post, I’m sorry I didn’t answer your question before. I must have missed it.

Well, you haven’t answered it yet which is not exactly suprising. “And how does this apply to children” is one of the questions Libertarians hate to deal with, and it tends to produce big splits. I mean, if you can’t even give a straight answer to the question here on a message board, how easy is it going to be for a FSP-supported legislator to give one when the locals the FSP is trying to be activist with ask?

I’ve answered your questions below because there appear to be numerous factual errors implicit in them, but I’m not going to keep that sidetrack up.

Okay, first off, why would a 12-year-old want to buy a gun? I can think of no reason, off the top of my head.

Because they want to go plinking, because they want to go target shooting, because they want to go hunting, because it looks cool, because they can shoot that guy with it, because their parents don’t want them to, and a variety of other reasons. I personally first shot a gun when I was somewhere between 8 and 10 out on my great-grandmother’s farm, and a lot of junior shooting programs set 10 as the age floor.

Second: guns are very expensive. The cheapest gun I have ever seen cost around $150.

A new in the box semi-auto .22 like the Ruger 10-22 costs around $150, a used single-shot or bolt-action .22 or shotgun can easily be found for $50-$75, old surplus Mausers (and a number of other 50+ YO rifles) run $50-$100. I’ve seen the cheapest handguns like those by Jennings at around $75 new. You won’t find anything at those prices on online auction sites if that’s where you’re looking, because there’s an overhead of $25 to $150 when selling a gun through one of those sites due to shipping and the FFL transfer.

Where would a child get that kind of money?

Working, saving allowance, gift from parents, stealing it, etc. It’s certainly not impossible, or even all that difficult for a 12-year old to come up with $50 (or even $150), five cards each with a ten dollar bill for a birthday will do it (and three kids can pool that for the $150).

Third: firearms education is easily obtained for adults, who can then easily pass it on to their children. For free. Children who have been shown what happens to a watermelon when it’s been shot have a great respect for firearms, and think many times about abusing them.

Mandating firearms education would seem to be a bit un-Libertarian, and it’s not universal now so this part seems pretty irrelevant. The quotes I’ve seen don’t say ‘get rid of all firearms law after mandatory universal firearms education’, after all, and repealing Idaho’s gun laws would repeal them for everyone in Idaho, they would not still be in effect for the kids who’se parents don’t pass it on to their children.

It’s the same premise as with those cigarette ads. The truth will keep people safe more often than not.

You mean the cigarette ads that use incredibly screwy (though technically true) statistics and IIRC were shown to actually encourage kids to start smoking? The same ads that are routinely mocked on here for various problems and make me glad I have a Tivo because I’m tempted to start back smoking whenever I watch one? You might want to pick a better example than that…

[Riboflavin]

*Originally posted by Stonebow *
okay, that said, why Idaho? i checked out the link in the OP regarding the freestate project, and looked over some state profiles…there is no real ‘best fit’ among the list, but i just wondered what the rational was for this one state. unless it is just being used as an example, and ‘anystate’ would suffice.

The reason Idaho features prominently in this thread is that it was prompted by an article in an Idaho newspaper about how ‘these guys might move here’ that Dewey spotted and used to start the thread. From my earlier reading on the FSP website, Idaho is one of the candidate states because it has a fairly low population, fairly strong libertarian leanings now, and some other lower-ranking factors. For example, 20,000 people moving into NY wouldn’t shift the politcs much at all, even if they were all activists, and NY is not exactly a lib-leaning state at the moment.

and is there a list of things that libertarians want to change specifically? i’d imagine that if you get 20,000 people to move, there might be a wide range in what they consider ‘minimal’ government and what needs to be changed first to ‘sway people’s minds.’

That’s where I think the big problem is; it’s not ‘would cutting down on this bloated government be a good idea’, but ‘would we cut this specific law’ that will lead to all kinds of splits in the FSP. My questions about removing Idaho’s gun laws should illustrate that pretty well. Hardcore Libertarians also tend to be very bad at compromise and reaching agreements, which will hurt them since it means that the FSP will probably be unable to form coherent positions on a lot of issues. Having a chunk of the official FSP running around sending the message of ‘we need to make it legal for your 13 year olds to buy and pack heat while snorting cocaine and hiring or working as hookers’ will not help a lot with convincing the locals to go along with thier plans…

[Tsiyeria]

Riboflvain, I have answered your question. The fact that I answered it with more questions doesn’t affect that.
There seems to be a few problems with your assumptions as well.

Working, saving allowance, gift from parents, stealing it, etc. It’s certainly not impossible, or even all that difficult for a 12-year old to come up with $50 (or even $150), five cards each with a ten dollar bill for a birthday will do it (and three kids can pool that for the $150).

Stealing? You don’t have a good opinion of kids…But to answer your answer with another question, most gun shop owners will not sell a gun to a 12-year-old, just on general principles. I know a small business gunshop owner who is very strict about things like that.

As for saving, when I was twelve, I spent my money as soon as I had it. The most I ever had at one time was 30 something dollars. Five birthday cards. That takes somewhere in the neighborhood of three years, at least. I personally never received more than one card per year.
Then again, I might just be hated.

You mean the cigarette ads that use incredibly screwy (though technically true) statistics and IIRC were shown to actually encourage kids to start smoking? The same ads that are routinely mocked on here for various problems and make me glad I have a Tivo because I’m tempted to start back smoking whenever I watch one? You might want to pick a better example than that…

In what way do those commercials promote smoking? I personally think they’re disgusting.

I am by no means an FSP official. I’m not even out of high school yet. So my thoughts might be a little idealistic. Pardon if they are, I’m trying to get over that.

[Tinkertoy]

The fact remains that 20,000 people moving to Idaho are not enough to control the elections. Controlling the elections would require getting a good share of the state to vote for “outsiders”.
Idahoans do NOT trust outsiders; we’ve been bitten by that dog before. We are not all stupid anti social rednecks. But we are the ones who suffered through the Neo-nazi influx, and don’t relish another go around.

We’re thinking of giving tourists bumper stickers that read “Idaho : don’t even think about staying”.

What are these Utopian idealists planning to do for money? There are no jobs here. Many of our biggest employers are laying people off. It’s all well and fine to dream about changing the world, but you better think in the long term. Utopia hasn’t work since the Garden of Eden.

Tsiyeria : That comment about why a twelve year old would want a gun. It rates right up there as one of the most asinine statements I’ve ever read.

[Riboflavin]

*Originally posted by Tsiyeria *
Riboflvain, I have answered your question.

Nope, you did not. You simply asked some frankly bizzare questions in response; for example I would expect to see the question “Why would any 12-year-old want a gun?” to be rhetorical or sarcastic, not an actual serious question. If you related your questions to what you claim you were answering then your questions could be answers, but you didn’t. You haven’t even really related your questions to the topic at hand; I’d guess that you’re going to try to use those to say that that particular law is irrelevant, but I don’t even attempt to read into what people are trying to say on Libertarian threads for obvious reasons.

There seems to be a few problems with your assumptions as well.

Well step right up and list specifically what they are! This is GD after all, not ‘Vaguely insinuate that the other person is making mistakes’. None of complaining that I don’t have a good opinion of kids because I believe that there are kids who have stolen goods, rambling about how you know a gun shop owner who won’t sell to kids, or telling us about how much money you had as 12-year old demonstrate any problems in what I’ve said.

Stealing? You don’t have a good opinion of kids…

Saying that someone who acknowledges a really basic fact, like the fact that there are actually 12-year olds who commit crimes doesn’t have a good opinion of kids is a pure Libertarian La-La Land comment, right up there with the question about why any 12-year old would want a gun. I don’t know what color the sky is in your world, but in the world where I live and the SMDB is hosted, children do in fact commit crimes. Do I really need to go dig up some of the FBI’s juvenile crime statistics to demonstrate that there are actually 12-year olds who have stolen things in the past?

But to answer your answer with another question, most gun shop owners will not sell a gun to a 12-year-old, just on general principles. I know a small business gunshop owner who is very strict about things like that.

So, it’s just General Principles and not the fact that an FFL selling a gun directly to a 12-year old is a federal felony and probably state felony in all 50 states? How does this relate to my original question anyway, since the Idaho law we were discussing is not limited to gun store owners.

As for saving, when I was twelve, I spent my money as soon as I had it. The most I ever had at one time was 30 something dollars. Five birthday cards. That takes somewhere in the neighborhood of three years, at least. I personally never received more than one card per year.
Then again, I might just be hated.

Irrelevant personal anecdotes belong in IMHO or MPSIMS, not GD.

[SenorBeef]

*Originally posted by gex gex *
**I used to think that the Libertarians were just extreme right wingers who wanted to smoke pot. Then I realised that Republicans are Libertarians who just want to tell everyone what to do. It made things a lot easier to understand.

The Libertarians actually are the right wing. **

I think that’s a bad way to describe it. Forcing others to act as you wish through government is completely anthithetical to libertarian ideals. So you can’t just say “Well, republicans are libertarians who believe things that are totally antithetical to libertarian views.”

It’s kind of like saying “Communists are just capitalists who don’t believe in private property.”

For what it’s worth, libertarians seem to be best categorized as ‘classical liberals’, which bear no resemblence to modern liberals OR conservatives.

[Tsiyeria]

I apologize if I have offended, Riboflavin. However, I don’t see that anger is necessary. At the moment, I’m just learning what responses draw what reactions.

I apologize to the entire board for having apparently posted things that did not belong. You happy, Riboflavin?

That comment about why a twelve year old would want a gun. It rates right up there as one of the most asinine statements I’ve ever read.

Why, Tinkertoy? Since I’m being grilled here, I assume I have the right to call for reasons behind statements as well. Why is that comment asinine?

Irrelevant personal anecdotes belong in IMHO or MPSIMS, not GD.

I thought it was relevant. Then again, I don’t share your worldly experiences, Riboflavin. Perhaps you can educate me in the ways of the world, since you know so much.