Hi Mike D.,
Yours is not an unusual approach: Live the life of resistance and
liberty yourself, regardless of what others do or not do (Bart feels
that way too. You should have seen him at the airport going to
Portland, refusing to take his shoes off!! I was very proud of him.)
He also serves who stands and waits.
Marcy
To be honest....after years of passionate activism...I don't care
any
more. It seems as productive as swimming against the tide. You can't
beat it so the best you can do is hold on and take care until the
tide
turns. My way of holding on and taking care is to move one part of
my
business out of SF and another part out of the state. I'm planning
to
move my residence out of California. That's how I'm going to create
more
freedom for myself. Politics seems to be a waste of time right now.
When the tide turns in the right direction, then I'll start swimming
with it again. Until then, I'm just clinging to this rock and
keeping my
strength up for another day.
Mike
________________________________
From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lpsf-
discuss@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of dredelstein@...
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 1:06 PM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Convention Carnage
Mike D.,
I don't understand.
How would "ignoring and laughing at it" devolve Govt? Do you
sincerely
believe a politician accruing power would realize how "silly" he is
and
just quit?
You may try to ignore Govt, but the iron fist of the state with its
guns
and prisons does not ignore you.
But perhaps you were only adding some levity to the discussion. If
so,
I'm still interested in your response to my original question.
Best, Michael
From: Mike Denny <mailto:mike@…>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 11:15 AM
Subject: RE: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Convention Carnage
By ignoring and laughing at it until it realizes just how silly it
is.
Mike
________________________________
From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lpsf-
discuss@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of dredelstein@...
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 10:38 AM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Convention Carnage
Mike,
Interesting article, thanks.
I have one question regarding how this applies to us: If our ideas
don't
infiltrate and become part of the state, how do we devolve state
power
and create an anarcho-libertarian society?
Best, Michael
From: Mike Denny <mailto:mike@…>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 10:47 PM
Subject: RE: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Convention Carnage
A good article here. As being a State is a recipe for disaster, it
may
seem that anyone who expects to be the state can expect to fail.
That's
the reason the LP is failing right along side the Dems and Repubs.
Unlike the beginning of the LP, the party is attracting people who
actually think obtaining state power is a good thing. That's a bad
thing
for the LP.
What we are seeing is that attachment to the state and its apparatus
will lose for Liberty. Avoiding the state and its apparatus will
win for
Liberty.
Ron Paul has done as good a job as possible within the context of
political power. Anyone locally who wants to lobby for his
positions and
participate in that side of activism even as a Republican will have
my
full support.
For the rest of us...with apologies to Joanie Mitchell..."We don't
need
some piece of paper from the" LP "to keep us tried and true" to
Liberty.
Mike
To Be or Not To Be a State?
by William S. Lind <mailto:dkern@…>
<http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind100.html##>
<http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind100.html##>
<http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind100.html##>
When Hamas won the Palestinian elections, a highly successful Fourth
Generation entity became a state. No doubt that was one of Hamas's
highest aspirations. But by becoming a state, it became far more
vulnerable to other states than it was as a non-state entity. How
Hamas
deals with this problem may say a great deal about the future of
Fourth
Generation war.
Hamas may have presumed that once it won a free election, other
states,
including the United States and Israel, would have to recognize its
legitimacy. Great expectations are seldom fulfilled in the amoral
world
of international politics. When the Washington Establishment calls
for
"free elections," what it means is elections that elect the people
it
wants to deal with. Hamas does not fall into that category.
Washington
therefore greeted Hamas's electoral victory with a full-court press
to
destroy the new Hamas leadership of the Palestinian Authority,
a "state"
that bears a state's burdens with none of a state's assets. Both
Machiavelli and Metternich were no doubt delighted by this act of
Wilsonian hypocrisy, a variety that often exceeds their own and
does so
with a straight face, an act they could never quite master, being
gentlemen.
In cooperation with Israel (can Washington now do anything except in
cooperation with Israel?) the U.S. imposed a starvation blockade on
the
Palestinian territories. Instead of British armored cruisers, the
blockaders this time are U.S. banking laws, plus Israeli-
withholding of
Palestinian tax receipts. As the government of a quasi-state, Hamas
found itself with no money. PA employees went unpaid and PA
services,
such as they were, largely collapsed. The burden, as always, fell on
average Palestinians.
In the past week, Israel has upped the ante by threatening a full-
scale
military attack on Gaza. The Israelis had already been escalating
quietly: a raid here, a missile there, artillery shells somewhere
else.
With Palestinian civilians dying, Hamas had to respond. It did so
with a
raid on an Israeli army post, a legitimate military target.
(Attacks on
military targets are not "terrorism.") The well-planned and
brilliantly
conducted raid (so well done as to suggest Hezbollah assistance)
killed
two Israeli soldiers and captured one.
Normally, that captured Israeli would be a Hamas asset. But now that
Hamas is a state, it has discovered Cpl. Gilad Shalit is a major
liability. Israel is refusing all deals for his return. If Hamas
returns
him without a deal, it will be humiliated. If it continues to hold
him,
Israel will up the military pressure; it is already destroying PA
targets such as government offices and arresting PA cabinet
members. If
it kills him, the Israeli public will back whatever revenge strikes
the
Israeli military wants. Hamas is now far more targetable than it
was as
a non-state entity, but is no better able to defend itself or
Palestine
than it was as Fourth Generation force. 4GW forces are generally
unable
to defend territory or fixed targets against state armed forces, but
they have no reason to do so. Now, as a quasi-state, Hamas must do
so or
appear to be defeated.
Does the sign really say "No Exit" for Hamas? It may, so long as
Hamas
remains a state, or has aspirations to be one. Washington's and Tel
Aviv's obvious goal is to push the Hamas government to the point
where
it must choose between a humanitarian catastrophe for the
Palestinian
people and resignation, with the return of corrupt and compliant
Fatah
to power. Either way, Hamas will have suffered an enormous defeat,
to
the point where it is unlikely to be a serious alternative ever
again.
There is, however, another way out for Hamas. It can call and raise
Washington's and Tel Aviv's bets. How? By voting to dissolve the
Palestinian Authority. Ending the PA would dump the Palestinian
territories and their inhabitants right back in Israel's lap. Under
international law, as the occupying power, Israel would be
responsible
for everything in the territories: security, human services,
utilities
and infrastructure, the economy, the whole megillah (oy!). Israel
could
try to restore the PA in cooperation with Fatah, but if Fatah joined
Israel in doing so, it would destroy what legitimacy it has left.
Hamas
could meanwhile return to a 4GW war against Israel, unencumbered
with
the dubious assets of a state, and with lots more targets as Israel
attempted to run the Palestinian Territories itself.
Hamas faces what may be a defining moment, not only for itself but
for
Fourth Generation entities elsewhere. Does it want the trappings of
a
state so much that it will render itself targetable as a state, or
can
it see through the glitter of being "cabinet ministers" and the
like and
go instead for substance by retaining non-state status? To be or
not to
be a state, that is the question - for Hamas and soon enough for
other
4GW entities as well.
July 6, 2006
William Lind [send him mail <mailto:dkern@…> ] is
Director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free
Congress
Foundation. The views expressed in this article are those of Mr.
Lind,
writing in his personal capacity.
Copyright (c) 2006 William S. Lind
From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lpsf-
discuss@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Amarcy D. Berry
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 10:16 PM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Convention Carnage
Morphing into "San Francisco Libertarians" is just fine, if the
intent is to be an orginization of like-minded individuals doing
whatever they decide to do (debate, activism, publishing LTE's and
other writings, for example). As long as the organization does not
take in any money, there would be no need to register with any
government agency. Or if money is desired, maybe an educational non-
profit status could be sought from the IRS. Paralell to that
organization, an LPSF would continue as a political party
affiliated
with the LPCA, if there is enough interest.
Another alternative, of course, would be a brand new political
party
with another name (can't use "Libertarian").
Marcy
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Morey Straus"
<morey.straus@> wrote:
>
> Maybe it's time to revisit Allen Rice's idea of morphing into
the "San
> Francisco Libertarians" as an unaffiliated group.
>
>
> >
> > A worthwhile question, Justin. A number of people are
already
pointing
> > out the possibility of state platforms. In our case, that
doesn't help,
> > because Starr was the one who moved to delete all the remaining
planks.
> > There's no reason I know of why we couldn't go ahead and
develop
a local
> > platform, though I confess my own enthusiasm is limited by
wanting to
> > distance myself from the national and state parties.
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > *From:* lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lpsf-
discuss@...m]
> > *On Behalf Of *Justin T. Sampson
> > *Sent:* Thursday, July 06, 2006 12:41 PM
> >
> > *To:* lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > *Subject:* Re: [lpsf-discuss] Convention Carnage
> >
> > Howdy,
> >
> > Would there be any interest in a local LPSF Platform? We have
our
> > own unique mix of anarchist, minarchist, and reformist members
> > with many valued contributions over the years. Such a Platform
> > could cover specific local issues as well as national and global
> > issues. Having a face-to-face dialogue may be worthwhile.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Justin
> >
> >
> > > The takeover of the LP by conservatives that I have been
> > > predicting for 10 years (even if the LP News has declined to
> > > publish my letters and articles warning about that) has
finally
> > > occurred. Owing to a fluke of circumstances, it wasn't
complete;
> > > we are left with a bizarre fragment of a platform which
pleases
> > > no one, but that will soon be eliminated as well. I see no
> > > chance that anything like the original platform will ever be
> > > restored, just because conservatives already outnumber
> > > libertarians in the Party, and there are vastly more of them
> > > potentially to be recruited. What I haven't figured out is why
> > > they want to take over the LP and change it, rather than
working
> > > with a more conservative party to start with, like the
> > > Constitution Party. Can anyone clue me in?
> > >
> > > Starchild is right to make a conceptual distinction between
> > > conservatism and reformism, but it is no accident that the two
> > > groups are so largely overlapping. Reformism is the embodiment
> > > of the conservative spirit or style. Temperamentally,
> > > conservatives are non-boat-rockers; they fear large, sudden
> > > changes, even if they are in the right direction. However,
while
> > > we see governments growing incrementally almost everywhere, it
> > > is hard to find examples of governments gradually shrinking.
> > > Ignorance and denial pretty much guarantee that government
power
> > > will increase until it reaches a tipping point where most
> > > citizens begin to feel seriously oppressed; then there will be
> > > either a revolution or a collapse, depending on the sympathies
> > > of the enforcing agents. I see no reason to expect the U.S. to
> > > depart from this pattern. Thus there will come a time--it will
> > > appear as sudden--when the general population is angrily
> > > demanding the abolition of the IRS--and the Libertarian Party,
> > > behind the curve, is calling, with idiotic and grotesque
> > > irrelevance, for a 10% tax cut.
> > >
> > > I know that some reformers regard the Statement of Principles
as
> > > an adequate guide for candidates in preparing their own
campaign
> > > platforms. But the generalities of the Statement of Principles
> > > are as subject to interpretation as the Bible; terms like
> > > freedom and individual rights pervade the rhetoric of
Democrats
> > > and Republicans. The proud distinction of the LP was in
spelling
> > > out the specific implications of these principles for various
> > > concrete issues. The Statement of Principles might suffice if
> > > our members were libertarian; it won't, given that most of
them
> > > are not. But, like the Constitution, it offers no protection
if