Are we delivering liberty or not? That's hardly florid rhetoric or rhetorical sound bite. Nor is it confusing.
Are we more free than last year? Ten years ago? Thirty years ago? Fifty years ago? Do we have more or less gun laws? More or less taxes? More or less regulation? More or less people in prison?
Hey John,
I don't think it's possible to answer your crucial question since we don't have a controlled experiment.
Suppose, for example, the State has advance 50 units in the past year. Further, suppose my hypothesis is that without the LPSF the State would have advanced 70 units. How would we confirm or disconfirm my hypothesis? I don't think we could, making it meaningless to support or deny any statement about the effectiveness of libertarian movements.
However, we can support the notion that it affords great fun and brings deep satisfaction to some of us in proselytizing for liberty. This is why I do it.
Warm regards, Michael
Great point, Michael! Puts things in perspective!
Marcy
John,
No to all those questions, which all on this list know already. Again, I am very interested in what specifically you propose we do to remedy the unfortunate trend.
However, if proselytizing is your goal, fantastic! Enjoy! I just want to make sure I understand that is what you are doing, since your mention of "institutional failure" seemed to me to require a specific plan for alternative action.
Marcy
Specific plan? Absolutely! Start a voice communication network with me.
________________________________
From: lpsfactivists <amarcyb@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 8:15 PM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Response to Lysander Spooner on the ConstitutionJohn,
No to all those questions, which all on this list know already. Again, I am very interested in what specifically you propose we do to remedy the unfortunate trend.
However, if proselytizing is your goal, fantastic! Enjoy! I just want to make sure I understand that is what you are doing, since your mention of "institutional failure" seemed to me to require a specific plan for alternative action.
Marcy
Are we delivering liberty or not? That's hardly florid rhetoric or rhetorical sound bite. Nor is it confusing.
Are we more free than last year? Ten years ago? Thirty years ago? Fifty years ago? Do we have more or less gun laws? More or less taxes? More or less regulation? More or less people in prison?
------------------------------>John, I totally and completely agree with you that everyone, including us, working on objectives should continually review and improve specific plans. That is hardly what is happening on this list. No, I was not avoiding any questions. I was looking for answers, which I did not get.
>
>We all have different styles of communication, and if we are good at florid rhetoric, that is great. After all, this is a discussion, rather than a "to do" list. I just want the general public peeking into this list understands that is what they are looking at.
>
>
>Marcy
>
>>
>>
>> All good questions. But they all avoid the question "Is what we are doing delivering liberty?"
>>
>> If not, then what will? That will determine the answers to the other questions.
>>
>> There are billionaires looking for a company that can deliver liberty but the only products being offered are government products, ie elections, legislation, regulations, etc.
>>
>> There must be an alternative.
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> >Actually, I have been very serious. By serious I mean trying to move conversations on this list from rhetorical sound bites to positive, factual, realistic talk -- which might translate into specific, effective action. What does it mean "get serious about our liberty?" What specifically can we do to "get serious about our liberty?" What does it mean "all libertarians as stockholders in a corporation?" How do we accomplish that? What does it mean "corporate managers that failed to deliver would get fired?" Don't we have that now given our ability to vote those we do not like out of office? Of course, how would we get those out of office "WE" want out of office!?
>> >
>> >As I said, this list is public, and I personally view it as one tool to acquaint those that might be interested with libertarian thinking and libertarian action. So I do my best to clarify what the public sees.
>> >
>> >Marcy
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Since the Green Party has been an even worse guardian of liberty, we would be better off for the loss of those who flock to it.
>> >
>> > How much more serious do things need to get before we get serious anout our liberty? Generations of serfs have already proved we can live without liberty and keep doing this indefinately.
>> > ------------------------------
>> >
>> > >"if all libertarians were stockholders in a corporation..." this list is public, and easily shows up in search engines. I am sure the quote has left some folks on their way to register Green.
>> > >
>> > >Marcy
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > It would change its business model to get the results it needed. Libertarian activism is the same as government. No matter how little results it gets it still believes it has value. In contrast to the libertarians themselves the activism has been worthless.
>> > > If the libertarians had ceased what they were doing we would still have the same police-state we got after forty years of their misguided efforts. And we could stop now with no appreciable change in trajectory. What would really happen? As it is, it served only as a place for the discontented to find a home among others of similar discontent and share their suffereing.
>> > >
>> > > On the other hand, if all the libertarians were stockholderrs in a corporation that delivered liberty as a dividend on their interest, corporate management that failed to deliver would be fired.
>> > >
>> > > On the current landscape, the worse job they do, the more they are supposedly needed. So naturally we have been loosing our liberty and "needing" them more than ever, while ignoring the fact that their product is shit.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --- Sent with mail@metro, Real Life Real Time Mobile ---
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
>> > > Sent: 2/16/2013 11:21 pm
>> > > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
>> > > Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Response to Lysander Spooner on the Constitution
>> > >
>> > > John,
>> > >
>> > > What would private enterprise focused on liberty look like in your view, and how would it differ from libertarian activism in general?
>> > >
>> > >Love & Liberty,
>> > > ((( starchild )))
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Private enterprise has been mostly focused on a certain type of economic activity. It has not been focused on liberty. Napoleon spoke of this saying men will look after their interests before their liberty.
>> > >
>> > > < -- The message is truncated. -- >
>> > >
>> > > --- Sent with mail@metro, Real Life Real Time Mobile ---
>> > >
>> > > From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
>> > > Sent: 2/16/2013 5:09 pm
>> > > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
>> > > Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Response to Lysander Spooner on the Constitution
>> > >
>> > > Am I belaboring the obvious to point out that private enterprise is also one of the aforementioned forces that have failed to prevent the status quo? Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) On Feb 15, 2013, at 7:52 AM, John Bechtol wrote: > Maybe another way of looking at it would be to consider the difference between private enter[rise and public enterprise. Democracy is a public enterprise. It will never do as good a job of doing liberty as private enterprise. Expecting good liberty from government is crazy. Yet that is how everyone spends time trying to get it and it continues to get worse. > > > From: Dr. Michael Edelstein drmedelstein.threeminutetherapy@> > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:15 AM > Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Response to Lysander Spooner on the Constitution > > > John, > > Clear summary of the main point. Thank you. > > Warm regards, Michael > > > On Feb 14, 2013, at 11:21 PM, John Bechtol
>> > javlin@> wrote: > > > > Starchild, Michael, > > So both of you are saying the same thing and I agree with it too. The Constitution has not prevented other forces from conducting affairs in unfavorable ways. And that favorable forces have not prevented this conduct. > > This is an important fact in the consideration of democratic process versus enterprise process in the conduct of liberty. > > > From: Starchild sfdreamer@> > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 11:08 PM > Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Response to Lysander Spooner on the Constitution > > Michael, > > Since the current (or nascent, depending on what standard you apply) police state in the U.S. exists, not just the Constitution, but *everything and everyone*, including Spooner himself and the anarchists among us today, have ipso facto been powerless to prevent it. Or at least not powerful enough. So Spooner's observation, even setting aside the
disturbing
I would jump at the opportunity were I convinced that the "voice communication" would be any different than the talk on this list.
Marcy
Would the outcome of the game be different, for a football team that preferred e-mail to voice communication?
Obviously, it would be the difference between a good shot at victory and a miserable spectacle. The idea of putting points on the scoreboard would be long forgotten.
"No points on the scoreboard" is the reality I have been trying to drive home. I led Michael through the door to this reality when he couched our success in terms of less points for our opponents. "Hey! They only got fifty points instead of seventy" Whoohoo! 
I re-post the conversation below: