This is bringing back memories of the Libertarian Free State Project that has been ongoing for a little over twenty-two years now.
The project’s ultimate goal is to take over the local and state governments of New Hampshire and secede from the United States to become their own sovereign country. They may have quieted that rhetoric in recent years, but it is and has always been their plan.
The Libertarians run and operate on a platform of non-aggression, opting to adhere by the authority of the state—of which I assure they see as every bit of an oxymoron as you do—to enact their political means. The grim reality is that once the project attempts secession, it will almost certainly be met with a swift end.
This is a real problem that has been discussed at length by the Libertarian community, and they have opted for the non-aggression principle as their best chance for success in practice. If a peaceful, by the book compliant state cannot achieve “Liberty in Your Lifetime!” playing by the rules without being mowed down, what hope does an aggressive movement have?
If a peaceful, by the book compliant state cannot achieve “Liberty in Your Lifetime!” playing by the rules without being mowed down, what hope does an aggressive movement have?
Their concluding factor is that governments are monopolies of violence. Like I said, this is a practical movement by people willing to put their asses on the line, not simple armchair theory.
I am simply asking because you clearly find the alternative superior.
This is bringing back memories of the Libertarian Free State Project that has been ongoing for a little over twenty-two years now.
The project’s ultimate goal is to take over the local and state governments of New Hampshire and secede from the United States to become their own sovereign country. They may have quieted that rhetoric in recent years, but it is and has always been their plan.
The Libertarians run and operate on a platform of non-aggression, opting to adhere by the authority of the state—of which I assure they see as every bit of an oxymoron as you do—to enact their political means. The grim reality is that once the project attempts secession, it will almost certainly be met with a swift end.
This is a real problem that has been discussed at length by the Libertarian community, and they have opted for the non-aggression principle as their best chance for success in practice. If a peaceful, by the book compliant state cannot achieve “Liberty in Your Lifetime!” playing by the rules without being mowed down, what hope does an aggressive movement have?
How can you be so naive?
This is their strategy, not mine.
Their concluding factor is that governments are monopolies of violence. Like I said, this is a practical movement by people willing to put their asses on the line, not simple armchair theory.
I am simply asking because you clearly find the alternative superior.
Why exactly do you think that…?