Hour 1 - 3
The FSP Board met last night to discuss your situation and what to do. Our decision is stated below, which includes our reasoning.
Whereas Chris Cantwell has made the following public statements, been offered the opportunity to retract, and has refused to do so: “It’s a terribly unpopular thing to say, but the answer, at some point, is to kill government agents,” and “any level of force necessary for anyone to stop any government agent from furthering said coercion [tax collection in the context of funding the salaries of all government employees] is morally justifiable…”
Whereas the FSP Board believes this view exceeds the right of self-defense
Whereas the Policy and Procedure for Removing Participants (passed 7/11/04) states:
Participants may be removed for promoting violence, racial hatred, or bigotry. Participants who are deemed detrimental to the accomplishment of the Free State Project’s goals may also be removed.
Therefore, according to the Policy and Procedure for Removing Participants, the FSP Board removes Chris Cantwell as a participant and declares him unwelcome to attend FSP-organized events.
In peace and liberty,
for the FSP Board
What this means is, I’ve been removed from the list of FSP participants, and I’m not welcome at events like PorcFest. It means the FSP has chosen to alienate not only me, but thousands of other people who agree with me, or even disagree with me but want to continue the conversation. It means that rather than write a coherent response to my blog, they would rather cut off communication and discourage others from having philosophical and tactical discussions (two different things) about the proper application of force.
What this doesn’t mean is, you shouldn’t move to New Hampshire, the Free State Project is fascist or doesn’t believe in free speech, or any number of other negative things people have said about the FSP in an effort to support me. This sort of rhetoric is counter productive. The FSP is voluntary, they can associate with whom they see fit. I believe in freedom of association, if the FSP doesn’t want me, who the hell am I to impose myself upon them? I’m still free to say whatever I want, I just can’t come to their party. I’m still free to live within the arbitrary geopolitical boundary commonly known as New Hampshire, I’m just not a member of this particular organization. I’m not ostracized by every member of the Free State Project, in fact I’m still facebook friends with the president thereof, this is a PR stunt to avoid unwanted attention. New Hampshire is a great place to live, and the FSP board is only 5 people.
Now, there’s quite a bit to say about this. Not the least of which is, I knew it was going to happen when I wrote “Concord Police, Go and Get Your Bearcat“. I alluded to that in the article when I said “the inevitable outrage that this article will invoke from libertarians may serve as further proof” [of their aversion to violence]. If anything, I’m surprised it took so long. When I moved to New Hampshire last year I found myself in a similar mess, but with a much lower profile and much tamer rhetoric, and it made me realize that there’s very little hope for the cause of liberty because there’s almost nobody willing to actually fight for it. I sought to change that, and my strategy is working.
Think of it as private sector civil disobedience. Other people go to prison for their beliefs, I think it’s quite a small sacrifice for me to miss PorcFest for mine. People are afraid to even discuss the use of force as a moral concept, much less a useful tactic in the fight for freedom. Since force is inevitable, as evidenced by our friends in cages and caskets, somebody has to talk about these things. I’d prefer it wasn’t me. Saying the things I say puts my life in danger and causes me a great deal of trouble in my interpersonal relationships. Unfortunately, there is only one other voice in the voluntarist community I can think of willing to talk about it, and that’s Larken Rose. Seems unfair to let one man shoulder all that burden. I hope that others will join the discussion, that’s part of why I’m saying the things I’m saying, and again, my strategy is working.
By threatening to kick me out over a blog, the FSP helped me draw light to this subject and made a lot of people talk about it. Yesterday, social media was buzzing with philosophical and tactical conversations over the use of force, and most of what I saw acknowledged that a line exists where force was necessary and proper. There’s still a lot of difference over where exactly that line is, and that’s a personal decision for each individual to make on their own. I think it’s important for people to discuss that more often, because as we’ve seen, things are getting worse out there, and the rate of change is picking up.
"What hasn't been admitted by any U.S. administration is that Israel has a massive nuclear weapons arsenal. For example, when President Obama was asked by Helen Thomas at his first news conference if he knew of any country in the Mideast that had nuclear weapons, he claimed he didn't want to 'speculate.' This is not a credible position." See from The Real News "Helen Thomas on her one question for Obama."
"It's especially useful for proponents of war to claim that Syria only now admitted it has chemical weapons because it seemingly seeks to justify that the administrations threatened using force against Syria. But as Josh Holland recently noted: "Article 2 of the United Nations Charter not only bars member states from using force, except in self-defense or in conjunction with the international community, it also prohibits states from threatening to use force."
"So it's not really 'diplomacy' to threaten a country, unless one views diplomacy as war by other means. It would be real diplomacy to get Syria, Israel and other states in the region to agree to dismantle their weapons of mass destruction. In fact, Stephen Zunes reports that's exactly what Syria proposed at the UN in 2007 when it held a non-permanent seat in the UN Security Council, but the U.S. blocked it." See: "U.S. and Chemical Weapons: 'No Leg to Stand On.'"
"The U.S. government -- given its actions in Iraq, Libya and Iran -- seems intent on making Israel the sole possessor of WMDs in the region." Husseini wrote the piece "The Absurd U.S. Stance on Israel’s Nukes: A Video Sampling of Denial."