Greetings everyone, my name is Dustin but I often go by Auspician on forums and such for simplicity.
I have been a lover of liberty for some time, and am one of the co-founders of www.thelibertyblog.com, an online blog covering the major national and international assaults on our freedom - everything from the Bailout, to HR1959, FEMA Camps, Obama's true intentions, etc.
I must heartily agree with Ian's comments in the 11/17/08 Monday broadcast of FTL - His civil disobedience and the 'charges' that sprung from it gave him, FreeTalkLive, and the Free State Project tremendous media attention - the article I found on PrisonPlanet.tv regarding the '93 day' incarceration made me steaming mad! I promptly searched all over the internet for every video and article I could find, finally discovering the couch enforcer, Ian's first attempt to be civil at the first hearing, and then Burke's obvious prejudice and violation of both the United States Constitution and the standards of the New Hampshire Judicial Conduct Committee videos. I was furious at this total disregard for liberty and personal freedom!
I immediately wrote a letter of disdain to Judge Burke at the Keene District Courthouse as well as to Mister Burke at his home. After listening to Monday's FTL show, based on the advice of a caller I also wrote a letter to Executive Secretary Robert T. Mittelholzer of the Judicial Conduct Committee laying out Judge Burke's FIVE (yup, five) violations of the New Hampshire Code of Judicial Conduct.
All this research led me naturally to the Free State Project, to which I immediately said, "Hey, that was my idea!" Actually I can't take anywhere near that credit, but I always thought it would be great to get a bunch of liberty activists to all move into an area to be able to support each other - but I never imagined it so strategically as the Free State Project.
That said, after two twelve-hour days of reseach, my wife and I (both strong liberty activists) have decided to move to New Hampshire! Our apartment lease is up at the end of April 2009, and we're quite a distance away so we imagine a 5-6 day drive - which means we should be in New Hampshire by May 5th, 2009! We still haven't decided where to live yet, but naturally with all the activism Keene sounded like a good idea - also considering Manchester and the Lakes Region, all for different reasons.
I'm definitely down with the civil disobedience, but I believe a better solution might be to get into government to repeal as many needless laws and codes as possible - why fight city hall when you can BE city hall?
Anyway, you'll have to forgive the long winded introduction, but hopefully that tells all you Keeniacs where I'm coming from. What do you folks think? Keene a good place to be for a guy with a sales and technology background with political aspirations? Or better for me to find a home in one of the more heavily populated regions of NH? I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Auspician
Welcome to the forums! It is good to see Ian inspired another one to move sooner. 
Though I would like to ask how far away(S. America? 
) are you that it takes 5-6 days to drive to NH? It only takes me 3-5 days to hitchhike from coast to coast if I've devoted. But usually I like to wander about and aren't focused on how fast I get somewhere. I assume you are doing some tourism during your drive then?
I haven't looked at Hugo Chavez in depth, but I find it interesting you find him pro-history. I wouldn't be surprised there was a propaganda campaign against him. They've done the same with anarchy(chaos!), Somalia(constant violence!), and numerous war justifications. But I've always thought Chavez was pro-government and was increasing government programs with nationalization of the oil and trying to stay in office indefinitely. Do you have more sources on your information?
Ethan,
Yeah, several places along the way we plan on stopping. Currently residing in Boise, Idaho - but we're doing 6 and 12 hour driving days, staying with family and friends we haven't seen in a while along the trip. Also, avoiding going through Canada from Michigan, rather going south through Cleveland simply because we don't know the status of getting through Canada at that point and don't want to risk it.
Hugo Chavez is interesting - he's on the list for a few reasons. The way his country is currently trying to be manipulated by multinational interests it truly needs a strong leader to keep foreign nations and the globalists out to allow the people to regain their lost wealth. He has been the biggest advocate of employee-ownership of companies (employee collectives) and that is the primary reason Venezuela is doing as well as it is, all things considered. He also believes that the oil of his nation should be used to enrich the people - rather than foreign nations. He's basically a believer in mercantilism - meaning that the resources of his country should be used for the benefit of the people, and most products they need should be produced internally rather than imported which results in more jobs.
Once his objectives are achieved, he will obsolete himself and at which point he'll step down - he has to as his term only goes until the end of 2012, and their Constitution states that presidents can have no more than two 6-year terms. He's far from perfect, but considering all the other dictators and leaders who do horrible things to their people, Chavez has done wonders for Venezuela - despite some issues I have with his ideology.
All that aside, the Globalists hate him, and as they say, the enemy of my enemy . . .
Thanks for reminding me I need to do a Freedom Jedi page for Dennis Kucinich - I've been putting that off for a while.
well, I'd have to disagree with you from the knowledge I have. He may be good for fighting the multinational companies, but that doesn't mean he's pro-freedom. Mercantalism and strong leaders are ideologies to be fought against, not embraced. I'd throw in employee collectives, but I'm not aware of how he is advocating them. If it's up to free choice, then fine, have their collectives. But if he's using government to force or create incentives(based on force), I'd have to oppose that too. And the enemy of your enemy may be a useful strategic position, but that doesn't mean the enemy of your enemy is pro-freedom too.
And if you are wandering a bit, Illinois, Kentucky, and Tennessee were some of the more beautiful states. I went in spring and summer though, so its probably far different scenery. But if you ever drop by those areas in that season, I'm sure you'd enjoy it. I tend to be a sucker for greenery. I didn't fight the areas too hot either, which was nice.
I'm a big fan of greenery too, and I'm a big fan of photography. Might have to stop at scenic vistas and get some cool shots.
Generally you're right about Hugo Chavez. I just wanted to have a place of honor for the leader of a country who does the best for his citizens - if you know of any other national leader that does better for his/her people, I'm glad to create a page for them and take Mr Chavez's page down.
I believe that Freedom and liberty are the best ideals to strive for - but if people are starving and don't have the education or ability to create their own companies, the 'free market' doesn't have the same ability to function as it does in America, for example. I believe based upon my research what the people of most South American countries need is the economy set up (by force or otherwise) in such a way that the average person has a fighting chance to survive. Believe me, if you asked the average Venezuelan what was most important to them, the freedom of speech or food on their table, they would answer the later. Again, I feel this is a temporary situation and once one generation lives with enough money to have an education and not grow up starving, then it is time for deregulation and minimizing of government.
Much in the same way infants need the support of their parents more than they need freedom, but as they grow up they need freedom more than support, this is the sad state of many third world nations. The support of their government is only a temporary step, but in many cases, without it, they wouldn't live long enough to understand the freedoms they had. And that would be a terrible shame.
I've done some photography in the past. You do film or digital?
I wouldn't point to any leader. I'm an anarchist and oppose any government leader. Some may be better in certain aspects than others, but all are basically evil as their power is founded upon involuntary aggression. I'd prefer Cincinnatus to Caligus, but I'd oppose both. I wouldn't support Cincinnatus at all either as that would be a show of my support for the foundation of involuntary aggression.
The market is a universal system. It works similarly(there are small differences because of different cultures) in every place. The reason markets appear to not function is because powerful groups claim they are part of a market system when they are actually supporting crony capitalism, corporatism, state capitalism, or mercantilism. No place has a free market and someone is always being screwed at the hand of government, whether it is the average person or not. Often, everyone is being screwed in some way.
The way to give people a fighting chance is to open truly free markets(market anarchy) instead of punishing the people that used to benefit by government. That is my understanding of what Chavez is doing. He is nationalizing companies(punishing those that used to benefit) in order to try to help the average person. However, it also makes the average person more dependent on government, which further skews the natural system and hurts the average person.
On another note, I'm surprised no one else has welcomed you. There are usually 3-5 welcomes per thread(from my short experience on these boards).
Welcome 
(It's probably the buereaucrats' working hours, so all the activists are out taunting them :o )
The Chavez thing I'll have to be explained more closely, though, cause I don't get that one… he seems pretty hardcore fascist to me (although he's not alone in that club).
I got started years ago in film, but now I run with my digital SLR equipment. I'll be the first to admit I'm lazy - used to develop my own pictures in labs but having it all digital and being able to 'develop' them in photoshop is far easier, so I go that route.
As far as leaders in general being less than ideal, I can't agree more. I suppose you are correct in saying that any 'leader' if they claim any real power at all is not about freedom, but rather coercion. I've rather deeply researched Chavez, economic warfare, and how leaders utterly destroy their people economically forcing them into slavery or worse. Chavez is far from being a saint, but the people he took the wealth away from were the same international corporations that used government to manipulate the country and 'legally' (sic) snatch all the resources away from the people. What, you want to just let them get away with it? If the people have no education, no resources, and over a 60% unemployment rate and over 80% poverty rate (as they did before Chavez was elected) how can they be expected to properly function even in a true free market? They should not be punished for actions that were no fault of their own.
In my opinion force is necessary to counter force. When we are being invaded, we must strike forcefully to protect our lives, our liberty, and our property. We are engineered by Society and government to be passive, and those who use force to protect themselves, their liberty, and their property are demonized as 'terrorists'. (Check out my article on the subject here: http://www.thelibertyblog.com/ablog004/ ) For this reason I believe fully in the 'rightness' of militias. I used to be a pacifist, until I realized that if we let terrocrats walk all over us, pretty soon there will be nothing left - they'll take it all.
I think Washington said it best: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
Auspician
PS: What's only an illusion?
Welcome!
Sorry, been an extremely busy and stressful day.
I'm not heavily involved in photography, but I did learn how to do film from beginning to end(inserting film in camera, taking pictures, removing film, developing, and mounting). Never ended up using the info much and would probably need refreshed. I do enjoy looking at photos, but I don't spend a lot of time on it with all the reading I do on philosophy, ethics(political theory), and economics. Unfortunately one only has so much time to spend on things and I figure this is the most meaningful use of time, even if I'd like to dabble in so many other things.
Regarding laziness, there is nothing to be concerned about. While there may be a small market for the ability for the old-fashioned method(still and moving film, blacksmithing, clothes repair, farming, ship-building, foresting etc.) for those who value such things, the free market creates a situation where we constantly improve our technology to create a more efficient use of our time. Now that you don't have to worry about many things in film, you can focus on other things that you wouldn't have been able to focus on before(more time on pictures, more time on distributing photos, another subject entirely etc.)
I want no governments at all. And I might be called silly for my idealism, but I will oppose anyone no matter who they are screwing by the hand of government. Government power is evil no matter how it is being used. Like I said before, it eventually screws everyone to some degree.
And we once had no education, few resource, no jobs, and no money. Look where we are. And the world has never had a truly free market, only semi-free markets of varying types.
I would agree that force is necessary to counter force, but we should not use initiatory against others. And it is impractical to defend ourselves from government at the moment. Doing it results in a lot of pain. But those that commit to it shall be known as the bravest, purest anarchists around and may help to market our ideology and show the gun in the room. Civil disobedience has shown the problems with government throughout history, but few times(at least as far as I've read) has it been used to oppose government itself, only some policy of government. Personally, I have slowly begun supporting civil disobedience more and more, but I do realize the impracticality of it if you value living your life more than you value fighting for ultimate liberty. And I don't fault those who have that value preference. I disagree with it, but I understand and respect their choice. That is the beauty of anarchism, the respect for another individual and their value preferences, as long as you are not violated by them. An argument could be made that because they don't fight off government with the disobedients that they are implicitly supporting government, but it must also be remembered that government forces them to obey in the first place. So again, while I would encourage someone to be a civil disobedient, I respect those that aren't. I guess this paragraph is also a summary of my opinions on the recent issue with Ian too. And a final anecdote.
When Emerson asked Thoreau why he was in prison, Thoreau asked Emerson why Emerson wasn't in person. Yet as far as I know, Thoreau didn't condemn Emerson for choosing to not disobey government.
Welcome and congratulations on your decision! 8)
Another reader of Long I see.
Welcome! ;D
Welcome Auspician! Although I've known about the Free State Project for a while, I was prompted to learn more because of what happened to Ian in court on Friday. I also spent a good chunk of time last weekend finding out as much as I could about this particular incident and reading more about the FSP and Keene in general. See you there!