The following is the posted response Kitty Antonik Wakfer received from the moderator/owner (and FSP board member) of an unofficial FSP-related Yahoo group (with public archives) and her reply to him. Any further group discussion with this reasonable individual will be added to this thread.
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 14:32:41 -0000
From: "Matt Cheselka"
Subject: Re: Resignation from Free State Project
--- In fourcornersporcupines@yahoogroups.com, "Kitty Antonik Wakfer"
> The following was submitted to the moderated official FSP Yahoo
> group. At this time I do not know whether it will be posted. It is
> being posted here so that at least some of those interested in the
> FSP have the opportunity to read it.
> *******
Kitty, I'm more than happy to post it to this group. Information is
power and the more we get the better off we are. I'm also posting
this becuase it is very much FSP-related material.
> Paul's and my letter of resignation to FSP was written in response
> to Jason Sorens' email of 7/8 which is contained in part in our
> message. This is being provided to the membership of this Yahoo
> group so that they can see that well-reasoned objections to FSP
> practices have been made by us since our registration with the
> organization on 9/10/02. No response from Jason Sorens, or anyone
> at FSP, to our letter below has been received.
I'm not sure if Jason got this or not. With all the email he's
getting these days (the board alone passes 100-200 emails between
ourselves every day!!), its very likely he's just not had a chance to
respond yet. Of course I'm not speaking for him nor am I making
excuses, but I don't want you to think that you're being ignored.
> Particularly, Kitty and I thoroughly disagreed with getting
> 501(c)(3)
> status for FSP
We did persue 501(c)(3) status that's true. But the IRS gave us 9
months of runaround and in the end we decided to quit that persuit.
Many of the board members (including myself) were against it from the
beginning, but a majority wanted it so we tried. It was obvious that
the IRS, for whatever reason, didn't want us to have this status.
I was very pleased when we decided to not continue trying to get it.
> and for spending so much money on advertising to
> hurry the process of enlargement of membership and state selection
> (as I already wrote to you before - see appended email below). The
> result has been the enrollment of many people who have little
> knowledge of the fundamentals of a freedom oriented worldview.
What other method, other than word of mouth, do you propose the FSP
use to "spread the word"? We've targeted liberty-oriented
publications to tell people about the FSP and to invite them to our
website. In truth, we've spent no more than about $10,000 on
advertising over the past 2 years. I wouldn't call that "so much
money". I'd like you to show me evidence that the many people in the
current FSP membership "have little knowledge of the fundamentals of a
freedom oriented worldview." I've had just the opposite experience
with my limited contact with fellow members. People I've met both
actually and virtually have all been, for the most part, very
knowledgeable with respect to freedom.
> This
> has in turn led to a great deal of irrational, short-sighted, narrow
> interest wrangling over the conduct of the whole process.
I need more evidence than what you provide.
> Still one
> more example of this is included in your message above. Speakers who
> require payment for their services are not supporting your project
> and should not have been sought. It would have been far better to
> have less polished but more eager and sincere speakers.
Most speakers at both the Montana and New Hampshire meetings were just
as you described: "eager and sincere". The few more prominent
speakers were invited to come and therefore it was only proper to pay
for their travel and lodging. I'm not aware (but I'll ask) if there
were speaking fees.
> As I stated
> in my previous correspondence with you (appended) all outreach
> should be conducted via the WWW where no printing and mailing costs
> are incurred.
99% of our outreach IS conducted over the WWW! Our only printing and
mailing costs sofar that I'm aware of was a mailing sent out to the
membership several months ago (which people were asked to opt-out of
if they didn't want to get it and could get all the info online). We
will be sending out the ballots via snail mail and of course there are
printing and mailing costs with this.
> With respect to your finances it appears that FSP is
> playing the same "fast and loose" game that caused the Henry Hazlitt
> Foundation to go bankrupt and besmirch the name of one of the most
> honest, honorable and sincere freedom-fighters that ever lived.
We can't be fast and loose with zero dollars, which is pretty much
what we've had all along.
> Now to cap it all off FSP is determined to squander money
> unnecessarily on a mailed ballot as you describe in your message
> which brought on this response. In this Internet age the whole idea
> of using a mailed ballot is ludicrous and reeks of ludditism!
The security and verification issues were things that we couldn't
overlook. As a computer person, I'm fully aware of the huge problems
we face in terms of securing and verifying this kind of information.
We decided (long ago actually), that a physical vote was still
necessary. There's nothing wrong with this and I hardly think that
having a paper ballot is akin to burning factories (what the Luddites
did), especially given the fact (as I said above) that 99% of our work
IS done over the internet.
> Moreover these sorts of large expenditures are an attraction for the
> support of special interests which have some narrow selfish interest
> to gain through this process, very similarly to what is to be gained
> from supporting the government.
What large expenditures? We're talking maybe $5000 for the ballot
mailing. Do you really think that this "large expenditure" will
attract "narrow selfish interest" parties you're talking about? I can
assure you on my honor that NO special interest group has even
approached us!
> Depending on many factors, Kitty and I may still make one of our
> domiciles in the state that is chosen. However, we do not wish to
> vote for a particular state under the present arrangements (and
> because there has been too much rush to decide, in our opinions).
I'm sorry that you consider two years a "rush". I don't.
> If
> we choose to live in the chosen state, we will not be taking part in
> any political activity there and will be doing our best to persuade
> others also not to take part.
Once you see that the Free State is a success, I predict you'll join
the activity. You don't sound like one who sits around and watches
things happen -- you like to be a part of it. It's your choise to not
take part and to persuade others to not take part. I have no doubts
that wherever I end up, people (even freedom lovers like yourselves)
will be against me and the Free State activists. This is ok. If we
all thought the same, it'd be a pretty boring place.
Best Regards,
Matt Cheselka
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 07:43:01 -0000
From: "Kitty Antonik Wakfer"
Subject: Re: Resignation from Free State Project
> --- In fourcornersporcupines@yahoogroups.com, "Kitty Antonik Wakfer"
>
> > The following was submitted to the moderated official FSP Yahoo
> > group. At this time I do not know whether it will be posted. It is
> > being posted here so that at least some of those interested in the
> > FSP have the opportunity to read it.
> > *******
>
> Kitty, I'm more than happy to post it to this group. Information is
> power and the more we get the better off we are. I'm also posting
> this becuase it is very much FSP-related material.
Thanks, Matt, for permitting the posting of my messages to this
group. For those who want to find some "ulterior motive" in our
resignation, they are *wrong wrong*. We would very much like a
location in North America that is truly minimal government - this
would make the existence of a growing group of Self-Sovereign
Individuals, as defined in by a Declaration of Individual
Independence
(http://morelife.org/ssip/solutions/DOII_annotated.html) and Social
Contract (in progress) that much easier. We are just very
disappointed to see how an originally very good idea is being
misdirected; and also very concerned that it will fall far far short
of the goal of a state in the US that is not controlled by
Washington DC and that it is guided by the principle "that
government's maximal role should be to defend individuals from force
and fraud". (Quote from FSP website)
> > Paul's and my letter of resignation to FSP was written in response
> > to Jason Sorens' email of 7/8 which is contained in part in our
> > message. This is being provided to the membership of this Yahoo
> > group so that they can see that well-reasoned objections to FSP
> > practices have been made by us since our registration with the
> > organization on 9/10/02. No response from Jason Sorens, or anyone
> > at FSP, to our letter below has been received.
>
> I'm not sure if Jason got this or not. With all the email he's
> getting these days (the board alone passes 100-200 emails between
> ourselves every day!!), its very likely he's just not had a chance to
> respond yet. Of course I'm not speaking for him nor am I making
> excuses, but I don't want you to think that you're being ignored.
This of course is no longer relevant, since Elizabeth's reply, which
was reposted here, with my response, as message 120 -
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fourcornersporcupines/message/120
> > Particularly, Kitty and I thoroughly disagreed with getting
> > 501(c)(3)
> > status for FSP
>
> We did persue 501(c)(3) status that's true. But the IRS gave us 9
> months of runaround and in the end we decided to quit that persuit.
> Many of the board members (including myself) were against it from the
> beginning, but a majority wanted it so we tried. It was obvious that
> the IRS, for whatever reason, didn't want us to have this status.
> I was very pleased when we decided to not continue trying to get it.
We're glad to hear that this idea was abandoned, but obviously only
because the IRS was giving the organization a "runaround". We
realize that this use of government loopholes against it is an area
of significant disagreement among libertarians. And it is this very
discussion that should have been made public to the members of the
Organization. Such FSP board "openness" would have gone a long way
to significantly reduce our and other's complaints and concerns.
Instead, it wasn't until an April announcement at FSP Yahoo site
that of the failure to obtain such tax exempt status that any
mention even occurred at that Group.
All the responses that I read to this announcement through 5/22
either bemoaned the failure to continue to pursue the status (some
suggesting alternative approaches for obtaining it) or expressed
approval because effectively having the IRS's close observation is
undesirable. Not one raised the possibility that requesting
government approval/status was in effect giving sanction to this
government role - which is far from even the minimalist role. This
apparent lack of understanding of liberty and "that government's
maximal role should be to defend individuals from force and fraud"
(Quote from FSP website) tells me that there is limited knowledge of
libertarianism by those posters and probably others who did not
post. The closest any poster came was a statement that included "I
believe the 501(c)(3) status requirement for tax-deductible
contributions is flat-out unconstitutional." (Although a Group
member, I was not monitoring messages at that time and therefore did
not make any statements.)
> > and for spending so much money on advertising to
> > hurry the process of enlargement of membership and state selection
> > (as I already wrote to you before - see appended email below). The
> > result has been the enrollment of many people who have little
> > knowledge of the fundamentals of a freedom oriented worldview.
>
> What other method, other than word of mouth, do you propose the FSP
> use to "spread the word"? We've targeted liberty-oriented
> publications to tell people about the FSP and to invite them to our
> website. In truth, we've spent no more than about $10,000 on
> advertising over the past 2 years. I wouldn't call that "so much
> money". I'd like you to show me evidence that the many people in the
> current FSP membership "have little knowledge of the fundamentals of a
> freedom oriented worldview." I've had just the opposite experience
> with my limited contact with fellow members. People I've met both
> actually and virtually have all been, for the most part, very
> knowledgeable with respect to freedom.
My example above re. the responses to the FSP failure to receive 501
(c)(3) status is one easily given. Elizabeth McKinstry's rejection
message of the resignation post to FSP Yahoo contains several
blatant examples of lack of understanding. There were a number on
the now defunct FSPcrackerbarrel Group, although many more were just
plain lacking in civility. What was more pronounced however, was
the often lack of response to more reasoned thinking messages.
It is likely that there are other messages similar to the one from a
member of FSP Yahoo group in early May who wrote, "How exactly do we
come to power if no one runs and no one votes?" The concept of there
being no one or group being in "power" doesn't appear to be held by
the writer; note that he didn't put "power" in quotes within his
message to indicate something other than the standard political
meaning of the word (which, of course, means the initiation of force
by the majority upon the minority). A response to his message
included, "I think we should all become very politically active."
The fact that this political activism will support a system of
the "majority rules" is not even raised by any others. (Again I was
not actively following posts at the time and therefore did not add
comments of my own. I've now spent a bit more time to look at some
others.)
I don't think the person who recently wrote on another non-official
FSP-related Yahoo group has done any *real* thinking on liberty and
the individual. "Howdy.. well I have no problem with a state flying
their state flag under the United States flag... but did you read
what this stupid woman said she wanted her child to be''' that's
what I was talking about if the fley a maggies drawers up on that
pole..that's not the problem. it was her remarks that pissed me off.
the dumb bitch useless eater.."
He was "objecting" to the reported statement of the woman: "I feel
our country is on a strong push towards imperialism, and we're not a
democratic nation anymore. I want to raise my children to be
citizens of the world, and the flag does not represent ideals I want
to instill in my children. It represents dominance, greed, corporate
power and not freedom. I think it even represents commercialism and
consumerism." But did he take reasoned issue with any of her
statements? No, he just used a string of ad hominems - even more in
his intro to the article containing her quote. He wrote not one word
on *what* and *why* he thought any of her statements were in error;
no logic, just a lot of hot fired ugly emotionalism. And the person
who had responded to him, in less colorful language, also didn't
address the basic ideas contained in her statement.
I do not think that these 2 people really understand what she was
trying to say, though she could have expressed it better and I don't
agree with everything she said. I would point out that by
saying "we're not a democratic nation anymore", she appears to not
be aware that this is incorrect and actually a major problem.
Democracy - the rule of the minority by the majority - is and always
has been a problem. But even more fundamental is the entire idea of
*rule*. This concept is one that most people hang onto - either one
must be in the ruling group or be in the one that is ruled. The idea
of *rule* is contrary to libertarianism, but the "objector" above is
objecting to someone else not wanting to be ruled. (Paul and I have
been challenging people to *"think outside the box"* of *rule*
entirely, and to instead think of contracts between individuals.)
> > This
> > has in turn led to a great deal of irrational, short-sighted, narrow
> > interest wrangling over the conduct of the whole process.
>
> I need more evidence than what you provide.
The majority of the messages on the FSPcrackerbarrel appeared to be
of this type, but of course none can now be referenced because of
the Group's deletion. Of course there were likely many people who
just read and didn't join in on the foray. My two attempts to
direct the discussion to something reasonable - and remind people
of the enormous amount of memory being wasted by retaining long
uncommented messages - pretty much went unheeded.
> > Still one
> > more example of this is included in your message above. Speakers who
> > require payment for their services are not supporting your project
> > and should not have been sought. It would have been far better to
> > have less polished but more eager and sincere speakers.
>
> Most speakers at both the Montana and New Hampshire meetings were just
> as you described: "eager and sincere". The few more prominent
> speakers were invited to come and therefore it was only proper to pay
> for their travel and lodging. I'm not aware (but I'll ask) if there
> were speaking fees.
I don't agree that it was necessary at all to pay the travel and
lodging of these "few more prominent
speakers". If they were enthusiastic supporters of the FSP
objectives, they should have been willing to pay their own expenses,
just as those members did who traveled there to hear them. And
definitely no speaking fees should even have been considered. Less
prominent, well-speaking knowledgeable liberty-promoting speakers
should have been asked if the "more prominent" indicated disinterest
if they needed to pay their travel and lodging.
> > As I stated
> > in my previous correspondence with you (appended) all outreach
> > should be conducted via the WWW where no printing and mailing costs
> > are incurred.
>
> 99% of our outreach IS conducted over the WWW! Our only printing and
> mailing costs sofar that I'm aware of was a mailing sent out to the
> membership several months ago (which people were asked to opt-out of
> if they didn't want to get it and could get all the info online). We
> will be sending out the ballots via snail mail and of course there are
> printing and mailing costs with this.
Our view of the use of the WWW still holds. The use of paper
ballots for this process does not automatically ensure that
no "tampering" of votes is possible. If there is a concern by
members that tampering is a real possibility after the leadership
has ensured that each member gets 1 and only 1 opportunity to vote
electronically, then there is a real problem in the organization.
This would indicate to me that those members are concerned about the
honesty and integrity of individual(s) within the leadership and/or
management of the organization. And quite frankly, if this distrust
is widespread, the organization is not likely to succeed anyway
unless it works very hard to eradicate the causes of the distrust
and to create full trust and credibility through competence,
complete openness and sincerity.
> > With respect to your finances it appears that FSP is
> > playing the same "fast and loose" game that caused the Henry Hazlitt
> > Foundation to go bankrupt and besmirch the name of one of the most
> > honest, honorable and sincere freedom-fighters that ever lived.
>
> We can't be fast and loose with zero dollars, which is pretty much
> what we've had all along.
Were there ever printed or linkable account statements provided of
the organization? I admit to not doing an exhaustive search, but I
did not see one via the FSP website. (This is just the sort
of "openness" that I was suggesting above.) Our concern was/is that
the organization was/is trying to operate beyond its means. We
expected that the growth in expenditures would *follow* the growth
in donations, which would come as a result of slow exponential
growth in membership. This would promote stability based on
principles. Instead we saw a *rush* to round up members as fast as
possible, no matter the quality of methods or of the recruits. And
no attempt, that we could see, was made to foster reasoned thinking
by FSP members. This does not mean that everyone must have the exact
same ideas of implementation, but that everyone is encouraged to
*think* about what they are thinking and saying - to have well
considered and explainable reasons.
> > Now to cap it all off FSP is determined to squander money
> > unnecessarily on a mailed ballot as you describe in your message
> > which brought on this response. In this Internet age the whole idea
> > of using a mailed ballot is ludicrous and reeks of ludditism!
>
> The security and verification issues were things that we couldn't
> overlook. As a computer person, I'm fully aware of the huge problems
> we face in terms of securing and verifying this kind of information.
> We decided (long ago actually), that a physical vote was still
> necessary. There's nothing wrong with this and I hardly think that
> having a paper ballot is akin to burning factories (what the Luddites
> did), especially given the fact (as I said above) that 99% of our work
> IS done over the internet.
I never saw any pointed report by FSP as to what were the
impediments for a secure verifiable vote performed electronically. A
few early messages by apparently knowledgeable computer people were
not given explicit responses.
The use of the word "ludditism" - note the "l" not "L" - is
referring to opposition of new technologies or of technological
change, in this case to application in voting. This is the 2nd
definition for "Luddite" in the dictionary (Webster's College),
where the first is a member of any of various bands of workers in
early 19th century England who destroyed industrial machinery in the
belief that its use diminished employment.
> > Moreover these sorts of large expenditures are an attraction for the
> > support of special interests which have some narrow selfish interest
> > to gain through this process, very similarly to what is to be gained
> > from supporting the government.
>
> What large expenditures? We're talking maybe $5000 for the ballot
> mailing. Do you really think that this "large expenditure" will
> attract "narrow selfish interest" parties you're talking about? I can
> assure you on my honor that NO special interest group has even
> approached us!
If an organization does not already have income to cover all
expenditures, of which $5000 is for ballot mailing, then it has no
business planning to spend such money for this purpose.
The "largeness" of an expenditure is relative to the current assets
and reasonable expectation of income. This is where an
income/expense statement for FSP needs to be available to members.
It is good to hear that none of the groups representing particular
candidate states have produced financial incentives akin to lobbying.
> > Depending on many factors, Kitty and I may still make one of our
> > domiciles in the state that is chosen. However, we do not wish to
> > vote for a particular state under the present arrangements (and
> > because there has been too much rush to decide, in our opinions).
>
> I'm sorry that you consider two years a "rush". I don't.
Setting a sound foundation for a major change takes time, if the
change is to be of good quality and not result in structural
cracks. It is our opinion from the messages we have received from
FSP and the exchanges that we have seen take place on the Internet
groups, that the philosophical foundation demonstrated by many of
those active in this group is extremely weak and often fallacious.
Time is needed to point out and hopefully correct attitudes and
actions which are being fostered by those in a "rush to action". How
much time? I can not say. But I've not even seen much attempt -
yours may be the only one by someone in FSP leadership - to even
reasonably attempt to discuss a disagreement with its practices.
I've yet to see any reasoned response by an FSP "leader" to any of
the unprincipled non-libertarian type statements made by FSP members
or supporters in FSP-related lists. Understandably, you personally
can not scour the web to disassociate FSP officially from these
individuals, but I think it would be wise for the organization to
keep the principles of libertarianism firmly in the forefront as
reminders to those members and supporters who may be "weak" in these
areas.
> > If
> > we choose to live in the chosen state, we will not be taking part in
> > any political activity there and will be doing our best to persuade
> > others also not to take part.
>
> Once you see that the Free State is a success, I predict you'll join
> the activity. You don't sound like one who sits around and watches
> things happen -- you like to be a part of it. It's your choise to not
> take part and to persuade others to not take part. I have no doubts
> that wherever I end up, people (even freedom lovers like yourselves)
> will be against me and the Free State activists. This is ok. If we
> all thought the same, it'd be a pretty boring place.
Once we find a location where government has only minimal influence
on people's lives in all areas, we will relocate there. The only
political activity we envision ourselves joining is one that aims
to "vote out" laws. This of course does not mean we want chaos, as
some think is the inevitable result of no government. Most
certainly, we are freedom lovers - and active seekers. We think
about our actions but even more importantly we think deeply about
the principles underlying the thoughts that lead to those actions.
This is so that each and every action does not have to be
individually examined for truth and consistency. This is the beauty
of a framework of principles, especially applied to liberty/freedom.
From Paul's Introduction to the draft of the Social Contract [in
progress]:
"In order to accomplish such a naturally ordered, maximally free,
minimally restrictive society of maximally happy and productive Self-
Sovereign Individuals, what is needed is a clear delineation of a
minimal social framework under which such a natural order will
occur. It is not enough to simply eliminate governments everywhere
and then let the free market take over as some anarchist
libertarians appear to think. Without such a framework (which I have
termed the "social meta-needs" of human relationships) to guide the
marketplace, I think that the result might well be chaos (at least
for quite a while) as all the critics of anarchist ideas contend,
and I, for one, am not prepared to take a chance. The major problem
here is that the level of size and complexity to which civilization
has grown without free market ordering institutions in place is
simply too large for these to emerge naturally in the timescale
needed to prevent chaos upon the immediate withdrawal of government
imposed order. That is why social chaos and the welcomed imposition
of some order by a strongman even at the cost of some loss of
freedom would almost inevitably happen. This can only be prevented
if a social order without government tyranny can be gradually
achieved. Only such gradualism without violence will be conducive to
the development of market institutions to provide the natural social
order required."
It was our hope when we joined FSP that this sort of gradual system
would emerge in the chosen state. However, that hope has been
severely diminished by what we have seen happening.
> Best Regards,
>
> Matt Cheselka
Thank you Matt, for a reasoned discussion, even if it is one in
which we still might not agree on every point. However, hopefully in
time, our positions on liberty will be even more closely aligned.
**Kitty Antonik Wakfer
MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Rational freedom by self-sovereignty & social contracting
