Free State Wyoming Forum
Prospective Free State Wyoming (FSW) Members and Interested Parties => Prospective Free State Wyoming (FSW) Members and Interested Parties => Topic started by: Subject Of The King on March 05, 2008, 06:50:17 PM
-
Hello,
I am definitely looking to move towards freedom. My reason for doing so is not that I am not already free, but want to reduce risk of prosecution for my freedom. I was initially drawn west when I found that Montana took a stand regarding gun ownership. In a nutshell Montana notified the goons in DC that if they uphold the handgun ban the Feds would be in breach of contract with the state of Montana.
I am the husband of one and father of five. We take responsibility for the character and academic training of our children.
We have a farm in the Ozarks area of Northern AR. I am the governor of the farm. We have an idiot for a local sheriff. Local sheriff policy is they come out when it is over. It is not their duty to protect but to prosecute whoever is left standing. Being thoroughly willing, ready and armed to protect my family and property it is very likely that in the event that one of these un-informed (as word is out that we will vigorously defend) meth-heads attempts to violate the above, I will likely be the survivor and consequently experience the brute force of the worthless local law.
We are looking for freedom. We are looking to take back ground that has been lost. We are looking to take the responsibility now that our children will not have a disproportionate amount to carry later.
I am grieved over the murder of our children. I do not think that a free state can legally or morally disregard the promise of life, promise of liberty and promise of pursuit of happiness to the child in the womb.
I am grieved over the pushing of a medically unsafe, morally deviant lifestyle on persons that find such repulsive. In other words they should keep their private life private. I will keep mine private as well.
I will be a good neighbor to good neighbors, compassionate to those who are in need of real help and helpful to the cause of freedom.
Is there a place for my family and I? Is it any better than where I am at?
-
Thanks dearly for the welcome.
We are committed to the move but circumstantial issues apply; such as business obligations. I am in the wireless broadband business and am currently involved in an installation in NE AR. The upside is that after about a year, I can move on and am not geographically obligated to my business.
The visit however sounds very appealing and as soon as funds and time permit, we will be doing so.
I found out that home-school families have to register and submit their curriculum. We won?t be doing that. It is none of their business.
-
BTW, any links on New Castle?
I will do some of my own research.
-
Howdy, Subject Of The King!
I'm not a Christian or religious, but anyone who loves freedom is my family. See you in Wyoming!
-
Thank you for your kindness and welcome sir. If the two of you that replied to me so far are a sampling of this pack as a whole, I look forward to new friends.
-
Howdy and welcome from Newcastle! I'm eager to show you my beautiful town!
Here is a sample picture from our little town. (Just the link posted due to its size) http://thepriceofliberty.org/images/FSW/newcastle/downtown/oldchurch.jpg (http://thepriceofliberty.org/images/FSW/newcastle/downtown/oldchurch.jpg)
You can see the terrible traffic and crowding here. LOL NOT!!!
Then explore my blog. http://www.fundamentalsoffreedom.com/fswblogs/mamaliberty/ (http://www.fundamentalsoffreedom.com/fswblogs/mamaliberty/)
Lots more pictures there and descriptions of some of our doings. I've been remiss and am way behind updating that thing. Must make time to add a lot of new pictures. :)
And, as always, please come to visit when you get to Wyoming. We'll get together and have a grand time!
-
Subject of the King,
Hello, and welcome to the forum. It sounds to me like y'all will fit right in.
I reckon I'm half of the couple that Wayne referred to in his post. We are presently in Arkansaw, but soon to be in Wyoming. We're packing our stuff now and we expect to be "home" by the first of June. It is finally coming together after a year or two of planning.
Maybe y'all can make it to the Summer Freedom Festival at Newcastle in June.
John
-
Thanks so much for the response Mama Liberty (wow, I almost abbreviated Liberty, needless to say Lib could be insulting) and John.
The town looks beautiful. We are seeing if the Freedom Festival is feesible, might be so we are looking forward to it if it works out.
As far as the move goes, we need to do something with fourteen horses. We raise gated horses. Our herd is mostly Tennessee Walking Horses.
I am in the wireless broadband/telecommunications business, after I get a certain area up and running I can move on and am not obligated geographically to my work.
John, what area of AR are you leaving? Do you know where Hardy is?
-
OOOh, please post pictures of the horses! (wiping drool off chin....) I used to have American Quarter horses...
And, there's PLENTY of room for horses in Wyoming. Quite a few already here! >:D
-
I know where Hardy is located, but I can't remember being there. I spent some time in Marion and Baxter counties when I was younger, fishing and hunting with my dad. Those counties were his native habitat.
BTW, did you or your wife have an article in COUNTRYSIDE a few issues back? I remember a homestead article written by someone in Hardy.
We live in the backwoods of Lafayette County, SW corner of the state; really fine country with plenty of woods, rivers, lakes and such, but with very bad demographic pollution. Been here most of my life since I was 5 years old. I have been a hunter and fisherman my whole life, but I am getting a little long in the tooth (isn't that a horseman's term?) to tramp through the woods much. I especially can't follow the coon hounds with my sons anymore at night.
I'm looking forward to getting to Wyoming. We have a house in Newcastle, bought it last year. My grandson likes to tell me that ". . . life in Wyoming is still just life" and I reckon he is right, but I don't expect to be disappointed.
Good luck. I wish the best for you and your family. I hope to meet you someday soon.
John
-
Welcome Subject of the King!
I live in Crook County. Coming up on ONE great year in Wyoming.
My viewpoints may be different than yours, but as long as we both agree that I'll let you and others live your lives the way you wish, and you'll let others lead THEIR lives the way THEY wish, we'll all get along just fine. It's only when folks start demanding that others lead their lives according to someone else's philosophy or religion, that we get into trouble. The FSW is founded upon Freedom, freedom to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't impact upon the freedoms (and rights) of somebody else. That's why I moved to Crook County in the first place. There is no county zoning, no land use regs, no building inspections, no permits required (except by the state for wells & septic systems), etc. Heck, we don't even have ONE traffic light here!
Look forward to meeting with you sometime this summer.
Mac
-
Howdy subject of the king, welcome and come and see us when you get a chance. If your wife has any questions be sure to give her a chance on the computer with us. :D
-
Manfromnevad,
Thanks so much for the welcome. I agree with the premise of your comments. However, an arbitrary agreement that two parties will not force their moral codes upon another sounds nice but is not at all realistic.
For instance, Europe for many years led the world in ?Political Correctness?. As a result society was reformed on the basis of you?re below comments. As you well know, places like Amsterdam became so ?free? that drugs and prostitution were made legal. Many drug addicts, sodomites etc? flocked to these European countries. Along with the fore mentioned came individuals that practiced their Islamic faith. A sincere young Muslim that follows the clear and strict teachings of the Koran is obligated to use violence (left up to the individuals judgment without the balance of accountability civil governments operate under) when confronted by certain behaviors and circumstances. Naturally, when sodomites began to be regularly beaten in the streets of these European countries, the sodomites demanded that authorities stop these occurrences.
Now consider the sodomites have screamed in all of our ears for decades that we do not have a right to force our moral beliefs on them regarding their (as I view it) abhorrent behavior. We (US and Europe) have gone along with the demands of the sodomite communities. If you will remember, the sodomite cry was ?what we do in the privacy of our homes is our business?. Now the cry is much different. The cry has come, to some states in our Union, demanding that this behavior be normalized in the eyes of our school children. The sodomite doctrine is being forced upon children against the wishes of the parents.
As far as Europe is concerned, PC ushered all kinds of thoughts and ideologies. The young committed Muslim is obligated (from their interpretation of the Koran) to beat and kill these sodomites. It is their moral obligation. The sodomites hold a moral belief that violence against sodomites is wrong. I agree with the sodomites that no individual has a right to take it upon himself to assault another individual unless said assault is precipitated by force or threat of force. However, the Muslim youth have a moral conviction that they should respond to perversion with violence.
Does the sodomite community have a right to force their moral code (no assaults on sodomites) on these young Muslims? I would answer, ?absolutely not!? simply because it is blatant hypocrisy and violates their own code of behavior. If the sodomites are truly committed to the principle in your comments, I would think that they would place themselves on the altar of Political Correctness and Tolerance; and become martyrs for their conviction. Many millions of the Christian faith have done exactly such.
The freedom you speak of is only found within the borders and boundaries clearly marked out by our Founding Fathers. They were enlightened by the Creator (per their confession) to build our society with Biblical Law being the foundation and basis of said.
Whether or not you agree with the above, I am sure you would agree that you are personally granted certain rights and protections under the US Constitution. Those rights however demand compliance on your part as a condition of freedoms granted.
I was once sharing with some individuals about a life-change I experienced; an older biker kept interrupting me professing his experience with the ?great spirit?. I asked him to tell me about this ?great spirit?. He explained that the great spirit teaches us to love everyone. You and I both know that when a hippie says ?love? he means sex without the restraints of obligation. I got pissed off. My fiend was surprised to see me lose my temper and began to drag me away from the situation. On my way out I mentioned to the hippie (I used to be one) that I know what his type of love means. It means sex with no moral obligations. The problem with that is when one of these so-called disciples of ?love? gets in a situation whereby they have produced the fruit of their ?free love? (a baby), they completely disregard the rights of the child they produced and hire a hit man (commonly known as an abortionist) to murder the little person in the womb.
Does that sound like ?love? to you?
Does the pedophile have right to yours or my child, to satisfy his perverted desires? He could utilizing the reasoning ?I'll let you and others live your lives the way you wish, and you'll let others lead THEIR lives the way THEY wish, we'll all get along just fine? Make no mistake in the pedophiles mind, he is not harming you or your child; which is the prerequisite of your position.
Does the rapist have a right to accost women to satisfy his drive for violence? (I would not be so easy to get along with if I knew that someone had committed such an act.)
I am sure you would answer, ?no?. So where do we draw the line? We do not draw the line; it has already been done many thousands of years ago. We just need to stop dancing on the line.
I personally however do not possess the where-with-all to demand compliance from anybody. I will say however, for the misinformed, that if their rights mean a child or weaker person is taken advantage of; we are obligated to bring wrath on the individual that abuses the above.
-
Whoa there! I think you have completely misunderstood what manfromnevada was saying. Go back and read what he said very carefully.
If I'm reading it right, he said that nobody has any right to initiate force, regardless of whether or not they agree with what someone else does or says (leaving self defense intact, of course)... and while he doesn't share your religious outlook, he is happy to be your neighbor - hoping you will feel the same.
And the constitution did not "grant" us any rights. God gave us the right to our life and liberty as human beings. I would invite you to read "Hologram of Liberty" by Boston T. Party - just for starters. :)
-
I also will add that nowhere does the Constitution grant any rights. If it were to grant them, it could take them away.
The Bill of Rights only guarantees that the gov't keep away from the rights we have, natural rights, just as any animal has a "right" to make its living on the land and defend itself.
And as Mama Liberty said, and I as said, I have no issue with people and their beliefs as long as they don't try to force them on me or ANYONE else. I am all for self defense agains any aggression whether directly at the point of a gun or the tip of a blade or more covertly by voting for politicians and laws that restrict my right to do what I want with my own body.
Regardless of someone's Christian (or otherwise) religious or moral beliefs. All too often people just can't seem to leave other people be when they don't believe the same.
And YES, I'll have indiscriminate sex with any willing partner. I don't call it "love". I call it sex. Don't try to force your ethics or morals on me.
And YES, if I prefer to have sex with men rather than women then I shall. Don't try to force your ethics or morals on me.
And YES, if I prefer to ingest drugs until I'm wacked, then I shall. As long as I don't endanger anyone else by my actions then it is NOBODY's business, not the gov'ts nor my neighbor's.
And if I were a woman, and I had an unwanted pregnacy, I would want the CHOICE of legally aborting it or not. The choice would be mine. It is not the role of gov't, nor the views of my neighbors, to IMPOSE their morals on me.
Subject of the King, I would take a long look at many of the other posts on this forum regarding the tone and tenor of the posts regarding preaching ones religous viewpoints, especially from the getgo. I don't want to start a flame war here. That is not my style. But allowing someone the freedom to choose their own actions when it flys in the face of your own beliefs is one of the most difficult things to learn about the Freedom Movement.
Mac
-
"Subject of the King, I would take a long look at many of the other posts on this forum regarding the tone and tenor of the posts regarding preaching ones religous viewpoints, especially from the getgo. "
Not once in any post have I tried to force my religious beliefs on anyone. In fact, I would be willing to bet that you cannot guess my religious beliefs based on the posts listed so far.
Are you, touting freedom and offering your opinion reacting to the fact that I responded in like manner?
Secondly, you are not the only one doing the qualifying here. I am as well. When considering where I move my family, it is my responsibility to 'qualify' the social behavior of the group. This has nothing to do with you. It has everything to do with what influences my children are exposed to.
"I am sure you would agree that you are personally granted certain rights and protections under the US Constitution."
The above is noted and affirmed. Thanks for the input, I should have said:
I am sure you would agree that you are personally affirmed certain rights and protections which are God given under the US Constitution.
I noticed you used the term ?natural rights?. Have you studied our Founding Fathers? The rights affirmed in our Constitution are God given which is why no man has a right to take them away. If the term "natural" rights are in their writings I've not seen them. I realize of course that I have not exhaustively studied our Founding Fathers. Perhaps you can point to where you found that term? Please?
As far as the getgo statement goes, I responded to an opinion you offered.
You infer that I came on to strong and that I should not have done so "from the getgo". Obviously, you are trying get me to conform to your behavioral code. This is contrary to the initial statement you made regarding expecting someone to adhere to others expectations.
You cannot call yourself a freedom lover and grant others permission to steal the life and freedom away from our fellow man, specifically the child in the womb.
The problem with the sexual freedom you espouse is that these types of behavior denegrate society. You probably decry over-taxation in our society. If you are honest and with a minimum amount of research you will find that one of the biggest drains on our nations resources are social programs. Welfare, AIDS, STD's .... which are all related to sexual indiscretion. You will also find, if you are willing to look, that 70% of violent crime is related to sexual dysfunction.
As far as sodomy is concerned and the sodomite community, it has recently been disclosed amoung our nations top researchers that this new strain of Staph Infections are directly related to behaviors that cross the anal blood barriers. Like AIDS, this new bug is decimating communities. In fact in Vancouver Canada, there are three community cases of Staph for every one hospital case.
Your idea of freedom appears to disregard the consequence and effect on other persons of society. That is not called freedom, it is called selfishness.
-
Whoa there! I think you have completely misunderstood what manfromnevada was saying. Go back and read what he said very carefully.
Thanks for the advice, MamaLiberty. I followed your advice and reread his statements.
Their is no mention of force in what he wrote. I would hope that you freedom lovers are not squimish when it comes to having opinions exchanged?
If you will notice in my posts to Manfromnevad, I thanked him and you for pointing out that the Constitution does not grant us rights. I agree and thank you for pointing out my errant statement.
-
Dear SOTK,
I said the following:
The Bill of Rights only guarantees that the gov't keep away from the rights we have, natural rights, just as any animal has a "right" to make its living on the land and defend itself.
I did NOT say that the Founding Fathers called our rights "natural rights". I simply said the BOR guarantees that the gov't doesn't extinguish our rights. I call them Natural Rights because they stem from Nature. The right to breathe, to search for food, shelter, and a mate, and the right to self defense against aggression. Most people call them God given. I do not. But I believe we all mean the same thing in that they are not handed out by gov't.
You said:
You cannot call yourself a freedom lover and grant others permission to steal the life and freedom away from our fellow man, specifically the child in the womb.
I can and DO call myself a freedom lover! I do not grant "permission" to others to do with their bodies as they choose. It is not my place, nor yours, nor the government's, to do so.
I never felt that financial loss was a reason to enact a law or force people to a particular behavior model. Lots of people die (and billions are spent) from smoking. Should we ban it? Lots of people die or injured (and $$$$$ spent) from not wearing seatbelts. That that justify seatbelt laws? Lots of people die from HIV/AIDS from risky sexual behavior and billions(?) spent. Is that a reason to make a LAW?
The fact that our benevolent >:D gov't hands out our stolen tax money for treatment of various diseases or conditions does NOT change the fundamental question: Should there be a law against it because it costs the taxpayers money? Of course not.
I suppose that since all these behaviors are against your moral code that somehow this makes it justifiable? Again, the hardest position to defend is one that goes against your own personal choice. I HATE smoking, but I will defend the right of a private property owner (a bar/restaurant) to set whatever policy he chooses in this regard. It's a bitter pill, but sometimes it must be swallowed.
Now, can't we all just get along? ;D
Mac
-
I am definitely looking to move towards freedom.
Excellent! I feel very strongly that you'd fit right in.
We are having the Summer Freedom Festival this year 19-23 June, near Newcastle. So, that would be a perfect opportunity to visit the area, meet a lot of FSW members and associates and enthusiasts, and find out about all kinds of opportunities.
We have a farm in the Ozarks area of Northern AR.
My grandma grew up in the Missouri Ozarks.
I am grieved over the murder of our children. I do not think that a free state can legally or morally disregard the promise of life, promise of liberty and promise of pursuit of happiness to the child in the womb.
I believe that life begins at the moment of conception. I believe that a person is a person, no matter how small. I believe that there is no sense in setting aside as second class persons people who don't meet some "magic number" test of age, such as 44, or 35, 25, 21, 18, 17, 13, or "first trimester." I believe we have to accept each individual as an individual, and not dismiss an entire class of persons as unworthy just because some court rules that they don't have rights.
Having said those things, I would like to see this whole issue of abortion "go away" through advances in technology. I believe there is something to be said for having those women who don't want to remain pregnant have the option to give up their children to an artificial womb, or for transplantation to a willing host mother, if that can be done without risk to the life of the unborn child. Indeed, we would all be better off if women who did not want to stay pregnant felt free to stop being pregnant without killing the unborn child. And, I believe that technology is fast approaching.
I will be a good neighbor to good neighbors, compassionate to those who are in need of real help and helpful to the cause of freedom.
I believe that statement is about all you have to say. That is what Free State Wyoming is all about. I think you would be able to sign the statement of intent with a clear conscience, fit in well here, and be a great part of our travel down the road to freedom.
Is there a place for my family and I? Is it any better than where I am at?
My answers are yes, definitely, there is a place for you and your family. Yes, Wyoming is definitely better than where you are now.
-
In my last post I said (to SOTK),
"I suppose that since all these behaviors are against your moral code that somehow this makes it justifiable?"
In retrospect, I apologize for putting words in your mouth or "supposing" what you might justify.
I think I got off the subject which was your introduction: Welcome.
Anybody here is certainly welcomed and encouraged to state their thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and dislikes. Jim always does well by prefacing his statements with "I believe". That's a good way to put things. I also have a list of attributes, behaviors, and beliefs which I look for in those I call my friends. And that's the way it should be. But I will not try to force, by rule of law, or by voting for those who would do so, those who behave or believe otherwise. I'm not suggesting that anyone here would. That would be anti-freedom.
Mac
-
Subject of the King, welcome here, and thanks for
joining our forum. Give Wyoming a look-see, and
meet of the folks. I think you'll like it here!
Regards,
Boston
-
You cannot call yourself a freedom lover and grant others permission to steal the life and freedom away from our fellow man, specifically the child in the womb.
Not allowing the mother to choose the fate of her body and her child is stealing her freedom. True, she made a choice (in most cases - rape is an obvious exception) but it should still be her choice as to what to do in the case of an unintended consequence. If life truly begins at conception, let the little bugger get out on his own and support him/her self. To make it clear, I am personally against abortion - My feeling is that if one wishes to partake in the behavior that can produce a child, both parties should take responsibility for the potential consequences.
The problem with the sexual freedom you espouse is that these types of behavior denegrate society. You probably decry over-taxation in our society. If you are honest and with a minimum amount of research you will find that one of the biggest drains on our nations resources are social programs. Welfare, AIDS, STD's .... which are all related to sexual indiscretion. You will also find, if you are willing to look, that 70% of violent crime is related to sexual dysfunction.
Do they now? Welfare represented about 1.8% of GDP in 2007. AIDS and other STDs were a much smaller amount than that. Certainly not an insignificant amount but far the biggest drain on our resources. A libertarian would argue for less spending in these areas anyway, let the private sector handle it.
The welfare system is clearly broken but sexual freedom is a tool, not the cause. The system is set up such that maximum benefit can be obtained by continuing to produce children and staying in a constant state of "need". Start removing the benefit of having more children and watch the birth rate decline among this segment of the population. Their standard of living would also likely begin to improve. While I won't argue that AIDS and other STDs are related to sex, I will say that there are a number of AIDS cases that are not related to sex including those who received infected blood and children born to women who (often knowingly) had the virus. Granted - these are the minority of cases but AIDS is no exclusively related to sexual behavior.
As for crime stats - I was unable to find data to support your claim that 70% of violent crime is related to sexual dysfunction - not sure by what measure you're judging that on. It is interesting to note that the violent crime rate in this country began to decline dramatically about 18 years after Roe v. Wade made abortion legal for women. Perhaps not bringing unwanted children into the world had something to do with that. I believe there have been some statistical studies on just that subject. Of course 89.475% of all statistics are wrong anyway. ;)
As far as sodomy is concerned and the sodomite community, it has recently been disclosed amoung our nations top researchers that this new strain of Staph Infections are directly related to behaviors that cross the anal blood barriers. Like AIDS, this new bug is decimating communities. In fact in Vancouver Canada, there are three community cases of Staph for every one hospital case.
Disclosed in a study (if I am thinking of the one you're referring to) that also states "Limitations: The study was retrospective, and sexual risk behavior was not assessed." Here's the full report - http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/0000605-200802190-00204v1 Interesting research but nowhere near conclusive.
MRSA is not just spreading among gay men but hetersexuals too, it is transmitted via skin to skin contact and is likely the result of years of over-prescription and general misuse of antibiotics. The first case I remember reading about was in Detroit several years ago, she had an MSRA infection on her foot. (Perhaps there was some sexual link there but the article didn't get into it if there was...)
Your idea of freedom appears to disregard the consequence and effect on other persons of society. That is not called freedom, it is called selfishness.
True freedom allows us to be selfish - as long as we're willing to accept the responsibility and consequences that come with it. If that means that some engage (with willing partners) in behavior that puts them at risk of having an unwanted pregnancy or STD then so be it.
Personally I choose to be faithful to one partner. My wife made a different choice which is why I am choosing to leave both her and Illinois and find someone more compatible with my morals and views.
Best of luck in finding a new home for you and your family. I am on the same mission myself. As long we it is a place where all of us are free to have and express our opinions I think we'll do fine. Besides, it makes for much more interesting conversation than talking about the weather. :)
Steve
-
Okee, dokee, we've strayed away from the Welcome long enough.
I think there's a thread on abortion somewhere, though it may have
been locked. It's an emotional issue, obviously.
Folks will simply have to agree to disagree, at least on this forum.
Boston