The state of Alabama thinks I'm a terrorist.

Not if you bother to read the page.

Unless you're "some on the extreme fringe that are convinced that the Government has been subverted and that their freedoms must be aggressively defended to the point of attacks on our governing institutions."

Given that I've never seen you call for attacks on the State, I think you're in the clear.

That web page doesn't say, in my reading, what Bill Hob-bs and CLS think it says.

(Seriously, your content filter scheme is getting ridiculous. I can't even say Bill's last name without getting a warning; evidently "bb5" where-5-is-really-s is Verboten content, even as a substring.

Substring matches are bad! Scunthorpe problem all over again.)

WELL...if the State of Alabama thinks it's so...

Some groups see themselves as *separate nations* within the United States, taking the initiative to establish their own laws and common-law courts.

Gasp! Groups within the United States that see themselves as separate nations?

Is the Department of Homeland Security preparing to restart the Indian Wars?

Edward Wright: nice. :) I don't think that's who they had in mind. Nonetheless, that sounds like a perfect place for a slippery slope argument.

Interesting that Alabama has taken the offending pages down. Using the Gadsden flag the Revolutionary War was not a great move IMO by the bureaucrats. Nor was the content of the article. And yep, there are reasons why some people might well believe that the Feds are "infringing on their [sic] individual rights and /or that the government's policies are criminal or immoral." I certainly agree with that statement.

The state of Alabama thinks I'm a terrorist.

Gotta love that Republican Party. Literally.

Government, no matter how benevalent(sp?) is always! a form of tyranny. Liberty is its antithesis. Freedom for others is terror for the control freaks.

So yes Rand, we always knew you were a terrorist.

So how do those that oppose government tyranny control an out of control goverment?

Demand the enforcement of the ninth amendment?

Form a more perfect union?

Hitch a ride on a rocket? Yeah!

ken: Government, no matter how benevalent(sp?) is always! a form of tyranny. Liberty is its antithesis.

Anarchy is liberty?

Hitch a ride on a rocket? Yeah!

Nature can be a more brutal tyrant than any human being, so nobody should delude themselves that space will become an escape. A fugitive facing life could just walk straight North into the Canadian Arctic and survive on fish, totally free of control by others, but they wouldn't even if they knew how--life in prison is a lot more comfortable than the Arctic, and life in the Arctic is a lot more pleasant than space will be for centuries. People will only go there in order to seek challenges, not to escape others.

Anarchy is liberty?

Yes Brian, it is. Don't confuse the concept of Anarchy with the concept of Chaos. Anarchic societies in the past (the 19th century American West, Iceland for about 600 years) have actually had a very strict code of conduct. Chaotic societies on the other hand, not so much.

I meant to write, a very strict code of conduct along with extreme liberty.

Don't confuse the concept of Anarchy with the concept of Chaos.

Concepts aside, they're practically identical. The strong rule, the weak submit, and there aren't even the security consolations (illusory or not) of calling the tyranny "government."

Anarchic societies in the past (the 19th century American West, Iceland for about 600 years) have actually had a very strict code of conduct.

I don't know much about Iceland, but the "code" in the West was supported by the presence of government elsewhere, keeping an open chain of capital and, in extremis, a source of order if things got too far out of hand. That isn't anarchy, but selective oversight for the benefit of exploitation--i.e., the government picking and choosing how and when to intervene. Moreover, it's a "code" that existed more by default than as a result of conscious action, and at great and recurring cost in lives and suffering.

a very strict code of conduct along with extreme liberty.

That really depends on your definition of liberty. If all we imagine of freedom is lack of bureaucracy, offices, and uniforms, then Somalia is the American Dream. But if we accept that there is an element of facilitation required in liberty, and that people have a right to government if they wish it, then anarchism is invalid by its own definitions. It's utterly paradoxical, because maintaining a state of so-called "free" anarchy where the strong don't simply exploit the situation to trample others would require coercive measures by some person or group(s) of people, and they would have to codify the standards by which they act to avoid constant internecine violence. The idea that liberty is anarchy is therefore wrong.

Iceland, Anarchic? For 600 years?

The kings of Norway and Denmark might not agree; nor would the free Icelanders of the era between settlement and the Old Covenant.

I don't think they thought they lacked laws and government; it just wasn't quite as rigidly structured as the kingdoms (No King, yes. Anarchy, no).

The althing? Regional leaders, the lawspeaker? That's government, albeit rather limited. Courts, laws, enforcement - I don't know what else you require.

(By the way, did nobody notice my first comment, that the webpage in question doesn't actually call "libertarians" terrorists? [And the reason for the Gadsen flag there is probably because the "Patriot" groups in question, the ones who have a few "extremists" who might actually attack the government, use that same imagery. That seems undeniable; if the page had said anything about the Gadsen flag being a Sure Sign Of Terrorists, that would be mistaken, but it didn't.]

If one is going to expect those one opposes to actually read what one says before reacting to it, one should extend that same courtesy. It also helps prevent overreaction based on believing someone else's quick reading is necessarily accurate.)