Maybe just maybe...

  I'm thinking that maybe just maybe Fiorella is not "going native" in the sense that most people reading this are thinking she is.  Coming from a social order that closely resembles a large mafia crime family (which is standard operating procedure for political organizations that have too much power) which would place her somewhere around a junior enforcer, maybe she has a different angle.  In order to survive maybe she's adapted some of the hierarchy evil of Earth ways (because she thinks that that is the way that the game is played on Ceres) and she sees a wealthly group of individuals and figures that she can work some kind of angle to keep their taxes low or non-existant in exchange for a piece of the action.  If she goes back to earth she wouldn't make a tenth of what she would be cutting her own deal with the people of Ceres.  She just has to deal with Guy the idealistic fool.

That's an interesting angle, and perhaps we'll pursue that notion someday, with a different character.

But not Fiorella. Her choice is a sincere one.

That's an interesting angle, and perhaps we'll pursue that notion someday, with a different character.

But not Fiorella. Her choice is a sincere one.

I'm starting to like Fiorella more and more, and not just for the great face and body.  An educable statist can be hard to find.

That's an interesting angle, and perhaps we'll pursue that notion someday, with a different character.

But not Fiorella. Her choice is a sincere one.

I'm starting to like Fiorella more and more, and not just for the great face and body.  An educable statist can be hard to find.

Well Scott, that seems like a no to me and WDG3rd generally speaking maybe 25% of the statists can be converted.  My greatest triumph was about 22 years ago when a very very liberal woman moved in next door to me.  After several weeks of persuading her, she finally went shooting with a friend and me.  Prior to that I seriously doubt that she had never even held a gun in her hand.  The weird thing was she was a natural born shot and totally loved it.  About 5 or 6 months later she purchased several guns and one day one of them was stolen in a burglary.  Right after that her liberal feminist lesbian sister called her on the phone and hearing her voice asked her if anything was wrong.  She told her sister that a burglar had broken into her apartment and stolen one of her handguns.  She told me that there was a very long pause on the phone and her sister finally said "I'm not going to tell mom."  Wish I could have been there.    Heh, Heh, Heh.

Hah, hahahah, bwahahahaha!  Cultural disconnect.  "You had guns." "Yep." "You." "Yes, they're really not as intimidating when you're the one holding one." "Uh, huh.  So, aren't you worried that you enabled a thief to be armed?" "You don't think he was armed before?"

Mmm, even though it's a fictional "victory for freedom", I do sometimes feel like it can be a libertarian version of a chick tract when somebody writes it.  I've never, ever had an easy time really converting someone.  It's like pulling teeth to get most socialists, for instance, to admit there was ever a situation where a free market alternative has proven itself much, much better than government.  They don't consider it immoral to use force if the ends are good.  I've pushed forward a list of the nations ranked by their economic liberty, and the so-called "left-leaning" anarchists tell me flat out that the countries that suck ass just happen to correspond to those most exploited by the west, and that the countries with more economic freedom are actually continuing to exploit these shitty countries.  It didn't even phase the ones I spoke with to mention that hong kong is probably one of the bigger on the previous exploitation list.  It was a city captured by the British as part of a war for the subjugation of China for fuck's sake.  And that regardless of historical exploitation, those nations with the most freedom do best.  Hell, I'll pull from some of my fellow libertarians.  Constitutionalists.  The fact that one could even suggest a desire to see government follow the constitution for once, should point out the flaw in expecting a government to abide by the limits of a constitution.

Hell, I'll pull from some of my fellow libertarians.  Constitutionalists.  The fact that one could even suggest a desire to see government follow the constitution for once, should point out the flaw in expecting a government to abide by the limits of a constitution.

If you're talking about members of the Constitutionalist Party, those assholes are in no way libertarian.  They want G-D in charge and I will not accept rule by that bastard even if he did create the universe.  (I think I've mentioned before that I'm not merely an an agnostic and atheist, I'm an antitheist -- if I see a god, I shoot to kill and I gotta do it quick since those guys got fast reflexes and superpowers).

Right.  God knows everything, sees everything, loves everybody and has total power, so he gives the world disease and other harmful crap because he loves them (my dad was an alcoholic prick, I know the concept, I'm a drunk who chose not to breed since I didn't like kids even when I was one).  Then Lucifer snuck up from behind and hit Him with a brick.  Omnipotent and incompetent I just can't fucking deal with, especially since the all-seeing part should have caught that coming and the all-powerful part could have taken care of the problem before heaven was created, let alone Earth).  My favorite book about the "Revolt in Heaven" wasn't Milton's (I found his as dry as anything else by my Puritan ancestors) but To Reign in Hell by Steven Z. K. Brust.

Mmm, even though it's a fictional "victory for freedom", I do sometimes feel like it can be a libertarian version of a chick tract when somebody writes it.  I've never, ever had an easy time really converting someone.  It's like pulling teeth to get most socialists, for instance, to admit there was ever a situation where a free market alternative has proven itself much, much better than government.  They don't consider it immoral to use force if the ends are good.  I've pushed forward a list of the nations ranked by their economic liberty, and the so-called "left-leaning" anarchists tell me flat out that the countries that suck ass just happen to correspond to those most exploited by the west, and that the countries with more economic freedom are actually continuing to exploit these shitty countries.  It didn't even phase the ones I spoke with to mention that hong kong is probably one of the bigger on the previous exploitation list.  It was a city captured by the British as part of a war for the subjugation of China for fuck's sake.  And that regardless of historical exploitation, those nations with the most freedom do best.  Hell, I'll pull from some of my fellow libertarians.  Constitutionalists.  The fact that one could even suggest a desire to see government follow the constitution for once, should point out the flaw in expecting a government to abide by the limits of a constitution.

     I'm anything but an expert on the subject of converting people over to libertarianism, but I have noticed some things.  If you confront them directly, they'll usually hike up their backbone and it will be impossible to go any further.  If you give them short answers that don't explain anything, ditto.  "So you think EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE A MACHINE GUN?!!!"  "Yep."  That's definitely the wrong way to go about it.  People have to learn things for themselves so that they can see with their own eyes and ears that what they were taught previously was incorrect.  Approach a liberal with that in mind and I think you'll see an increase in the percentage of the people who start thinking the right way about liberty.  In her case I spoke to her for several weeks about self defense and protection in the area because of all of the drug related crime there.  Then I gave her a copy of Paxton Quigley's book "Armed and Female" and let her read for herself about a woman who had gone from being strongly anti-gun, (She was once a staff member of the National Committee for Handgun Control) to a pro-gun activest.  You do it a little at a time.  She was then ready to learn how to shoot after figureing things out for herself.  By the end of the second session she shot my .44 magnum and did a damn fine job of it!

wdg3rd:
I in fact am not referring to CP.  The constitution party is no more constitution focused than in the book 1984, the ministry of peace was focused on actually having peace, the ministry of truth was focused on disseminating actual information, or the ministry of love was about people engaging in orgies.  It's doublespeak and possibly doublethink, and if I hadn't been already thoroughly burned out on the phenomena I'd be amazed that as many people fall for it as do.  Even if the first primarily was intended to keep religion from being established at a Federal level or establishment at state level denied, their emphasis shows that they would be re-enacting the gimp scene on the constitutional principles in the other direction.

I mean constructionalists.  People who believe we'd be just fine and dandy if we could somehow get people who believe in the founder's constitution (minus slavery and voting inequality) into office.  The failure in this concept should be self-evident, but I'll say it anyway.  Even assuming government ever followed the constitution, the fact that it doesn't now should show exactly how much power the constitution has to restrain government.  Add in the fact that it never followed it, and it should demonstrate how bad an idea it is.  Add in the fact that belief in the constitution legitimizes the government whether or not it follows the constitution?  The constitution has that feeling of being something so totally reasonable.  Object to the government it spawned and it seems like you're objecting to the simple provisions in the constitution itself.  And I do say those were way, way too much.  It doesn't seem like it, which is why they got passed.  But I can point to direct abuse of every provision without even moving on to areas where the provisions have been distorted far out of any original intent.

Rocketman:
*shrug* I haven't really had much success at all.  I've tried to talk to people about their goals, and then showing the means they're suggesting do not achieve them.  But that their goals are quite well achieved by getting rid of government.  I don't get very far, because like constructionalists they believe all we need to do is hand the reigns of power to the right people, and they'll do things right and "better" than people would do for themselves.  Never mind that it's a 100% failure rate when tried.  When asked about the "You want everyone to have access to powerful weapon XYZ?" question I always explained that no matter who has them, it's people.  One group is much the same as any other unless it's believed that just being a member of a group makes you better or worse than other people.  They come back with "but then that would just let it go into the hands of the worst people".  Because they believe government is not the worst people to be doing things.  That it somehow attracts the best of the best, or at least the least worst of the worst, whereas business attracts the most horrible types imaginable.  In their minds, anyway.

I'm coming to the conclusion that there's nothing but at best helping someone to explore waking up to this.  If they're not ready, they won't wake up.  At the least until one such society gets demonstrated and does better than the authoritarian regimes and people move there to escape the crap that authoritarian regimes generate.  Somalia was risking that, and it's one of the reasons others have suspected it was invaded.  And even in the event a truly free state does better than the authoritarian regimes, I suspect some would ride in and start trying to advocate authoritarian control, since if they're doing that well without it imagine if it were scientifically planned and managed and structured to maximize efficiency!  If districts were set up so all the business happens in a concentrated sector!  Authoritarians never really seem to learn no matter how many times their ideas are shown bankrupt.

But...but...business in a concentrated sector does Quite well for Wal-Mart and Texaco!
Concentrate business and everyone has to drive to shop. 
If they have to drive, they have to buy fuel.
If they have to drive, they're going to minimize the shopping trips, load everything in the vehicle and head home...not walk 5 minutes for a gallon of milk and a half dozen eggs one hour, and head back out after dinner to visit a different store, in a different direction, but about as close.

I'm of the opinion that nearly every shop should have living quarters above, below, or behind it for its operators.  Short commute, and easy access in case of trouble.
And besides, if nearly every location is a mixed use area, the proprietors of one shop become some of the customers of a neighboring shop.

I do not understand the desirability of zoning, in most cases.  I can see zoning noxious activities elsewhere, (I'd rather not have a tanner set up shop next door...or an industrial hog or chicken farm.)  I can't see zoning commercial businesses away from their customers.

I suspect the REAL reason for centralized shopping is to attract people from OTHER communities to make a pilgrimage to shop.

Nope.  Land use control.  There's a number of things that factor into it.  The kind of elitism that influential people don't want anything that could be perceived as hurting their property values.  The artificial inflation of the scarcity of land resources.  To some extent there is that aspect of not wanting "noxious" things next door (NiMBY, Not in My Back Yard, even if it isn't your back yard), but it grows readily past that point.  Besides, in a real tort situation you run into the ability of things that really do damage your property to be sued for.  There's the gaming of land values, as well.  In many areas, rents and land values in the different zonings varies considerably depending on how much demand there is for a specific use of land versus how much land is zoned for it.  Let's say someone influential wants to get a property cheaply.  But by current zoning, that property has a use that's at a premium.  So they lobby and get it re-zoned.  The land becomes cheap.  Especially if the zoning now forbids its current use.  They buy it for a pittance, and if the use they intended to have it put to doesn't match the new zoning, lobby to get it re-zoned again.

Any "business district" concentration that would happen that is actually beneficial to tourist draw, would happen anyway.  Zoning or not.  Since there's a certain amount of customer draw from those who came for other shops, and an additional draw from "one-stop shopping".  But they would still likely have residential mixed in.  If nothing else, it helps the available customerbase.

Sean, I recommend that you read the DiscWorld novels by Terry Pratchett.  Especially The Truth.  Good analysis of which shops should be next to each other.  The tanners should be near the slaughterhouses, the parfumiers should be next to the tanners (they use most of the same raw materials),   The papermakers a block downwind, the butchers a block upwind.

Yes the Parfumiers will have their retail outlets in the posh district well away from the manufactory.  Shit happens and the upper crust don't want it near them.  Rich people are always nimby's and will use any means (generally government) to get their way.

Rocketman:
*shrug* I haven't really had much success at all.  I've tried to talk to people about their goals, and then showing the means they're suggesting do not achieve them.  But that their goals are quite well achieved by getting rid of government.  I don't get very far, because like constructionalists they believe all we need to do is hand the reigns of power to the right people, and they'll do things right and "better" than people would do for themselves.  Never mind that it's a 100% failure rate when tried.  When asked about the "You want everyone to have access to powerful weapon XYZ?" question I always explained that no matter who has them, it's people.  One group is much the same as any other unless it's believed that just being a member of a group makes you better or worse than other people.  They come back with "but then that would just let it go into the hands of the worst people".  Because they believe government is not the worst people to be doing things.  That it somehow attracts the best of the best, or at least the least worst of the worst, whereas business attracts the most horrible types imaginable.  In their minds, anyway.

I'm coming to the conclusion that there's nothing but at best helping someone to explore waking up to this.  If they're not ready, they won't wake up.  At the least until one such society gets demonstrated and does better than the authoritarian regimes and people move there to escape the crap that authoritarian regimes generate.  Somalia was risking that, and it's one of the reasons others have suspected it was invaded.  And even in the event a truly free state does better than the authoritarian regimes, I suspect some would ride in and start trying to advocate authoritarian control, since if they're doing that well without it imagine if it were scientifically planned and managed and structured to maximize efficiency!  If districts were set up so all the business happens in a concentrated sector!  Authoritarians never really seem to learn no matter how many times their ideas are shown bankrupt.

I can hear the frustration in your words and I can relate.  Back years ago when I was gathering signatures door to door to get the Libertarian Party on the ballot in Indiana I encountered much the same thing.  The problem is there that you can't get into a long detailed discussion if your gathering signatures because you would only have a handful at the end of the day.  Most people are naturally suspicious.  A lot thought that this was going to be putting them on a list of some kind that they would never get off of.  People can change their opinion but it's usually a gradual process and they usually hold at least a part of their old beliefs back.  As far as now goes, I think that it's too late to try to convert enough people to libertarianism bacause America doesn't have much time left.  Those of us who have tried have at least made an effort and that's a whole lot more than most of humanity has done.  When I die I have nothing to be ashamed of in that regard. 

This has been an interesting discussion, but I want to point out that Fiorella's conversion was that of someone who always felt out of place and uncomfortable in her former situation, and wasn't quite sure why. Until she encountered an actual free society and the scales fell from her eyes.

I sometimes think that some people are just natural-born libertarians, and all they need is a little nudge in the right direction and they'll figure out most of it for themselves. Others take more work. Others still take a lot of work. The rest are hopeless cases and all you can do is either run away from them if you can, or kill them if you have to.

I sometimes think that some people are just natural-born libertarians, and all they need is a little nudge in the right direction and they'll figure out most of it for themselves.

I think I was one (natural-born libertarian) and I've had a girlfriend who was. Other folks I have known have pretty much fallen into that category. Scott has it exactly right with regard to Fiorella. All it took to "turn" her was her own, pre-existing discomfort and a living example to experience.

I sometimes think that some people are just natural-born libertarians, and all they need is a little nudge in the right direction and they'll figure out most of it for themselves.

Before we married, my wife considered herself a Democrat, and thought it was both right and good for the state to "help people out" when they were down.

The funny thing is, she'd never lived her life like that. She was a single mother and small business owner who didn't take any government assistance. Even though her business was new and she was definitely low income (at that time), she didn't turn to the government for help when she was uninsured and needed serious surgery. She borrowed the money privately, and paid it back.

It only took a nudge for her to align her political views with the reality of how she believed people should live their lives.