Free State Project Reaches Goal of 20,000 Signups (freestateproject.org) 460
Okian Warrior writes: As a followup to our recent story, at 11AM Tuesday, Free State Project president Carla Gericke announced the FSP had reached its goal of recruiting 20,000 participants. The 20,000 mark is significant, because it 'triggers the move' – the mass migration of the Free State Project participants who have all agreed to move to New Hampshire within the next five years. So far, almost 2,000 have already relocated to the state.
Why? (Score:3)
What's in New Hampshire?
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
a dynamic economy with plenty of jobs and investment
Can I find a decent software engineering job there?
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes you can. There a surprisingly large high tech sector in Nashua
(I've never lived in NH, but I has a couple of customers I was supporting in Nashua.)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)
The far southeast of the state is basically Boston exurbs, and there's a bunch of engineer types who live there and commute in to the Boston area. Although the rest of New Hampshire barely considers those people to be part of the state.
Re: (Score:3)
Although the rest of New Hampshire barely considers those people to be part of the state.
Wait until they have 20,000 organized outsiders...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
Can I find a decent software engineering job there?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And close to Montréal to party :)
As well as being close enough to the tech jobs in Massachusetts to commute, but with a capitalist economic system. You just have to adjust to its refreshing four-season climate: Preparing for Winter, Winter, Still Winter, Construction.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...a citizen legislature where state house representatives have not raised their $100 per year salary since 1889...
That's not a good thing - it means that representatives are exclusively funded through independent wealth, this may seem like a good idea, but the practical upshot is that working class and to a certain extend middle class can't participate.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
...a citizen legislature where state house representatives have not raised their $100 per year salary since 1889...
That's not a good thing - it means that representatives are exclusively funded through independent wealth, this may seem like a good idea, but the practical upshot is that working class and to a certain extend middle class can't participate.
I don't know why you would make that assumption. There are many, many political activists that are quite poor, and that requires dedicating more time to the cause than is asked of part-time legislators. In fact, looking through the biographies of the current legislators gives lie to your assumption. For instance, Michael Abbott [state.nh.us] is a retired high school teacher who started out working at a grocery store. And Glen Aldrich [state.nh.us] is a carpenter with no more than a high school diploma.
I think having regular citizen legislators, with not much financial gain to be had from the job, is an excellent way to run a state house. It means you are more likely to get people involved for the right reasons, instead of career politicians looking for money and power.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
The point is that being a State House Representative is not a full time job. Whether it should be or not is a different question, but in the U.S. the position of State Legislator is mostly considered part-time.
https://ballotpedia.org/States_with_a_full-time_legislature [ballotpedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
The point is that being a State House Representative is not a full time job. Whether it should be or not is a different question, but in the U.S. the position of State Legislator is mostly considered part-time.
https://ballotpedia.org/States_with_a_full-time_legislature [ballotpedia.org]
I wonder if you can effectively be a representative without unduely impacting your full time job? At the very least, I would think it would be appropriate to be paid the local minimum wage for the hours you are expected to be "working".
I have always thought that tying legislators' wages to some multiple of the mimimum wage would be a good way to keep the two numbers reasonable - in NH they could make that number one.
Re: (Score:3)
I get the impression a disturbing proportion of politicians don't actually believe in the founding principles of the nation they govern anymore.
At the risk of going wildly offtopic, be careful when you venerate people. Many of the Founding Fathers had slaves and saw no conflict with what they then wrote in the constitution about all men being equal and having the right to liberty. They had their own vested interests, and acted on them.
It was a hugely contentious issue, and many of the framers wanted to eliminate slavery as part of the founding. There were too many states, though, that relied on slavery and would not have agreed to a ban. So a compromise was made in order to keep all the states in the new union. It was always assumed that slavery would be phased out, but it continued to be contentious (especially with the expansion of territory and new states) until it erupted into war 80 years later.
I have no doubt that many of them, in
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
Less people, mostly
There are other reasons, but really, it's all population count. 20,000 people moving to California with a united voting bloc wouldn't make a dent in that state's policies, amid the 39 million other residents. New Hampshire is just over 1 mil total population. Assuming 20,000 people displace 20,000 current residents (moving in as others move out), they'd comprise nearly 2% of the entire state.
Given the average turn out of ~50%, and assuming all of these people are active voters, within a few districts ... they could throw a serious wrench into the political gears.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, if they all vote as a well regimented bloc.
Which if you think about it, implies a slightly ironic idea of "freedom".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
Two very important things:
1) Virtually no people.
2) A libertarian ethos.
In those circumstances 20k libertarian activists should be able to totally revolutionize the state's politics, which will in turn mean that the national political scene has to deal with libertarian ideas in a much more serious way then otherwise.
That's the plan. And if they all actually follow the fuck through it will work. The issue is that getting 20k people to click on an internet link saying "I will move to New Hampshire in the future" is way easier then getting them to move to NH, much less getting them to move to NH and all agree on a single political program.
Re: (Score:2)
We will see how this works out, but I remain doubtful.
Re: (Score:3)
The paradox is that they won't all vote together all the time unless directed in an authoritarian way.
Will it end up as a replay of when Koch decided to be that person? It led to the truly ironic situation of those who cried for freedom seeking to replace George Washington's "tyranny of the masses" with a King George III style aristocracy with Koch and similar as the ruling aristocrats. Bizzaro world. Just as well they didn't succeed
Re: Why? (Score:2)
It's not 20,000 voters, it's 20,000 political activists (that distinction is the point of the Project). With fewer than 2000 in-state already some tremendous gains have been made.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
There are many small towns in New Hampshire, and each town has perhaps a dozen boards and committees with unpaid positions some of which are elective. It takes a population of about 2000 before there are dependably enough people running for office to fill all the offices. Some of these boards meet evenings, so there's no need to leave your job. Some of them require about 5 hours a month of effort. If you run for office, you stand a good chance of being elected. If some board isn't fully staffed, often you can be accepted to fill the vacancy immediately.
What are your efforts likely to net you? Responsibility for maintaining a cemetery, planning recreational events, helping pass judgement on zoning exceptions are examples of three unpaid jobs. Members of the Planning Board are responsible for writing the town's Master Plan, a document with no legal authority.
More powerful elective jobs are town selectmen and school board members -- I don't know offhand if these positions pay anything, but they involve more responsibility and more time. In my town, selectmen meet once a week for a couple of hours in the evening, and spend a substantial amount of other time doing things like assembling the town budget. Sometimes more than one person runs for an open Select Board position. Even if you're not on the Select Board, meetings are small and if you want to affect things, attend meetings and press your plan.
In small towns many things are voted on, like whether to allocate $20,000 to a reserve fund to replace the fire department tanker when it rusts out in a few years, or whether to give $200 to a local charity.
Schools account for about 2/3 of money paid in property taxes. If you want to lower taxes, figure out how to cut down $10,000/yr/student.
Re: (Score:2)
In those circumstances 20k libertarian activists should be able to totally revolutionize the state's politics, which will in turn mean that the national political scene has to deal with libertarian ideas in a much more serious way then otherwise.
Or it will turn into yet another failed experiment with far-from-centre political ideologies and serve as a warning to others. So far nowhere has managed to go full libertarian and come out the better for it, on a macro scale.
I wish these guys luck, and hope people hold up their promises to move. No matter what happens it's going to be interesting to watch.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you provide examples to your claims?
Re: (Score:3)
AmiMoJo's claim was that the attempt happened but things turned out poorly. Certainly if the attempt happened and failed IT HAPPENED and evidence that it happened can be given.
Totally Revolutionize is a remarkable overstatemen (Score:5, Informative)
Democratic Maggie Hassan, the incumbent, won 254,666 votes (52.49%) Republican Walt Havenstein, the challenger, won 229,610 votes (47.32%) Other/blank won 907 votes (0.1%)
New Hampshire has 1.327 million people (2014), 20.1% of which are under 18 (2014). That leaves 1.06 million adults. Not all are eligible, data is tough to put together, let's call it an even 1 million. Now, lets replace 20,000 adults at random with the Free Staters. 48.4% didn't vote, 25.5% voted for the Dem incumbent, 23.0% voted for the GOP challenger. 0.1% voted for another candidate or blanked it. Net change: Hassan loses 5100 voters, Havenstein loses 4592 voters, "other" loses 18 voters, and "free state" gains 20000. Even if all 20,000 free staters voted for the losing candidate (Havenstein), their candidate would still only get 49.5% to Hassan's 50.4%.
Is it possible that, if all 20,000 actually move to New Hampshire and all actually vote in a local election that they'll win some state house seats? You bet. No question. Thing is, the NH state house is so remarkably unstable that it would amount to just a bit more noise (% Dems in NH House of Rep at the end of the last four sessions (today is "end" for the purpose of this study): 55.4%, 26.4%, 55.2%, 40.1%.
Is it possible that their mere presence will result in Republican candidates leaning more libertarian? Sure, but within the state they're still only 4 percent of the electorate, and dispersed throughout the state. Certainly not enough to have a systematic effect on the NH GOP. But what if they all go Libertarian or some other third party candidate? Have at it, but good luck actually winning any representation in a First Past the Post system.
New Hampshire already does have a libertarian streak, as loads of Massholes emigrate to NH to escape taxes but retain their liberal social values. Even if all 20k Free Staters show up (and come on, not a chance), it would be a small nudge to NH politics, at best.
Re:Totally Revolutionize is a remarkable overstate (Score:5, Interesting)
and dispersed throughout the state.
The thing is, they havent "dispersed" throughout the State .. the ones that have moved there already are mainly centered around Keene. Several dozen of them have already been elected to the State legislature. They took 12 State House seats in 2010 alone.
You guys think whats going on there is just something that might happen in the future and probably wont work if it does, but its already happening and it is already demonstrably working.
The plan was so sound that even a partial execution of it has already gotten results.
Re:Totally Revolutionize is a remarkable overstate (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Totally Revolutionize is a remarkable overstate (Score:5, Informative)
Some Libertarians seem to just want to replace government tyranny with corporate tyranny or at least tyranny of the rich (them). The famous quote is something like "wanting just enough government to protect them from their slaves"
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
"The issue is that getting 20k people to click on an internet link saying "I will move to New Hampshire in the future" is way easier then getting them to move to NH, much less getting them to move to NH and all agree on a single political program."
It's the same concept as Mars One, except that the organization would have to get its people to move the harsher New Hampshire climate.
What a bunch of jerks (Score:3)
Thank God I don't live in New Hampshire. I'd be pissed if a bunch of out of state yahoos whose political views are in an extreme minority in this country all moved to my state in an attempt to change the political spectrum to what they think is right for everyone.
Well guess what libertarians. Your political views are in the minority for a reason, most people want government to do more then the minimalist government you want. That's literally why this project exists to begin with!
Re: (Score:3)
OMG! Those evil libertarians are going to take over the government and ... leave everyone alone! Evil plan, just evil.
Re: (Score:2)
And a governor who is a liberal Democrat.
Re: (Score:3)
Called the "Silicon Millyard". Every morning Segway's creator flies in on his helicopter, dyn.com employees plug in their Tesla's, dozens of startups load up on coffee. Many of these are concerned with the blockchain - this is the epicenter of bitcoin innovation going forward.
I moved to NH for the Free State Project in 2008 after learning of the project here on Slashdot years before. I've since met the folks that wrote those early articles and got to thank them personally for getting me here.
Rather than lis
Authoritarians will always rule. (Score:3, Interesting)
Libertarians will never come to agreement as to whether not there is a duty to ensure that ALL people are equally free. This of course allows for Authoritarians to gain and keep power simply by promising to enforce a Conservative Libertarian agenda on Social Libertarians or a Social Libertarian agenda on Conservative Libertarians. Perhaps someday we will all agree to live and let live, but I fear that day is a long, long way off.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps someday we will all agree to live and let live [...]
So you are against abortion? Or for it? Not sure of what you mean because empty statement like this, while they make you feel good, do not communicate anything of value to your audience.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Even if I'm against, laws prohibiting abortion force those who are not to bow to my beliefs and surrender their own. I guess it is kind of like gay marriage. There is a big difference between allowing homosexuals to marry and forcing heterosexuals to enter homosexual marriage. To my mind, Conservative Libertarians fail to see this obvious distinction.
Re: (Score:3)
laws prohibiting abortion force those who are not to bow to my beliefs and surrender their own.
And what about my belief that stupid people should be shot hit the head?
If you say something about my freedom stopping at his nose, then I remind you that the baby's right to live stops at the aborter's saline injection, scraping blade, etc.
Re:Authoritarians will always rule. (Score:5, Interesting)
And what about my belief that stupid people should be shot hit the head?
That is an Authoritarian viewpoint. A Libertarian view would be that all people are free to shoot themselves in the head.
If you say something about my freedom stopping at his nose, then I remind you that the baby's right to live stops at the aborter's saline injection, scraping blade, etc.
Abortion is indeed a deep question, and I would be all for making it illegal if the state incubated the fetus from conception and paid all costs involved in the raising of the resulting child.
Re:Authoritarians will always rule. (Score:5, Insightful)
That is an Authoritarian viewpoint.
No. The Authoritarian viewpoint would be that stupid people must be shot hit the head.
if the state incubated the fetus
That's not very Libertarian. In fact, it's downright Brave New World.
Re: (Score:3)
No. The Authoritarian viewpoint would be that stupid people must be shot hit the head.
To an authoritarian there is no difference between "should" and "must".
That's not very Libertarian. In fact, it's downright Brave New World.
Actually it's not, because there would still be choice. The important thing here is that people aren't "forced" to be incubators and subjugated to a lifetime of servitude.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually it's not, because there would still be choice. The important thing here is that people aren't "forced" to be incubators and subjugated to a lifetime of servitude.
Excepting cases of rape and incest, you chose to have sex, deal with it...
You not wanting to carry the child doesn't give you the right to kill it...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sex is a drive imposed on humans by nature, the same as most other animals. Just because you can't get any doesn't mean you should impose lifetime penalties upon others. You do understand that by forcing women to carry a fetuses that they did not wish upon themselves is akin to forcing them into slavery, right?
Re:Authoritarians will always rule. (Score:5, Interesting)
Then why do I have the right to NOT donate blood that will save your life and let you die?
Why do I have hte right to choose not to be an organ donor.
Seriously why does my dead CORPSE have the right to let you die if it doesn't CHOOSE to be violated to save you, but a woman doesn't have that autonomy ?
In every other case where bodily autonomy and a third party is involved the legal standard in every free nation is that you must opt IN, you must CHOOSE to save that life, you can't be forced to give up your bodily autonomy to save somebody else.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
ah the pro birth position libertarian position, where in, women must be forced, against their will, to have babies, because fetuses have more rights than living people.
yet, the woman cannot have any public support for:
-contraception, to prevent unwanted pregnancy, even though unplanned early life pregnancy is the single biggest derailment to a young low income woman's life plans
-food stamps and welfare to care for the child she was forced to have
-free education to better enable her to support herself and th
Weak reasoning. (Score:5, Insightful)
Excepting cases of rape and incest, you chose to have sex, deal with it.
What if the partner was lying about contraception?
What if somebody wasn't educated on the consequences of sex?
What if the mother was brought up in an enslavement society that taught her from early childhood that women should to as they are told and spread their legs when told to? (Basically all societies on this planet until a few decades ago)
What if somebody was emotionally coned into getting a child and the abandoned by those just as responsible? (Mostly men abandoning women, except in societies that ensure guys don't chicken out and have more-or-less equal rights)
What if somebody is using a child as an excuse for a free ride and as a vector for irresponsible behaviour?
Aside from that, I'd like to hear from you if it's better to keep the child and have it born into misery and/or abadoned into foster care or rather ensure that someone who doesn't want to have a child or technically can't handle it can abort (up to a medical resonable point that is).
Bottom line: Your reasoning looks so neat and simple, but it has holes so big as to drive a mac truck through them. Ergo: Wrong. You should reconsider your maximes on this.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think many people would disagree that killing a human being is wrong. The disagreement comes as to when a part of a woman's body becomes an independent human being. Otherwise it's just like campaigning for the rights of a tumour.
Re: (Score:2)
You not wanting to carry the child doesn't give you the right to kill it...
Why not? Explain why, without appealing to religion.
Re: (Score:3)
Why are rape and incest different? The "child" isn't responsible for the rape or incest. Why should a potential child suffer for someone else's actions? The potential child is the victim.
What I am saying here is that "no abortions, except in the case of rape or incest" is not a moral position. The only moral position is: "no abortions". It's a pragmati
Re: Authoritarians will always rule. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's pretty amazing how almost everybody who is anti-abortion is also anti-welfare and anti-public-school and almost always pro-death-penalty. They will force a life to come into this world, but they won't bat an eye if that child and her mother starve to death a week later (nor will they move an inch to pay the not insignificant medical costs involved in giving the birth they forced her to give).
And if that child growing up in hardship ever does something wrong, they will be quite happy to electrocute and adult instead.
Whatever the hell the anti-abortion crowd is they sure as fuck are NOT "pro-life" - they are, at best, "pro-birth".
Re: (Score:2)
No, they are Authoritarian. They have an inborn need to dictate that others must follow their beliefs. Life begins when they dictate life begins, life ends when they dictate life ends. They have no concern for people, only for doctrine. Would you believe the Catholic Church still deems pregnancy prevention a mortal sin?
Re: Authoritarians will always rule. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It really depends on the circumstances. If he was raped, then yes. If he just regretted his decision, no.
Re: Authoritarians will always rule. (Score:4, Informative)
Whatever the hell the anti-abortion crowd is they sure as fuck are NOT "pro-life" - they are, at best, "pro-birth".
If you look, there is a consistent thread through the set of beliefs you mention: a belief in personal responsibility. They oppose abortion because killing is generally wrong, and because if the mother didn't want a baby she shouldn't have gotten pregnant. They oppose welfare because people should take care of themselves. I don't think you're right that most are opposed to public schools, but it also fits the personal responsibility narrative, in that people should take responsibility for educating the children they create, not demand that others do it. And they're pro death penalty because, although killing is generally wrong, people who commit heinous crimes should be held responsible (aside: your characterization of it as "ever does something wrong" is extremely slanted; they don't support the death penalty for spitting on the sidewalk).
Lest you try to turn this around on me, I'll note that I'm pro-choice[1], anti-welfare[2], support public funding of education[3] and oppose the death penalty[4].
[1] I think abortion is terrible, but don't believe the government should get involved.
[2] I oppose welfare but expect that we're going to have to institute a Basic Income system due to massive automation, and don't think that will be a bad thing. This is a complicated topic and it would take a lengthy essay to explain why this isn't a contradiction.
[3] Public funding of education is crucial. Public schools I don't like so much.
[4] I have no moral qualms about executing murderers, but in practice lifetime incarceration achieves the same goals at lower cost and with less chance of irrevocable injustice.
Re: Authoritarians will always rule. (Score:2)
Ive never met a prochoice person who didnt think abortion was terrible. Ive met plenty who opted to have an unplanned baby instead if gettng an abortion.
But its not killing by any stretch. If not sacrificing bodily autonomy so a fetus can live is killing, then not being an organ donor is mass murder.
Why should dead people have more bodily autonomy than live women ?
Re: Authoritarians will always rule. (Score:2)
And the problem with personal responsibility rhetoric is that its logically impossible to be responsible for things you do not control, have no authority over and cannot change.
Nearly everything that rhetoric opposes falls in that category. Defending the weak and powerless against things that are done to them by the powerful (or just bad luck) and which cannot be prevented or planned for or prepared for.
Re: Authoritarians will always rule. (Score:4, Interesting)
Would you argue that if a man decides he doesn't want to pay for a child he helped conceive he shouldn't be forced to?
As long as the woman makes the decision whether to have the child, which she should, the man should not have to pay child support if she chooses not to, unless he entered into a marriage contract with her first. Anything else puts all the responsibility on the man, all of the rights are the woman's, which is just a form of slavery. You're not a deadbeat unless you make promises and then don't keep them. I say this as someone who had a deadbeat dad who cheated on his wife, got divorced, then drank up the child support money. He made a commitment and then failed to follow it. There is reasonable justification for treating him like a criminal; he broke a contract.
Only in the case of perpetrating a rape should the man have to pay child support out of wedlock, and a woman should have the absolute right to decide whether or not she has a child. Anything else is grossly unfair and puts all the responsibility on the man.
ObDisclaimer: I have no children, wanted or un-
Re: (Score:3)
The Catholic Church is opposed to both abortion and the death penalty, while pro-welfare.
Re: (Score:3)
Abortion is indeed a deep question, and I would be all for making it illegal if the state incubated the fetus from conception and paid all costs involved in the raising of the resulting child.
That's not very Libertarian. In fact, it's downright Brave New World.
Actually it's not, because there would still be choice. The important thing here is that people aren't "forced" to be incubators and subjugated to a lifetime of servitude.
Uh, what? If you outlaw abortion under ANY terms, women ARE forced to be incubators. Your comment no logic.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple, because anti-abortionist want to force women to carry children they do not want. When men can incubate children and fully suffer the consequences of doing so then men should have a say in the process. Don't you get it, forcing a woman to carry a fetus against their will is forcing them to do something they do not want to do. Donate all your free money to incubator research if you are truly motivated to allowing fetuses to become humans if that is what you truly believe. My guess is you are far more
Re: (Score:2)
So it is settles then. You are an authoritarian who wants to impose his opinions on those who disagree with you and force women into a a score of years of servitude to satisfy your agenda. So noted. As I previously said, I would gladly support a law against abortion if the makers of that law would incubate the fetus and assume all costs of raising the child. No person should subject to a life of poverty just because the "State" says so.
Re: Authoritarians will always rule. (Score:4, Insightful)
So it is settles then. You are an authoritarian who wants to impose his opinions on those who disagree with you and force women into a a score of years of servitude to satisfy your agenda.
Well, we currently do it for men. Do you have any good arguments for why forcing men into years of servitude is okay but forcing women into years of servitude is not? If it is okay to force $GENDER into servitude for years, why does it stop being okay when the gender changes?
Re: (Score:2)
You're gonna tell me that you think this is a baby?:
http://www.radiologyteacher.co... [radiologyteacher.com]
Two opposed postions on abortion, both libertarian (Score:3)
If you say something about my freedom stopping at his nose, then I remind you that the baby's right to live stops at the aborter's saline injection, scraping blade, etc.
libertarians might agree that abortion should be illegal, and might not. I'll explain why:
The core of libertarian philosophy: force and fraud are not acceptable, but as long as people are free to choose, the state shouldn't intervene.
Thus a libertarian would not be in favor of the state forbidding drugs like alcohol or tobacco or marijuana.
Re: (Score:2)
1) It's not a baby. Not by a long shot yet. Science trumps belief.
Do tell us the scientific definition of "baby."
Let me explain the science for you. The fetus is human. Its a growing homo sapien. Humans have rights. That last part is not science but instead its ethics. Human rights.
Under the law, only People and certain domesticated animals have rights, and this is where you should be arguing from. The fetus is not a Person under the law. Thats where you take your stand. Dont take a position that isnt based on sound factual reasoning when you have a clear, sound, rea
Re: Authoritarians will always rule. (Score:4, Informative)
Religions cannot even agree on what the belief is. Using the same old testament as primary source Christianity concluded that humanity starts at conception and so are anti-abortion.
But Jews, noting genesis in particular, concluded that life starts at the first breath and so they dont have an issue with abortion. Both are wrong. Scientifically consciousness is the closest appriximation of human and that happens between those extremes.
Interestingly most fundamentalists even oppose abortion in cases of rape and incest: despite the bible flat out authorising it in those cases. Biblical law allows for stoning babies resulting from rape or incest at birth. Modern medical abortion is just a less cruel way to do that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Libertarians will never come to agreement as to whether not there is a duty to ensure that ALL people are equally free. This of course allows for Authoritarians to gain and keep power simply by promising to enforce a Conservative Libertarian agenda on Social Libertarians or a Social Libertarian agenda on Conservative Libertarians. Perhaps someday we will all agree to live and let live, but I fear that day is a long, long way off.
Libertarians are naive in the extreme (like the bunch that invested in the "Galts Gulch" in Argentina a few years back). On the up side, there's a business opportunity in New Hampshire with the best kind of clients happening pretty soon. Anyone with a silver tongue and no qualms about ripping people off should be rubbing their hands with glee at the moment.
Re: (Score:2)
>Anyone with a silver tongue and no qualms about ripping people off should be rubbing their hands with glee at the moment.
And the best bit is, after you rip them off, if the police try to charge you with fraud - they will all show up at hte trial to testify in your DEFENSE !
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't worry, you've already got them on the left. They're called progressives and SJW's.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually no, on the left we say: Live and let everybody else live.
All those "rules" you hate, they are what "let everybody else" live LOOKS like - breaking them KILLS people.
Had a look at modern university in the last 10 years? How's those 'free speech' zones going, how about all those universities engaging in censorship and student unions -- especially leftist student unions that actively engage in censorship. No platform policies? Yep, how about those folks that are driven out or fired from their job because someone doesn't like a joke, or because on their own private time they support something that a group of people don't like. Or start screaming that xyz is sexist/rac
Re: Authoritarians will always rule. (Score:2)
Stolen wealth is when the people who actually produce things gets rewarded so little they can barely eat while people who contributed nothing at all get 4000 times more than them of the fruits of their labour.
Stolen wealth is when banksters commit fraud that cost ordinary people a 13 trillion dollar bill and then profit off the resulting suffering and not one if them goes to jail.
Capitalism is nothing but a system to steal the wealth produced by the industrious many and deliver it to the lazy few.
Re: (Score:2)
Great, you're meeting one now. Most people call us cultural libertarians though.
As a social democrat (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I propose an increase in taxation to support a Libertarian Emigration Fund.
#metoo, but only if we send them to Dubai, and don't let them come back. I want to see what happens to them if we send them to a real libertarian utopia
So you're still part of the US of A then? (Score:4, Funny)
I was expecting to read New Hampshire had seceded from the other 49 but obviously "Free State" means something different in American English.
The "Free" Staters are looking to force... (Score:2, Interesting)
...their views on everyone they can. What else would you expect authoritarian dictators to do?
Apparently freedom means ... (Score:2)
Not to mention the scrotum grabbing if you fly.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone else feel sorry for New Hampshire? (Score:3, Insightful)
Although they do have a front row seat for watching this train wreck...
Re:Anyone else feel sorry for New Hampshire? (Score:4, Informative)
I have a friend who has lived there her entire life and she's bitched about how people are now coming into meetings and derailing them. Everyone else is trying to get work done and they're ranting about some very obscure topic and how it's oppressing them. They don't have the best rep locally.
However, if the 20k people move, the other 49 states will become that much nicer of a place to live.
It would be akin to Animal Farm (Score:2)
February: The first Home Owners' Associations are formed.
Credit where credit is due (Score:2)
While getting 20,000 to sign to commit is a big thing by itself, a credit needs to be given where credit is due:
A credit for committing to pack your stuff and to move to the sparsely populated cold state. That is something.
While 20,000 voters will not change the elections in a state where 700K to 900K people vote, few things need to be taken to the account:
- FSP is not a political organization and it will not endorse any of the candidates. However it has been my observation that
Good luck with making good... (Score:3)
I vaguely remember signing up when I was 19. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but now that I'm almost 32, have a job, a wife (who has her own job), a child, a dog, two mortgages (we live in one and have a renter in the other), etc., there is pretty much no damned way I'm picking up and moving because of some crap I said on the internet while in college, probably drunk and definitely on anti-depressants. Frankly, I expect there are others just like that.
Additionally, I do believe I had stopped paying for a domain at some point and then lost my password to the website, causing me to re-register. Therefor, they're down at least two "members" just with me, "sorry" to say.
the 'internet activist' age (Score:2)
And now we'll see that 'internet activism' will result in - my guess - about five people out of those 20,000 ACTUALLY MOVING.
Five may be optimistic. Well...not if four already live in NH...
Re:A Tad Expensive. (Score:5, Insightful)
$165,000.00 for a 972 sqft mobile home on 1.08 acres? Christ, I could buy over 200 acres for less than that around here, and still have plenty left over to build a house.
Free state my ass. More like rip you off on cost of living state.
The trouble with cheap land is that it's a long way from where you want to be.
Re: (Score:3)
The trouble with cheap land is that it's a long way from where you want to be.
Unless where you want to be is away from everybody, which is exactly where I want to be if I could get decent internet
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
$165,000.00 for a 972 sqft mobile home on 1.08 acres? Christ, I could buy over 200 acres for less than that around here, and still have plenty left over to build a house.
Free state my ass. More like rip you off on cost of living state.
The trouble with cheap land is that it's a long way from where you want to be.
Sounds like it's where he wants to be, though.
Re: (Score:2)
The trouble with cheap land is that it's a long way from where you want to be.
Exactly. In the upper 80%+ of the state of New Hampshire, things are a LOT cheaper (with a few notable exceptions of touristy towns in the middle of the state). If you're living in someplace like Nashua, you're essentially paying to live in a Boston suburb.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that may be a bit of an exaggeration, but for $160,000.00 I could get way more than a tad over an acre and build nice a house.
$160k sounds like a pretty low price for builting a house. In 2013 the average construction costs for a new home in the USA seemed to be just shy of $250k
http://eyeonhousing.org/2014/0... [eyeonhousing.org]
It looks like materials cost about half of this ($146k) according to http://www.fixr.com/costs/buil... [fixr.com] so even if you did everything yourself, building a typical house for $160k seems like a bargain.
Re:May be too late (Score:5, Interesting)
That, and the right of revolt is right in the state constitution...
"Live Free or Die" is the motto for a reason...
Re:May be too late (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't a gun article, it's a Libertarian article.
It's certainly news for nerds (though I doubt it matters).
This is a long standing online push, going back to just a few years after the web started, and seeing it click over to its goal number is certainly interesting. Libertarians generally have little political relevance unless they are extraordinarily rich, and this is entirely due to their reasonably small numbers. Left leaning Libertarians can often be persuaded to vote for Democrats, who trash some
Re: (Score:3)
Your "leaving everyone alone" is my "defunding and shutting down essential government services that benefit society". So - no thanks.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
What are we supposed to think when the group explicitly replaces "the pursuit of happiness" with "property"?
The Declaration of Independence used "the pursuit of happiness" - but that would just a document saying they wanted to be free from English rule. The Constitution uses "property" instead, because it's, you know, a governing document. So that "change" is actually 226 years old.
Re: (Score:3)