“FREE STATE PROJECT” MOVING THE NEEDLE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
New Hampshire’s motto is “Live Free or Die,” and an estimated 20,000 libertarians are planning to take the state at its word … at least when it comes to living there.
It’s called the Free State Project, and since 2004 it has been gathering commitments from individuals who vow to pull up stakes and head to the Granite State in an effort to move its ideological compass toward freedom.
Nearly 2,000 of them have already relocated there … and are already having an impact on the state’s politics.
This week, the group’s founder Jason Sorens and current president Carla Gericke are announcing that the project has reached its 20,000 target – making it the “most successful intentional migration movement” in American history.
“Early movers have already made their mark on the Granite State by passing life-saving drug reform legislation, expanding school choice and protecting first amendment rights,” Gericke said. “This has drawn in a whole new crowd of participants. Just imagine what can be accomplished with ten times as many people.”
Oh, and for those looking to write this movement off as nothing more than kooky libertarianism, consider this: Free Staters have reportedly purchased more than $30 million worth of real estate in New Hampshire.
Which is obviously just the beginning of their economic impact …
“Early movers are bringing their businesses, families and charities with them to New Hampshire – not to mention disposable income,” Gericke added.
Freedom pays, in other words.
“…Nearly 2,000 of them have already relocated there … and are already having an impact on the state’s politics…”.
Sure they have Will. A population change of Lee’s than 0.1% has made a difference in 3 election cycles. Have you started smoking (more) pot again?
Colonel, I think you are forgetting about voter turnout. 20,000 can make a big difference. beside maine only has about 1mil people.
Does the paranthetical R stand for retired or are you trying to export the republican brand
(R) etired (from the Army Reserves).
As for Maine, who cares, we’re talking about New Hampshire. 20,000 would be a significant difference but so far were only talking about 2,000 a 0.1% change assuming that no one else moved to the state.
California got it’s start somewhere.
California had way more than 2,000 dope smokers and as someone elsewhere asked :,,,can you name a functional libertarian paradise>”
“can you name a functional libertarian paradise>”
You missed the part about it being a logical fallacy, but carry on.
The idea is that activists are disproportionately represented in the mover population. So if you have ~2000 people who have been either running for office or being generally loud and publicly opinionated for the better part of a decade, you may actually see progress. That’s the idea at least. –
“being generally loud and publicly opinionated”
Bud have you ever met anyone, I say anyone, from New Hampshire or Vermont with the problem of being unable to do this?
I was thinking the same thing – New Hampshiremen are not known for the shrinking wallflower personalities. One need only spend a day in the state to understand this. Think New Jersyians without the annoying viewpoints or accents just as opinionated and loud but far better informed.
Being a native Floridian, Orlando area, I have the dubious distinction of having met many transplants from just about any state with exception of Hawaii. I’ve always wondered if the ones I’ve met from NH and VT were run out on a rail. All the ones I met were Snow Cajuns with all the unpleasantness/looneyness of their southern kin but even louder and with a different accent.
You’ve correctly identified the species but they weren’t run out, they’re ambassadors….
Haha… ok, so we’ll say that everyone in NH is very loud and opinionated. Regardless, the 1900 FSP guys currently up there are statistically much more likely to run for office, or be protesting in the street, or have a blog etc, than the average NH citizen – and that’s my only point. How much influence they’ll have over time remains to be seen.
Food for thought …
Out of a population of ~1.3 million there are ~2000 FSP folks in New Hampshire.
ratio: 650 to 1
Out of a group of 400 House legislators, there are 18 FSP participants who are currently in the House as a legislator right now.
ratio: 22.2 to 1
Of the 18, 12-13 are FSPINO
I can name five off the top of my head:
Amanda Bouldin – changes parties like she does her panty hose, she’s a Democrat right now but has been a Teapartier and a libertarian
Elizabeth Edwards – won by about 50 votes, probably won’t survive the next election
Dan McGuire – RINO
Carol McGuire – uber liberal RINO
Jenn Coffey – she was unseated in ’12 I think but she’s reflective of the group as large.
New Hampshireians will get wise to this group eventually. They generally run in smaller districts hoping to unseat weak incumbents.
According to the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance, which ranks folks based on votes on pro-liberty or anti-liberty bills … of the 18 known FSP folks in the House, for 2015, 12 have a ranking of A+, two a ranking of A, and four a ranking of A-.
As for some of the folks you mentioned …
Jenn Coffey got ALL of the knife laws repealed in the state when she was in the legislature. (pro-liberty)
Amanda Bouldin got some liberalized drug laws passed in her freshman year. (pro-liberty)
Elizabeth Edwards is trying to decriminalize prostitution. (pro-liberty)
I’m not familiar with the McGuires so I can’t comment on them. But “RINO” is not necessarily a derogatory thing. A “conservative” or “Republican” position does not automatically make it a pro-liberty position. Some positions that Republicans/conservatives hold are anti-liberty positions (e.g. any vice prohibition that creates a crime that has no victim).
See the difference between you and I is this – you think it’s good that they’ve liberalized drug laws and are trying to do the same with prostitution laws – I don’t.
I did like Coffey’s position on knives – she’s a total flake otherwise. By the way, not all knives are legal, stilettos, dirks or daggers, switchblades and any knife that can be considered to be a deadly weapon are still illegal. A chief of police or a DA can go a long way with those “illegal knife description”. Coffey is why I really know anything about the issues there at all, I collect, make and trade in knives as a hobby so I try to stay abreast of the laws governing them.
As for the Liberty Alliance – what do you think they’r say about their candidates? You’re really surprised that these latter day “carpet baggers” are their golden children?!?
The NHLA doesn’t pick which bills to judge people on based on how certain people voted on them … they pick them based on the bill itself – it’s chosen if there’s a clear pro-liberty or anti-liberty position to take and they have a record of the individual votes.
Drug prohibition has given us warrantless traffic stops, no-knock raids, asset forfeiture, and numerous other laws that violate individual liberty … not to mention the largest prison population in the world. Anti-prostitution laws do NOT protect prostitutes – they in fact make them less willing to go to the police to get help if they’ve been assaulted or raped.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree about whether or not punishing crimes with no victim of the actual “crime” (e.g. consuming a plant or plant derivative) is a pro-liberty or anti-liberty position.
Are you saying that “I’m a knife expert” isn’t part of the argument?
Oh really? I just picked up one of these. Don’t mind the YouTube guy, he can be a bit of a tool sometimes, but I love LT’s work and plan on getting more.
That would probably pass the smell test for the jury if a DA tried to push it – that said, if you stab someone and they die it meets the test of a “deadly weapon”. I frequently carry a Benchmade Balisong which currently is illegal in jurisdictions of about 90% of the US. I think I will be successful with the “concealed carry permit” defense.
Interesting, if you ever see a great deal on a “bushcrafter” type knife (preferably handcrafted or custom) I would always appreciate a heads up. I think my next will be a Dark Timber. The way he leaves a section of the knife unfinished to show how it is done looks awesome to me. Sadly, I have a lot of gun, knife, hiking, and camping wants that are past my budget to keep pace but I try like Hell.
Try making your own – I carried one very similar to this in a leather sheath of my own design while in uniform for most of my later career: http://www.knifekits.com/vcom/product_info.php?cPath=2_4_34&products_id=209
It’ll take you 4-6 hours to finish nicely. I’d use linen micarta handles and use hollow tube for the handle pins to make it easier to lash. 6,000 pound epoxy that you can buy at Lowes holds it all together quite well. (mine is a chute knife pattern that they don’t make any more and has goncalo alves scales to match my pistol but it’s harder to work)
LMAO! Are you related to Col.Flagg? Who is writing this shit? Funny as hell!
I’m a life member of the NH Liberty Alliance (nhliberty.org, check us out). Most of the Free Staters are great people; they’ve lead the fights for school choice, drug decrim, brewery deregulation, lower taxes, and several other Live Free or Die issues.
NH has the only statehouse that has legalized or decrimmed marijuana (six times!); the other states have legalized via petition. Ironically, it’s the NH Democrat establishment that has prevented legalization for ten years… first Lynch and now Hassan have fought to keep Drug Prohibition.
Libertarians strongly support legalization of drugs, even condone it, because individual liberty is more important than safe schools and a safe community.
Both libertarianism and communism are deluded lala land ideologies devoid of any grasp of the real world.
Libertarians support freedom of religion. Republicans support enforcing religious law, which is fine with us Muslims, but they are misguided in enforcing the wrong book. There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His messenger.
There’s a lot of libertarians that do not “condone” drugs, by the definition of condone that means “approve or sanction”. If you mean the “accept & allow” definition of drugs than you would be correct.
It would seem that if you are concerned about safe schools & communities that you would target making the drug alcohol illegal as well under your argument as it’s currently responsible for more wrecked lives than anything else in society currently.
Libertarianism is a secular substitute for Jesus Christ, complete with its own conception of God.Man is God
Your perception of what “libertarianism” is, is wrong. There are tons of Christian libertarians, with websites and a huge following.
One of the biggest Christian libertarians of all time: CS Lewis
Libertarian is characterized by NOT worshipping the state, unlike many Christian non-libertarians.
Drug prohibition isn’t working now. It hasn’t worked for the last 40+ years, ever since Nixon started the “war on drugs.” It isn’t going to work because it CAN’T work. The only thing it can do is empower government, empower cops, empower criminal gangs & cartels, and destroy liberty. This supposed “free country” has the largest prison population in the world because of the “war on drugs.”
It didn’t work in the 1920’s when they tried to prohibit alcohol. It won’t work for other drugs today.
Recognizing and accepting the fact that vice prohibitions are awful legal policy is not the same thing as condoning drug abuse, or even condoning drug use.
You talk about having a “grasp of the real world” but apparently you haven’t been paying attention to the negative effects of drug prohibition.
Could somebody give an example of a funtioning and successful Libertarian government on Earth right now?
There was no “funtioning” democracies before Athens tried it, I guess the fact there hadn’t been one before didn’t stop them.
Try reading the question before answering.
Your orginal question “begs the question”, when you get to a logic class(if you do in your chosen major), you’ll learn what that means and why it’s a logical fallacy.
In the mean time we’ll forgive you for thinking within the box as that’s what you’re being graded on most of the time.
Didn’t the functioning democracy of Athens order the death of Socrates? You also need to remember that the “democracy in Athens” only include free males over 18 – roughly 15% of the population.
lol…wait, wait…where is the argument against mine?
Oh, that’s right…there isn’t one…just the announcement of facts yet you somehow missed the point of the whole exchange.
Are you the dumb uni student’s teacher?
Athens get’s the credit for the first attempt at a democracy but in truth it was anything but. For most of her ancient history, Athens wallowed between oligarchy and (very) limited democracy. Interestingly, Greece evolved to a elective republic – very much like we have now.
Pure democracies are the debil!
Wouldn’t they be proud of Greece now?
“Athens get’s the credit for the first attempt at a democracy but in truth it was anything but.”
There was NOTHING close to Athenian democracy in written human history PRIOR to its existence.
Nothing. It’s not even debatable.
This isn’t an argument on the “virture” of democracy, or even it’s various forms post Athens…it’s on the concept of innovation at its heart and whether a concept is invalid simply because it isn’t in practice.
“…There was NOTHING close to Athenian democracy in written human history PRIOR to its existence…”
Yes, and that’s why “…they get credit for the first attempt at democracy…”
That said, the Sumerians had a proto-democracy. Gilgamesh’s tablet describes this early single house parliamentarian style system at about 2,200 BCE. 4th century BCE (India) Indians had an elected council that held sway over the Raja. Multiple Indian societies had democratic style councils that all men were welcome in regardless of station during Siddh?rtha Gautama Buddha’s reign ~ 500 BCE.
Democracy didn’t just spring out of the ground in Athens in 700 BCE, nor did it continue there throughout the ancient period. Ick and Ooog were likely living in a democratic society long before we even had the written word.
Nothing in any of your statements addressing the issue of logical fallacy, nor does it refute any of my other statements.
Which logical fallacy are we talking about?
“begging the question”
There are so many logical fallacies (and just plain fallacies) here at FITSNEWS that it’s kind of hard to keep up some time. If we’re talking about the idea that we shouldn’t try it, I’ve already demonstrated that Democracy had in fact been tried in multiple forms long before it sprouted in Athens. Libertarian forms of governments already exist in at some form in Ireland, New Zealand and Switzerland. Canada is making a good effort at it.
” If we’re talking about the idea that we shouldn’t try it, I’ve already demonstrated that Democracy had in fact been tried in multiple forms long before it sprouted in Athens. ”
Not only do I disagree that you demonstrated that(feel free posting a reasonable link suggesting otherwise), I think you are lacking a clear defintiion of what libertarian “is”.
Suffice to say though, you really haven’t addressed the issue of whether it’s a logical fallacy to suggest something can work because it’s not in existence, in practice, etc.(begging the question)
*edit: “can’t work”
I’ve illustrated that forms of democracy existed before Athens – if you need a link I’ll provide one just for arguments sake but Google is your friend. Start with A History of the Ancient Near East: Ca. 3000-323 BC by Van De Mieroop, then go to the old but heavily referenced “Sumerian King List by Jacobsen.
As for forms of Libertarianism, I’ve pointed out 3 (or four) already but here is an excellent treatise on why true Libertarianism doesn’t work: http://fee.org/freeman/why-are-there-no-libertarian-countries/
” if you need a link I’ll provide one just for arguments sake”
Yes, good- I’d like that.
“As for forms of Libertarianism, I’ve pointed out 3 (or four) already but here is an excellent treatise ”
What?! What “forms” of Libertarianism have you pointed out? I think you should define what “libertarianism” is for everyone so we can be sure we are talking about the same thing.
The FEE article you just reference no where concludes that “true Libertarianism doesn’t work”….seriously, show me any specific sentence in it that lead you to that conclusion.
Did you even read that last link you supplied (Jones Jr.), or it’s conclusion?
Here’s the closest I can come to remotely trying to fit what you claim within the contents of its passages, a quote within it really:
“…luxury, though it may proceed from vice or folly, seems to
be the only means that can correct the unequal distribution of
property. The diligent mechanic and the skilful artist, who
have obtained no share in the division of the earth, receive a
voluntary tax from the possessors of land; and the latter are
prompted, by a sense of interest, to improve those estates,
with whose produce they may purchase additional pleasures.
This operation, the particular effects of which are felt in every
society, acted with much more diffusive energy in the Roman
world. The provinces would soon have been exhausted of
their wealth, if the manufactures and commerce of luxury had
not insensibly restored to the industrious subjects the sums
which were exacted from them by the arms and authority of
Rome (1977, vol. I, p.48).” -Gibbons
In the least, I think it’s high time you define what you call “libertarianism”, it’s core qualities, etc. so that we clearly understand each other.
Rome tried libertarianism? Please. Define “libertarian” and we’ll go from there.
Let’s go with the simple definition provided by Webster: Libertarian: a person who believes that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government.
As I’ve already said Ireland Switzerland and New Zealand practice libertarianism in a greater degree than any other country. Rome’s excessive liberality combined with an over extension of its martial capabilities ultimately led to its downfal. Liberality and libertarianism by definition go together. I am somewhat of a libertarian at heart, but I realize it is not an ideal way to form a government.
“Let’s go with the simple definition provided by Webster: Libertarian: a person who believes that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government.”
Ok; let’s start with something a bit more discerning in the definition of libertarian so that people in general don’t equate it with lawlessness(because libertarianism in general does bow to “natural law”, as noted by some of your previous links):
The non-aggression axiom
There are corollaries from there and some presuppositions, like Locke’s 2nd treatise type stuff(property rights), but in essence libertarianism can be distilled down to that.
The implications at times can disturb people, hence why the Koch’s kicked Rothbard out of their jointly founded Cato Institute, but that is the philosophy/definition in general.
So based on that definition there is no “libertarian” society, there MAY have been back some time ago(pre written history), but no one really knows for sure.(I’ve read claims pockets existed here and there in written…it’s possible I suppose but not definitive in my mind)
I will grant you that are some societies that are closer to libertarianism in it’s most basic definition, but the “experiment” itself has not been tried in modern history per se.
Libertarianism can also be described as “voluntaryism”, which is in essence pure adherence to the NAP.
Any society that’s been cited in the past as “libertarian” that had a government collecting taxes, represents a dubious at best claim given it ostensibly violates the core tent of the NAP/voluntaryism via taxation.
The “social contract” was of vital importance to convincing many that the basic idea of voluntaryism was/is respected by the state- but when people don’t voluntarily sign an actual “contract” there can obviously be no respect for the NAP.
Sadly, this one aspect is the reason our current government can pretty much do whatever it wants to its citizens, because there is no signed contract(which would outline non-performance penalties too if done right) and the government itself is its own arbiter of it’s adherence to the “social contract”.
The one silver lining to the whole cloud of government is that even it must bow to the concept of voluntaryism, even if it doesn’t intend on adhering to it, it must pretend- lest an uprising- so my hope one day is that after enough government failures over time(1000 years?) that people might find a way to live on a voluntary basis with one another.
“I am somewhat of a libertarian at heart, but I realize it is not an ideal way to form a government.”
Perhaps if you reflect on the concept of voluntaryism you might reconsider why it’s superior to coercive forms, like government- even if you think it’s not feasible.
Sometimes a simple acknowledgement of epistemology truth goes a long way in clarifying why someone like yourself is a “libertarian at heart”(the natural state of man, his desire for peace, etc.)
I could do all that or I could just assess that man’s natural nature would not allow for a truly libertarian society. Natural nature you ask? Christians call it the “sin nature”, call it what you will but a natural man can not exist in a civilized society without some form of governance. We voluntarily submit to the governor or we become outlaws it doesn’t even matter what laws there are, there will always be someone trying to break them. The outlaws are the evidence of my original assertion that our nature precludes a truly libertarian or voluntary society.
“We voluntarily submit to the governor or we become outlaws it doesn’t even matter what laws there are, there will always be someone trying to break them. The outlaws are the evidence of my original assertion that our nature precludes a truly libertarian or voluntary society.”
I really don’t buy that argument. It seems circular to me. (aside from the fact that submitting to laws under the threat of punishment is not a voluntary action)
But, more importantly, given your predisposition on the state of man, “sin nature”, I’d ask you to reflect on the philosophy surrounding elected sinful people to rule over other sinners.
It is given the “sinner”, greater power with less responsibility.
I’ll also offer that you consider replacing “sinner” for a moment with “self interest”. There is a way to check this self interest, it’s called the “free market”, which is voluntary.
Are you still here?
“There is a way to check this self interest, it’s called the “free market”, which is voluntary.
So the free market checks self interest?!? I’d argue just the opposite, that self interest drive the free market.
“Are you still here?”
I come and go. :)
I couldn’t follow up on our exchange because life got in the way.
“So the free market checks self interest?!? I’d argue just the opposite, that self interest drive the free market.”
You don’t have to argue “opposite”, your viewpoint fits because the free market does both; it’s not an “either/or” proposition.
Self interest both drives the free market and checks it. Here’s what I mean:
If any one participant in the free market gets too greedy then he loses market share to competitors.(and if there are no competitors at the time, they will move in or people simply will substitute one good/service for another)
The free market is truly self regulating in that regard. We just don’t see it much anymore because you get a lot of people blaming the free market for government created meltdowns( they’ll blame big banks(created by gov’t), lack of regulation(though there’s heavy regulation & bailouts) etc. et al).
Libertarianism isn’t some cutting-edge political philosophy that somehow transcends the traditional “left to right” spectrum. It’s a radical, doctrine promoted by people who always end up defeating Republican candidates (by getting 3% or less of the nutjob vote), no matter how often they talk about civil liberties, ending the wars and legalizing pot. Funny how that works.
“no matter how often they talk about civil liberties, ending the wars and legalizing pot.”
So should we assume that people that want civil liberty, to end wars, & legalized pot are “nutjobs”?
No. They’re icers. They put ice in the bong.
+10 on that
What KIND of pot ?
lol…not anything but au naturale IMO…but seriously, I’m not for outlawing Drano either if some idiot wants to drink it.
Well looks like South Carolina is well on its way to not being the retard state any more! LMAO!!!
60% of the Republican Iowa caucus votes were cast for Hispanic and black candidates. 100% of Democratic Iowa caucus votes were cast for white candidates.
Nice Thumper.Bunch of racists over in the DNC.They like the minority vote but don’t wanna let em leave the plantation.
Except for Obama. We elected him twice to lead to plantation.
Nice Thumper.Bunch of racists over in the DNC.They like the minority vote but don’t wanna let em leave the plantation.
That’s cute. Now, let’s look at Democratic policy and legislation that helps minorties, compared to Republican efforts over the last 30 years. I’ll wait…….
Reaganomics is still screwing them today.
Democrats are just showing their equality. Last two general elections 100% of their vote went to a black man.
lol…that’s a nice use of statistics to drive narrative…of course you didn’t cite the statistics surround the % of voter that where hispanic and black voting for Dems vs. Republicans, but I know that’s not on your agenda.
He left out the % that went to a female candidate. Bible Thumper may be thumping the wrong holy book but he picks some delicious looking cherries.
Making a comment driven by an agenda…. Am I breaking the rules? ;-)
lol, not at all- I’m just pointing out that when you use STATISTICS to drive the agenda that the statistics themselves don’t prove your point.
This is FITSnews after all…lots of agenda’s about….but the degree of intellectual honesty is debatable at times.
Was a Blue state. Still is a Blue state. Will probably be Blue for a long time.
Good morning Rocky, Wa-Alaikum-Salaam.
So last night I watched an interesting PBS show Killing of a President – Garfield. (Title was longer but hey). What was interesting is that in his election, the states that are today blue, were red, the red states were blue. California at the time was meaningless, NY was the big prize. Like today it came down to about 6 swing states. Only all reversed. Interesting.
?my neighbor’ s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet?….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here:55????? http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsJobs/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:::::55……..
I wonder if Will will be joining them?
?my neighbor’ s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet?….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here:55????? http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsJobs/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:::::55………