Freedom in One State: The Free State Project

[tfurrh]

Doing what I'm doing now isn't doing it.....
Talking about what I can do, or should do, isn't doing it....
Talking about how what I should do is better that what you think I should do isn't doing it

I'm going to do something. This is the best plan offered right now. If it goes to Hell, at least I did something.

 

[Keith and stuff]

I do think NH was a bad choice. The job market there is not very good so it's a risk.

NH is known for having the lowest unemployment rate east of the Mississippi River. VT, which borders NH, also has a very low unemployment rate compared to most states east of the Mississippi River. It isn't just a low unemployment rate, but it's the ability to absorb new workers, that helps make the case for NH. That was one of the big concerns during the great which state debate that many of the leaders in the US liberty movement had before a state was voted on to be the free state destination state. NH and WY were the two leading states. People realized that WY wasn't part of any large MSAs and that while it would be possible for people to commute to the Salt Lake City and Denver areas for work, most people would find the commute excessive. NH has a much larger internal job market than WY and has many more out of state short commute jobs than WY. Some people thought that without the ability for people to find work, it would be a mistake to vote for a state like WY.

Of course, there is often difficulty finding a job when moving to a new area. That's why FSPers have created vast resources to help people find housing and jobs. There are real estate agents in the southern Seacoast, the northern Seacoast, Manchester, Concord and the Upper Valley that love to work with FSPers. We have created web pages, forums, Facebook pages and groups and so on to help people.

A few examples.
Housing:
http://freestateproject.org/nhinfo/Housing.php
http://forum.shiresociety.com/index.php?board=6.0
http://porcupinerealtor.com/
http://lydiaharman.com/
http://porcmanor.com/

Jobs:
http://freestateproject.org/jobs
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=30.0
https://www.facebook.com/groups/fspjobalert/
http://forum.shiresociety.com/index.php?board=5.0

http://www.wirenh.com/features-mainmenu-18/cover-stories-mainmenu-53/5549-free-association.html

Events like this and their annual summer Porcupine Freedom Festival not only serve to promote the Libertarian mindset, but also create conversation that Free State Project president Carla Gericke says is of the utmost importance to the group’s goals.

It is annoying how most articles I read on a subject I'm highly informed on get multiple facts wrong. The FSP isn't a Libertarian Party group and the people involved aren't even just libertarians. This article repeatedly says that, for some reason.

She also cited the passage of HB 146 as a significant accomplishment. The bill states that in all criminal proceedings the court shall instruct the jury of its inherent right to judge not only the facts of the case, but also the application of the law in relation to those facts. Known as jury nullification, the measure is intended to allow people to vote their conscience if they feel a law is unjust. It will take effect in 2013.

I don't know why this bill was brought up. It passed the House last year and the Senate this year. It still isn't ready to be sent to Gov. Lynch. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bil...=&txtsessionyear=2012&txtbillnumber=hb146&q=1

According to UNH philosophy professor Willem deVries, who is interested in the intersection where politics and philosophy of the mind meet, Free State members have not been totally open and honest about their intentions. He said the Free Staters “basically scammed the Republican Party in the last election,” running on Republican platforms while holding ideals that only partially overlap with those of traditional Republicans in the state.

It is great that the article includes such nonsense, so that it is balanced. The FSP doesn't have members, it has participants. I'm pretty sure all of the FSPers that ran for office were totally honest about their intentions. They want to reduce the size of government and prevent a personal income or general sales tax while working to reduce property taxes. That's what the vast majority of people in NH want. It is pretty similar to what the NH GOP platform says.

Buckley Free Staters typically didn’t claim their association with the movement, which seriously misled voters in those districts.

I don't know of any Free Stater that ran for office that was asked if they were a FSP mover that said no. Buckley is a Democratic Party hack and part of the 2012 Democratic Party plan is to vilify Free Staters, Tea Party supporters and small government supporters. The plan is to call them outsiders, extremists and so on, to scary people.

According to data from the N.H. Center for Public Policy Studies, fewer than 50 percent of New Hampshire residents are natives of the state. Gericke said Free State...

That's true. NH has one of the lowest native populations in the US at just over 40%.

Norelli herself moved to New Hampshire 35 years ago. She said there is a vast difference between people who move to New Hampshire because they like the state, its school systems, its political values, and its economic climate, and people who move with the intention of working as a collective to change those elements of the state.

What Norelli does is follow the the Democratic Party plan to return to power in 2012 which includes labeling FSPers for the people that proposed the extreme and ridiculous bills that have been proposed this term. However, as she knows, the vast majority of those people were proposed by non-FSPers. I am pretty sure much of the reason that many FSPers moved to NH is because they like NH's political values and its economic climate, the same reasons she moved to NH.

 

[TheTexan]

Have an employer lined up to sponsor your Swiss residency? You're not getting in otherwise.

Not yet. I'll start looking for a job there in the next 6-12 months. Gotta tie up some loose ends here first.

 

[Crotale]

I'm making plans for this as we speak. Unless the FSP gains some steam or a secession movement materializes, I'm out of here.

Switzerland is definitely the lesser of two tyrannies. Beautiful country, also.

Believe me when I say this as a European with Swiss friends, Switzerland is not all its cracked up to be in terms of liberty. You're right that it's a beautiful country.

You'd be better of in Hong Kong or Singapore. If not try New Hampshire, either of the Dakotas, Wyoming or somewhere else. In fact, if low tax and lots of civil liberties is what you're looking for, some parts of Bulgaria (the more remote parts) aren't a bad shout either.

I see a lot of American libertarians rave on about Switzerland as if it's some sort of beacon of libertarianism. As a Brit, I find this rather perplexing. For me, if I were planning on emigrating, I'd sooner relocate to New England or Hong Kong before I even considered migrating to Switzerland.

 

[Crotale]

That's true. NH has one of the lowest native populations in the state at just over 40%.

You mean union right?

 

[bluesc]

Please don't go.....there's not many of us as it is.

I won't be going anywhere any time soon .

I have four years in a new city to get to a meaningful position in the political system that makes it worth staying.

 

[Crotale]

I won't be going anywhere any time soon .

I have four years in a new city to get to a meaningful position in the political system that makes it worth staying.

Whereabouts in the UK do you live?

 

[bluesc]

Whereabouts in the UK do you live?

Currently in Hertfordshire. Heading up to Aberdeen (leftist land) this year for university although will split my time between the two since there are at least a few semi-libertarians in power down here.

 

[Crotale]

Currently in Hertfordshire. Heading up to Aberdeen (leftist land) this year for university although will split my time between the two since there
are at least a few semi-libertarians in power down here.

Lol, you can't get much more statist than Aberdeen.


I live in the suburbs of London (Sutton ), but will be moving to Kent next year for Uni.

 

[Keith and stuff]

Hey Keith, did you get a chance to answer that Maine question yet?

Your question was, "Out of curiousity, what was the reason for choosing NH over Maine? Less than 6,000 people voted in the primaries in Maine this year. Over 200,000 voted in the NH primaries."

Heck, back in 2002, we didn't even know if Ron Paul was going to run for President again. The idea of the FSP isn't to get a Republican Presidential candidate to win the Republican Primary/Caucus in one state. Also, I don't consider the process in Maine being so complicated and unwelcoming a positive thing.

All of the low population states were considered, at first. HI was eliminated because of how statist it is and RI was eliminated for that reason along with the corruption. Out of the 10 states that were left, NH, WY and MT were the most popular. NH was popular because it had the strongest LP in the nation, no personal income tax, no general sales tax and the motto live free or die, among other reasons. WY was popular because of the lack on personal income tax, no general corporate tax and low population, among other things. MT was popular because of Big Sky Country and how it used to have unique freedoms such as reasonable speed limits instead of posted speed limits on Interstates and allowed drinking and driving, among other things.

ME wasn't really popular because it has near the worst economic freedom in the US and when compared to NH was worse in almost every way. ME also had some of the problems that the western states had. The population centers in ME are spread out, it's colder than NH, has less jobs, has less ability to commute out of state for jobs and less future job development. The governor of NH joined as a Friend of the FSP and welcomed FSPs to come on up. Other governors were not as welcoming. For example, the MT governor encouraged us to move to ID and the ID governor encouraged us to move elsewhere. The NH GOP Chair said, "If these individuals choose to come to New Hampshire they'll find an atmosphere that's very open to grassroots activities and very strong and independent voter participation." NH also had the highest amount of free staters when the vote happened. As I said before, NH had the strongest LP in the county and that organization worked hard to get the FSP to select NH. Ironically, since then, the NH GOP has become so welcoming to libertarians and even former Libertarians (Party members) that the NH LP isn't the strongest LP in the county anymore.

Read about it here, http://freestateproject.org/about/essay_archive/benson.php

FSP which state voting results:
1. New Hampshire
2. Wyoming
3. Montana
4. Idaho
5. Alaska
6. Maine
7. Vermont
8. Delaware
9. South Dakota
10. North Dakota

1st place voting results:
NH 749
ME 118
ND 24

2nd place voting results:
NH 341
ME 257
ND 38

The vote was taken with the Condorcet method. Read about it and the results here, http://freestateproject.org/archives/state_vote/FSP-ECL-CertificationCompleted.htm

BTW, I agree that a "Free Town Project" would probably be 'easier'... it may not necessarily be better. When working on the town level it's more likely you'll hit a freedom ceiling. I'd love to see you try to evict the Feds on the town level for example... on the state level, you may be able to get away with it.

That said, there's no reason not to do a "Free Town Project" within NH. A sub movement is win/win.

There is no official Free Town Project in but the people in Grafton are many years ahead of what people are thinking about doing when they think about the FTP in the rest of the US. Heck, even in Manchester, the largest city in NH (110,000 or so), without the help of liberty activists, one of the alderman (city councilors) and 3 of the State Reps. wouldn't be elected. Liberty activists are involved with the Manchester GOP. Heck, a liberty activist was just given their activist of the year award.

I'm not against the idea of liberty activists concentrating in one town or city. It is certainly happening in NH. However, having 1 pro-liberty State Senator isn't enough. Heck, we have 3 State Senators that endorsed Ron Paul right now, and that isn't enough.

Even on the state level, good things are happening. The Speak of the House wouldn't have been elected without FSPers, and he is on video praising FSPers. The Senate Majority Leader (a former US Rep.) welcomed FSPers to NH. The GOP Platform wouldn't support jury nullification without FSPers. We also helped get a bill on that through both the NH House and the NH Senate.

 

[Keith and stuff]

Believe me when I say this as a European with Swiss friends, Switzerland is not all its cracked up to be in terms of liberty. You're right that it's a beautiful country.

You'd be better of in Hong Kong or Singapore. If not try New Hampshire, either of the Dakotas, Wyoming or somewhere else. In fact, if low tax and lots of civil liberties is what you're looking for, some parts of Bulgaria (the more remote parts) aren't a bad shout either.

I see a lot of American libertarians rave on about Switzerland as if it's some sort of beacon of libertarianism. As a Brit, I find this rather perplexing. For me, if I were planning on emigrating, I'd sooner relocate to New England or Hong Kong before I even considered migrating to Switzerland.

You make a good point. The firearms laws are certainly worse in Switzerland than in NH. Oh, and in Switzerland there is something called national service. You do it or pay extra taxes, go to jail or die. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Switzerland

Certainly NH is more free than Switzerland as a whole. However, I haven't studied all of Switzerland. Perhaps certainly cantons in Switzerland are freer than NH. Are they freer than places like Grafton? Doubtful, but perhaps they are freer than places like Portsmouth, Lebanon and Keene. Just remember, if you live outside the US and are upper middle class, you still are supposed to pay US income taxes.

 

[Echoes]

How are the gun laws "certainly worse in Switzerland then in NH" ? The entire population in Switzerland is armed to the teeth, historians say it's a big reason why they werent invaded by the Nazis in ww2.

One huge advantage it has over NH/America is that it's followed a neutral "RP foreign policy" for centuries. There is peace of mind knowing your country isnt involved in imperialistic mass murder, something noone in new hampshire can claim.

 

[TheTexan]

How are the gun laws "certainly worse in Switzerland then in NH" ? The entire population in Switzerland is armed to the teeth, historians say it's a big reason why they werent invaded by the Nazis in ww2.

From what I recall the carry privileges are basically nonexistent. I'm obviously not a big fan of that, but I'm not too concerned when you take into consideration their low crime rates.

Also, the difference between the taxes here, and the taxes there, is that you at least get something with your taxes there.

 

[Echoes]

From what I recall the carry privileges are basically nonexistent. I'm obviously not a big fan of that, but I'm not too concerned when you take into consideration their low crime rates.

Also, the difference between the taxes here, and the taxes there, is that you at least get something with your taxes there.

Is that open carry ? or concealed, too ? I dont even know the carry laws in Switzerland, that's why i asked. If they've banned all carrying, then that's a big strike against them.

 

[TheTexan]

Is that open carry ? or concealed, too ? I dont even know the carry laws in Switzerland, that's why i asked. If they've banned all carrying, then that's a big strike against them.

To carry a weapon open or concealed you have to

state plausibly the need to carry firearms to protect oneself, other people, or real property from a specified danger

i.e., private security

 

[Echoes]

To carry a weapon open or concealed you have to


i.e., private security

Maybe im wrong but for some reason, i doubt this applies nationwide and the kantons dont have varying laws and loopholes.

 

[Pericles]

How are the gun laws "certainly worse in Switzerland then in NH" ? The entire population in Switzerland is armed to the teeth, historians say it's a big reason why they werent invaded by the Nazis in ww2.

One huge advantage it has over NH/America is that it's followed a neutral "RP foreign policy" for centuries. There is peace of mind knowing your country isnt involved in imperialistic mass murder, something noone in new hampshire can claim.

You fill out a form for the police to conduct a background check, then you get permission to buy up to 6 weapons. If you want more than 6, you fill out another form. The completed form, approved by the police, is required in order to make a purchase. Since the Schlengen treaty was entered into by Switzerland, no more privately owned automatic weapons. Private sales are also supposed to be checked for the buyer to be qualified to qwn, but everybody backdates the sales to reflect before that law took effect.

 

[Nathan Hale]

I speak not of a retreat into a libertarian utopia, Mr. Hale. I speak merely of a well-thought-out geographical concentration of numbers. The town or county would remain itself, everyone would remain connected with the outside world, and life would go on as ever, it is just that government's size and intrusiveness would be going down, down, ever and inexorably down. No natives would be being abused. Tell me, was I abusing poor Romney supporters when I "physically took control" of my county GOP convention this weekend and, by "force of numbers," stole the victory away from them and gave it instead to Ron Paul?

You weren't, only because you weren't changing the municipal laws under which they live. But taking over a town, where people have to reside, and altering all the laws to a more libertarian standard is not good politics and invites BLOWBACK. Trust me on this and check out the FSP forums from the days of the state selection - we wrote VOLUMES about this and the conclusion was that it was all bad.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

You weren't, only because you weren't changing the municipal laws under which they live.

Ahh. But it was with the goal of altering the national laws under which they live. It forced them to send an alternate delegate to the National Convention who will oppose many/most of the laws they think they want. If we are successful as a whole, it will result in Ron Paul becoming the President, and as President he will do a great many things these people at my convention will HATE! And it will be even worse for them than if the town laws were to change in a way they hate, because now they will have to disassociate themselves from and move entirely out of the country, instead of just the town.

But it's nice that you do not think that I was abusing them by trying -- and succeeding -- in hijacking their convention process. Nor that we will be abusing them if we get Ron Paul the nomination against the clear wishes of the majority of Republican primary voters. I agree: we won't be.

But taking over a town, where people have to reside, and altering all the laws to a more libertarian standard is not good politics and invites BLOWBACK. Trust me on this and check out the FSP forums from the days of the state selection - we wrote VOLUMES about this and the conclusion was that it was all bad.

Since this has never actually been done, it all sounds a bit theoretical to me. I shall thus, with respect, refrain from trusting you.

Parenthetically, I was, of course, on the FSP forums at the time you mention.

 

[Keith and stuff]

Grafton, NH where the majority of the planning board are liberty lovers. This is the real deal folks that liberty lovers the world round dream about someday happening. Well, the dream is real and it's been happening in Grafton for sometime. Feel free to either continue to dream about it or join the real deal. It is up to you. Some people prefer masturbation to sex and that is OK.

NH: Graftonites thwart attempted coup?
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=25041.0

Grafton politicians have reportedly just attempted to overthrow the town's democratically-elected planning board. That board (could this be a coincidence?) is dominated by liberty-leaning officials. Town rulers allegedly wanted to replace it with an unelected group of "appointees." The public vote on this issue failed, but why is this the first we are hearing about it? Why doesn't Grafton activity play out more on the web forums? Details below, from a local liberty activist identifying himself as Jeremy. All e-mailed to me around Tuesday, March 13.

The next Grafton Planning Board meeting is Wednesday at 7pm. This will
be the first meeting of the still-elected Planning Board after the
statists in town had attempted to replace the Planning Board with one
appointed and controlled by them. The warrant article to do this, which
had been submitted by the Selectmen themselves and was particularly
strongly supported by Selectmen Dave Rienzo (who is also an Assistant
Attorney General for the State) was soundly defeated on Tuesday, 132 to
346.

The gallery can hold 15-20 people, and it would be awesome to pack the
room. Maybe open with a big round of applause for all the Planning
Board's done over the past few years to PROTECT people's property
rights, and the work the Chair and members did to successfully protect
the townspeople's right to elect its members...