Who plans on joining the Free State Project in New Hampshire this year?

[tbone717]

This country does not want freedom. There is no reason to force freedom on them, when we have the option to take freedom for ourselves.

Define freedom and your plan to "take freedom for ourselves". If you feel there is a 90/10 ratio against freedom, what makes you believe that having 20,000 people in NH (1.5% of the state's population) is going to make a significant difference? How do you see one's life being significantly different on a day to day basis if you accomplish your goal?

 

[Keith and stuff]

Define freedom and your plan to "take freedom for ourselves". If you feel there is a 90/10 ratio against freedom, what makes you believe that having 20,000 people in NH (1.5% of the state's population) is going to make a significant difference? How do you see one's life being significantly different on a day to day basis if you accomplish your goal?

NH is significantly further along that any other state. In NH, despite it being the most competitive and important primary/caucus state, by far, 4.5% of the population voted for Ron Paul. That's correct, there were 44 candidates on that ballot, yet 4.5% of the population voted for Ron Paul. The next closest state was Vermont which has an open primary (NH doesn't) with only 1 candidate on the VT Democratic Primary and only a handful of candidates on the Republican Primary ballot with 2.3% of the population voting for Ron Paul. No other state was even in the same ball park as NH, not even the open state primaries where lots of Democrats voted for Paul, like in VA.

If NH had an open primary and Democrats were allowed to vote in the NH Republican Primary, we would have targeted Democrats (like people did in VT, VA, SC...) and maybe 6% of the population would have voted for Paul. There was a total of only 2 choices in VA and Paul had just 1.3%. Yet NH could of had 6% with 44 choices. Do you see the massive difference?

In 2008, with around 1/2 as many FSPers in NH, NH was 2nd in the nation at 1.4% but still significantly below it's current amount.

Percentage of total state population voting for Ron Paul in the Republican Primary or Republican Caucus, ranked highest to lowest (and the 2008 percentage):
1. New Hampshire 4.3% + 0.2% in the Democratic Primary as write-ins (1.4%)
2. Vermont 2.4% (0.4%)
3. South Carolina 1.7% (0.4%)
4. Virginia 1.3% (0.3%)
5. Michigan 1.2% (0.6%)
6. Ohio 1% (0.5%)
7. Iowa 0.9% (0.4%)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...state-population-voting-for-Ron-Paul-compared

That isn't the point though. Sure, people in NH may be significantly more inclined towards freedom than people in any other state. Sure, people have been moving to NH for more freedom for 100s of years. That is old news, though. The important part of the FSP is that the people moving aren't voters, they are activists. Otherwise, how do you explain just over 1000 movers to NH and yet 14 state Reps.? How do you explain FSPers holding key leadership positions in the 3 most powerful groups when it comes to the NH House of Representatives (The Republican House Alliance, the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance and the New Hampshire Republican Liberty Caucus)? Free staters have started TV shows, popular blogs and radio shows in NH. It isn't about voting or being a voter. It's about convincing 5 people or 20 people to more liberty inclined per free stater. It is about 5 free staters helping with a special election so that the most pro-liberty candidate wins. It's about 40 free staters working together to stop a bad bill, like that bill to create an adult seat belt law in NH that we led the effort to defeat. It's about free staters writing bills, sponsoring those bills, speaking to the NH House and NH Senate on those bills and then having those bills pass, like happened last year.

In some of the small towns in NH, over 1/3 of the voters are already pro-liberty right now. Towns like Dalton, Grafton and Croydon are already part of the way there. 25-100 new activists in town and it is a game changer in those towns. For example, in Dalton, not only are taxes low and regulations weak, but there is a gun group that gets together with there guns on at a bar regularly and no one things this is odd. In Grafton, liberty Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians hold many of the key positions in town and in Croydon the majority of the school board is pro-liberty. Things are moving along nicely in NH. We just need more activists to truly achieve something close to actual freedom up here. Thankfully, activists keep moving on up

 

[tbone717]

Keith and stuff, what you are talking about is similar to what is happening all across the country as libertarian-conservative activists get involved in local and state politics. Which is something I wholeheartedly support. For example here in my part of PA, our state Senator is a libertarian Republican. In 2006 he defeated an establishment Republican in the primary, and won the seat in the general. He was reelected in 2010 with over 70% of the vote. So our activism here is effective and we have been very successful with a libertarian candidate in a population of over 300,000 for the district.

I am not sure that bxm042 is speaking of the same thing though, based on previous posts.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

The biggest thing holding me back from a move to NH right now is their oppressive property tax. I'm staggered and frankly amazed that with all the large-scale goals thusfar achieved by the FSP movement, lowering or even abolishing property taxation has not been among them.

In WV we pay 6% on all personal property that we own, including pets, every single year whether the property has been paid off or not. So if you have a car worth 10,000, a house worth 160,000, a boat worth 4,000, and a dog worth 200, you're going to be paying about $10,000 every year just in property taxes.

 

[Keith and stuff]

Keith and stuff, what you are talking about is similar to what is happening all across the country as libertarian-conservative activists get involved in local and state politics. Which is something I wholeheartedly support. For example here in my part of PA, our state Senator is a libertarian Republican. In 2006 he defeated an establishment Republican in the primary, and won the seat in the general. He was reelected in 2010 with over 70% of the vote. So our activism here is effective and we have been very successful with a libertarian candidate in a population of over 300,000 for the district.

I am not sure that bxm042 is speaking of the same thing though, based on previous posts.

I get that you are working inside the system and having decent results where you live. It is awesome that you have a libertarian Republican state senator. This there going to be a Ron Paul endorsement? Paul could use more of those! Perhaps that's why the appeal of the FSP is so small to you. People in every Southern state almost all of the Northeast and many other parts of the country are having very little luck. Then there are people in MN, where they are having good luck in the GOP, but the GOP in MN is a joke as the state leans 60% or more Democrat so all of their effort seems for not. I live in an area where people are having as much success in the Democratic Party as liberty lovers are having in the GOP in most of the country, but the Democratic Party isn't even the major party here.

Do you also have libertarian reps. and senators in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh? Are there towns where a large section of the voters are pro-liberty for almost every position and in every election? It may be possible to one day free PA, especially if many of the ideas that create success in NH are borrowed, but my guess is it will be at least a few decades after NH is freed, if that ever happens. My guess is states like ME, WY, SD, NM, MT, AK, CO, VT, ID... will all be freed before PA. The population is too large and the statist areas are just too statist in PA. We have libertarian Republicans elected in the most populated areas in NH such as Manchester (many of them), Nashua, Derry, Bedford and Portsmouth.

 

[tbone717]

I get that you are working inside the system and having decent results where you live. It is awesome that you have a libertarian Republican state senator. This there going to be a Ron Paul endorsement? Paul could use more of those! Perhaps that's why the appeal of the FSP is so small to you. People in every Southern state almost all of the Northeast and many other parts of the country are having very little luck. Then there are people in MN, where they are having good luck in the GOP, but the GOP in MN is a joke as the state leans 60% or more Democrat so all of their effort seems for not. I live in an area where people are having as much success in the Democratic Party as liberty lovers are having in the GOP in most of the country, but the Democratic Party isn't even the major party here.

Do you also have libertarian reps. and senators in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh? Are there towns where a large section of the voters are pro-liberty for almost every position and in every election? It may be possible to one day free PA, especially if many of the ideas that create success in NH are borrowed, but my guess is it will be at least a few decades after NH is freed, if that ever happens. My guess is states like ME, WY, SD, NM, MT, AK, CO, VT, ID... will all be freed before PA. The population is too large and the statist areas are just too statist in PA. We have libertarian Republicans elected in the most populated areas in NH such as Manchester (many of them), Nashua, Derry, Bedford and Portsmouth.

He endorsed Paul in 08, but hasn't made an endorsement this year - possibly because he is sidelined with cancer treatments, so the 2012 race is likely not on his mind much. Philly and Pittsburgh are Democratic strong holds. It is hard enough to get a Repub elected there, let alone a libertarian-Republican. But as far as the rest of the state, "referred to as the T", it leans strongly conservative to libertarian. But things are moving in the right direction for sure. Potentially we are looking at a libertarian Republican winning the US Senate primary and challenging Casey in the fall. It is a progression in the right direction for sure. Issues of spending and regulation are being addressed in Harrisburg and nice strides have been made. For example, we are closer to getting rid of the state control of liquor sales than we have ever been. This is an issue that 10 years ago wasn't even on the table, and quite possibly within the next few years we can see the government getting out of the business of liquor sales. Rome wasn't built in a day, and we can not undo years of Progressive policies overnight. But I am greatly encouraged by the progress being made.

 

[muzzled dogg]

This country does not want freedom. There is no reason to force freedom on them, when we have the option to take freedom for ourselves.

wut?

 

[specsaregood]

//

 

[Keith and stuff]

Question about porcfest. Are there generally many people attending with young kids? I've considered proposing the topic; but we'd be bringing along our toddler. From those that have attended previous years: would we be relatively alone in having young kid(s) along for the event or is there a fair amount of others with young kids?

Great question. 2010 had around 1000 people. 2011 had around 1200 people (although, maybe 1/2 of those people were only there for the weekend.) Last year, there was a family carnival section on Saturday. I think there was popcorn, a dunk tank and balloon animal making. There might have been other things like face painting and cotton candy but I don't remember. A different day of the week there was a family event in the arcade. There was also a kid olympics thing. There may have been other kid events but I don't have kids so I didn't pay much attention. There is also a playground and a pool. Anyway, the people that organized a lot of the kid events last year are organizing the entire thing this year. They want to make Porcfest a little more child friendly. They have little children, themselves.

It is definitely a child friendly place. However, after about 8 PM, the area down the hill is not very child friendly. Certain events such as Soapbox Idol are not child friendly but that was announced to people last year before the event started. People with children likely want to sleep in tent sites (not RV sites) or in motel rooms. If you want a motel room, I recommend getting it ASAP as Porcfest is one of the most popular liberty events in the world and there are limited motel rooms (though there other near-by motels) at the campgrounds. Also, keep in mind that it is unusual to see someone getting drunk at lunch, wearing a bikini in the morning and so on. It is possible that you may want to speak with your child about some of the things that they see at Porcfest.

There are child targeted tourist attractions in the area. For example, in Jefferson, the next town over, there is a Santa's Village theme park. http://www.santasvillage.com/ Week's State Park is in town. There is usually a park ranger giving a kid friendly presentation at the park during Porcfest.

If you are driving up I-93, not too far off the Interstate is Laconia, NH which has the worlds largest and best arcade (seriously) and an elevated playground where kids are attached to ropes and can act like monkeys.
http://www.funspotnh.com/
http://www.monkeytrunks.com/

 

[specsaregood]

Anyway, the people that organized a lot of the kid events last year are organizing the entire thing this year. They want to make Porcfest a little more child friendly. They have little children, themselves.

Great stuff, thanks. i know there are a lot of us that didn't have kids just 4 years ago when Paul first got many of us involved.

 

[Noblegeorge]

I love it. What a seriously great idea this is. I'm a US citizen but lived most of my life in Ireland apart from a while in California and Hawaii. Im going to do my MA in Political Communications in London next year and put the skills il get from it to good use thereafter. Who knows maybe one day I can help bring free markets and limited government to Ireland! That's a joke. This society is so socialist unemployed people are walking around in their pyjamas collecting social welfare and earning more than most people work in part time jobs. I know a guy who has his own house, no job for several years and lives quite nicely. And he openly admits he doesn't feel the need to get a job!

Anyway, I love this idea. I wanna live somewhere with common minded people in a place where the government doesn't have control of my income and my life. I don't think im alone in that here! To those living in New Hampshire....is there a noticeable difference with regard to your liberty between there and other places you've lived?...And to what extent do you think this project can achieve its mission?

 

[Anti Federalist]

To those living in New Hampshire....is there a noticeable difference with regard to your liberty between there and other places you've lived?...And to what extent do you think this project can achieve its mission?

Yes, yes there is.

Although I will say this, I am not at all happy about the fact that NH took a bunch of federal money to widen/improve/maintain a number of roads across the state, including I-95, I-93 and State Rte 16, included in the deal are surveillance towers that have popped up all along 95, 16, parts of 101 and 93.

Fed money is behind this, it's all going through some creepy surveillance company, ASTI down in Delaware, and god knows where the information goes from there.

I've been trying to generate some interest in this, and have had little luck.

Live free does not mean driving down the road under constant surveillance.

Will FSP achieve it's mission?

Who knows, but, I think it's off to good start.

 

[TheTexan]

Define freedom and your plan to "take freedom for ourselves". If you feel there is a 90/10 ratio against freedom, what makes you believe that having 20,000 people in NH (1.5% of the state's population) is going to make a significant difference? How do you see one's life being significantly different on a day to day basis if you accomplish your goal?

Freedom: being able to do things that doesn't harm others without having a gun pointed in your face. Having the right to keep what you earn, keeping your land, doing what you like on your land, making voluntary transactions of any kind, all very basic elements of freedom that are long gone.

what makes you believe that having 20,000 people in NH (1.5% of the state's population) is going to make a significant difference

I don't have any illusions that we'll be able to free the entire state of NH with 20,000 people. I see two ways the FSP can succeed:

1) The 20,000 people leverage their political prowess to pull off small but significant victories, which inspires more Liberty movers to join, which creates larger victories, and inspires more Liberty movers, and so on, until we eventually outnumber the Tyranny Lovers. We start with a larger geographic area, and grow the Liberty population.

2) Instead of trying to use politics to make up for our Tyranny:Liberty ratio disadvantage, we focus on a smaller geographic area, where we can instead outnumber THEM 10:1. Just because it's a Free Town Project, or a Free County Project, doesn't mean we are strictly limited to Town&County politics. We do this through nullification. As more Liberty people join, we can get away with nullifying more and more things. We start with a small geographic area, and grow geographically.

The brilliant thing about the FSP is both of these strategies are being used. If/when I move to NH, I'll be looking for a Type2 sort of project, but I certainly wouldn't discourage anyone from trying Type1.

The bottom line is this. As long as the Tyranny Lovers outnumber Liberty Lovers 10:1, you will find no freedom. The 30 million Liberty Lovers in this country are currently distributed across all 50 states. We are useless distributed across the whole country. The aim of the FSP is to concentrate their efforts in a smaller geographic region, increasing the number of Liberty Lovers, until ultimately we outnumber THEM 10:1.

 

[Keith and stuff]

The bottom line is this. As long as the Tyranny Lovers outnumber Liberty Lovers 10:1, you will find no freedom.

I don't think we are out numbered 10 to 1 in NH. I think it is closer to 4 to 1 statewide (2 to 1 in several towns) and even those that are usually against liberty still typically want some freedoms such as no general sales tax, no personal income tax, and medical marijuana. Of course, NH is different as people have been moving to NH for 100s of years for the purpose of having more freedom. Then again, I'm just talking about people that are active in NH right now. If we persuade people to liberty, some of the people against freedom will come on board and some of the not active people will join us. There is also the chance that some not active people will be angered by shrinking government and become active to increase the size of government.

You need a majority of active people locally to be pro-liberty to achieve local freedom as the people in the towns actually vote on the issues and spending. However, statewide, you don't need anything close to a majority. You need a sizable, tireless, determined minority. You need people to get elected to the NH House to stop bad legislation. People vote for Republicans of Democrats. You just have to win enough of those primaries. Of the 40 or so times free staters have run for NH House, they won half the time. That's with NH being 4 to 1 anti-liberty folks. We know how to win. We are the best trained activists in NH.

Entire population of NH 1,318,194
2012 New Hampshire Republican and Democratic Primary voters 311,311
24% of entire population voted in the NH Primaries

5% of the entire population voted for Ron Paul, the most pro-liberty major candidate
21% of voters in the NH Primaries voted for Ron Paul

Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are not as bad as Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, IMO. I consider Rick Santorum the worst.
8% of the entire population voted for Mitt Romney
5% of the entire population voted for Ron Paul
3% of the entire population voted for Jon Huntsman
2% of the entire population voted for Rick Santorum
2% of the entire population voted for Newt Gingrich
The rest of the voters selected Obama or one of the other 38 candidates running

 

[tbone717]

Freedom: being able to do things that doesn't harm others without having a gun pointed in your face. Having the right to keep what you earn, keeping your land, doing what you like on your land, making voluntary transactions of any kind, all very basic elements of freedom that are long gone.

There are certain elements of what you seek that you may never find IF you wish to live in a community with other people. Particularly the "doing what you like on your land". When people come together to form a town or community, the people within that town can choose to elect people into a government, and that government can choose to place some restrictions on what can be done with land. For example you might not be able to erect an oil well and try and drill for oil on your 1/4 acre property in a housing development, or you might not be able to start a used car lot on your little piece of paradise. The good thing is that we have the freedom in this country to choose where we buy property and those who wish to have yards filled with junk cars can live in areas where people accept that, and those that are fine with not having junk cars in their yard can choose to live among others that feel the same way.

For example our development has an HOA. We have about 250 house here and the HOA does have some modest restrictions on what you can do with your property. But these are things that are agreed upon by the HOA and the residents of the neighborhood. For example if you want to have a fence it cant be 30 ft high. Or if you want to have a clothesline it needs to be in the backyard not the front. Very basic stuff that all agree upon to keep the neighborhood looking nice. But if someone wants to have a 30ft high fence and laundry in the front yard, there are plenty of houses around where they can do that.

The same with keeping all you earn. WHile I am a huge anti-tax guy, you do have to concede that if you choose to live in a community that provides some basic services (road maintenance, street lights, police & fire) then you have to pay for it. But we do have the freedom to live in an isolated area where there are no services and therefore no need to pay for them. Just like electricity. You can choose to live with it or not

 

[TheTexan]

...

It's not important that I get 100% of my freedoms. It's only important to me that the community I live in has a respect for the freedoms I listed. Compared to the complete and total disrespect of those freedoms we have today, I'm not really concerned about the issues you brought up. Maybe once I'm no longer in slavery I'll be more picky, but for now, I'll take "mostly free" any day over "mostly slave."

With that said, your oil well example isn't really accurate. I have the right to do what I like on my land as long as it doesn't harm others. Drilling oil on my land does harm others, as it takes oil from their land as well. I would need their permission.

 

[tbone717]

It's not important that I get 100% of my freedoms. It's only important to me that the community I live in has a respect for the freedoms I listed. Compared to the complete and total disrespect of those freedoms we have today, I'm not really concerned about the issues you brought up. Maybe once I'm no longer in slavery I'll be more picky, but for now, I'll take "mostly free" any day over "mostly slave."

With that said, your oil well example isn't really accurate. I have the right to do what I like on my land as long as it doesn't harm others. Drilling oil on my land does harm others, as it takes oil from their land as well. I would need their permission.

Well the oil well was just an illustration. Replace it with radio tower, or chicken coop - it doesn't matter.

The point being that there are places in this country where there are minimal if any zoning laws. But the more people that come together in a community the more likely you are to have the residents of that community wish to have certain regulations placed on property use. Because most people don't want their $300,000 home next door to a guy who wants to breed sheep on his 1/4 acre.

Conceptually I agree with you, it is the practically of it that becomes the issue. The more people you have around you, the more restrictive (in general) regulations with property will become, and the more likely there will be a local tax burden for municipal services. But there are places where you can live where you can do whatever you want on your land - the issue though is that places like that are generally are with very low population, so living there, earning a living, etc becomes difficult for most.

Again using my local area as an example: I cannot discharge a firearm on my property. Why? Because I live on a 1/4 acre and right behind my home is a walking path that children use for school. It is a safety issue and I would be crazy if I took out my 12ga for practice in my yard. But less than a mile or so from me are plenty of properties where I could shoot in my own backyard. They are a little off the beaten track and the properties are larger, but if that was something important to me (which it is not because I shoot at my gun club) I could choose to live there.

But as far as marijuana laws, the right to engage in trade with out tax or regulation. All that I am in general agreement with you and it is the type of stuff we are working towards here in PA as well as other states.

 

[TheTexan]

Well the oil well was just an illustration. Replace it with radio tower, or chicken coop - it doesn't matter.

The point being that there are places in this country where there are minimal if any zoning laws. But the more people that come together in a community the more likely you are to have the residents of that community wish to have certain regulations placed on property use. Because most people don't want their $300,000 home next door to a guy who wants to breed sheep on his 1/4 acre.

Conceptually I agree with you, it is the practically of it that becomes the issue. The more people you have around you, the more restrictive (in general) regulations with property will become, and the more likely there will be a local tax burden for municipal services. But there are places where you can live where you can do whatever you want on your land - the issue though is that places like that are generally are with very low population, so living there, earning a living, etc becomes difficult for most.

Again using my local area as an example: I cannot discharge a firearm on my property. Why? Because I live on a 1/4 acre and right behind my home is a walking path that children use for school. It is a safety issue and I would be crazy if I took out my 12ga for practice in my yard. But less than a mile or so from me are plenty of properties where I could shoot in my own backyard. They are a little off the beaten track and the properties are larger, but if that was something important to me (which it is not because I shoot at my gun club) I could choose to live there.

These kind of things are especially problematic when your neighbors are tyrants. I expect there will always be some amount of neighbor rivalry, but it can't get much worse than it is now. Remember that guy that went to jail because his siding was incomplete?

 

[tbone717]

These kind of things are especially problematic when your neighbors are tyrants. I expect there will always be some amount of neighbor rivalry, but it can't get much worse than it is now. Remember that guy that went to jail because his siding was incomplete?

It really has nothing to do with rivalry or neighbors being tyrants. It has to to more so with people coming together to live side by side and wanting some standards maintained. The more people you are around the less freedom you have to do whatever you want without respect for how your neighbors will view your actions. But as I said there are plenty of places you can buy land and live on your own. But if you want to be part of a community there are some concessions you have to make at times.

Take a ride around some time and look at neighborhoods that have no restrictions vs ones that do. And then check the home values and average time on the market. Chances are that the crappy looking neighborhoods will have lower values and longer time on the market.

And again be aware that you always have a choice where you want to live. We still have those freedoms. You just don't have the "freedom" to buy a house in my development, put junk cars in the yard and never mow your lawn. Why? Because the residents of this community mutually agreed upon standards, and it is well within the rights of the homeowners to do so.

 

[TheTexan]

It really has nothing to do with rivalry or neighbors being tyrants. It has to to more so with people coming together to live side by side and wanting some standards maintained. The more people you are around the less freedom you have to do whatever you want without respect for how your neighbors will view your actions. But as I said there are plenty of places you can buy land and live on your own. But if you want to be part of a community there are some concessions you have to make at times.

It has everything to do with your neighbors being tyrants. More specifically, your community being tyrants.

That guy that was thrown in jail because of his siding? I can guarantee you, that wouldn't happen in a 10:1 L:T community.

Population density doesn't causes tyranny. It's the population's inherent tyranny that causes tyranny. It may seem like population density is the cause, but it only seems that way because there's so much tyranny packed into a small area.