Posted on 10/01/2003 1:02:12 PM PDT by luckydevi
Libertarians Pick N.H. for 'Free State' By KATE McCANN Associated Press Writer
CONCORD, N.H. (AP)--A group of libertarians announced a project Wednesday to get 20,000 Americans to move to New Hampshire and work to transform it into a ``free state'' with fewer laws, smaller government and greater liberty.
New Hampshire, whose motto is ``Live Free or Die,'' beat out nine other finalists for the Free State Project. Wyoming was runner-up in balloting conducted by about 5,000 members of the project around the country, vice president Elizabeth McKinstry said.
The 5,000 members have already pledged to move to the selected state, Free State Project organizers said. They hope to increase their numbers to 20,000 within two years and start transforming the state into a national model of liberty.
Some free-staters want to roll back restrictions on gambling, legalize medicinal marijuana and strengthen gun rights. But McKinstry said members also will work for charities and scholarship programs and help citizens get more involved in government.
``We won. That's fantastic,'' New Hampshire Libertarian Party chairman John Babiarz said of New Hampshire's selection. ``It's like New Hampshire has won a nationwide popularity contest based on its fundamentals.''
McKinstry of Ann Arbor, Mich., said New Hampshire won because it ``boasts the lowest state and local tax burden in the continental U.S., the leanest state government in the country, a citizen legislature, a healthy job market, and perhaps most important, local support for our movement.''
Project members also like the New Hampshire Constitution, which is seen as protecting the right to revolution. It reads: ``Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government.''
The prospective new neighbors worry some New Hampshire residents.
``I like to be left alone by the government. But I need my trash picked up. I need police protection,'' said Dennis Pizzimenti, a lawyer in Concord.
Kathy Sullivan, state Democratic Party chairwoman, said project members ``can best be described as anarchists.''
Babiarz, a database consultant, said critics have it wrong: ``We're not here to invade or take over. We're here to restore the American dream.''
Doug Hillman, 39, said he is looking forward to leaving Graham, Ala., and moving his wife and four children somewhere near Littleton or Lancaster.
Hillman was most impressed with Republican Gov. Craig Benson's attitude toward the project--``Come on up, we'd love to have you,'' he said last summer.
``That led me to believe that libertarian thought and libertarianism is more accepted in New Hampshire,'' Hillman said.
Following second-place Wyoming in the voting, in order, were Montana, Idaho, Alaska, Maine, Vermont, Delaware, South Dakota and North Dakota.
___
On the Net:
http://www.freestateproject.com
Why sure. You don't have to look to hard to find that drugs = mess. In the U.S., through history, throughout the world. Opium was legal at first, but people started noticing problems. Governments of all types throughout the world make drugs illegal. That is why you can't point out the jursidiction in which the libertarian drug legal utopia exists.
Maybe all these different Governments just do it for the love of power. Or maybe there are good reasons, having to do with the costs with which addicts burden society.
When you come across a wall, find out why it was built before you tear it down.
(And I note that you are not disagreeing that "medicinal marijuana" is just a back door ruse for legalization of marijuana).
Yup. I'm guessing 20,000 Massachusetts residents move to New Hampshire every month. By now, it's practically a suburb of Boston.
Well, the plain fact is that the LP is organizing and effort aimed at gaining majority political influence in a small state. Its strategy is to get "their people" to move into said state, for that express purpose. That's close enough to "invasion" for me.
That said, their goal is to elect people with like-minded views into office in that state. It is hyperbole, but not wholly inaccurate, to call that "taking over". It's what everyone attempts to do when they cast a ballot at the polls.
If you look at the link provided above, the goals are to do all sorts of libertarian things, all of which require a strong majority. Which is pretty much "taking over," n'est pas?
20000 libertarians ... will not be enough to form a majority government of New Hampshire.
Probably correct. Which makes the lofty claims for the FSP somewhat speculative -- even silly.
Why? Does her husband getting killed all of a sudden make her an expert on drug legalization?
The dream of setting up a utopia far from the craziness of current events is as old and pervasive as human civilization. This is simply a Libertarian version of the search for the Promised Land.
The article omits to mention, of course, the pre-eminent reason why NH and the runner-up states were chosen; they all have relatively small populations which is a prerequisite for any Libertarian invasion. 20,000 Libertarians aren't going to do diddly squat in a state the size of NY or California, but in a small state they just may have an impact, although not necessarily for the better.
I nominate NH for some sort of bravery and public service award. By acting as a Libertarian "sink" they are taking the loonies out of our hair and concentrating them all in one place. That lets the rest of us enjoy a little more sanity. Once they get 20,000 in there, they should erect a fence around the place so they can't get out again.
I've stated it in this thread.
Honestly, tippy, do you ever pay attention to anything before opening your mouth and removing all doubt?
I think I can count on one finger the number of useful posts I've ever seen you make (and that one must have been an accident, as you contradicted it with your next post, IIRC).
Now, now -- Surely you cannot deny that the goal is to move people to NH and elect libertarians to do libertarian things -- invasion and taking over, in Mr. whatsisface's unfortunate words.
As Dr.Frank pointed out, a majority can't be achieved with 20,000 folks, even in a small state like NH.
Don't shoot the messenger -- it's not my fault that libertarians haven't got the political sense God gave a dung beetle.
Suit yourself. The term sure has lost 99.999% of its bite since the days of the Mongol Hordes....
If you look at the link provided above, the goals are to do all sorts of libertarian things, all of which require a strong majority. Which is pretty much "taking over," n'est pas?
Well I should explain. Certainly I agree that their goal is overt and it is to affect the body politic of some state by concentrating their votes so that their votes will be significant. Duh.
A big reason I object to a characterization of this as "taking over" is because nobody can "take over" anything in the United States. We have limited government here. If the libertarians or anyone else really were "taking over" some state or part of a state, it would be cause to send in the troops, IMHO. Whatever "libertarian things" they intend to do, will by definition have to be things that are already within the power of NH state officeholders to do, otherwise they won't (and can't) do them.
What is really going on is that they intend to vote for libertarian-leaning candidates in the hopes that they (the libertarian-leaning candidates) instead of others will be elected to office (not "take over", but elected to various offices - with finite terms of office, limited powers, checks and balances, etc.) What I'm saying is that you're generally right in a metaphorical kinda way that they're "trying to take over", but to say it this way is an invalid attempt to make it sound sinister.
There is nothing at all sinister about voting for certain people in the hopes that they'll do the sorts of things you like in office.
[20000 won't make majority] Probably correct. Which makes the lofty claims for the FSP somewhat speculative -- even silly.
I agree that the whole thing is speculative (and I think they would too). Dunno if I'd call it "silly" but I, like you, have a hard time taking the whole thing seriously. However, for different reasons than you.
I just have a hard time buying the idea that all these 5000 pioneer libertarians will follow through on their "pledges" to move to NH. Who's gonna enforce it? They're libertarians for crying out loud. ;-)
That being said, in all fairness we should acknowledge that their goal was never to create a "majority" by getting 20000 libertarians into the state. That was your parody of their aim (which I debunked), not their actual aim. Their aim, as I understood it, was to get enough voters into some state that their swing vote would actually be significant and the (D)s and (R)s would have to pay attention to them, and (over the long term) the politics of the state would be shifted in their favor, hopefully causing a self-perpetuating process. Obviously the latter part is the "speculative" part, but it is feasible that 20000 libertarians transplanted into NH would have some effect anyway.
It is an admission, if you will, that an organization which polls at or around the margin of error, is not going to make any impact nationally in the foreseeable future. Therefore, instead of having a small number of people dispersed nationally and having little impact on a large area (the country as a whole), why not concentrate them all in one place and have a big impact on a small area.
Nutty, naive and bound to failure, but there is a certain logic and realism there.
If then there are 10,000 porcupines a year from now, and 20,000 a year after that, how many more will have continued to join 5 years afterward, when the migration is to be accomplished, 5 years after that initial goal of 20K is reached. Success inspires imitation and convinces others to climb on the bandwagon as it acquires momentum and picks up speed. And I would be willing to bet that by the time of the 2008 election, there'll be a very sizable number of them in New Hampshire, just about the time the rest of the nation starts looking interestedly at the Granite State's primary voting.
Oh, and of the 5500 present porcupines, about 150 are already now resident in NH. Lets see how long it gets until that number doubles and there are 300 there....
-archy-/-
I'm using the terms in the same loose, offhand manner he does, but in fact the LP is trying precisely to "invade and take over."
That being said, in all fairness we should acknowledge that their goal was never to create a "majority" by getting 20000 libertarians into the state.
That's where we disagree. The stated goals of the FSP are to effect a number of very significant changes. The bottom line is that the goal is to enact LP policy, which can only be accomplished by achieving a working majority.
As you noted, the 20,000 folks probably wouldn't do it, and I agree with you that their hopes would be to convince non-LPers to go along with them.
That might happen, but it probably won't, for the same reason the LP doesn't do well anywhere, at any level: they too often come across as whackjobs who do things like nominate blue guys for governor, or Rick Stanley for U.S. Senate, and whose platform seems to be to legalize drugs and ignore foreign threats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.