I think if enough of the rot is stopped and reversed, secession may well not even be necessary.
Do you figure the liberals counted on this to occur:
Posted on 10/01/2003 1:02:12 PM PDT by luckydevi
Probably correct. Which makes the lofty claims for the FSP somewhat speculative -- even silly.
Nope, it makes your hyped up claims about the FSP lying speculation -- and more than silly.
Now, now -- Surely you cannot deny that the goal is to move people to NH and elect libertarians to do libertarian things --
Yep, I deny your lying hype.
The goal is to restore constitutional government in NH..
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.
To which you replied, "probably correct".. - Honestly, r9-bippy, 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.
Don't shoot the messenger -- it's not my fault that libertarians haven't got the political sense God gave a dung beetle.
Your 'message' was shot long ago boyo, out of your own lying mouth..
So far as I can tell, you seem to disagree with me, but don't (can't?) really say why, and thus fall into your usual rut of name-calling.
Typically tippy -- prolonging your years-long string of useless posts.
Curious if any LP members here on FR are moving up to NH any time soon?
We have more than 50 freepers on the Free Republic FSP *PorcuPing* list, not all of whom are pledged to make the move, though many are.
I'm one, though NH was originally one of my *opt-out* choices to which I wasn't required to relocate to. But my attitude toward the place has softened considerably over the last several months, largely in part due to the warm welcomes I've gotten from those already in the state, along with offers of assistance in finding housing, employment, and other help in relocating. There are some really decent folks in NH, Porcupines and otherwise.
-archy-/-
Which of course will never occur if any highly-placed figures in government are in fact profitting from the widespread sale and distribution of illegal drugs themselves.
In that case, they'd need both to maintain the current illegal status of those drugs, while preventing any really effective programs from shutting off either the supply, demand or distribution of them. Which is pretty much what's been going on for the last three decades.
-archy-/-
Yes indeed! There were problems: Chinese immigrants were using opium, so opium was criminalized. And Irish drank, so there was prohibition. Then black jazz musicians started using pot in number, and we got the fine example of journalistic integrity, "Reefer Madness" and that was criminalized (with the assent of Du Pont which wanted military fabric to be made of nylon, not hemp). Then, inner city blacks started using cocaine, so that was out. And then counterculture hippies protesting the Viet Nam war were using psychedelics, and that was out. The banning of drugs has been based on the need to criminalize certain segments of population for more than a century. And it continues today: crack cocaine, favored by blacks, is somehow more illegal than regular cocaine, favored by whites, even though it's the same stuff. You, apparently, support such oppression.
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.
Yes, it's a tool of power and corruption the world over, which is why people in power keep it that way.
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.
As opposed, say, to the costs which prohibition costs society? Hundreds of billions of dollars a year, lost rights, innocents killed in wrong-address no-knocks, the highest prison population in the world, etc? What about those costs?
When you come across a wall, find out why it was built before you tear it down.
I know why it was built. Do you?
It's about concentrating one's forces. Liberty minded folks whether they are conservatives, libertarians or independents are spread thin out in the 50 states and the Democrats and establishment Republicans outnumber them everywhere. Socialism and the nanny state is gaining ground all across the land. There is strength in numbers. Read the statements where NH folks are glad for the reinforcemnts.
The Project is the only hope for rolling back years of liberalism. Unfortunately it is not possible for the country as a whole. We should be grateful there is still a chance in a couple of states.
...the Free State Project is precisely about invading and taking over.
You see it as invading and taking over. I see it as investing (time, money, resources) and taking back (restoring a model of limited government). For most of these people, deciding to uproot and move to NH requires a great deal of sacrifice. There is nothing illegal or underhanded about what's going on here.
The Project is the only hope for rolling back years of liberalism. Unfortunately it is not possible for the country as a whole. We should be grateful there is still a chance in a couple of states.
Do you think that if enough states could roll back liberalism within their own borders we could give secession another shot? ;-)
Yes, to say that's not what he's doing.
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."
Not "in fact". In metaphor. If those terms are used in a loose, offhand manner.
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.
You don't seem to understand that you don't actually disagree with me. Yes the FSP is trying to effect significant changes, like you said. But not by creating a "majority", like I said. Rather, by getting a significant minority concentrated in one state. So you are not contradicting me even though you seem to think you are.
Personally I don't think it is possible to roll it back in most places. In the couple of states on the list of candidates for the FSP it is possible because it does not have an established stranglehold yet. For everywhere else there is no reform possible, only a collapse. California is an interesting test case. Will it begin to reform now that business if fleeing, the middle class is hard pressed and the budget is 38 billion in the red? or will it have to totally collapse before liberalism can be seen for unworkable aberration of nature it really is? Any bets?
As for the secession bit, well there are two futures for the country. One is the nation is incorporated into a North American Union with Canada and Mexico and eventually into a hemisphere long block of the United Americas or it will become so balkanized that it dissolves into regional ethnic enclaves who then secede. Both options are possible. Total reform and preservation of the nation in the tradition of the founding fathers - a long shot with chances next to nil. One or two states holding out is the best we can hope for.
I wouldn't bet the farm on that. I would not at all be surprised if the FSP was not only the dominant party in NH by the time of the 2008 election, but by the end of the decade, could actually outnumber the others put together, less perhaps the undeclared voters.
Of course, numbers can be tossed around and projected on paper to a political Ponzi fare-the-well, but the basic numbers of FSP growth in the last two years stand:
October, 2001: start
Oct, 2002: around 1000
Oct, 2003: circa 5500
Now run those numbers forward two more years hence to Oct 2005, when the number of pledged Porcupines is predicted to hit 20k and the 5-year timeframe of the migration is to begin. And figure the continued numbers if the growth curve does NOT fall off or cease....
Likewise, the numbers of NH political registered voter distribution are on the table for any to see: Plug 'em right in here.... [registered, not ACTUAL voters]
NH State voter registration, September ’02 2001 [after list purge]
REPUBLICANS 245,791/ 37.3%
UNDECLARED 242,028/ 36.8%
DEMOCRATS 170,405/ 25.9%
Um, these are people who have "pledged" to move to NH. As I understand it, they aren't actually there yet. This is all hypothetical and, as I explained in an earlier post, my skepticism basically comes entirely from the fact that I have doubts as to whether/how many of these people will follow through on the pledge in the first place. We'll see, though. Look, I have nothing against the FSP, I have no axe to grind, in fact it seems like an entirely reasonable and utterly fair endeavor (not to mention, much better than bloodshed!) for a group of people to pursue if they seek significant political change in their lives.
But we'll see.
Now run those numbers forward two more years hence to Oct 2005, when the number of pledged Porcupines is predicted to hit 20k and the 5-year timeframe of the migration is to begin. And figure the continued numbers if the growth curve does NOT fall off or cease....
I'm familiar with how exponential growth works. I'm also familiar with the potential pitfalls on relying too much on it in your reasoning. I believe it was Malthus who proved that, due to exponential growth, we're all dead (or never were born) due to mass starvation. There's also the matter of how you are estimating your "predicted growth rate". You could be off in your predictions by a "small" amount in the growth rate, and lead to an error in the tens of thousands in your prediction of the population totals of free-staters....
All I'm saying is, I'm skeptical, and we'll see. I'm kinda rooting for it to be a significant thing, actually, in kinda the same way that I'm rooting for the Cubbies and Red Sox in the playoffs... but we'll see.
I think if enough of the rot is stopped and reversed, secession may well not even be necessary.
Do you figure the liberals counted on this to occur:
All I'm saying is, I'm skeptical, and we'll see. I'm kinda rooting for it to be a significant thing, actually, in kinda the same way that I'm rooting for the Cubbies and Red Sox in the playoffs... but we'll see.
Just so. And pyramid schemes are great, until they oversaturate and then collapse very suddenly; just the reason to be watching for any indications of that sort of change in the FSP numbers. But I also remember an election in the 1980s in which given a choice between Tweedledum and TweedleDumber, one voter in five picked the little Texan with the funny ears, instead. I suspect even more would do so now, whether he had a snowball's chance in He!! of winning or not.
The growth curve numbers can be seen charted as follows, and if you'd like the raw numbers, they're easily obtainable and I'd be glads to provide you with them.
But take a look yourself, and tell me where, assuming growth at the rate of the past 24 months continues, YOU would project the total membership numbers will be in 2008 and 2010. And right now, we've got 150 Porcupines resident in NH. When that number doubles, I'll be paying attention to where it leads as well. 
We've got the boat. You bring the shrimp.
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.