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
If drugs are decriminalized, yes. If they are "legalized" then, probably, no. In the latter case, the government will adopt the role of drug distributor. Pusher, if you like.
Or will there be "purity" and "safety" standards demanded by the public and naturally, the politicians will respond.
1. There aren't such standards now, and people buy them. 2. Such standards will only be brought about if the government becomes the pusher. Would you prefer that?
I seem to remember reading on this website about marijuana in Canada. Seems the Canadian government allows it for medical uses. The Canadian govnerment spent MILLIONS of dollars creating a factory in an abandoned salt mine. It costs them more than the "street" cost. Then the patients got mad because it did not give them much of a high.
No surprise there, private enterprise does nearly everything better than government does, anyway. Why should this be any different?
I wish Libertarians luck on this project. At least now, we will be able to see if their ideas are stupid or right-on. Then we wouldn't have these kinds of endless (and useless) conversations.
Yeah, we woudn't need to have discussion forums at all if everyone thought the way you do.
There are two semi-independent physical quantities to care about here, and you are confusing them.
Quantity #1: how many people have "signed up" for the FSP. This is, I assume, what your graph is a plot of. I'm assuming that to "sign up for" FSP requires little more than going to some website and typing in your name, or something similar. (I don't know if there's a fee/donation required, but it wouldn't change my interpretation much.)
Quantity #2: how many people actually live in the designated Free State (which turns out to be New Hampshire) as part of, or an indirect result of, the FSP. (They don't have to move there; they can already be there, or they can be previously non-FSPers who "get converted"...but for now the main way this number will change is through movement.)
It should go without saying, but apparently doesn't, that moving to a different state as part of some political movement requires a far bigger commitment than typing your name into some web page.
Now, as far as I understand the whole situation, the only people we can currently chalk up to Quantity #2 at the moment are the people who: "signed up for" FSP and already live in New Hampshire. You said that this quantity is somewhere around 150. So if we want to make a relevant graph, we have to erase yours and instead put a little dot at the y-value "150".
But that's all we can plot, at the moment. And the graph you've just shown me doesn't give us any additional information to go on. The growth rate for Quantity #1 doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the growth rate for Quantity #2, in particular.
But we'll see.
...but in fact the LP is trying...(from your reply #40)
Can you support this with a reference? Or do you just make up any story to fit your fantasy?
I personally find the entire FSP to be a sad joke. The fact that a few Libertarians have bought into it, only says that the LP also has its kook fringe.
Go to prison for drinking a Martini?!! never happen, too many drunks out there.
"Invade and take over" are the words used by Mr. Babiarz. I'm merely borrowing them, and am not overly concerned with the accuracy of the terms.
But "invade and take over" are actually a pretty good description of what the FSP is all about.
The "reference" you need is FSP itself -- move a bunch of folks to a small state ("invasion"), and then elect enough LPers and fellow-travelers to turn the state into a LP paradise ("take over").
The FSP is certainly a fantasy. My only point is that Mr. Babiarz is denying the fact of what the FSP is really all about.
I personally find the entire FSP to be a sad joke.
Well, maybe. It's possible that, if they cluster in only a couple of districts, they could elect a couple of people to something more than city dog-polisher. It's even possible that those folks could be somewhat effective -- but I think they'd mostly be relegated to Ron Paul status.
The fact that a few Libertarians have bought into it, only says that the LP also has its kook fringe.
And that's really saying something.....
In my reply #63, I did not quote you on your use, or anyone else's use of the words "invade and take over." Nor did I say anything about those words or their meaning. I have no opinion on this figure of speech that seems to have varying interpretations, and varying degrees of accuracy. I say "seems" because I really don't have any thoughts on the topic.
What I did quote you on, and I quote again:
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.(from your reply #27)
...but in fact the LP is trying...(from your reply #40)
Note: the quotes from you do contain the words "invade and take over." What the two quotes from you have in common is that they both state that "LP" is trying or is organizing such and such. As I asked in reply #63, I ask again now:
Can you support this with a reference? Or do you just make up any story to fit your fantasy?
Perhaps you need to read the article and thread so that you can gain a sense of context?
The head of the NH Libertarian Party used the words "invade and take over."
The clearly stated goal of the FSP (somebody provided a link to the site, above) is to a) get a bunch of libertarians to move to NH, and to basically enact the LP platform. The article says the same thing.
The terms "invade and take over," seem to be a rather fitting description of this project, and the "references" are right in front of your eyes.
This is not difficult stuff, jack.
My simple question, can't be that hard to understand. Now for a third time, I quote you:
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.(from your reply #27)
...but in fact the LP is trying...(from your reply #40)
And My question, again for a third time:
Can you support this with a reference? Or do you just make up any story to fit your fantasy?
The question is quite simple. Can you reference that the "LP" is organizing this project? Or do you just make up what ever you want about the LP and state it as a fact?
Ahhhh -- so finally you ask the question you meant to ask, and not the one I was answering. OK, then. In the future, maybe you can ask the proper question the first time?
Can you reference that the "LP" is organizing this project? Or do you just make up what ever you want about the LP and state it as a fact?
Actually, I'm just assuming that, based on the fact that it's always billed (see FR posts on it) as a "libertarian initiative," and the fact the Libertarian Party spokesmen are generally quoted in the articles.
In this article, for example, the chairman of the New Hampshire Libertarian Party refers to the FSP as something "we" are doing, and the LP seems to endorse the idea.
I'm no doubt glossing over the subtleties of who's actually sponsoring it, though the LP is clearly a major player (two of FSP's leadership team are LP members). It's a matter of some indifference to me, however, whether we're talking about 'L' or 'l' ibertarians.
Pretty much the only point I'm making on this thread is that the head of the NH LP was not telling the truth about "invade and take over."
Actually I asked it quite accurately the first time, and clarified it the second time. The third time I had to explain it like I was talking to a child. You only need to read what is written, without jumping to conclusions.
I see however, by your answer, that jumping to conclusions, and adding your own fantasy to what is plainly in front of you, is not an occasional occurrence, but a regular occurrence.
Not only were you not able to get my simple question correctly, but you admit that you were "assuming" from "FR posts" and "articles" that which neither have been saying. Your not being able to accurately understand my original question, is exactly the same as your not being able to understand the "FR posts" and "articles." I guess you are "assuming" to much.
It's a matter of some indifference to me, however, whether we're talking about 'L' or 'l' ibertarians.
Now that is a lame excuse for your jumping to conclusions, and getting the facts wrong. Libertarian Party members are not the same thing as the "LP." An "LP" officer, is not the same thing as the "LP."
Ahhhh - I guess a bit of innaccuracy and sloppy thinking, doesn't really matter that much to you.
Actually, I had no idea what you were asking until you actually came out and said it the third time. You asked for "references" to something, but didn't say what. Perhaps I'm too childish to understand.
Or perhaps you're such a poor writer that you are unable to ask a good question the first time.
As for the rest, who gives a damn. I stand by the observation concerning "invade and take over," and the rest is irrelevant -- as is the FSP.
As opposed to exlaining the current mess? None of the proponents of the status quo seem to feel any need to do that, so I'm not sure the reformers will need to (if they every could succeed, but they won't. The WOD is completely institutionalized at this point).
This is not something I would waste time worrying about.
Is that in the same sense that legalising alcohol did not clean up the mess Prohibition created? Drugs, including cocaine and heroin, were legal in this country for years. The real problems didn't start until the Feds started their "War on Drugs". 30 years later, we've got a bigger problem than ever and no end in sight.
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.